Re: [Vo]:Re: Right-on AGP
[4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block Gray (1964) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009 Page 1 – http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/inocaj/1965/inocaj.1965.4.issue-3/ic50025a009/production/ic50025a009.fp.png_v03 Page 2 – http://www.tempid.altervista.org/Page2.png From: Mark Jurich Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 2:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: Right-on AGP Here are my references, in chronological order: [1] The thermal decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride, Garner Haycock (1951) http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/211/1106/335.full.pdf [2] PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AS A HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL COOLANT, Modisette (1957) http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1957/naca-rm-l57f12a.pdf [3] INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AND MAGNESIUM AS HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL COOLANTS WITH SEVERAL SKIN MATERIALS, Modisette (1958) http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc53069/m2/1/high_res_d/19660024045.pdf [4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block Gray (1964) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009 [5] Desorption of LiAlH4 with Ti- and V-based additives, Blanchard, Brinks, Hauback Norby (2004) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921510703005415 [6] Hydrogen, lithium, and lithium hydride production, US 20130047789 A1 (2013) http://www.google.com/patents/US20130047789 Notes - [1] is the classic paper (1951) everyone seems to refer to. - [2] is prelim of [3], with slightly different content, describing the reversible LiH decomposition reaction - [4] if this isn’t referenced in any paper regarding LiAlH4 Thermal Decomposition, the paper is suspect (1964, 2 pages, but unfortunately behind a pay wall, maybe if someone searches hard enough, they’ll find it; I’ll look after I post this. Has DSC Plots, breaking down the H2 Evolution at various temps, but at standard pressures) - [5] Behind a pay wall, but what you see on the page is good enough... The do NOT reference [4]! - [6] Some nice Vapor Pressure curves in here! - I also came across this book via the Internet (as well as Axil), but I do not have it (looks very useful): http://www.bookmantraa.com/thermophysical-properties-lithium-hydride-deuteride-tritide-their-solutions-with-lithium-book-72683.html - Mark Jurich From: Mark Jurich Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Right-on AGP Hi Jones: Without going into all the details, your calculations are in line with the language-translated Parkhomov information. At the point of estimating the corrected pressure due to heating, he simply multiplies the 50 bar/atmosphere pressure by 2, to obtain 100 atmospheres. I’m not sure where you obtained the 900 °K value for the temperature, but all current estimates are that the internal temperature for the Parkhomov Cell is no more than about 1000 °C (probably lower than this), based on where his thermocouple was located. His plots approach 1300 °C where he was measuring at... ... Crunching through all the possible numbers, I get a top end of 3425psi using all the “extreme” values. Since the MFMP DogBone has Stainless Steel extension on it, the volume has now increased and I would be making a wild guess at the added volume, but I would say 30% more (perhaps Bob H./MFMP can give us some more accurate estimate)? I believe Parkhomov is assuming [virtual] loss/leaking of H2 when obtaining his factor of 2 pressure increase with temperature (and perhaps it has something to do with the equilibrium conditions that will be obtained when the 2LiH 2Li + H2 reversible reaction occurs at the temperatures/pressures involved. But this is all pure speculation on my part, since there are no remarks that I can find. Please note that Parkhomov had no way of knowing the actual pressures, since he did not measure them, as far as I know... ... He does refer to “ 850 °C” for the above reversible reaction, but I believe he obtained this value from the Boiling Point of LiH (850 °C) at Standard Pressure. Actually LiH starts to decompose before it boils (according to some literature), so for anyone to mention the Boiling Point of LiH (as I have just did), is highly questionable. Other sources say that decomposition occurs from 900 – 1000 °C, with no solid reference that I can find to back it up... ... I have about 5 references here concerning all this, and will try to post them when I get more time... - Mark Jurich From: Jones Beene Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 9:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Right-on AGP Has anyone determined that the high internal pressure claimed by Parkhomov is even possible? Did he claim 500 psi? I cannot find the reference today, but the numbers are probably out there and at first glance – score one for
[Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain
Article in Japanese, which Google does a good job translating into English: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/atcars/news/20150106-OYT8T50183.html Toyota has begun selling a hydrogen powered fuel-cell vehicle. They have 5320 patents relating to the fuel system. They want to put them in the public domain so that other manufacturers make fuel-cell vehicles, so that fueling stations will be built. They realize that with their own sales alone the necessary infrastructure will not be constructed. I think this is a dead-end technology. It cannot compete with plug-in electric hybrid cars and pure electric vehicles. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Right-on AGP
