Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[James Bowery]

The error remains in the 2002 edition.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Ah, I got double-whammied:
>
> 1) It was Beaudette that said "100,000 watts per cm^3" (that string is
> outside of the quotation marks meant to designated Preparata's words.
>
> 2) Lynn said "gram" rather than "cm^3" so his correction on comma vs
> period didn't register with me.
>
> Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> Perhaps Beaudette corrected that in his 2002 edition.  I was reading from
> the 2000 edition.
>
> In any event, the high *reproducibility* of Preparata's work has not yet
> been equaled has it?
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> ([1E9 * ounce_troy] * [{12.02 * gramm} / {(centi*meter)^3}]^-1) * ([100 *
>>> {kilo watt}] / [{centi*meter}^3]) ? watt
>>>
>>> = 2.5876415E14 W
>>>
>>> over 200 terawatts.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, I think Preparata meant "100" not 100,000. The comma is a
>> decimal point. I do not understand why he added 3 digits of precision to a
>> rough approximation. Anyway, that comes to 0.2 TW, which is about 1/100 of
>> world energy production. Fleischmann once estimated that Pd can supply
>> about 1/3 of total energy. I confirmed it is in that ballpark, ~30% to ~50%.
>>
>> Here is my estimation.
>>
>> I assume that power density and temperature with palladium can be
>> increased to the limits of the material. That is to say up to the highest
>> temperatures in which  thin-film palladium can survive. Or nanoparticles in
>> aerogel, or what-have-you. The limiting factor is how thinly you can spread
>> the palladium and have it remain on the substrate and in contact with the
>> medium, which will probably be D2 gas.
>>
>> About half of palladium nowadays is used in catalytic converters. Hot gas
>> from internal combustion engines flows over the palladium surface and is
>> catalyzed. I assume this technology is pushed to the limit. They use the
>> smallest amount palladium they can, spreading it as thinly as they can with
>> maximum exposure to the moving gas. A palladium based cold fusion cell
>> would have palladium spread roughly as thin as this, producing temperatures
>> roughly as high as this. If they could make in any thinner, they would.
>> This technology has been around for a while and it is probably mature.
>>
>> Nearly all of the energy from an automobile is wasted as hot gas. In
>> other words, the hot gas that passes over the palladium surface is roughly
>> equal to the total amount of energy produced by gasoline in the
>> transportation sector. To put it another way, if the heat was being
>> produced by the palladium inside the catalytic converter, instead of coming
>> from the engine to the converter, you would get nearly as much energy as
>> you get from gasoline now.
>>
>> To simplify a great deal, assuming that cold fusion can achieve the same
>> temperatures as palladium experiences in a catalytic converter, half of our
>> palladium could produce roughly as much energy as the entire automotive
>> transportation sector does now: 27 out of 99 quads. All of our palladium
>> could therefore produce roughly 50 out of 99 quads.
>>
>> Actually the number is higher for various reasons:
>>
>> * The palladium is not used up as quickly in a cold fusion device as it
>> is in a catalytic converter.
>>
>> * The palladium is more easily and completely recovered from a used cold
>> fusion cell, assuming it is not transmuted.
>>
>> * Palladium production will be increased as demand increases.
>>
>> This is a crude estimate but I believe it does show that there is not
>> enough palladium to produce all the energy we need. If it turns out
>> palladium is the only suitable metal, we would have large centralized
>> generators producing most of our energy, supplying it as electricity for
>> use in electric cars and so on. We would not actually put the palladium in
>> automobiles, and probably not in houses either.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[mixent]

In reply to  Alan J Fletcher's message of Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:34:23 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>At 12:24 PM 1/12/2012, Jones Beene wrote:
>From: James Bowery
>Google-books has one of Preparata’s most popular books on QED online. There is 
>a chapter on LENR
>http://books.google.com/books?id=u-MvobTFGLEC&pg=PA153&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
> 
>But like a lot of google books : Pages xxx to yyy are not shown in this 
>preview.
>
>
>Sometimes you can cheat by guessing at a keyword likely to be found on the 
>next page, but it gets to be frustrating.
>
>
Would the page number do as a "keyword"? ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Peter Gluck]

