Re: [Vo]:Monday Update to Release Information on Self Sustain Mode
Dear Jones, While trying to do some catching up in my huge Vortex backlog, I noticed you were kind enough to mention my sphincter effect. Thanks for making it remain forever in the annals. Michel 2011/1/23 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: ... Well, it’s almost humorous - but one of the ways to accelerate protons inside a nanopowder would be using near-fields of the containment - and something like, dare I say it: Michel’s “sphincter effect” http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22625.html
Re: [Vo]:Semi-off-topic: Economic cognitive dissonance
Hoyt, I see no explanation for cars costing less than freight, but regarding the multifunction printer, what they make money on is replacement ink cartridges. Razor and blade business model. Michel 2010/10/3, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt.stea...@gmail.com: Summary: I should be able to buy a reasonably luxurious automobile from China for only the Chinese cost of raw materials, I'd guess $2000.00. It seems the Chinese want to give away their manufactured goods for less than the cost of shipping alone! This is quite astounding to me. Hey, if they want to give away stuff, I'm happy to receive it. I was able to build up a fairly well equipped machine shop to build my second helicopter for very little money. There's no way I could have afforded all these tools and materials before Harbor Freight Tools opened their stores. As I have previously posted, my color laser printer failed which cost ~$500 a few years ago and I dismantled it. If the military had ordered one of these, it would have cost millions. I replaced it with an HP color laser printer which cost $250.00, and it's better and more complicated. Then my 17 year old thermal fax machine failed. I found a new Brother color fax machine for $60.00 ! It includes a scanner, printer, copier also! In '70's dollars, the price would have been about $10.00 since the dollar is so lowly valued these days. If this trend keeps up, I should be able to buy a personal superconducting supercollider for a few thousand dollars soon. Something just doesn't compute about all this Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US http://HoytStearns.com
Re: [Vo]:Interactions of charged particles on surfaces
Dear all, In my understanding, even though I haven't seen it expressed this way elsewhere, dielectric breakdown is what happens to the so-called Helmholtz double layer capacitor's insulator (the water monolayer separating the cathode's surface electron layer from the first layer of electrolyte dissolved positive charged deuterons attracted to the cathode) when deuterons reach the palladium surface in PF experiments, whether to get adsorbed, absorbed, or simply discharged and then evolved. That water monolayer is an excellent insulator BTW: it requires a voltage of ~1V between the electrolyte and the cathode to break down, which considering its extremely low thickness (~1 angstrom), corresponds to a huge breakdown field of ~10 million V/mm, to be compared e.g. with that of air, which is only ~3 thousand V/mm. I haven't read the paper, but I have long believed, and expressed here on Vortex and also on CMNS, that a good QM understanding of the interactions of charged particles on surfaces is the key to understanding LENRs, and that the phenomenon known as image charge, a collective effect of the surface-crawling excess electrons which makes an incident D+ perceive an attractive negative mirror image of itself on the other side of the cathode, is a key part of the process. Some here may remember my own hypothesis for the process (DIESECF, Desorbing vs Incident Excess Surface Electrons Catalyzed Fusion), expressed here a few years ago, which was the first suggestion ever AFAIK that head-on positive deuteron flows meeting at the negatively charged cathode surface had to be what interacted nuclearly in PF experiments. It still seems pretty obvious to me that this must be the case, as two low energy (a few eVs at most) deuterons on the same side of the cathode surface, _whether inside or outside_, have only an infinitesimal chance to meet due to their almost unimpeded mutual repulsion as is well known. Irrespective of my hypothesis being correct or not, let's indeed all focus on the surface, as discussed recently there is no proof whatsoever that LENRs occur elsewhere in a PF cold fusion cell. Let's be superficial ! ;-) Michel 2010/7/4 mix...@bigpond.com: Dear Professor, Having just read your paper, I am left wondering what the likelihood is of dielectric breakdown where the density of charged particles attains a maximum? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:electron slit diffraction
Youtube - Single electron double slit wave experiment (1mn video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ-0PBRuthc http://www.hitachi.com/rd/research/em/doubleslit.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#When_observed_emission_by_emission http://l-esperimento-piu-bello-della-fisica.bo.imm.cnr.it/Resources/Rosa-PhilSci_Archive-Jan2008.pdf The latter article features a fairly complete bibliography for those experiments. The Hitachi experiment seems the most well-known. Tonomura, A., Endo, J., Matsuda, T., Kawasaki, T., and Ezawa, H. [1989]: `Demonstration of Single-Electron Buildup of an Interference Pattern', American Journal of Physics, 57, pp. 117–120. Michel 2010/6/24 Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com: Hey all, a friend on a more bio based list is asking about electron slit diffraction experiments. Anyone have links or sources on some good ones to pass on, in particular where the experimenter did their math completely?
Re: [Vo]:The Secret of Cold Fusion
2010/5/16 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Curiously, they call this phone Nexus and despite Nexis having been around a lot longer – google got their version into my spell-checker somehow. Either that, or your spell-checker knows more words than you do ;-) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nexus Main Entry: nex·us Pronunciation: \ˈnek-səs\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural nex·us·es \-sə-səz\ or nex·us \-səs, -ˌsüs\ Etymology: Latin, from nectere to bind Date: 1663 1 : connection, link; also : a causal link 2 : a connected group or series 3 : center, focus Michel
[Vo]:Electrochemical compression and craters (was Re: Shanahan...)
2010/5/10 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Michel, Can you cite the reference for this kind of bursting tube, due to internal pressurization, having being actually performed? Some electrolytic compressor literature: 1/ Arata - Method of producing ultrahigh pressure gas (US pat. 5647970, 1997, based on a JP patent filed in 1994): http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5647970.html FIG. 2 shows the pressure PH2 in atm produced in a metallic container made of palladium and having a 2 cm outer diameter x 5 cm and a 1.5 cm inner diameter x 4 cm when an electrolytic current of 10 A is passed. As shown, at 100 hours, a pressure of about 200 atm was produced. In 500 hours, an ultrahigh pressure of about 1000 atm will be produced. 2 - Celani et al ELECTROCHEMICAL COMPRESSION OF HYDROGEN INSIDE A PD-AG THIN WALL TUBE, BY ALCOHOL-WATER ELECTROLYTE (JCF7 invited paper, Apr 2006): http://www.lnf.infn.it/sis/preprint/detail.php?id=4994 We reached a maximum value of pressure inside the hollow cathode of about 8.5atm (absolute 9.5). The maximum value of 8.5atm was imposed by the mechanical strength limit of the 50μm wall of the tube. Talking about this bursting hollow cathode phenomenon, it just occurred to me that it may well be responsible for the microscopic post-electrolysis craters which have been observed: in the course of long electrolysis runs hydrogen pressure builds up in sub surface voids until their thinnest wall bursts inescapably. Craters may thus not be evidence for LENRs occurring some distance below the surface, contrary to what Horace suggested in a recent post (CC-ing him). Michel
Re: [Vo]:Shanahan is proposing the cigarette lighter hypothesis
No Abd, Shanahan may be wrong on many points but the equivalent to many atmospheres of hydrogen gas pressure exposure assertion is correct, it is even a gross understatement, in the PF original paper they computed something like 10^26 atm IIRC. That's electrolytic compression: if you use a hollow Pd cathode, the pressure inside will rise to tens of thousands of atmospheres, until the palladium envelope bursts. It has been done. Michel 2010/5/8 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: The kicker is this equivalent to many atmospheres of hydrogen gas pressure exposure. No, the D2 pressure at the cathode is roughly one atmosphere through the whole experiment.
Re: [Vo]:Berkeley Scientists discover inexpensive metal catalyst for generating hydrogen from water news
If I understand correctly, the role of such a catalyst is to reduce activation energy, thus bringing the reaction's energy consumption closer to its theoretical minimum, see e.g. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocatalyst An electrocatalyst is a catalyst that participates in electrochemical reaction. Catalyst materials modify and increase the rate of chemical reactions without being consumed in the process. Electrocatalysts are a specific form of catalysts that function at electrode surfaces or may be the electrode surface itself. ... One of the greatest drawbacks to galvanic cells like fuel cells and various forms of electrolytic cells is that they can suffer from high activation barriers. The energy diverted to overcome these activation barriers is transformed into heat. In most exothermic combustion reactions this heat would simply propagate the reaction catalytically. In a redox reaction, this heat is a useless byproduct lost to the system. The extra energy required to overcome kinetic barriers is usually described in terms of low faradayic efficiency and high overpotentials. ... Like other catalysts, an electrocatalyst lowers the activation energy for a reaction without altering the reaction equilibrium. Electrocatalysts go a step further then other catalysts by lowering the excess energy consumed by a redox reaction's activation barriers. Michel 2010/5/6 mix...@bigpond.com: ... BTW the most important part of the article is the phrase: to further facilitate electrical charge-driven as well as light-driven catalytic processes. IOW the Hydrogen is obtained either through electrolysis or via the action of sunlight directly, which means that the energy still has to come from somewhere. However a further interesting point is that Mo is also a Mills catalyst, which may go some way toward explaining why it is so active in this role. Perhaps if they do careful measurements they will discover that they are getting more Hydrogen produced than can be accounted for by the energy input.