On Tuesday Jones said[snip] The zero-point field could potentially supply mass-equivalence to a chemical reaction in a number of forms, including your favorite: spin energy[/snip] In a Puthoff sense physical mater only persists because of Zero point spin energy/Aether, which is rolled into our laws of physics and explains the periodic table. These anomalies only occur when certain conductive materials have certain confined geometries when loaded with certain gases. These occurrences are in conflict with the isotropy which will try to turn or close the breach such that isotropy is restored. I think Axil’s post regarding grapheme is also related to this – where water permeates grapheme while hydrogen and oxygen can not. Water also flows more rapidly thru carbon nano tubes of the appropriate dimensions than can be explained making it of interest for desalination. The water molecule changes shape and IMHO becomes an engine when confined that harness HUP to drive the molecule thru the nano tube and similarily a single layer of water can slide between layers of graphene. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:27 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Right-on AGP Bob, Simply stated – we can suggest that we could be seeing a unique chemical reaction which gives more energy in formation than it requires to decompose back to the original reactants. Standard textbooks says NO WAY. Gibbs free energy is balanced. Nevertheless, if there was to be found such a reaction, and Parkhomov could provide the evidence, then it would still require the equivalent of mass loss. The zero-point field could potentially supply mass-equivalence to a chemical reaction in a number of forms, including your favorite: spin energy. Another way is ground state redundancy, which is also spin – in the form of angular momentum. From: Bob Cook To show my ignorance, what's a Gibbs energy vector? Can it point into negative energy? Zero point? I am not sure of all your inferences. A side note which should be mentioned re: Mark’s listing of citations, given the extreme energetics of lithium hydride… is whether we are looking at a subset of violation of parity. Or maybe it is the superset. A “near miracle” explanation for the Parkhomov anomaly can be called “asymmetric chemistry.” It involves a net energy deficit between thermal decomposition compared to the heat of formation. There could exist a small gap which then is cumulative via a serial process for net gain. Except for the Lamb shift, this kind of asymmetry is almost unknown in physics. The ultimate source of gain would be zero point. The alternative “miracle explanation” for gain, of course … is nuclear fusion, in the guise of LENR. BUT… if we want to talk about “conservation of miracles” the nuclear explanation requires 3 miracles to explain the Parkhomov effect. 1) Overcoming the coulomb barrier 2) Complete avoidance of gamma rays or bremsstrahlung 3) Complete avoidance of radioactive ash While Gibbs asymmetry, as we can call it - requires something less than a miracle, since it is hinted at already. Until 1947, physics assumed that all forces of nature were completely symmetric and did not distinguish between right and left, image and mirror-image or between Gibbs energy vectors. The discovery of violation of parity in 1956 was more than a sensation, it was a shocker since it went beyond QM: as the Lamb shift a decade earlier was both minimal and quantum. Both imply that the universe displays handedness, or chirality, and this is fundamentally asymmetric. “Enantioselective catalysis” took that a step further into thermodynamics … and now hydride chemistry could change everything that we assume about the necessity of symmetry in nature… and at high probability. From: Mark Jurich [4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block Gray (1964) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009 Page 1 – http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/inocaj/1965/inocaj.1965.4.issue-3/ic50025a009/production/ic50025a009.fp.png_v03 Page 2 – http://www.tempid.altervista.org/Page2.png Here are my references, in chronological order: [1] The thermal decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride, Garner Haycock (1951) http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/211/1106/335.full.pdf [2] PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AS A HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL COOLANT, Modisette (1957) http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1957/naca-rm-l57f12a.pdf [3] INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AND MAGNESIUM AS HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL COOLANTS WITH SEVERAL SKIN MATERIALS, Modisette (1958) http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc53069/m2/1/high_res_d/19660024045.pdf [4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block Gray (1964)
RE: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: I think this is a dead-end technology. It cannot compete with plug-in electric hybrid cars and pure electric vehicles. Toyota and Tesla are nearing the end of sales of the jointly developed RAV4 electric sport utility vehicle after delivering about 2,500 units over more than two years. The two companies are now taking separate paths, with Tesla working to bring the plug-in Model X crossover and a cheaper Model 3 sedan to market. Toyota is preparing to sell its first fuel-cell vehicle, a technology that Tesla’s billionaire co-founder Elon Musk has ridiculed. Bizarre behavior on the part of Toyota unless they are suddenly cowed by the possibility of losing large market share to Tesla. Maybe not bizarre. Anyway, it's not wise to bet against Toyota. Tesla's shares are down 55 points since October-and Toyota is up 10. Toyota may know something that we, or even Elon-the-magnificent, do not yet appreciate - such as a breakthrough in cheap H2. GM dissed Toyota’s Prius a few years ago- as every expert in Detroit knew batteries were a dead-end technology. That was a billion dollar mistake that helped bankrupt GM. Things change with the small incremental advance, and Toyota is definitely a player in LENR and with a hydrogen IP portfolio that is unreal. H2 may yet be the low cost answer, and they know it. Even without them, however, we are only a breakthrough away from cheap H2 from LENR - maybe from a water-dog-bone g. Think about thermal decomposition of water with a newly discovered catalyst, probably in one of these 5300 patents, plus an improved dog-bone reactor at 1300C. As of now, we know that water molecules split into hydrogen and oxygen at 2200 °C at a usable rate of about three percent (this is usable since waste heat is recycled at high efficiency) but with a breakthrough catalyst and low-cost heat, giving something like 2% conversion at 1300 °C, plus good heat recovery, then hydrogen becomes cheaper than battery-based electricity storage. The amount of lithium in a Tesla battery pack could possibly power 1,000,000 dogbones. We could be closer than anyone imagines to the hydrogen economy ... anyone other than Toyota.