Forget cars and converters for a while.
Jed's optimistic data plus world's Pd reserves
(969.690.000 troy ounces) make a CF power of
0.64 TW- from some 13-16 TW necessary ( less than 5%)

Peter

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:25 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Has anyone even tried to replicate Preparata's configuration that he
> claims he successfully reproduced FIFTY TIMES???
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> I should add that I _did_ attempt to find Preparata's original paper
>>> online and was unable to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>> ICCF-6 "Progress In New Hydrogen Energy", p. 136
>>
>> Title: "Everything you always wanted to know about cold fusion
>> calorimetry"
>>
>> ICCF6 was published by the NHE. The NHE does not like me. I doubt they
>> would give me permission to upload it. I could maybe upload this one paper.
>> I can't get permission from Preparata because he is deceased.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[James Bowery]

Has anyone even tried to replicate Preparata's configuration that he claims
he successfully reproduced FIFTY TIMES???

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
> I should add that I _did_ attempt to find Preparata's original paper
>> online and was unable to do so.
>
>
>
> ICCF-6 "Progress In New Hydrogen Energy", p. 136
>
> Title: "Everything you always wanted to know about cold fusion calorimetry"
>
> ICCF6 was published by the NHE. The NHE does not like me. I doubt they
> would give me permission to upload it. I could maybe upload this one paper.
> I can't get permission from Preparata because he is deceased.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> Doesn't BMW have a car on the market which recaptures the exhaust heat?
>
> Or do I have that mixed up with something?  (Or did they ditch it as not
> cost effective or too heavy or something?)

Nope, you're not senile yet:

http://gas2.org/2011/09/01/bmw-makes-progress-on-heat-recovery-technology/

T

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12-01-12 04:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Okay, I mixed up ounces and grams. Various sources say:

Catalytic converters cost between $400 and $900, depending on the size 
of the vehicle. Average is around $500 retail replacement cost.


Catalytic converters have "1/20 of a troy ounce of" palladium. That's 
1.6 g. another source says 1.9 g and someone else estimates 3 to 7 g. 
Let's say it is 2 or 3 g, or ~0.1 ounce. That would cost $64 which is 
reasonable fraction of the total cost of the converter.


Assuming it is 3 g, based on my previous estimate, that's ~149 kW/g.

Automobile exhaust gas is at high temperature which would have good 
Carnot efficiency if you could only use the stuff.


Doesn't BMW have a car on the market which recaptures the exhaust heat?

Or do I have that mixed up with something?  (Or did they ditch it as not 
cost effective or too heavy or something?)





As I said, I am assuming here that the reactors will be much more 
efficient than any prototype device today. They will be as efficient 
as they can be, pushing temperatures and power density up to the 
limits of the material.


I said that the cold fusion reaction has vaporized Pd. I meant in 
F&P's accident. I assume it was vaporized. Maybe melted. It was gone, 
anyway.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> Huh.  Annoying, aren't they.
>
> Well, if you want to add a little more "getup&go (right-past-them)" to your
> Scion you might consider retrofitting an electric conversion from AC
> Propulsion:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Propulsion_eBox
>
> 200 horse engine, gets from 0 to 60 in 7 seconds flat, according to
> Wikipedia.  They also list a top speed of 95 MPH, which seems a tad wimpy
> for such a zippy 0 to 60 time, but maybe it's due to the power band being
> low in the RPMs and lack of an overdrive at a good ratio for the electric
> motor.  (One downside to the conversion is the $55k price tag.)

I had one of those, a 2005 xBox.  I don't think they do the 2009 that
I have now.  I used to get almost 40 mpg; but, owners claimed the 1.8
litre was underpowered; so, the 2009 has the 2.4l Camry engine.

The 2005 probably was under powered with an AT; but, the 5 sp manual
was hot.  The 2009 2.4 litre with a 5 sp manual really hot; but, I
only get 29 mpg.  It's a fun drive and I can kick most SUV's ass in a
quarter.  Not that I actually do that . . . often.  :-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12-01-12 06:49 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


Most cars nowadays ARE SUVs.

Yeah, they jolt my Scion Xb as they flash by.


Huh.  Annoying, aren't they.