Re: [Vo]:Shanahan paper and Krivit's response
2010/5/7 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: I wrote: Wait a minute. Why should I care about two people, who are both wrong . . . Who said I care? . . . Seriously, let us grant that Krivit is right in this instance. Shanahan is smart but he went off the rails a long time ago, with an idée fixe (French, meaning a complete meal of several courses, sometimes with choices permitted, offered by a restaurant at a fixed price). Only in US French then! Michel
Re: [Vo]:McKubre paper re-OCRed with ClearScan
Hi Jed, It looks great indeed! To change D20 in D2O use the standard method to edit ClearScan text, I just tried it and it worked for me: using the touchup text tool select the 0 in D20, right click, select properties, change the special font to a system font e.g. Arial bold, close the dialog box and then type O. You can also change other properties such as the font size, baseline offset etc... I noticed that text searching is very slow in this large pdf, when you're done with your corrections save the file and try this (from the AA9 help file): Add an index to a PDF With the document open in Acrobat, choose Advanced Document Processing Manage Embedded Index. In the Manage Embedded Index dialog box, click Embed Index. Read the messages that appear, and click OK. Michel 2010/5/4 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf ... you cannot find D2O; it thinks all appearances are D20 (D-twenty). You are supposed to be able to correct that but I just spent 2 hours trying every method
Re: [Vo]:McKubre paper re-OCRed with ClearScan
9.0 2010/5/5 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: To change D20 in D2O use the standard method to edit ClearScan text, I just tried it and it worked for me: using the touchup text tool select the 0 in D20, right click, select properties, change the special font to a system font e.g. Arial bold, close the dialog box and then type O. You can also change other properties such as the font size, baseline offset etc... Let me try that. What version of Acrobat are you using? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Clearscan in Adobe Acrobat 9
Jed, it seems the way it performs depends on the original document's characteristics (resolution, fonts, multiplicity of fonts maybe?). In the case of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, volume 3 (quantum mechanics), of which I made a searchable backup of my print version from an image format pdf found on scribd : 1/ The ClearScan'd pdf file size was several times *smaller* than the original image-only pdf found on the web 2/ Haven't tried printing but it does look better on screen, even without zooming in 3/ The OCR quality is much better than what you got with your EPRI document, without any touching up I got, for page 1-1 : 1 Quantum Behavior 1-1 Atomic mechanics Quantum mechanics is the description of the behavior of matter and light in all its details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale. Things on a very small scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about . They do not behave like waves, they do not behave like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights on springs, or like anything that you have ever seen. Newton thought that light was made up of particles, but then it was discovered that it behaves like a wave. Later, however (in the beginning of the twentieth century), it was found that light did indeed sometimes behave like a particle. Historically, the electron, for example, was thought to behave like a particle, and then it was found that in many respects it behaved like a wave. So it really behaves like neither. Now we have given up. We say : It is like neither. There is one lucky break, however-electrons behave just like light. The quantum behavior of atomic objects (electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, and so on) is the same for all, they are all particle waves, or whatever you want to call them. So what we learn about the properties of electrons (which we shall use for our examples) will apply also to all particles, including photons of light. The gradual accumulation of information about atomic and small-scale behavior during the first quarter of this century, which gave some indications about how small things do behave, produced an increasing confusion which was finally resolved in 1 926 and 1 927 by Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and Born. They finally obtained a consistent description of the behavior of matter on a small scale. We take up the main features of that description in this chapter. Because atomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience, it is very difficult to gel used to, and it appears peculiar and mysterious to everyone-both to the novice and to the experienced physicist. Even the experts do not understand it the way they would like to, and it is perfectly reasonable that they should not, because all of direct, human experience and of human intuition applies to large objects. We know how large objects will act, but things on a small scale just do not act that way. So we have to learn about them in a sort of abstract or imaginative fashion and not by connection with our direct experience. In this chapter we shall tackle immediately the basic element of the mysterious behavior in its most strange form . We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. I n reality, it contains the only mystery. We cannot make the mystery go away by explaining how it works. We will just tell you how it works. In telling you how it works we will have told you about the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics. 1-2 An experiment with bullets To try to understand the quantum behavior of electrons, we shall compare and contrast their behavior, in a particular experimental setup, with the more familiar behavior of particles like bullets, and with the behavior of waves like water waves. We consider first the behavior of bullets in the experimental setup shown diagrammatically in Fig. 1 - 1 . We have a machine gun that shoots a stream of bullets. It is not a very good gun, in that it sprays the bullets (randomly) over a fairly large angular spread, as i ndicated i n the figure. I n front of the gun we have 1-1 1-1 Atomic mechanics 1-2 An experiment with bullets 1-3 An experiment with waves 1-4 An experiment with electrons 1-5 The interference of electron waves 1-6 Watching the electrons 1-7 First principles of quantum mechanics 1-8 The uncertainty principle Note : This chapter is almost exactly the same as Chapter 37 of Volume I . I can spot only 4 broken words in the whole page: three i n and one i ndicated, but why it makes such silly errors is beyond me, doen't it use a dictionary? Michel 2010/4/9 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: I got the latest version of Adobe Acrobat 9 and I am testing this clearscan OCR option. It looks great in high resolution but unfortunately it has some problems: 1. It makes the files ~3 times bigger. 2. It does not look any different when printed. 3. The OCR quality
Re: [Vo]:Clearscan in Adobe Acrobat 9
I believe the original images were the same as these (page 18-11 was missing too, I had to rescan it from my print version): http://www.scribd.com/doc/13252808/Feynman-Lectures-on-Physics-Volume-3 FYI, there is an annoying bug in AA9, which occurs on some pages of ClearScan OCRd pdfs when using the text touch up tool, preventing you to do corrections. It's described here, with a work around: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/514567 In short, one must use Acrobat 8 (other programs may work too) to do text touch up on Acrobat 9 produced Clearscan pdfs! Also, I have found that OCR artifacts are produced on some figures, sometimes to the extent that the figure is unreadable. That's very rare (one in several hundred in the Feynman books), but unless one is prepared to check every image in a large file (and then declare the mangled ones as images on the original file before re_OCRing, I believe that's possible in Acrobat) maybe it's safer to stick to the less glamorous but more faithful searchable image format for now. Michel 2010/4/11 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: Jed, it seems the way it performs depends on the original document's characteristics (resolution, fonts, multiplicity of fonts maybe?). Yes. There is remarkable variability between different kinds of documents and different versions of Acrobat. I cannot figure out what all of the controlling parameters are. It also depends a lot on the number and size of the figures, and the amount of noise in the scan (extraneous dots). In the case of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, volume 3 (quantum mechanics), of which I made a searchable backup of my print version from an image format pdf found on scribd : 1/ The ClearScan'd pdf file size was several times *smaller* than the original image-only pdf found on the web What is the URL of that file? I will run it through a variety of different Acrobat programs. If ClearScan reduced the size I expect the original was made a long time ago with an early version of Acrobat. 3/ The OCR quality is much better than what you got with your EPRI document, without any touching up I got, for page 1-1 : That's probably a function of the quality of scan. A good quality scan of cleanly printed text without a skew and without much noise will OCR far better than an old one like the EPRI document. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:why is this object glowing?
2010/4/9 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: ... I.e., radioactive decay. Come to think of that, isn't this LENR? After all, nuclear, and takes place at low temperatures Good point. (I've never seen anyone use LENR to refer to radioactive decay, mostly because something that happens with a single nucleus isn't thought of as a reaction, i.e., something with more than one particle to start, something happens between them, they react or or with each other.) So you don't think of H2O - H2 + 0.5 O2 as a reaction? ;-) No, you're right that LENR isn't restrictive enough. Come to think of it there is probably no better term than Cold Fusion for Cold Fusion. Michel
Inexpensive convincing Cold Fusion generated helium (was Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments...)