RE: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain
Misinformation? Toyota wants to make its competitors think it's going down fuel-cell path when it is really developing LENR-based tech for powering its future fleet... -mark iverson -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: I think this is a dead-end technology. It cannot compete with plug-in electric hybrid cars and pure electric vehicles. Toyota and Tesla are nearing the end of sales of the jointly developed RAV4 electric sport utility vehicle after delivering about 2,500 units over more than two years. The two companies are now taking separate paths, with Tesla working to bring the plug-in Model X crossover and a cheaper Model 3 sedan to market. Toyota is preparing to sell its first fuel-cell vehicle, a technology that Tesla’s billionaire co-founder Elon Musk has ridiculed. Bizarre behavior on the part of Toyota unless they are suddenly cowed by the possibility of losing large market share to Tesla. Maybe not bizarre. Anyway, it's not wise to bet against Toyota. Tesla's shares are down 55 points since October-and Toyota is up 10. Toyota may know something that we, or even Elon-the-magnificent, do not yet appreciate - such as a breakthrough in cheap H2. GM dissed Toyota’s Prius a few years ago- as every expert in Detroit knew batteries were a dead-end technology. That was a billion dollar mistake that helped bankrupt GM. Things change with the small incremental advance, and Toyota is definitely a player in LENR and with a hydrogen IP portfolio that is unreal. H2 may yet be the low cost answer, and they know it. Even without them, however, we are only a breakthrough away from cheap H2 from LENR - maybe from a water-dog-bone g. Think about thermal decomposition of water with a newly discovered catalyst, probably in one of these 5300 patents, plus an improved dog-bone reactor at 1300C. As of now, we know that water molecules split into hydrogen and oxygen at 2200 °C at a usable rate of about three percent (this is usable since waste heat is recycled at high efficiency) but with a breakthrough catalyst and low-cost heat, giving something like 2% conversion at 1300 °C, plus good heat recovery, then hydrogen becomes cheaper than battery-based electricity storage. The amount of lithium in a Tesla battery pack could possibly power 1,000,000 dogbones. We could be closer than anyone imagines to the hydrogen economy ... anyone other than Toyota.
Re: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain
Without some breakthrough, fuel cells are just a distraction. http://www.autoblog.com/2014/08/05/why-battery-electric-vehicles-will-beat-fuel-cells/ On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:35 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Misinformation? Toyota wants to make its competitors think it's going down fuel-cell path when it is really developing LENR-based tech for powering its future fleet... -mark iverson -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: I think this is a dead-end technology. It cannot compete with plug-in electric hybrid cars and pure electric vehicles. Toyota and Tesla are nearing the end of sales of the jointly developed RAV4 electric sport utility vehicle after delivering about 2,500 units over more than two years. The two companies are now taking separate paths, with Tesla working to bring the plug-in Model X crossover and a cheaper Model 3 sedan to market. Toyota is preparing to sell its first fuel-cell vehicle, a technology that Tesla’s billionaire co-founder Elon Musk has ridiculed. Bizarre behavior on the part of Toyota unless they are suddenly cowed by the possibility of losing large market share to Tesla. Maybe not bizarre. Anyway, it's not wise to bet against Toyota. Tesla's shares are down 55 points since October-and Toyota is up 10. Toyota may know something that we, or even Elon-the-magnificent, do not yet appreciate - such as a breakthrough in cheap H2. GM dissed Toyota’s Prius a few years ago- as every expert in Detroit knew batteries were a dead-end technology. That was a billion dollar mistake that helped bankrupt GM. Things change with the small incremental advance, and Toyota is definitely a player in LENR and with a hydrogen IP portfolio that is unreal. H2 may yet be the low cost answer, and they know it. Even without them, however, we are only a breakthrough away from cheap H2 from LENR - maybe from a water-dog-bone g. Think about thermal decomposition of water with a newly discovered catalyst, probably in one of these 5300 patents, plus an improved dog-bone reactor at 1300C. As of now, we know that water molecules split into hydrogen and oxygen at 2200 °C at a usable rate of about three percent (this is usable since waste heat is recycled at high efficiency) but with a breakthrough catalyst and low-cost heat, giving something like 2% conversion at 1300 °C, plus good heat recovery, then hydrogen becomes cheaper than battery-based electricity storage. The amount of lithium in a Tesla battery pack could possibly power 1,000,000 dogbones. We could be closer than anyone imagines to the hydrogen economy ... anyone other than Toyota.