Well, if you want to add a little more "getup&go (right-past-them)" to 
your Scion you might consider retrofitting an electric conversion from 
AC Propulsion:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Propulsion_eBox

200 horse engine, gets from 0 to 60 in 7 seconds flat, according to 
Wikipedia.  They also list a top speed of 95 MPH, which seems a tad 
wimpy for such a zippy 0 to 60 time, but maybe it's due to the power 
band being low in the RPMs and lack of an overdrive at a good ratio for 
the electric motor.  (One downside to the conversion is the $55k price tag.)

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
> That's 20 mpg.  You must be thinking of SUVs.  :-)
>

I like round numbers. I have the 2002 Edition of the Annual Energy Review
printed out with lots of post-it notes. Under "AUTOS, TRUCKS" on p. 61 it
shows "Passenger Cars, Fuel Rate (miles per gallon)" for the year 2001.
That's the average. It was 22.1 mpg. 20 is close enough.

I should print out a more recent edition.

Let's see what the latest one says . . .

Okay, by 2008 we were up to a mighty 22.6 mpg. Such progress!

You see why I do not bother to print out a more recent one.

DOE/EIA-0384(2010) | October 2011
www.eia.gov/aer
Annual Energy Review 2010

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> Most cars nowadays ARE SUVs.

Yeah, they jolt my Scion Xb as they flash by.

T

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 12-01-12 05:05 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


As far as I know, most cars traveling ~80 miles an hour burn ~4
gallons of gasoline per hour.

That's 20 mpg.  You must be thinking of SUVs.  :-)


Most cars nowadays ARE SUVs.

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> As far as I know, most cars traveling ~80 miles an hour burn ~4
> gallons of gasoline per hour.

That's 20 mpg.  You must be thinking of SUVs.  :-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Jed Rothwell]

The salient fact here is that all of the exhaust gas has to contact with
the palladium, or the gas would not be catalyzed (cleaned up). So you have
gas with 80% of the heat from the burned gasoline coming in contact with ~3
g of Pd or Pt.

Here is another way to estimate maximum thermal output from an automobile
engine:

An automobile engine can produce 150 hp but they only do that when you
accelerate. As far as I know, most cars traveling ~80 miles an hour burn ~4
gallons of gasoline per hour. That produces raw heat: 132 MJ * 4 = 422
MJ/hr. Divide by 3600 s/hr that equals power of around 147 kW. If only 20%
is delivered as vehicle propulsion that would be 29 kW which seems
excessively low to me. Anyway, it is on the order of 118 kW of hot gas
passing through some amount of Pd, 2 to 7 g.

The amount of Pd per converter ranges from 2 to 7 g because some catalytic
converters are bigger than others, for bigger cars. A car that can produce
150 hp is big. Huge. My 3 cylinder Geo Metro delivers 55 HP (41 kW). It has
a small catalytic converter. Assuming it is 2 g, that comes to ~82 kW/g.

Assuming there is 7 g in converter for a monster 150 HP motor, that would
come to ~64 kW/g.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Jones Beene]

Preparata was one of the greatest minds from what is becoming the hotbed of
new fizzix thinking. He was in a long line of Italian physicists who took
the unconventional to the max and did not back down from peer ridicule. It
did not begin and end with Fermi, but he must have been a prime inspiration.

 

Xue is another brilliant an unconventional Italian physicists (transplanted)
whose novel ideas could contribute to alternative energy in the future -
more so towards ZPE. However, many of us are convinced that ZPE plays at
least an auxiliary role (if not major) in whatever is behind NiH excess
heat. I need to check to see if Xue has written anything on the Rossi
madness.

 

Prof. SheSheng Xue is in Rome; and could have been part of the OPERA faster
than light team (not sure) - author of 4 papers on "vacuum-energy releasing"
technology. Xue is co-author of papers with Preparata & del Guidice going
back to 1994:  

 

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+Xue_She_Sheng/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

Xue wrote other papers on important frontier topics, such as:

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.0909

Electron-Positron Pair Production in Space- or Time-Dependent  Electric
Fields 

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.4619

Phase structure of Einstein-Cartan theory 

 

Co-authored with Hagen Kleinert, a top expert (along with Prof.Fred Hehl) on
torsion in spacetime, and unified-field (EM+gravity) theory. 