Ok, Jed and Abd, you have convinced me that a helium free environment, or a highly helium impermeable cell, would be difficult to get, and more importantly that it would be disputable. Then how about letting a not-so-impermeable (e.g. sealed plastic) closed PF cell, with recombiner inside, run in ambient air for a sufficiently long duration for helium to build up to an indisputable *above ambient* concentration? Jed says this has never been done. A single current source could drive hundreds of identical test cells at a time (in series arrangement) for weeks or even months. Finding helium above ambient in only a single cell among those hundreds would be an indisputable proof of LENRs wouldn't it? Such an experiment, where only helium would be looked for, would be IMHO several orders of magnitude cheaper, faster, and, importantly, *more sensitive* than doing calorimetry and input energy measurement on the same number of cells. And, even more importantly, it could be easily analyzed or even run in a skeptic's lab. Michel 2010/4/2 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 05:02 AM 4/2/2010, Michel Jullian wrote: Re Stephen's argument that it can be argued that He can leak in in spite of positive pressure, we could easily bathe the cell in a He free environment, or simply make the cell He impermeable (metal or metal coated cell casing). Uh, how do you get an He free environment? Mind you, it's done, but this begs the question. If your experiment depends on the environment being helium free, the suspicion of contamination can remain. Contamination can occur anywhere in the system, from contamination of materials (say the palladium contains dissolved helium, which it will ordinarily) to contamination of any of the equipment. Indeed, with care, plenty of experiments have shown helium, but the way we really know that a particular experiment was accurate with respect to helium is by comparing the helium production with another sign of the reaction having taken place, and the major marker, by far, is excess heat. And the quantitative relationship simultaneously starts to tell us something more about the nature of the reaction. Remember, the original sign that something was happening was excess heat, but it was mysteriously missing the expected markers of fusion. Helium is, by expectation, a truly minor marker. That helium is appearing in amounts roughly commensurate with the expected value for d-d fusion is a huge clue to what's going on, that the fuel is deuterium and the ash is helium. Not exclusively, necessarily, but, at least, in bulk. Remember, as well, what Huizenga wrote about this, when he commented, in his later edition, on Miles' work. He recognized the importance, but rejected the report because it was unconfirmed, and the blinders of his d-d fusion knee-jerk theory kept before him all the reasons why d-d fusion was impossible. He knew that if helium was confirmed, he'd have a breakfast before which he'd need to accept that *some kind* of deuterium fusion was probably taking place; if not that, then some other nuclear process. Miles' work confirms helium production in a way that can't be matched by mere findings of small amounts of helium. Sure, in a sane world, the helium reports could be enough. But if you are getting helium, you are getting nuclear reactions, and the obvious question will be what were your controls? The controls in Miles' work are all the experimental cells that were otherwise identical but that did not generate excess heat. This turns a lemon (unreliable cold fusion cells) into lemonade! There are quite a few early experiments that looked for heat and helium, and found neither. This all become extended control experiments! Re Abd's argument that no sizable amount of He can be produced, it seems to me that since a _measurable_ concentration has been found in spite of high dilution in the gaseous output of open cells, then a fortiori we should be able to accumulate a _sizable_ concentration in the head space of a closed cell. Plus, it is easier to measure excess heat accurately in a closed cell, for those who insist that heat should be measured too. Michel, this work is extremely difficult to do. It's been done, but because of the difficulty, there are only a few reports. It's not necessary, in fact. Long-running cells with accurate calorimetry, and, more importantly, with measures taken for full recovery of the helium, will be important. The highest-output methods also tend to be unreliable, so one must run many cells to get some that generate large amounts of excess heat. But we can know quite a lot from statistical analysis of low-output cells (now defined as cells that produce less than ambient helium concentrations). I'm not, in fact, convinced that high-accuracy investigation of the heat/helium ratio is a proper priority now. What we need is more investigation of the predictions of theories. Once
Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick
2010/3/31 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: Sent from my iPhone Not a valid excuse ;-) On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't it? A familiarity with the history of the dispute, and even of very recent comments here about this, would reveal how incorrect this is. My comment had nothing to do with the dispute, thanks for your description of it though. I was just stating the obvious: if there is He *production* in a low energy environment, then obviously there are LENRs. ... Helium is difficult to measure. It will diffuse through glass. The levels are very low and in most results, are below ambient. It is very easy to remain skeptical on helium measurements alone. ... But when the helium findings correlate with excess heat, it all changes. The results confirm each other. Too much proof makes people doubt. What we need is an indisputable proof of He production. All right it leaks through glass, so how about a closed cell kept under positive pressure? Surely, after a few days it would accumulate a sizable amount of He, which couldn't possibly come from the atmosphere because of the positive pressure. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick
Friends, I object to the heavy Krivit bashing, it is not called for, even if the evidence for the 24MeV heat/He was solid enough which I don't think it is. And he is free to present his graphs as he pleases in his slides, especially if he directs the reader to a more complete graph elsewhere. In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't it? Michel 2010/3/31 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I don't agree with Rothwell that a truncated graph is never acceptable, but using it to create an exaggerated impression is indeed reprehensible. If you truncate the graph, you should say so: graph is truncated from original. Also, never remove the numbers from the axes. Even if you do not intend to create an exaggerated impression, people like me will assume that is your intention. You have made a naive mistake. So don't do it without a good reason, and state your reason. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno couldn't get to ACS
2010/3/26 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Are there any published works showing nuclear phenomena such as excess heat, correlated with deuterium percentage? I'm starting with 99.9% D2O (atom percent D). What would be the difference I should expect with 98% D2O, which is substantially cheaper? I've seen rumors that ordinary water poisons the reaction. If so, at what level? With solid Pd in the conventional FP configuration, even a little light water poisons the reaction. I think even 1 or 2% but I do not recall. Storms says that with electrolysis the Pd preferentially absorbs the H atoms so the concentration of H in the lattice is soon higher than in the starting liquid. Interesting. If this is true, it must be a purely electrochemical effect, probably related to the lower thermoneutral potential (1.48V for H2O vs 1.54V for D2O) as D is, unintuitively, both more soluble and more diffusive than H in Pd. Michel Heavy water is hygroscopic. (Try saying that word three times in a row!) Meaning it readily absorbs ordinary water from the air. You might say it wants to get back to its natural ratio of 1:6,700 atoms. Anyway, people sometimes leave bottles of heavy water open to the air during experiments, and this ruins them by reducing purity. To prevent this with open-cell experiments, Bockris recommended putting the heavy water reservoir in a plastic IV bag with an IV tube leading down to the cell, with one of those itty-bitty stopcocks at the top of the cell. You exclude air the whole way. You dump and throw away the first small amount of little heavy water that comes through the empty tube. Bockris also thought that CO2 poisons the reaction. Or any kind of carbon. Storms also used an IV bag in some tritium studies, I assume for the same reason: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudyofel.pdf Those bags are clean and airtight and made to high standards, since air or contamination might harm the patient. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
2010/3/27 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 07:39 AM 3/26/2010, Michel Jullian wrote: No wonder, the cold fusion experimenters say my cell makes excess heat but they won't let skeptics see it with their own calorimeter. I intend to fix that, you know. Good. Obviously, common sense starts at IQ 159 in CF researchers ;-) Except the first cells won't be calorimeter-ready, they might not generate anough heat, that would take a different, and more expensive design, I suspect.I'm just looking for neutrons. I know, boring. Who can solve the energy crisis with a few neutrons? Part of the point about CF is that it doesn't generate neutrons. Well, usually not. Usually not, or usually not many? Isn't it the exceptions to the rule that are fascinating? If I had a cell that was capable of serious heat generation, I'm not sure I'd turn it over to a skeptic. I'd try to find someone reasonably neutral. (i.e., someone *normally* skeptical but dedicated to fairness and honesty and careful work.) That's what I had in mind, skeptics in the noble sense of the word. Dishonest skeptics will never see the excess heat, not until the field will have entered mainstream. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
No wonder, the cold fusion experimenters say my cell makes excess heat but they won't let skeptics see it with their own calorimeter. Michel 2010/3/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: I should have added -- Nothing like what I have described has happened so far because no one in the energy business realizes that cold fusion exists. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
Hi, Peter-in-the-grave :) Since CF is a surface effect, how about plating just a few microns of Pd onto some cheaper metal? 2010/3/26 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Nice to hear from you, Terry. The trouble is that 0.1 mm is too thin, Pd overheats, melts- losses, problems etc. Can you calculate the surface temperature of the metal at a heat release of 100 Watts per square centimenter? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: A bit of realistic sci-fi.. January 6, 2028- my grandson who was educated in the spirit of new energy, cold fusion is wonderful - has succeeded to work out the perfectly reproducible energy generating method. In the frame of a Pd - D2O system. He is a respected citizen and as it is almost compulsory in the New Moneytheistic society- a billionaire. He calls the Chief Economist of his company: Mark, please buy the reserves of palladium any gram you can we are going to conquer the world of energy, to replace any dirty fossil fuel.. you see itis winter and it is so warm... In two weeks the economist succeeds to buy 150 tonnes of palladium. a real wizard. My grandson's system releases 100 W per 1 sq.cm of palladium, which is in the form of a thin layer of 0.2 millimetres i.e 1 x 0.02 x 12 = 0.24 grams. It is now simple to calculate that if 0.24 g. give a power of 100 W, 200,000,000 g. will give- 8.4 10 exp 10 W or 8.4 10 exp 7 kW. in a more pragmatical language 84 millions of kWatts Or 84,000 MWatts. (US consumes now appr. 270,000 MWatts electricity) Next step- how many kWatts is Mankind consuming. Oh not so much, we are clever and are back at the value of 2008. But this value is a bit greater-than what can CF give He concludes: the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market of energy. He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks!