Re: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:12:26 -0800: Hi, [snip] Think about thermal decomposition of water with a newly discovered catalyst, probably in one of these 5300 patents, plus an improved dog-bone reactor at 1300C. As of now, we know that water molecules split into hydrogen and oxygen at 2200 °C at a usable rate of about three percent (this is usable since waste heat is recycled at high efficiency) but with a breakthrough catalyst and low-cost heat, giving something like 2% conversion at 1300 °C, plus good heat recovery, then hydrogen becomes cheaper than battery-based electricity storage. The amount of lithium in a Tesla battery pack could possibly power 1,000,000 dogbones. We could be closer than anyone imagines to the hydrogen economy ... anyone other than Toyota. At 1300 °C a small steam turbine would extract a lot more energy from the heat than you would get from thermal decomposition of water. The mechanical energy from the turbine can be used directly to drive the wheels, saving on conversion losses. Better yet, if the nuclear reactions at the heart of LENR produce fast charged particles, then the potential exists for direct conversion to electricity with possible efficiencies exceeding 50%. An intermediate solution might be a form of beta-voltaic battery that is LENR powered, and where the power output can be controlled by controlling the rate at which the LENR reaction proceeds. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain
Yes, they funded early LENR work with FP. IIRC, they stopped LENR research for a period of time, but then restarted the effort. You can bet the BoD and C-levels have been kept up-to-date about developments in LENR... -mark iverson -Original Message- From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 2:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain Mark's thought also was the first idea that came into my head upon reading Terry's comment. I think they, Toyota, are onto LENR. Let's not forget they hired Pons and Fleishman for research in Nice, France after they left the USA. Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:35 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain Misinformation? Toyota wants to make its competitors think it's going down fuel-cell path when it is really developing LENR-based tech for powering its future fleet... -mark iverson -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: I think this is a dead-end technology. It cannot compete with plug-in electric hybrid cars and pure electric vehicles. Toyota and Tesla are nearing the end of sales of the jointly developed RAV4 electric sport utility vehicle after delivering about 2,500 units over more than two years. The two companies are now taking separate paths, with Tesla working to bring the plug-in Model X crossover and a cheaper Model 3 sedan to market. Toyota is preparing to sell its first fuel-cell vehicle, a technology that Tesla’s billionaire co-founder Elon Musk has ridiculed. Bizarre behavior on the part of Toyota unless they are suddenly cowed by the possibility of losing large market share to Tesla. Maybe not bizarre. Anyway, it's not wise to bet against Toyota. Tesla's shares are down 55 points since October-and Toyota is up 10. Toyota may know something that we, or even Elon-the-magnificent, do not yet appreciate - such as a breakthrough in cheap H2. GM dissed Toyota’s Prius a few years ago- as every expert in Detroit knew batteries were a dead-end technology. That was a billion dollar mistake that helped bankrupt GM. Things change with the small incremental advance, and Toyota is definitely a player in LENR and with a hydrogen IP portfolio that is unreal. H2 may yet be the low cost answer, and they know it. Even without them, however, we are only a breakthrough away from cheap H2 from LENR - maybe from a water-dog-bone g. Think about thermal decomposition of water with a newly discovered catalyst, probably in one of these 5300 patents, plus an improved dog-bone reactor at 1300C. As of now, we know that water molecules split into hydrogen and oxygen at 2200 °C at a usable rate of about three percent (this is usable since waste heat is recycled at high efficiency) but with a breakthrough catalyst and low-cost heat, giving something like 2% conversion at 1300 °C, plus good heat recovery, then hydrogen becomes cheaper than battery-based electricity storage. The amount of lithium in a Tesla battery pack could possibly power 1,000,000 dogbones. We could be closer than anyone imagines to the hydrogen economy ... anyone other than Toyota.