 

Jones

 

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Jed Rothwell]

Okay, I mixed up ounces and grams. Various sources say:

Catalytic converters cost between $400 and $900, depending on the size of
the vehicle. Average is around $500 retail replacement cost.

Catalytic converters have "1/20 of a troy ounce of" palladium. That's 1.6
g. another source says 1.9 g and someone else estimates 3 to 7 g. Let's say
it is 2 or 3 g, or ~0.1 ounce. That would cost $64 which is reasonable
fraction of the total cost of the converter.

Assuming it is 3 g, based on my previous estimate, that's ~149 kW/g.

Automobile exhaust gas is at high temperature which would have good Carnot
efficiency if you could only use the stuff.

As I said, I am assuming here that the reactors will be much more efficient
than any prototype device today. They will be as efficient as they can be,
pushing temperatures and power density up to the limits of the material.

I said that the cold fusion reaction has vaporized Pd. I meant in F&P's
accident. I assume it was vaporized. Maybe melted. It was gone, anyway.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> A catalytic converter has 3 to 7 ounces of Pd = 200 g.
>

WHOA! That can't be right. The stuff costs $641 per oz. A catalytic
converter is a lot cheaper than that.

Let me reset and try again.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> Calculating very "generously"- how many tons of palladium could be used in
> Cold Fusion generators worldwide?


All of them. We will have no other use for the stuff.



> Again, what could be, realistically the W/g power obtained by1 g of Pd?
>

That's easy. As I said, the limiting factor is how hot you can make the
stuff in a thin-film or finally divide configuration. Presumably that
technology is mature in today's catalytic converters. A catalytic converter
has 3 to 7 ounces of Pd = 200 g. An automobile engine produces 150 hp at
top speed = 112 kW. Assuming it is 20% efficient, that means 448 kW of hot
gas is rolling past the Pd surface. An obscene figure. If you ran an
automobile 24 hours a day at top speed I suppose it would wear out after a
few months, but anyway that is the limit to how much heat palladium can
stand. ~2.2 kW/g.

As I said this is a materials engineering problem. That is the limiting
factor. We know that palladium can get so hot it vaporizes. Cold fusion
itself can produce more heat than we can handle with any engineering
technique.



> And what could be the lifetime of Pd in such a source?
>

That depends upon whether it transmutes or not. if it does not transmute
nearly 100% of it can be recycled. It is in a closed cell, like a battery.
Much of palladium in a catalytic converter is lost because the hot gas
blows it out.



> I repeat it was a historical misfortune  of LENR to be discovered in
> palladium . . .
>

I do not see what difference it made. Fleischmann himself recommended the
use of nickel early on. People would have discovered the nickel version
sooner or later. up until now it has been much easier to detect Pd-D
because power density has been much higher.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 12:24 PM 1/12/2012, Jones Beene wrote:

From: James Bowery
Google-books has one of Preparata’s most popular
books on QED online. There is a chapter on LENR

http://books.google.com/books?id=u-MvobTFGLEC&pg=PA153&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

But like a lot of google books : Pages xxx to yyy  are not shown in this
preview.
Sometimes you can cheat by guessing at a keyword likely to be found on
the next page, but it gets to be frustrating.

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

I should add that I _did_ attempt to find Preparata's original paper online
> and was unable to do so.



ICCF-6 "Progress In New Hydrogen Energy", p. 136

Title: "Everything you always wanted to know about cold fusion calorimetry"

ICCF6 was published by the NHE. The NHE does not like me. I doubt they
would give me permission to upload it. I could maybe upload this one paper.
I can't get permission from Preparata because he is deceased.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Jones Beene]

From: James Bowery

 

I should add that I _did_ attempt to find Preparata's original paper online
and was unable to do so.