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
2010/3/26 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: No wonder, the cold fusion experimenters say my cell makes excess heat but they won't let skeptics see it with their own calorimeter. So, you would not believe the Wright brothers unless they let you fly their airplane? A better analogy is that I would not believe them unless I saw them flying it with my own eyes. Actually, for most experiments, this demand makes no sense. Look at the schematics from SRI, China Lake or Energetics Technology. The cell and the calorimeter are the same thing. They are one and the same object. One calorimeter cannot be or replace another, any more than you can take a marble statue out of the statue and put it in another piece of marble. Or than you can take the 7x magnification out of a pair of binoculars and put it into a I-pod to test it out. The calorimetry is a function of how the cell operates. Some of the experiments Ed Storms has run use a small cell placed in a Seebeck calorimeter, where the two are separate objects. That's a more sensible way to do things IMHO. It might be possible to move something like this into the EarthTech MOAC, This would be so nice, I am sure it would make Scott's day to witness excess heat at last! but I still doubt it would work. Why? Michel
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
Why would a micron thin layer evaporate if it's plated on a heat conducting metal ?? 100W/cm2 is not that much really, it's roughly what the tip of my soldering iron dissipates happily, even though it's in air rather than in water. An example of a thin Pd layer that works? I coudn't even give you an example of a thick one that works with certainty! Michel 2010/3/26 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Thank you for calling CF a surface effect, perhaps we have to add that it is a local effect, only separate point like active sites generate the heat. Unfortunately micron thin layers evaoprate immediately- can you imagine how much is 100W.sq.cm? And can you tell me a single real example of heat excess obtained with such layers in the Pd/D2O system? I have not lied when I was alive, should strat do it now? Should I give non-usable examples, advices to my grandson??? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Peter-in-the-grave :) Since CF is a surface effect, how about plating just a few microns of Pd onto some cheaper metal? 2010/3/26 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Nice to hear from you, Terry. The trouble is that 0.1 mm is too thin, Pd overheats, melts- losses, problems etc. Can you calculate the surface temperature of the metal at a heat release of 100 Watts per square centimenter? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: A bit of realistic sci-fi.. January 6, 2028- my grandson who was educated in the spirit of new energy, cold fusion is wonderful - has succeeded to work out the perfectly reproducible energy generating method. In the frame of a Pd - D2O system. He is a respected citizen and as it is almost compulsory in the New Moneytheistic society- a billionaire. He calls the Chief Economist of his company: Mark, please buy the reserves of palladium any gram you can we are going to conquer the world of energy, to replace any dirty fossil fuel.. you see itis winter and it is so warm... In two weeks the economist succeeds to buy 150 tonnes of palladium. a real wizard. My grandson's system releases 100 W per 1 sq.cm of palladium, which is in the form of a thin layer of 0.2 millimetres i.e 1 x 0.02 x 12 = 0.24 grams. It is now simple to calculate that if 0.24 g. give a power of 100 W, 200,000,000 g. will give- 8.4 10 exp 10 W or 8.4 10 exp 7 kW. in a more pragmatical language 84 millions of kWatts Or 84,000 MWatts. (US consumes now appr. 270,000 MWatts electricity) Next step- how many kWatts is Mankind consuming. Oh not so much, we are clever and are back at the value of 2008. But this value is a bit greater-than what can CF give He concludes: the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market of energy. He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks!
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
2010/3/26 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: So, you would not believe the Wright brothers unless they let you fly their airplane? A better analogy is that I would not believe them unless I saw them flying it with my own eyes. If that is what you want, you should be satisfied with Rob Duncan going out to see the calorimeter at Energetics Technology. He is an expert, much better at determining whether it is working than you or I would be. Eyes stand for calorimeter (or more exactly energy balance measurement system) in my analogy . Duncan didn't bring in his own measurement system so he didn't see the excess heat for himself. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
I am just stating a fact, not judging the validity of anybody's claims.There would be no airplanes today if the Wright brothers hadn't allowed skeptics to judge their claims with their own instruments (=own eyes in their case). Luckily, they were not that stupid. Michel 2010/3/26 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: Duncan didn't bring in his own measurement system so he didn't see the excess heat for himself. Oh give me a break. That's ridiculous. The technique was replicated as SRI and ENEA. CBS sent one of the world top experts in calorimetry to confirm it. What more do you want? Do you seriously think that Scott Little with his MOAC would provide better confirmation than this? Are you suggesting that Duncan can't recognize when an instrument is malfunctioning? Or that they might have fooled him with fake instruments? That is like suggesting that you could fool me into thinking someone is speaking Japanese when they are speaking gibberish. I can tell. It is my second language. Rob Duncan speaks calorimetry the way Edward Seidensticker spoke Japanese. You come up with such improbable reasons to disbelieve these results! You are grasping at straws, the way Dieter Britz does. One day you imagine that Rossi has somehow crammed $60 million of plutonium into his cell, and the next you tell us that the world's top expert in calorimetry may be so incompetent he doesn't know amps from volts. How else can someone mistake 0.8 W for 20 W? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
I'll remind, just in case it isn't clear for everybody, that for every two Ds which will have disappeared and every He which will have appeared, 24 MeV of energy will have been released in any case, _whatever the intermediary or concurrent reactions if any_. The energy released by a nuclear reaction is path-independent and depends only on the reactants and products, just like in a chemical reaction. Michel 2010/3/25 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: From Abd: ... With all those caveats, and wondering why you'd ask *me*, since I'd really ask someone else, like Dr. Storms, if I cared all that much about it, ... My previous comments were not exclusively addressed to you alone. I opened my query up to comments coming from anyone who wishes to add their two cents. ... my *impression* is that the energy not from deuterium to helium is not more than maybe 20%, and could be much less. And may vary quite a bit with exact experimental conditions. Thanks for your impression. Again, this is just speculation that I am asking for. At the stage of the game who really knows what the actual ratios might be. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
2010/3/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: If I was the inventor, I would take my cold fusion cell, *as a black box to preserve my secrets*, to whatever authority accepts to test it I do not think there is any chance that would work. I have never seen a cold fusion experiment that did require disassembling the cell. As McKubre put it, a wire always breaks. I guess you meant didn't. So what, I would take the cell to my hotel room nearby, disassemble it, fix the wire or whatever has broken, and come back. Or I would have a replacement cell handy if I was lucky enough to have two working cells. Also, why would you want to preserve secrets? Just file for a patent and you are covered. I might have secrets to preserve, e.g. before I file a patent. My point is that one can have one's CF cell's excess heat certified without revealing any secrets. So why hasn't this be done in 21 years? Am I the only one to think that failure to do so, i.e. failure to make reality of cold fusion indisputable, seriously harms the researcher himself, the field at large, and mankind at large? Michel
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
Dear peter, I did get your original posting, about 11 hours ago. I had similar problems of not getting my own posts, which were solved by adding myself to my gmail contacts. I agree with you that Jed's assertion that we know enough on what makes a CF cell work to enable independent replication is hogwash. Michel 2010/3/24 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: I have sent this once but it seems it has not arrived= communication problems? Dear Cousin Jed, You are right in principle, we have many elements of know what and know how re the cells. We know the critical parameters but we cannot always achieve them. We definitely have noknow why because we do not have first class theories that predict, we also do not have second class theories that prohibit only third class that explain, and don't explain clearly. Do you have a favorite theory? And we are unable to explain miraculous results as Mizuno's unquenchable cathode or Energetics' cathode no 64- such events are unique and cannot be understood yet. And only these are good for a technology, not those asking for sensitive calorimeters. . And we do not have examples of solid reproductbility. We perhaps know, but we can not as much as we know. My guess is that this situation si due to the poisoning- in an uncontrolable way of the active sites (Ed Storm' NAE) with S, C, N trace compounds from air- the same that are causing climate change. In order to try to get coontrollable LENR these poisons have to be removed from the system. Nobody believes me, and I have no lab to try myself.. Perhaps we know what makes the cells work, but it is equally important to know what makes the cells to NOT work. Unfortunately the cells know this too Peter On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: It is less independent than using a fresh cathode and your own cell. Which, since you don't really know what makes the original cell work, is even harder than moving the original cell. We know what makes the cells work. With bulk Pd the control parameters are well known: high loading, stimulation and so on. They are difficult to achieve, but we know what they are. If you mean that we need to know what makes the cell work on theoretical basis, that's just plain incorrect. Look carefully and ask enough questions and you we will find that people do not know the theoretical basis for anything, not even the formation of ice from liquid water. Anyway, I said independent measurement, not independent replication. It is almost as difficult to do an independent measurement as a replication, unless you are visiting the lab and using the experimenter's own equipment. I am sure it would convince many on the contrary. What would you think of someone telling you he can fly to the moon by flapping his arms, to use your analogy, and never letting anyone watch for 20 years? That's silly. Energetic Technology welcomed Rob Duncan. McKubre has had hundreds of visitors, such as Richard Garwin. Garwin wrote a report saying he found no error. What more do you want? Heck, even I've been to plenty of labs. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick
Fits with your 159 IQ. Back on topic, I understand why you are mad at Steve krivit for pushing his POV that the heat/helium = 24 MeV/He is bogus, that's because that correlation is what made you believe CF might well be real. You don't want to doubt again. Michel 2010/3/24 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 11:56 AM 3/24/2010, Horace Heffner wrote: On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Well, I was ten in 1954, and I think I read the book before I was in high school, and it made a strong impression on me. If you were ten in 1954 you must have been 17 and 18 when you attended the two year Feynman lecture series for freshmen and sophomores at CIT? Lucky guess! I had skipped a grade and a half back in elementary school (they wanted me to skip more, but my father declined it, though it would not be socially beneficial), so I graduated high school in 1961, just having turned 17. So I was 17 the first year and 18 the next, just as you wrote. I'm impressed, somebody is paying attention.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup is made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it (heating resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be sure there isn't a mundane source of heat such as a some radioisotope hidden in the cell itself, unless Rossi lets them take it apart which is unlikely. You need not worry about that sort of thing. I have been in contact with both parties, and they have already taken apart the cells. Which parties? These people are not fools, and Rossi is clearly not trying to scam anyone. If he was, would it be so obvious? Also, as cousin Peter points out, you would need ~7 kg of plutonium-238 to do this without killing the observers, and I do not think Uncle Sam would lend it to you. 6 or 7 kg would be the weight of a complete 1kW device, and the US is not the only source of radioisotopes. But anyway as I said it's easy to discriminate between a constant heat source and one that can be turned off. It can be turned off, right? As I said about Mills, the only thing that is absolutely foolproof is a fully independent replication. Yes. The next best thing is an independent measurement of the excess heat, which can't be very difficult to do at this magnitude, just drop the cylinder in a bucket of water and use a thermometer like you did with the Paterson cell. But an independent evaluation is pretty darn good, and better than what we have now. Rossi knows that. You may get a bad impression of Rossi because of the patent and paper. I certainly did. Ed Storms said -- with considerable justification -- that the paper proves nothing. Okay, so please suspend judgement and wait for a paper from people who write in English better than he does. If it never appears, draw your own conclusions. I agree with your cousin Peter that it can't be a problem of bad English. Where exactly do you think there might be a translation error in the paper (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf ), in 1-1.5 hours, or in 165 kWh ? (line 2 of table 1) Michel
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
2010/3/21 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Merci beaucoup, Michel... My interest is in technology and this resurrection or rejuvenation of the Piantelli system is the first really interesting event after many years. It is a great mystery what has happened between 1994 and 2008, it is crucial to know when (and how) was total reproducibility achieved. Piantelli who is the Father of this system advices for a careful, stepwise scale up- due to serious risks as sudden uncontrolable heat release and radiation. The system is in a pre-commercial phase and has a very promising future. So you believe the claims? On what grounds? And why isn't Piantelli involved? Patents are interesting bu their reliabilty is low (to quote myself the study of patents give you the mythology NOT the history of a process For products it is better. The value of a patent without a critical know-how feature is low. I would not bother much with good English papers either, I think the setup is already described in the very first Piantelli- Focardi- Habel paper. In the Focardi Rossi paperthe results- if true are esential. Without the secret ingredient, recipe, surface treatment or magic spell it will be quite difficult to perform any independent validation. With or without Scott's Wundercalorimeter. Metrologomania- obsession with very sensitive measurement has disfocussed the research in the field. A means became an aim. It's nice to have cool headed persons like Scott Little in the field. Again, I don't understand the rationale for not having one's claims confirmed by them for free, the MOAC offer has been open for 5 years now! The my calorimeter is as good as theirs reason invoked by Ed and Jed is of course not receivable, it simply amounts to saying I don't want to have my excess heat claim to be independently confirmed. Proprietary secrets one doesn't want to divulge? Simply make the cell a black box which can produce controllable or at least non constant excess heat. Anyone can think of a good reason not to take up the Earthtech offer? There is only one proof- a commercial heater and a firts factory of such heaters leading to a new branch of industry. We have waited 21 years for this, and as our Italian friends would say: Basta! I hope you will agree too cousin Jed, and this will be our line of thinking and action. I agree a commercial heater would be an indisputable proof, even a prototype would do, but in what way is this a line of action? Is anyone on the verge of producing one? Michel
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
Dear Peter, Let me see if I understand, you believe the Rossi Focardi claims because you believe Piantelli when he _says_ he too has 100% reproducible intense excess heat with Ni-H. It's all based on trust, right? You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have a more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I agree), but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the device. NOT of a replicated device which would imply divulgating all known details, and even so it might not work, but of the working device itself. Would you yourself, if you had an excess heat device in your lab, whatever the power level, not take advantage of an offer of free independent measurement by nice competent people? Michel PS There are all sorts of dirty sayings in French too, but none that I know about technology! 2010/3/23 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Dear Michel, I believe the claims because I know the history of the system invented by Piantelli, I admire Piantelli and trust him. And he says the system is 100% reproducible and the heat release is intense. And you have to take great care with scale-up. I have no idea how Focardi who was a collaborator of Piantelli and Andrea Rossi who is an inventor, came to work seemimgly separately from Piantelli.. It is possible the two groups have discovered separate means to get reproducibility and go on the way to scale-up. Buut I don't know. Piantelli has his lab for scale-up, Rossi has one in Italy and one in the US. Re Scott Little_ I believe he has a good calorimeter, but so has Ed Storms (I had the honor to see it in Ed's house in Santa Fe). They Ed, Jed et al. say they have good calorimeters for the simple reason they really have good calorimeters. But if you need a very sensitive and precise calorimeter to demonstrate heat excess, than you are in a bad situation. After 21 years of history, this is not more interesting. Piantelli and Focardi Rossi say they are in the 100-1000 W and more zone excess heat, what use of a say 0.001 W sensivity? Science is wonderful, but technology - in this case too is useful. Say you get such a device, but you don't know what makes it reproducible, then any validation test will be a disappointment and sophisticated measurement just can make the situation worse. An indecent Hungarian proverb say you cannot XXX out with technology! that means you need the know how elements, you have to respect the rules.. Is there a French ~equivalent for that? On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/3/21 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Merci beaucoup, Michel... My interest is in technology and this resurrection or rejuvenation of the Piantelli system is the first really interesting event after many years. It is a great mystery what has happened between 1994 and 2008, it is crucial to know when (and how) was total reproducibility achieved. Piantelli who is the Father of this system advices for a careful, stepwise scale up- due to serious risks as sudden uncontrolable heat release and radiation. The system is in a pre-commercial phase and has a very promising future. So you believe the claims? On what grounds? And why isn't Piantelli involved? Patents are interesting bu their reliabilty is low (to quote myself the study of patents give you the mythology NOT the history of a process For products it is better. The value of a patent without a critical know-how feature is low. I would not bother much with good English papers either, I think the setup is already described in the very first Piantelli- Focardi- Habel paper. In the Focardi Rossi paperthe results- if true are esential. Without the secret ingredient, recipe, surface treatment or magic spell it will be quite difficult to perform any independent validation. With or without Scott's Wundercalorimeter. Metrologomania- obsession with very sensitive measurement has disfocussed the research in the field. A means became an aim. It's nice to have cool headed persons like Scott Little in the field. Again, I don't understand the rationale for not having one's claims confirmed by them for free, the MOAC offer has been open for 5 years now! The my calorimeter is as good as theirs reason invoked by Ed and Jed is of course not receivable, it simply amounts to saying I don't want to have my excess heat claim to be independently confirmed. Proprietary secrets one doesn't want to divulge? Simply make the cell a black box which can produce controllable or at least non constant excess heat. Anyone can think of a good reason not to take up the Earthtech offer? There is only one proof- a commercial heater and a firts factory of such heaters leading to a new branch of industry. We have waited 21 years for this, and as our Italian friends would say: Basta! I hope you will agree too cousin Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
2010/3/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: You need not worry about that sort of thing. I have been in contact with both parties, and they have already taken apart the cells. Which parties? Please ask me again in 3 months. I thought you didn't want to know any CF information that you could not divulgate ;-) Prospective investors presumably, good luck to them. 6 or 7 kg would be the weight of a complete 1kW device, and the US is not the only source of radioisotopes. Only one radioisotope can do this without killing the observers: plutonium-238. I don't see why, it seems to me it's only a matter of shielding. As I said, you need $60 million worth of the stuff. I doubt Rossi has that kind of money. Russia has Pu-238 as well, but as I doubt either government will sell any of it to anyone. I wasn't thinking about official government sales. But as I said such a source could not be turned off, so you're right that we need not worry about that sort of thing. Unless the device under test cannot be turned off either, of course. I agree with your cousin Peter that it can't be a problem of bad English. In my experience, a language gap can cause extensive problems. Sure, but not in the present case. In the present case it is clear that they claim kW level excess heat, they could say this in Italian or in Chinese it wouldn't change a thing. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