Re: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain
There is a theoretic business model called the S-curve theory that explains the possibilities and the risk with new technology. The typewriters , the vacuum tubes, the adding machines etc. are good examples. So far I am in agreement with the idea that there is a market changes due to technology. LENR absolute but not now. To dangerous to take such a step. Even if they present a car driven by LENR it would take years to get acceptance. Maybe Toyota is not thinking so well. The first ones to move to new technology seldom prevail. Apple might be good today but that has more to do with the I-phone than their computers of 1984. Texas Instrument are not a major player on the semiconductor market compare 1968. HP had some real early handheld computers did not take them to the front of today's handheld market. Many companies have seen this pattern repeat itself over the years and realize being first or having the patent is not the most important - in most cases. Xerox being the exception that shows validity to me of that statement. Time ago it was the norm, that being first equaled success. The problems with LENR is of course that there is no theory that backs it up. There is nobody driving the development of LENR Rossi is entrepreneurial and his new partner has been very quiet and demonstrated very little leadership. BLP seems more focused on academical result than commercialization. Maybe there are more (better) information out there, which I am unaware of. In such case now is the time to identify the winners and buy shares. I doubt it is Toyota they remind me of IBM. Tesla maybe. Unknown entity is the most likely in my opinion. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:15 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Yes, they funded early LENR work with FP. IIRC, they stopped LENR research for a period of time, but then restarted the effort. You can bet the BoD and C-levels have been kept up-to-date about developments in LENR... -mark iverson -Original Message- From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 2:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain Mark's thought also was the first idea that came into my head upon reading Terry's comment. I think they, Toyota, are onto LENR. Let's not forget they hired Pons and Fleishman for research in Nice, France after they left the USA. Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:35 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain Misinformation? Toyota wants to make its competitors think it's going down fuel-cell path when it is really developing LENR-based tech for powering its future fleet... -mark iverson -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: I think this is a dead-end technology. It cannot compete with plug-in electric hybrid cars and pure electric vehicles. Toyota and Tesla are nearing the end of sales of the jointly developed RAV4 electric sport utility vehicle after delivering about 2,500 units over more than two years. The two companies are now taking separate paths, with Tesla working to bring the plug-in Model X crossover and a cheaper Model 3 sedan to market. Toyota is preparing to sell its first fuel-cell vehicle, a technology that Tesla’s billionaire co-founder Elon Musk has ridiculed. Bizarre behavior on the part of Toyota unless they are suddenly cowed by the possibility of losing large market share to Tesla. Maybe not bizarre. Anyway, it's not wise to bet against Toyota. Tesla's shares are down 55 points since October-and Toyota is up 10. Toyota may know something that we, or even Elon-the-magnificent, do not yet appreciate - such as a breakthrough in cheap H2. GM dissed Toyota’s Prius a few years ago- as every expert in Detroit knew batteries were a dead-end technology. That was a billion dollar mistake that helped bankrupt GM. Things change with the small incremental advance, and Toyota is definitely a player in LENR and with a hydrogen IP portfolio that is unreal. H2 may yet be the low cost answer, and they know it. Even without them, however, we are only a breakthrough away from cheap H2 from LENR - maybe from a water-dog-bone g. Think about thermal decomposition of water with a newly discovered catalyst, probably in one of these 5300 patents, plus an
Re: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain
Mark's thought also was the first idea that came into my head upon reading Terry's comment. I think they, Toyota, are onto LENR. Let's not forget they hired Pons and Fleishman for research in Nice, France after they left the USA. Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:35 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain Misinformation? Toyota wants to make its competitors think it's going down fuel-cell path when it is really developing LENR-based tech for powering its future fleet... -mark iverson -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: I think this is a dead-end technology. It cannot compete with plug-in electric hybrid cars and pure electric vehicles. Toyota and Tesla are nearing the end of sales of the jointly developed RAV4 electric sport utility vehicle after delivering about 2,500 units over more than two years. The two companies are now taking separate paths, with Tesla working to bring the plug-in Model X crossover and a cheaper Model 3 sedan to market. Toyota is preparing to sell its first fuel-cell vehicle, a technology that Tesla’s billionaire co-founder Elon Musk has ridiculed. Bizarre behavior on the part of Toyota unless they are suddenly cowed by the possibility of losing large market share to Tesla. Maybe not bizarre. Anyway, it's not wise to bet against Toyota. Tesla's shares are down 55 points since October-and Toyota is up 10. Toyota may know something that we, or even Elon-the-magnificent, do not yet appreciate - such as a breakthrough in cheap H2. GM dissed Toyota’s Prius a few years ago- as every expert in Detroit knew batteries were a dead-end technology. That was a billion dollar mistake that helped bankrupt GM. Things change with the small incremental advance, and Toyota is definitely a player in LENR and with a hydrogen IP portfolio that is unreal. H2 may yet be the low cost answer, and they know it. Even without them, however, we are only a breakthrough away from cheap H2 from LENR - maybe from a water-dog-bone g. Think about thermal decomposition of water with a newly discovered catalyst, probably in one of these 5300 patents, plus an improved dog-bone reactor at 1300C. As of now, we know that water molecules split into hydrogen and oxygen at 2200 °C at a usable rate of about three percent (this is usable since waste heat is recycled at high efficiency) but with a breakthrough catalyst and low-cost heat, giving something like 2% conversion at 1300 °C, plus good heat recovery, then hydrogen becomes cheaper than battery-based electricity storage. The amount of lithium in a Tesla battery pack could possibly power 1,000,000 dogbones. We could be closer than anyone imagines to the hydrogen economy ... anyone other than Toyota.
[Vo]:The analysis of the DB2Day Autopsy
From the analysis of the DB2Day Autopsy, loading hydrogen into the Dog Bone is a complicated an involved process. It seems to me, if too much heat is applied at initial start up, hydrogen pressure may clime too high too fast when enough Lithium aluminum hydride is provided to ensure that when after all the preheating is done, enough hydrogen remains free from the absorption by the reactor structure to optimize the LENR reaction in steady state operation. When the Dog Bone is subsequently restarted, the hydrogen loading profile will most probably be changed since some hydrogen will have been retained in the nickel powder and the structural material be it either stainless steel or alumina. I can see why Rossi needs to be on site and actively managing the heat up of the Dog Bone. The Dog Bone is not something that one can initally startup or turn off and on easily or automatically. This is BAD.
Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I have spoted that GSVIT critic of your position on the Mizuno experiment https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/misura-calorimetrica-sulla-pompa-md-6k-n-utilizzata-da-tadahiko-mizuno/ through google translate it seems to claim that the pump heat about 4W, not 1W I saw that. I think that's the fellow I have been corresponding with. I sent him the calibration curve with the pump only, from p. 25, showing that it is adding roughly 0.4 W, but he did not buy it. It is a little hard to see how Mizuno's device would produce only 1.9 W and 1.6 W in the last two tests if the pump is supplying 4 W. probably you will need a real translation to address the questions. I will not bother. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Think about thermal decomposition of water with a newly discovered catalyst, probably in one of these 5300 patents, plus an improved dog-bone reactor at 1300C. I do not think that a cheap method of producing hydrogen would help much, unless it was small enough and safe enough to place in people's houses. I think Toyota now plans to have gas stations that sell hydrogen. I think these patents relate to the fuel handling and delivery systems. Building enough stations to make these cars useful over much of Japan or the U.S. would cost a fortune, whereas electric cars can be charged anywhere, and plug-in hybrids refueled or recharged anywhere. If the hydrogen generator were cold fusion powered, why not just use cold fusion directly as the primary source of energy in the car? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain
I wrote: I do not think that a cheap method of producing hydrogen would help much, unless it was small enough and safe enough to place in people's houses. Come to think of it, that would not help much. You could only drive half the range of the fuel tank away from your house. I was thinking of a system similar to charging an electric car at home. If you drive the full range of an electric car, you can charge it up at your destination, whereas most destinations would not have hydrogen generators. The only way to make this work is to have hydrogen dispensing stations in many places. I suppose they could be an extra pump at a regular gas station, but I doubt that would pay. Not for a long time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Something else I just thought of: 17O+6Li = 16O + 7Li + 3.107 MeV I would not be surprised if there were other stripping reactions occurring if Ni(7Li,6Ni)Ni was happening. As a side note, with the introduction of a gas phase precursor (oxygen), this is starting to take is in the direction of Papp's noble gas engine. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Right-on AGP
A side note which should be mentioned re: Mark’s listing of citations, given the extreme energetics of lithium hydride… is whether we are looking at a subset of violation of parity. Or maybe it is the superset. A “near miracle” explanation for the Parkhomov anomaly can be called “asymmetric chemistry.” It involves a net energy deficit between thermal decomposition compared to the heat of formation. There could exist a small gap which then is cumulative via a serial process for net gain. Except for the Lamb shift, this kind of asymmetry is almost unknown in physics. The ultimate source of gain would be zero point. The alternative “miracle explanation” for gain, of course … is nuclear fusion, in the guise of LENR. BUT… if we want to talk about “conservation of miracles” the nuclear explanation requires 3 miracles to explain the Parkhomov effect. 1) Overcoming the coulomb barrier 2) Complete avoidance of gamma rays or bremsstrahlung 3) Complete avoidance of radioactive ash While Gibbs asymmetry, as we can call it - requires something less than a miracle, since it is hinted at already. Until 1947, physics assumed that all forces of nature were completely symmetric and did not distinguish between right and left, image and mirror-image or between Gibbs energy vectors. The discovery of violation of parity in 1956 was more than a sensation, it was a shocker since it went beyond QM: as the Lamb shift a decade earlier was both minimal and quantum. Both imply that the universe displays handedness, or chirality, and this is fundamentally asymmetric. “Enantioselective catalysis” took that a step further into thermodynamics … and now hydride chemistry could change everything that we assume about the necessity of symmetry in nature… and at high probability. From: Mark Jurich [4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block Gray (1964) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009 Page 1 – http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/inocaj/1965/inocaj.1965.4.issue-3/ic50025a009/production/ic50025a009.fp.png_v03 Page 2 – http://www.tempid.altervista.org/Page2.png Here are my references, in chronological order: [1] The thermal decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride, Garner Haycock (1951) http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/211/1106/335.full.pdf [2] PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AS A HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL COOLANT, Modisette (1957) http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1957/naca-rm-l57f12a.pdf [3] INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AND MAGNESIUM AS HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL COOLANTS WITH SEVERAL SKIN MATERIALS, Modisette (1958) http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc53069/m2/1/high_res_d/19660024045.pdf [4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block Gray (1964) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009 [5] Desorption of LiAlH4 with Ti- and V-based additives, Blanchard, Brinks, Hauback Norby (2004) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921510703005415 [6] Hydrogen, lithium, and lithium hydride production, US 20130047789 A1 (2013) http://www.google.com/patents/US20130047789 Notes - [1] is the classic paper (1951) everyone seems to refer to. - [2] is prelim of [3], with slightly different content, describing the reversible LiH decomposition reaction - [4] if this isn’t referenced in any paper regarding LiAlH4 Thermal Decomposition, the paper is suspect (1964, 2 pages, but unfortunately behind a pay wall, maybe if someone searches hard enough, they’ll find it; I’ll look after I post this. Has DSC Plots, breaking down the H2 Evolution at various temps, but at standard pressures) - [5] Behind a pay wall, but what you see on the page is good enough... The do NOT reference [4]! - [6] Some nice Vapor Pressure curves in here! - I also came across this book via the Internet (as well as Axil), but I do not have it (looks very useful): http://www.bookmantraa.com/thermophysical-properties-lithium-hydride-deuteride-tritide-their-solutions-with-lithium-book-72683.html
Re: [Vo]:The analysis of the DB2Day Autopsy
See for the analysis https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From the analysis of the DB2Day Autopsy, loading hydrogen into the Dog Bone is a complicated an involved process. It seems to me, if too much heat is applied at initial start up, hydrogen pressure may clime too high too fast when enough Lithium aluminum hydride is provided to ensure that when after all the preheating is done, enough hydrogen remains free from the absorption by the reactor structure to optimize the LENR reaction in steady state operation. When the Dog Bone is subsequently restarted, the hydrogen loading profile will most probably be changed since some hydrogen will have been retained in the nickel powder and the structural material be it either stainless steel or alumina. I can see why Rossi needs to be on site and actively managing the heat up of the Dog Bone. The Dog Bone is not something that one can initally startup or turn off and on easily or automatically. This is BAD.