 

Google-books has one of Preparata's most popular books on QED online. There
is a chapter on LENR

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=u-MvobTFGLEC
 &pg=PA153&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[James Bowery]

I should add that I _did_ attempt to find Preparata's original paper online
and was unable to do so.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Ah, I got double-whammied:
>
> 1) It was Beaudette that said "100,000 watts per cm^3" (that string is
> outside of the quotation marks meant to designated Preparata's words.
>
> 2) Lynn said "gram" rather than "cm^3" so his correction on comma vs
> period didn't register with me.
>
> Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> Perhaps Beaudette corrected that in his 2002 edition.  I was reading from
> the 2000 edition.
>
> In any event, the high *reproducibility* of Preparata's work has not yet
> been equaled has it?
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> ([1E9 * ounce_troy] * [{12.02 * gramm} / {(centi*meter)^3}]^-1) * ([100 *
>>> {kilo watt}] / [{centi*meter}^3]) ? watt
>>>
>>> = 2.5876415E14 W
>>>
>>> over 200 terawatts.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, I think Preparata meant "100" not 100,000. The comma is a
>> decimal point. I do not understand why he added 3 digits of precision to a
>> rough approximation. Anyway, that comes to 0.2 TW, which is about 1/100 of
>> world energy production. Fleischmann once estimated that Pd can supply
>> about 1/3 of total energy. I confirmed it is in that ballpark, ~30% to ~50%.
>>
>> Here is my estimation.
>>
>> I assume that power density and temperature with palladium can be
>> increased to the limits of the material. That is to say up to the highest
>> temperatures in which  thin-film palladium can survive. Or nanoparticles in
>> aerogel, or what-have-you. The limiting factor is how thinly you can spread
>> the palladium and have it remain on the substrate and in contact with the
>> medium, which will probably be D2 gas.
>>
>> About half of palladium nowadays is used in catalytic converters. Hot gas
>> from internal combustion engines flows over the palladium surface and is
>> catalyzed. I assume this technology is pushed to the limit. They use the
>> smallest amount palladium they can, spreading it as thinly as they can with
>> maximum exposure to the moving gas. A palladium based cold fusion cell
>> would have palladium spread roughly as thin as this, producing temperatures
>> roughly as high as this. If they could make in any thinner, they would.
>> This technology has been around for a while and it is probably mature.
>>
>> Nearly all of the energy from an automobile is wasted as hot gas. In
>> other words, the hot gas that passes over the palladium surface is roughly
>> equal to the total amount of energy produced by gasoline in the
>> transportation sector. To put it another way, if the heat was being
>> produced by the palladium inside the catalytic converter, instead of coming
>> from the engine to the converter, you would get nearly as much energy as
>> you get from gasoline now.
>>
>> To simplify a great deal, assuming that cold fusion can achieve the same
>> temperatures as palladium experiences in a catalytic converter, half of our
>> palladium could produce roughly as much energy as the entire automotive
>> transportation sector does now: 27 out of 99 quads. All of our palladium
>> could therefore produce roughly 50 out of 99 quads.
>>
>> Actually the number is higher for various reasons:
>>
>> * The palladium is not used up as quickly in a cold fusion device as it
>> is in a catalytic converter.
>>
>> * The palladium is more easily and completely recovered from a used cold
>> fusion cell, assuming it is not transmuted.
>>
>> * Palladium production will be increased as demand increases.
>>
>> This is a crude estimate but I believe it does show that there is not
>> enough palladium to produce all the energy we need. If it turns out
>> palladium is the only suitable metal, we would have large centralized
>> generators producing most of our energy, supplying it as electricity for
>> use in electric cars and so on. We would not actually put the palladium in
>> automobiles, and probably not in houses either.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[James Bowery]

Ah, I got double-whammied:

1) It was Beaudette that said "100,000 watts per cm^3" (that string is
outside of the quotation marks meant to designated Preparata's words.

2) Lynn said "gram" rather than "cm^3" so his correction on comma vs period
didn't register with me.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Perhaps Beaudette corrected that in his 2002 edition.  I was reading from
the 2000 edition.

In any event, the high *reproducibility* of Preparata's work has not yet
been equaled has it?