2010/3/23 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Dear Michel, Yes it is based on trust, I could not visit these labs- but I will try to, this summer. But this trust is based on knowing the history of the system and its father. I have not missed any point re Scott Little. I don't believe he or anybody else will be able to reproduce the working system of this process without knowing how to make it work. The know-how, good point. Then how about, if you were the inventor, taking the device to Earthtech, making it work there yourself, and leaving just the energy balance measurement to them? Wouldn't this be a good compromise? Why does he (Scott) not try based on everything we know- Piantelli et al papers, an old patent, now not more valid, the new Focardi Rossi patent and paper? Will he be able to find out the treatments and/or additives and/or procedures that make the system work? Probably not, hence my suggestion above. This is reseach, needs creativity, inspiration, patience and luck. He will need the help of a theorist who will try to find out what the main and the secondary reactions. And will be exposed to risks. Have you asked Jean Louis Naudin's opinion? He is an ace in such things. I have stopped looking at JLN's CF work when I realized he didn't know how to measure electrical power, not to mention serious defects in his calorimetry. But he is indeniably very good at other things. By the way, the saying is not dirty, it says persuasively that the professional principles and rules have to be respected strictly. Dura lex, sed lex in technology too Oh, I get it now! Quite true! Michel Peter. On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Peter, Let me see if I understand, you believe the Rossi Focardi claims because you believe Piantelli when he _says_ he too has 100% reproducible intense excess heat with Ni-H. It's all based on trust, right? You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have a more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I agree), but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the device. NOT of a replicated device which would imply divulgating all known details, and even so it might not work, but of the working device itself. Would you yourself, if you had an excess heat device in your lab, whatever the power level, not take advantage of an offer of free independent measurement by nice competent people? Michel PS There are all sorts of dirty sayings in French too, but none that I know about technology! 2010/3/23 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Dear Michel, I believe the claims because I know the history of the system invented by Piantelli, I admire Piantelli and trust him. And he says the system is 100% reproducible and the heat release is intense. And you have to take great care with scale-up. I have no idea how Focardi who was a collaborator of Piantelli and Andrea Rossi who is an inventor, came to work seemimgly separately from Piantelli.. It is possible the two groups have discovered separate means to get reproducibility and go on the way to scale-up. Buut I don't know. Piantelli has his lab for scale-up, Rossi has one in Italy and one in the US. Re Scott Little_ I believe he has a good calorimeter, but so has Ed Storms (I had the honor to see it in Ed's house in Santa Fe). They Ed, Jed et al. say they have good calorimeters for the simple reason they really have good calorimeters. But if you need a very sensitive and precise calorimeter to demonstrate heat excess, than you are in a bad situation. After 21 years of history, this is not more interesting. Piantelli and Focardi Rossi say they are in the 100-1000 W and more zone excess heat, what use of a say 0.001 W sensivity? Science is wonderful, but technology - in this case too is useful. Say you get such a device, but you don't know what makes it reproducible, then any validation test will be a disappointment and sophisticated measurement just can make the situation worse. An indecent Hungarian proverb say you cannot XXX out with technology! that means you need the know how elements, you have to respect the rules.. Is there a French ~equivalent for that? On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/3/21 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Merci beaucoup, Michel... My interest is in technology and this resurrection or rejuvenation of the Piantelli system is the first really interesting event after many years. It is a great mystery what has happened between 1994 and 2008, it is crucial to know when (and how) was total reproducibility achieved. Piantelli who is the Father of this system advices for a careful, stepwise scale up- due to serious risks as sudden uncontrolable heat release and radiation. The system
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
2010/3/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have a more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I agree), but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the device. as a practical matter, actually moving an experiment from one calorimeter to another, and especially from one lab to another, is a lot harder than it sounds, and I don't see much point to it. It does not seem particularly independent to me. It is less independent than using a fresh cathode and your own cell. Which, since you don't really know what makes the original cell work, is even harder than moving the original cell. Anyway, I said independent measurement, not independent replication. I doubt it would convince any skeptics, if that is your goal. I am sure it would convince many on the contrary. What would you think of someone telling you he can fly to the moon by flapping his arms, to use your analogy, and never letting anyone watch for 20 years? Wouldn't you be less skeptic if you witnessed the feat yourself? Or would you insist that the guy teaches you how to fly this way before believing him? Also, I do not think the MOAC is of better quality or better suited to these experiments than the instruments at SRI, Energetics Technology, or Storms' lab. Even if it wasn't, the aim is confirmation, not better measurement. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
Dear Peter, If I was the inventor, I would take my cold fusion cell, *as a black box to preserve my secrets*, to whatever authority accepts to test it (Earthtech is willing, if NIST is willing let it be NIST, good idea), to get the excess heat certified. Why, you ask? To make it considerably easier and faster for me to get funding to do the important things you mentioned, scale up etc. And to take the field out of the ghetto it's been sitting in for 21 years, which accessorily would save the planet from boiling itself to death. Michel 2010/3/23 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Dear Michel, I am, modesty apart, quite good in empathy. I can put myself in the place of the inventor. Why, for God's sake should he take his device to Earthtech's lab and make measurments to demonstrate that they get excess heat? Is Earthtech legally such a great authority in calorimetry recognized worldwide? Based on what achievemnts? Cui prodest? For such measurements perhaps you can go to NIST or some famous University lab. Do you think they are NOT certain about excess heat? As for Cold fusion/LENR excess heat is the aim, up to levels where you get certainty even with primitive calorimetry. At 21 years you are major citizen even in the most conservative countries. But it is more important for them to work on development, scale-up, intensification, safety, cost and price, quality, control, fast methods to stop heat release, increase of the active life of a generator and many other things from the realm of engineering. On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/3/23 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Dear Michel, Yes it is based on trust, I could not visit these labs- but I will try to, this summer. But this trust is based on knowing the history of the system and its father. I have not missed any point re Scott Little. I don't believe he or anybody else will be able to reproduce the working system of this process without knowing how to make it work. The know-how, good point. Then how about, if you were the inventor, taking the device to Earthtech, making it work there yourself, and leaving just the energy balance measurement to them? Wouldn't this be a good compromise? Why does he (Scott) not try based on everything we know- Piantelli et al papers, an old patent, now not more valid, the new Focardi Rossi patent and paper? Will he be able to find out the treatments and/or additives and/or procedures that make the system work? Probably not, hence my suggestion above. This is reseach, needs creativity, inspiration, patience and luck. He will need the help of a theorist who will try to find out what the main and the secondary reactions. And will be exposed to risks. Have you asked Jean Louis Naudin's opinion? He is an ace in such things. I have stopped looking at JLN's CF work when I realized he didn't know how to measure electrical power, not to mention serious defects in his calorimetry. But he is indeniably very good at other things. By the way, the saying is not dirty, it says persuasively that the professional principles and rules have to be respected strictly. Dura lex, sed lex in technology too Oh, I get it now! Quite true! Michel Peter. On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Peter, Let me see if I understand, you believe the Rossi Focardi claims because you believe Piantelli when he _says_ he too has 100% reproducible intense excess heat with Ni-H. It's all based on trust, right? You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have a more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I agree), but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the device. NOT of a replicated device which would imply divulgating all known details, and even so it might not work, but of the working device itself. Would you yourself, if you had an excess heat device in your lab, whatever the power level, not take advantage of an offer of free independent measurement by nice competent people? Michel PS There are all sorts of dirty sayings in French too, but none that I know about technology! 2010/3/23 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Dear Michel, I believe the claims because I know the history of the system invented by Piantelli, I admire Piantelli and trust him. And he says the system is 100% reproducible and the heat release is intense. And you have to take great care with scale-up. I have no idea how Focardi who was a collaborator of Piantelli and Andrea Rossi who is an inventor, came to work seemimgly separately from Piantelli.. It is possible the two groups have discovered separate means to get reproducibility and go on the way to scale-up. Buut I don't know. Piantelli has his lab for scale-up, Rossi
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