Re: [Vo]:Toyota puts fuel cell patents in the public domain
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I think this is a dead-end technology. It cannot compete with plug-in electric hybrid cars and pure electric vehicles. Toyota and Tesla are nearing the end of sales of the jointly developed RAV4 electric sport utility vehicle after delivering about 2,500 units over more than two years. The two companies are now taking separate paths, with Tesla working to bring the plug-in Model X crossover and a cheaper Model 3 sedan to market. Toyota is preparing to sell its first fuel-cell vehicle, a technology that Tesla’s billionaire co-founder Elon Musk has ridiculed. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-24/toyota-sells-tesla-shares-as-ev-project-winds-down.html Bizarre behavior on the part of Toyota unless they are suddenly cowed by the possibility of losing large market share to Tesla.
Re: [Vo]:Right-on AGP
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Both imply that the universe displays handedness, or chirality, and this is fundamentally asymmetric. Or we do not see the whole universe.
[Vo]:LENR (and LENR+) database
Dear Friends, The contrary of an easy task but the future needs it: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/lenr-knol-and-wisd-january-6-2015.html Best wishes to the project and to you! Peter- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Right-on AGP
RE: [Vo]:Right-on AGPJones-- To show my ignorance, what's a Gibbs energy vector? Can it point into negative energy? Zero point? I am not sure of all your inferences. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 7:44 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Right-on AGP A side note which should be mentioned re: Mark’s listing of citations, given the extreme energetics of lithium hydride… is whether we are looking at a subset of violation of parity. Or maybe it is the superset. A “near miracle” explanation for the Parkhomov anomaly can be called “asymmetric chemistry.” It involves a net energy deficit between thermal decomposition compared to the heat of formation. There could exist a small gap which then is cumulative via a serial process for net gain. Except for the Lamb shift, this kind of asymmetry is almost unknown in physics. The ultimate source of gain would be zero point. The alternative “miracle explanation” for gain, of course … is nuclear fusion, in the guise of LENR. BUT… if we want to talk about “conservation of miracles” the nuclear explanation requires 3 miracles to explain the Parkhomov effect. 1) Overcoming the coulomb barrier 2) Complete avoidance of gamma rays or bremsstrahlung 3) Complete avoidance of radioactive ash While Gibbs asymmetry, as we can call it - requires something less than a miracle, since it is hinted at already. Until 1947, physics assumed that all forces of nature were completely symmetric and did not distinguish between right and left, image and mirror-image or between Gibbs energy vectors. The discovery of violation of parity in 1956 was more than a sensation, it was a shocker since it went beyond QM: as the Lamb shift a decade earlier was both minimal and quantum. Both imply that the universe displays handedness, or chirality, and this is fundamentally asymmetric. “Enantioselective catalysis” took that a step further into thermodynamics … and now hydride chemistry could change everything that we assume about the necessity of symmetry in nature… and at high probability. From: Mark Jurich [4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block Gray (1964) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009 Page 1 – http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/inocaj/1965/inocaj.1965.4.issue-3/ic50025a009/production/ic50025a009.fp.png_v03 Page 2 – http://www.tempid.altervista.org/Page2.png Here are my references, in chronological order: [1] The thermal decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride, Garner Haycock (1951) http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/211/1106/335.full.pdf [2] PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AS A HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL COOLANT, Modisette (1957) http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1957/naca-rm-l57f12a.pdf [3] INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AND MAGNESIUM AS HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL COOLANTS WITH SEVERAL SKIN MATERIALS, Modisette (1958) http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc53069/m2/1/high_res_d/19660024045.pdf [4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block Gray (1964) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009 [5] Desorption of LiAlH4 with Ti- and V-based additives, Blanchard, Brinks, Hauback Norby (2004) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921510703005415 [6] Hydrogen, lithium, and lithium hydride production, US 20130047789 A1 (2013) http://www.google.com/patents/US20130047789 Notes - [1] is the classic paper (1951) everyone seems to refer to. - [2] is prelim of [3], with slightly different content, describing the reversible LiH decomposition reaction - [4] if this isn’t referenced in any paper regarding LiAlH4 Thermal Decomposition, the paper is suspect (1964, 2 pages, but unfortunately behind a pay wall, maybe if someone searches hard enough, they’ll find it; I’ll look after I post this. Has DSC Plots, breaking down the H2 Evolution at various temps, but at standard pressures) - [5] Behind a pay wall, but what you see on the page is good enough... The do NOT reference [4]! - [6] Some nice Vapor Pressure curves in here! - I also came across this book via the Internet (as well as Axil), but I do not have it (looks very useful): http://www.bookmantraa.com/thermophysical-properties-lithium-hydride-deuteride-tritide-their-solutions-with-lithium-book-72683.html