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
> ([1E9 * ounce_troy] * [{12.02 * gramm} / {(centi*meter)^3}]^-1) * ([100 *
>> {kilo watt}] / [{centi*meter}^3]) ? watt
>>
>> = 2.5876415E14 W
>>
>> over 200 terawatts.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, I think Preparata meant "100" not 100,000. The comma is a
> decimal point. I do not understand why he added 3 digits of precision to a
> rough approximation. Anyway, that comes to 0.2 TW, which is about 1/100 of
> world energy production. Fleischmann once estimated that Pd can supply
> about 1/3 of total energy. I confirmed it is in that ballpark, ~30% to ~50%.
>
> Here is my estimation.
>
> I assume that power density and temperature with palladium can be
> increased to the limits of the material. That is to say up to the highest
> temperatures in which  thin-film palladium can survive. Or nanoparticles in
> aerogel, or what-have-you. The limiting factor is how thinly you can spread
> the palladium and have it remain on the substrate and in contact with the
> medium, which will probably be D2 gas.
>
> About half of palladium nowadays is used in catalytic converters. Hot gas
> from internal combustion engines flows over the palladium surface and is
> catalyzed. I assume this technology is pushed to the limit. They use the
> smallest amount palladium they can, spreading it as thinly as they can with
> maximum exposure to the moving gas. A palladium based cold fusion cell
> would have palladium spread roughly as thin as this, producing temperatures
> roughly as high as this. If they could make in any thinner, they would.
> This technology has been around for a while and it is probably mature.
>
> Nearly all of the energy from an automobile is wasted as hot gas. In other
> words, the hot gas that passes over the palladium surface is roughly equal
> to the total amount of energy produced by gasoline in the transportation
> sector. To put it another way, if the heat was being produced by the
> palladium inside the catalytic converter, instead of coming from the engine
> to the converter, you would get nearly as much energy as you get from
> gasoline now.
>
> To simplify a great deal, assuming that cold fusion can achieve the same
> temperatures as palladium experiences in a catalytic converter, half of our
> palladium could produce roughly as much energy as the entire automotive
> transportation sector does now: 27 out of 99 quads. All of our palladium
> could therefore produce roughly 50 out of 99 quads.
>
> Actually the number is higher for various reasons:
>
> * The palladium is not used up as quickly in a cold fusion device as it is
> in a catalytic converter.
>
> * The palladium is more easily and completely recovered from a used cold
> fusion cell, assuming it is not transmuted.
>
> * Palladium production will be increased as demand increases.
>
> This is a crude estimate but I believe it does show that there is not
> enough palladium to produce all the energy we need. If it turns out
> palladium is the only suitable metal, we would have large centralized
> generators producing most of our energy, supplying it as electricity for
> use in electric cars and so on. We would not actually put the palladium in
> automobiles, and probably not in houses either.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Peter Gluck]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
> ([1E9 * ounce_troy] * [{12.02 * gramm} / {(centi*meter)^3}]^-1) * ([100 *
>> {kilo watt}] / [{centi*meter}^3]) ? watt
>>
>> = 2.5876415E14 W
>>
>> over 200 terawatts.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, I think Preparata meant "100" not 100,000. The comma is a
> decimal point. I do not understand why he added 3 digits of precision to a
> rough approximation. Anyway, that comes to 0.2 TW, which is about 1/100 of
> world energy production. Fleischmann once estimated that Pd can supply
> about 1/3 of total energy. I confirmed it is in that ballpark, ~30% to ~50%.
>
> Here is my estimation.
>
> I assume that power density and temperature with palladium can be
> increased to the limits of the material. That is to say up to the highest
> temperatures in which  thin-film palladium can survive. Or nanoparticles in
> aerogel, or what-have-you. The limiting factor is how thinly you can spread
> the palladium and have it remain on the substrate and in contact with the
> medium, which will probably be D2 gas.
>
> About half of palladium nowadays is used in catalytic converters. Hot gas
> from internal combustion engines flows over the palladium surface and is
> catalyzed. I assume this technology is pushed to the limit. They use the
> smallest amount palladium they can, spreading it as thinly as they can with
> maximum exposure to the moving gas. A palladium based cold fusion cell
> would have palladium spread roughly as thin as this, producing temperatures
> roughly as high as this. If they could make in any thinner, they would.
> This technology has been around for a while and it is probably mature.
>
> Nearly all of the energy from an automobile is wasted as hot gas. In other
> words, the hot gas that passes over the palladium surface is roughly equal
> to the total amount of energy produced by gasoline in the transportation
> sector. To put it another way, if the heat was being produced by the
> palladium inside the catalytic converter, instead of coming from the engine
> to the converter, you would get nearly as much energy as you get from
> gasoline now.
>
> To simplify a great deal, assuming that cold fusion can achieve the same
> temperatures as palladium experiences in a catalytic converter, half of our
> palladium could produce roughly as much energy as the entire automotive
> transportation sector does now: 27 out of 99 quads. All of our palladium
> could therefore produce roughly 50 out of 99 quads.
>
> Actually the number is higher for various reasons:
>
> * The palladium is not used up as quickly in a cold fusion device as it is
> in a catalytic converter.
>
> * The palladium is more easily and completely recovered from a used cold
> fusion cell, assuming it is not transmuted.
>
> * Palladium production will be increased as demand increases.
>
> This is a crude estimate but I believe it does show that there is not
> enough palladium to produce all the energy we need. If it turns out
> palladium is the only suitable metal, we would have large centralized
> generators producing most of our energy, supplying it as electricity for
> use in electric cars and so on. We would not actually put the palladium in
> automobiles, and probably not in houses either.
>
> - Jed
>
> Calculating very "generously"- how many tons of palladium could be used in
Cold Fusion generators worldwide?

