Another indication of the use of 'selective oxidation' in Constantan
by Celani can be found on slide 12 of an earlier presentation on his
use of ISOTAN 44 in his demo setup:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBeXJCNXNUdEJVME0/edit?pli=1
This points again to the method describe in the
[mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron
Experiment
Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If
everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr
that there is
another energy source (chemical or other).
--
*From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron
Experiment
Very interesting, indeed. How much
I read some discussions on reversing polarity doing electrolysis with
contantan coins.
This is actually an interesting topic.
Using alloys in oxidizing mode (coin = anode = +), whole surface of
the coin will oxidize.
Reversing polarity (coin = cathode = -) will have an interesting
effect on the
I think I'll try both ways (AC and DC) to compare.
I've been thinking about other materials too (such as tungsten/nickel wool
or foam).
See here:
http://www.americanelements.com/tungsten-nickel-wool.html
Here is some interesting info from the site on metal foam.
*A metallic foam or ceramic
“Wouldn't a closed-cell nickel foam with hydrogen in the closed cells be
intriguing?”
I would suggest using a copper nickel foam to start out with.
http://www.americanelements.com/nicufoam.html
Then remove the copper from the foam
with an acid bath to increase the porosity of the foam in the
...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron
Experiment
Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If
everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr =
~40
btu/hr
Hi All,
I've been lurking and reading about Chuck's nickel/boron electrolysis
experiments, and decided to try to do a replication. I had purchased some
thin thoriated tungsten welding electrodes recently to see if I could
replicate some of the effects seen with the Athanor reactor and thought
Thanks for doing this!
- Jed
Thanks Jed, glad to do it.
Small update:
7 am Temp 55F Start
9 am Temp 110F
10 am Temp 129F
11:20 am Temp 146F
Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am.
I'll keep running until the temp levels off. At that point, I'll work on
setting up a control cell. The water has turned
Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were
100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3
hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of
water 120 F.
Best regards, kend
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were
100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3
hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1
that there is another
energy source (chemical or other).
--
*From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Very interesting, indeed
.
If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another
energy source (chemical or other).
--
*From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites
DC electrolysis is inefficient at raising the temperature of an electrolyte
for two obvious reasons. Water-splitting itself uses up much of the current,
and when the split gases are not recombined, then that energy is completely
lost; plus the split gases, apart from the energy used to split them
Sadly more than an hour into a controlled experiment, pennies are outdoing
the nickel (100.7F vs. 92.1F). So for now, this looks to be a failure to
replicate on two fronts (copper not resulting in heating and superiority of
nickel). I'll report again if I find something different.
On Mon, Oct
use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another
energy source (chemical or other).
--
*From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel
deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If
everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr
.
If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another
energy source (chemical or other).
--
*From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites
source (chemical or other).
--
*From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron
Experiment
Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you
or other).
--
*From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If
everything
21 matches
Mail list logo