RE: [Vo]:Right-on AGP
Bob, Simply stated – we can suggest that we could be seeing a unique chemical reaction which gives more energy in formation than it requires to decompose back to the original reactants. Standard textbooks says NO WAY. Gibbs free energy is balanced. Nevertheless, if there was to be found such a reaction, and Parkhomov could provide the evidence, then it would still require the equivalent of mass loss. The zero-point field could potentially supply mass-equivalence to a chemical reaction in a number of forms, including your favorite: spin energy. Another way is ground state redundancy, which is also spin – in the form of angular momentum. From: Bob Cook To show my ignorance, what's a Gibbs energy vector? Can it point into negative energy? Zero point? I am not sure of all your inferences. A side note which should be mentioned re: Mark’s listing of citations, given the extreme energetics of lithium hydride… is whether we are looking at a subset of violation of parity. Or maybe it is the superset. A “near miracle” explanation for the Parkhomov anomaly can be called “asymmetric chemistry.” It involves a net energy deficit between thermal decomposition compared to the heat of formation. There could exist a small gap which then is cumulative via a serial process for net gain. Except for the Lamb shift, this kind of asymmetry is almost unknown in physics. The ultimate source of gain would be zero point. The alternative “miracle explanation” for gain, of course … is nuclear fusion, in the guise of LENR. BUT… if we want to talk about “conservation of miracles” the nuclear explanation requires 3 miracles to explain the Parkhomov effect. 1) Overcoming the coulomb barrier 2) Complete avoidance of gamma rays or bremsstrahlung 3) Complete avoidance of radioactive ash While Gibbs asymmetry, as we can call it - requires something less than a miracle, since it is hinted at already. Until 1947, physics assumed that all forces of nature were completely symmetric and did not distinguish between right and left, image and mirror-image or between Gibbs energy vectors. The discovery of violation of parity in 1956 was more than a sensation, it was a shocker since it went beyond QM: as the Lamb shift a decade earlier was both minimal and quantum. Both imply that the universe displays handedness, or chirality, and this is fundamentally asymmetric. “Enantioselective catalysis” took that a step further into thermodynamics … and now hydride chemistry could change everything that we assume about the necessity of symmetry in nature… and at high probability. From: Mark Jurich [4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block Gray (1964) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009 Page 1 – http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/inocaj/1965/inocaj.1965.4.issue-3/ic50025a009/production/ic50025a009.fp.png_v03 http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/inocaj/1965/inocaj.1965.4.issue-3/ic50025a009/production/ic50025a009.fp.png_v03 Page 2 – http://www.tempid.altervista.org/Page2.png http://www.tempid.altervista.org/Page2.png Here are my references, in chronological order: [1] The thermal decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride, Garner Haycock (1951) http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/211/1106/335.full.pdf http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/211/1106/335.full.pdf [2] PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AS A HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL COOLANT, Modisette (1957) http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1957/naca-rm-l57f12a.pdf http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1957/naca-rm-l57f12a.pdf [3] INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AND MAGNESIUM AS HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL COOLANTS WITH SEVERAL SKIN MATERIALS, Modisette (1958) http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc53069/m2/1/high_res_d/19660024045.pdf http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc53069/m2/1/high_res_d/19660024045.pdf [4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block Gray (1964) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009 [5] Desorption of LiAlH4 with Ti- and V-based additives, Blanchard, Brinks, Hauback Norby (2004) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921510703005415 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921510703005415 [6] Hydrogen, lithium, and lithium hydride production, US 20130047789 A1 (2013) http://www.google.com/patents/US20130047789 http://www.google.com/patents/US20130047789 Notes - [1] is the classic paper (1951) everyone seems to refer to. - [2] is prelim of [3], with slightly different content, describing the reversible LiH decomposition reaction - [4] if this isn’t referenced in any paper