Again, what could be, realistically the W/g power obtained by1 g of Pd?

And what could be the lifetime of Pd in such a source?

I repeat it was a historical misfortune  of LENR to be discovered in
palladium, and please add to this
that an electrolysis cell is not good to be used aas a heat generator.

Peter


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

This is a crude estimate but I believe it does show that there is not
> enough palladium to produce all the energy we need. If it turns out
> palladium is the only suitable metal, we would have large centralized
> generators producing most of our energy, supplying it as electricity for
> use in electric cars and so on. We would not actually put the palladium in
> automobiles, and probably not in houses either.
>

I forgot to mention the key factor. Automobiles sit unused most of the day.
If you had palladium in automobile engines, it would sit not producing
energy 23 out of 24 hours. If you put the palladium in large central
generators then it is active during the day, and perhaps 25% of it is used
at night during off-peak hours.

With that scheme we might have enough palladium to produce all of the
energy we need but it would be in the form of electricity delivered from
central generators. We would not have enough palladium to put into
standalone machines that are seldom used.

We might end up putting it in locomotives, long-haul trucks and other heavy
equipment that is used many hours a day, and that cannot be conveniently
powered by electricity.

If you convert every automobile to cold fusion, and then turn on every
automobile in the world, they would probably produce as much energy as we
now use. But we cannot use it conveniently. There are schemes to attach
automobiles to generating networks but I do not think that is a practical
idea.

With nickel, on the other hand, we could afford to put the metal and
hydrogen into every machine on earth, including machines that are used only
a few minutes per year, or machines that we never expect to use, such as
emergency lighting systems.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

([1E9 * ounce_troy] * [{12.02 * gramm} / {(centi*meter)^3}]^-1) * ([100 *
> {kilo watt}] / [{centi*meter}^3]) ? watt
>
> = 2.5876415E14 W
>
> over 200 terawatts.
>

Unfortunately, I think Preparata meant "100" not 100,000. The comma is a
decimal point. I do not understand why he added 3 digits of precision to a
rough approximation. Anyway, that comes to 0.2 TW, which is about 1/100 of
world energy production. Fleischmann once estimated that Pd can supply
about 1/3 of total energy. I confirmed it is in that ballpark, ~30% to ~50%.

Here is my estimation.

I assume that power density and temperature with palladium can be increased
to the limits of the material. That is to say up to the highest
temperatures in which  thin-film palladium can survive. Or nanoparticles in
aerogel, or what-have-you. The limiting factor is how thinly you can spread
the palladium and have it remain on the substrate and in contact with the
medium, which will probably be D2 gas.

About half of palladium nowadays is used in catalytic converters. Hot gas
from internal combustion engines flows over the palladium surface and is
catalyzed. I assume this technology is pushed to the limit. They use the
smallest amount palladium they can, spreading it as thinly as they can with
maximum exposure to the moving gas. A palladium based cold fusion cell
would have palladium spread roughly as thin as this, producing temperatures
roughly as high as this. If they could make in any thinner, they would.
This technology has been around for a while and it is probably mature.

Nearly all of the energy from an automobile is wasted as hot gas. In other
words, the hot gas that passes over the palladium surface is roughly equal
to the total amount of energy produced by gasoline in the transportation
sector. To put it another way, if the heat was being produced by the
palladium inside the catalytic converter, instead of coming from the engine
to the converter, you would get nearly as much energy as you get from
gasoline now.

To simplify a great deal, assuming that cold fusion can achieve the same
temperatures as palladium experiences in a catalytic converter, half of our
palladium could produce roughly as much energy as the entire automotive
transportation sector does now: 27 out of 99 quads. All of our palladium
could therefore produce roughly 50 out of 99 quads.

Actually the number is higher for various reasons:

* The palladium is not used up as quickly in a cold fusion device as it is
in a catalytic converter.

* The palladium is more easily and completely recovered from a used cold
fusion cell, assuming it is not transmuted.

* Palladium production will be increased as demand increases.

This is a crude estimate but I believe it does show that there is not
enough palladium to produce all the energy we need. If it turns out
palladium is the only suitable metal, we would have large centralized
generators producing most of our energy, supplying it as electricity for
use in electric cars and so on. We would not actually put the palladium in
automobiles, and probably not in houses either.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[James Bowery]

World Pd reserves are about 1 billion troy
ounces.
 Pd density is 12.02gm/cm^3.  If it were all dedicated to power production
at 100,000W/cm^3 the Pd cold fusion nameplate capacity would be:

([1E9 * ounce_troy] * [{12.02 * gramm} / {(centi*meter)^3}]^-1) * ([100 *
{kilo watt}] / [{centi*meter}^3]) ? watt

= 2.5876415E14 W

over 200 terawatts.

World energy demand for all sources of energy is now at:

474e18J/year?W

(4.74E20 * joule) / year ? watt

= 1.5030441E13 W

under 20 terawatts.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Robert Lynn  wrote:

> 100 watts per gram ("," = "." outside of old British Empire) would be
> about the same as the 100kW/kg that Rossi is claiming.
>
> It is a great pity that these great results from Focardi, Preparata et al
> 15 years ago were not followed up on by others back then - can only have
> been because other researchers either didn't hear about it, or didn't think
> it was credible.
>
>
> On 12 January 2012 15:09, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Ever since talk began about increasing cathodic charge carriers emerging
>> with temperature at high loadings I've been trying to recall the name of
>> the early researcher who attached an anode directly to his cathode as well
>> as having an anode in the electrolyte, and I finally found the cite in
>> "Excess Heat" by Charles Beaudette:
>>
>> ICCF-6 "Progress In New Hydrogen Energy", p. 136
>>
>> The researcher was Preparata.
>>
>> Moreover, Beaudette makes some astounding statements about Preparata's
>> work:
>>
>> "*The same [result] was observed in the about fifty similar experiments
>> that we have conducted."  That result produced a power density of 100,000
>> watts per cm^3...*"
>>
>>
>> All I can say is "WTF?"
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Preparata's Intra-Cathode Current?

[Robert Lynn]

100 watts per gram ("," = "." outside of old British Empire) would be about
the same as the 100kW/kg that Rossi is claiming.

It is a great pity that these great results from Focardi, Preparata et al
15 years ago were not followed up on by others back then - can only have
been because other researchers either didn't hear about it, or didn't think
it was credible.

On 12 January 2012 15:09, James Bowery  wrote:

> Ever since talk began about increasing cathodic charge carriers emerging
> with temperature at high loadings I've been trying to recall the name of
> the early researcher who attached an anode directly to his cathode as well
> as having an anode in the electrolyte, and I finally found the cite in
> "Excess Heat" by Charles Beaudette:
>
> ICCF-6 "Progress In New Hydrogen Energy", p. 136
>
> The researcher was Preparata.
>
> Moreover, Beaudette makes some astounding statements about Preparata's
> work:
>
> "*The same [result] was observed in the about fifty similar experiments
> that we have conducted."  That result produced a power density of 100,000
> watts per cm^3...*"
>
>
> All I can say is "WTF?"
>