Which voltage? 2010/3/20, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: yes. You are aware that the the voltage keeps rises even after the battery is disconnected. harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 3:59:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram What do you mean, the inductor (10 turns of wire on a core) is connected between the positive end of the supply and one end of the switch (drain of the MOSFET) isn't it? 2010/3/20 Harry Veeder href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: The toroid is also wired in differently from the inductor in the wiki diagram, but I suppose that doesn't matter either? harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 1:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram The capacitor on your photo 2 is in parallel with the battery so it's part of the converter's input supply. The capacitor in the operating principles diagram of the wikipedia article is the converter's output capacitor, which might as well not be there in steady state is there is no load (once charged it just stays charged at a high voltage, and the Boost's diode never conducts-- so the diode might as well not be there either). So everything to the right of the switch in the boost converter diagram could be removed in no load condition, that's why I say the circuit operates like a Boost converter without a load. Which explains why it steps up the input voltage, that's what Boost converters do. Michel 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: I'll pass that along. But the capacitor looks like it is in the wrong place to be a booster converter with or without a load. compare photo 2: http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4 with operating principles target=_blank href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter; target=_blank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter Harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com href=mailto: href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: href=mailto: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com ymailto=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com; href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder href=mailto: href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com: This is not a boost converter I said it was a boost converter _without a load_. as none of them will recharge the input source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried. This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents the drain voltage from going below zero. Michel And you wont find any dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;] Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! href= href=http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank href=http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank http://www.flickr.com/gift/ __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! href=http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank http://www.flickr.com/gift/ __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Someone asked me what I mean by independent evaluations of the claims. I mean that outside experts plan to go into the lab and observe the experiments, the way Rob Duncan looked at Energetics Technologies. Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup is made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it (heating resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be sure there isn't a mundane source of heat such as a some radioisotope hidden in the cell itself, unless Rossi lets them take it apart which is unlikely. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
Hi Peter, nice to see you here! 2010/3/21 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: A quantitative evaluation- see please the claims in the Focardi Rossi paper- is foolproof I think. Heat from radioactive stuff at ths magnitudes is very dangerous, I think. Not really, there are off the shelf radioisotope heat sources of this kind of power magnitude which are quite safe even though they are quite compact (~6 Kg per kW) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Purpose_Heat_Source The General Purpose Heat Source is a stackable, compact unit (module) designed to deliver over 600 degrees Celsius to a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) or an Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (SRG), generating 250 watts per module at the beginning of a mission when used with an RTG or ASRG. These units are designed to supply heat consistently and safely over a wide range of extreme conditions. They measure 9.948 cm wide x 9.32 cm deep x 5.82 cm high and weigh no more than 1.44 kg each. GPHS of this, or very similar, design were used in the GPHS-RTGs of the following missions : Cassini-Huygens, New Horizons, Galileo probe, Ulysses probe. Safety: GPHSs are designed with safety in mind and employ plutonium-238 pellets encased in iridium to generate alpha particles which are completely absorbed in the heat source to produce heat; thus, no special radiation shielding is necessary to absorb these particles. The resulting iridium-clad plutonium pellets are encased within nested layers of carbon-based material and placed within an aeroshell housing to comprise the complete GPHS-module. But it occurs to me that there would be an easy way to discriminate between such a constant heat source and a controllable one, which presumably a genuine LENR cell would be: turn the heat off. If this can be done, and full access is granted to the cell's environment to check for an external hidden power source (AC current in the cell's heater resistor monitored by a DC ammeter, hidden heater in the water cooling circuit, microwaves, IR beam, witricity, whatever), then yes such an evaluation can be foolproof. If the experts are good at detecting trickery that is, i.e. they can never be fooled by a magician. A much more foolproof evaluation, for this or any other device claiming excess heat, would be to take it to Earthtech's lab. They will test it for free(*), and a positive evaluation from them would be worth billions for the device's inventor, and zillions for the entire field. Why people like Ed Storms or Mike McKubre don't take up Earthtech's offer, which I am told is still open, is beyond me. Any idea why Peter? Michel (*) http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2005/NET12.shtml#earthtech Earthtech hereby offers to test promising cells in MOAC free. We believe that the opportunity of observing a genuine excess heat effect in an accurate calorimeter is well worth the time, energy, and money we will expend in the process. Next week we will celebrate the 21st anniversary of our field- and only the Patterson system in its day of glory was comparable to these claims- if I remember correctly. Is some other breakthrough of this type hidden somewhere? On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Someone asked me what I mean by independent evaluations of the claims. I mean that outside experts plan to go into the lab and observe the experiments, the way Rob Duncan looked at Energetics Technologies. Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup is made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it (heating resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be sure there isn't a mundane source of heat such as a some radioisotope hidden in the cell itself, unless Rossi lets them take it apart which is unlikely. Michel
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
So the voltage which rises after disconnection of the battery is that of the single capacitor shown on the diagram, which was initially in parallel with the battery? 2010/3/22 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: The capacitor is on the input side. A pick up coil was added later to see if it is possible to close the loop and generate OU. He tried in test 10 but didn't succeed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7CsBr7ouPE harry - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 2:51:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram Harry will need to confirm this, but I believe the diagram in question is only for the input side. The output side, which isn't shown, consists of a pickup coil, some related circuitry, and the aforementioned capacitors. If I'm wrong, then I'm confused (no great surprise there). On 03/21/2010 11:56 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Wait a minute, I see no cap attached to the output on Harry's diagram photo 2discussed here (haven't followed the other discussions), only one capacitor on the input side, in parallel with the battery until the latter is disconnected, which BTW isn't explained on the diagram. Is the diagram not complete? 2010/3/21 Stephen A. Lawrence href=mailto:sa...@pobox.com;sa...@pobox.com: On 03/21/2010 09:55 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Which voltage? Volts on the caps attached to the output -- right, Harry? But the signal generator is still hooked up, and it's coupled to the output (at least) through the gate capacitance of the FET and the linked inductors of the transformer, and the signal generator's output power hasn't been measured or even estimated. So, there's no reason to believe this rig is doing anything other than transforming and rectifying the output of the SG. As I've already said a boringly large number of times, this is the same general sort of system as Stiffler's circuit, where he had a signal generator capacitively coupled to the system, and it was driving a handful of LEDs. The main innovation here comes from Naudin, and it's the use of a toroidal coil as the primary with a neo magnet on the outside of the coil which twists the core's field to allow the toroidal coil to couple to the pickup coil. 2010/3/20, Harry Veeder href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: yes. You are aware that the the voltage keeps rises even after the battery is disconnected. __ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
What do you mean, the inductor (10 turns of wire on a core) is connected between the positive end of the supply and one end of the switch (drain of the MOSFET) isn't it? 2010/3/20 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: The toroid is also wired in differently from the inductor in the wiki diagram, but I suppose that doesn't matter either? harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 1:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram The capacitor on your photo 2 is in parallel with the battery so it's part of the converter's input supply. The capacitor in the operating principles diagram of the wikipedia article is the converter's output capacitor, which might as well not be there in steady state is there is no load (once charged it just stays charged at a high voltage, and the Boost's diode never conducts-- so the diode might as well not be there either). So everything to the right of the switch in the boost converter diagram could be removed in no load condition, that's why I say the circuit operates like a Boost converter without a load. Which explains why it steps up the input voltage, that's what Boost converters do. Michel 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: I'll pass that along. But the capacitor looks like it is in the wrong place to be a booster converter with or without a load. compare photo 2: http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4 with operating principles target=_blank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter Harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com: This is not a boost converter I said it was a boost converter _without a load_. as none of them will recharge the input source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried. This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents the drain voltage from going below zero. Michel And you wont find any dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;] Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! href=http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank http://www.flickr.com/gift/ __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion
Abd, it's not being a jerk to be wrong, it's being a jerk to write authoritatively, as the book title implies, on a subject one is so blatantly ignorant about. Whether he is positive or not, or undecided, is not the problem. I myself obviously feel the field is worth researching but I am still not 100% convinced that CF is real, for lack of a single unambiguous experiment proving it is. There are scientists who know much more about the field than I do who are still undecided. Dieter Britz is in this case, even though he is probably the most CF learned person in the world. Michel 2010/3/20 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 02:00 PM 3/19/2010, Michel Jullian wrote: What a jerk. On that page alone, he says one loads palladium into deuterium, and platinum too, and he professes that excess heat is the bad kind of cold fusion! You know, he points out that it is not fraud to be wrong, and I'll point out that it is also not being a jerk to be wrong. That error shows that this wasn't well-considered. I.e., the error about loading of palladium and platinum into deuterium. He's also trying to support his friend Scaramuzzi with a comment that the loading (i.e., of deuterium into palladium, it doesn't load into platinum) is respectable, with only a tangential connection to cold fusion. Yeah, that's right! Anomalous heat or unexpected helium or whatever. Cold fusion? No. Maybe its a low-energy nuclear reaction, but fusion? No, we don't mention fusion around here, it makes the natives restless. We are researching anomalous heat in the palladium deuteride system, you got a problem with that? I think you are being a little harsh, Michel. This reads to me like an essay or even a speech or something dictated off-the-cuff, it's certainly not well-edited and researched. But the basic message is actually positive. What did bad kind of cold fusion mean? Read the context and the time. At that point, there was muon-catalyzed fusion on the table, or the possibility that there was a very-low level form of other cold fusion, i.e., what Jones was reporting. That would be the good kind. Not so horribly controversial. But Fleischmann was reporting levels of heat that could only be from much higher levels of reaction. He's describing his distress at heating that his friend was involved in this nonsense. Bad kind is what he thought then. He then, next page, says that he has looked over the results carefully, and they are pretty impressive. Go back and read this again! He's complaining that the normal process of science isn't happening. If there are all these positive results, there should be people pouring over them to try to prove them wrong. Note the very obvious implication. Cold fusion has not been proven wrong. And in this he is 100% correct. He underreports the positive evidence, that's all. Scaramuzzi is only a small part of it.
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
2010/3/19 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com: This is not a boost converter I said it was a boost converter _without a load_. as none of them will recharge the input source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried. This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents the drain voltage from going below zero. Michel And you wont find any dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;] Harry - Original Message From: Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 10:46:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram Ok, I gave him the wiki reference. Harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: ymailto=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com; href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 7:34:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram Nothing mysterious about this circuit, it's a silly boost converter without a load. See: target=_blank href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter; target=_blank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter 2010/3/18 Harry Veeder href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: - Original Message From: Jed Rothwell ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com;jedrothw...@gmail.com href=mailto: href=mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com;jedrothw...@gmail.com ymailto=mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com; href=mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com;jedrothw...@gmail.com To: href=mailto: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com ymailto=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com; href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com; ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com href=mailto: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com ymailto=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com; href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 5:22:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: By the way, I should say Thanks! for taking the time to post all these here. It's interesting, even if I don't believe for a minute that it's OU. Someone should communicate the gist of the comments here to the author of the video. Tell him to invest in an ammeter, for crying out loud. - Jed I am ignorant about electronics but I don't see what the fuss is about since it is all DC current. If you know the resistance and the voltage can't you safely infer that as the voltage rises and falls so does the current? No, V=R*I works only on a pure resistor. An inductor or a capacitor obey different laws. I still think that in certain simple circuits voltage measurements can serve as a pretty good indicator of current and power. Not here. Michel __ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
Re: [Vo]:Neat new OCR technology
2010/3/19 Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com: ... if you convert a clearscan pdf back to image format in higher resolution e.g. 600 dpi (this can be set in editpreferencesconvert from pdfTIFFedit settings), make a new pdf from that, and re-do an OCR on it, interestingly the recognition accuracy is improved, Let me retract this, after experimenting on a few more pages it turns out the 2nd OCR pass makes roughly the same number of recognition errors as the 1st pass on average, what fooled me is that it doesn't do them on the same words. So there is no point really in going through the complexity and hard work of a 2nd pass. There is another use however, useful this time, of the trick of saving as tiff and re-pdf-ing before OCRing: it circumvents the Acrobat could not perform recognition (OCR) on this page because: This page contains renderable text. error you get on some documents, which annoyingly aborts the whole OCR process. If anyone knows of a simpler way, I am interested. Last point, I see they have integrated the OCR multiple files feature to the main menu in version 9, so one doesn't have to go through the batch processing procedure to OCR a large collection of documents. Much more convenient. Michel
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
The capacitor on your photo 2 is in parallel with the battery so it's part of the converter's input supply. The capacitor in the operating principles diagram of the wikipedia article is the converter's output capacitor, which might as well not be there in steady state is there is no load (once charged it just stays charged at a high voltage, and the Boost's diode never conducts-- so the diode might as well not be there either). So everything to the right of the switch in the boost converter diagram could be removed in no load condition, that's why I say the circuit operates like a Boost converter without a load. Which explains why it steps up the input voltage, that's what Boost converters do. Michel 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: I'll pass that along. But the capacitor looks like it is in the wrong place to be a booster converter with or without a load. compare photo 2: http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4 with operating principles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter Harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com: This is not a boost converter I said it was a boost converter _without a load_. as none of them will recharge the input source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried. This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents the drain voltage from going below zero. Michel And you wont find any dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;] Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion
What a jerk. On that page alone, he says one loads palladium into deuterium, and platinum too, and he professes that excess heat is the bad kind of cold fusion! 2010/3/19 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: D. Goodstein, On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science http://www.amazon.com/Fact-Fraud-Cautionary-Tales-Science/dp/0691139660/ This is complete utter ignorant, infuriating bullshit. (Strong letter to follow.) Look inside the book on p. 94 to see what I mean. The author claims that coldl fusion is irreproducible and that very little has changed sinced 1989. - Jed
[Vo]:Neat new OCR technology
Jed, have you tried the clearscan setting in Adobe Acrobat 9 OCR? Very impressive. They explain their clever (and obvious, in retrospect) trick in this demo video: http://my.adobe.acrobat.com/p28891758/ Michel
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi patent
Are you sure of the gender? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea In Italy and Albania, Andrea is a masculine name, the equivalent of Andrew. Michel 2010/3/16 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: ... As I mentioned, Rossi told me they are working hard on new publications and they plan to divulge more information in the near future. She seems gung ho and she was very courteous, which is a good sign. ...
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
Nothing mysterious about this circuit, it's a silly boost converter without a load. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter 2010/3/18 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: - Original Message From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 5:22:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: By the way, I should say Thanks! for taking the time to post all these here. It's interesting, even if I don't believe for a minute that it's OU. Someone should communicate the gist of the comments here to the author of the video. Tell him to invest in an ammeter, for crying out loud. - Jed I am ignorant about electronics but I don't see what the fuss is about since it is all DC current. If you know the resistance and the voltage can't you safely infer that as the voltage rises and falls so does the current? No, V=R*I works only on a pure resistor. An inductor or a capacitor obey different laws. I still think that in certain simple circuits voltage measurements can serve as a pretty good indicator of current and power. Not here. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Neat new OCR technology
One can download Acrobat 9 from their web site and try it for a month for free. Disappointingly, the accuracy of the recognition itself is not better with this clearscan option, it's just the look. However, thanks to the zoomable (vector) nature of the clearscan characters, if you convert a clearscan pdf back to image format in higher resolution e.g. 600 dpi (this can be set in editpreferencesconvert from pdfTIFFedit settings), make a new pdf from that, and re-do an OCR on it, interestingly the recognition accuracy is improved, at least it seemed to be in the couple trials I have done. If this is confirmed, hopefully they will realize this and automate the two pass OCR in version 10. Michel 2010/3/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: That is impressive! I hate Adobe's user interface and documentation, but I might get this product anyway. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
2010/3/14 Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com: At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote: Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work? I don't think he would want to. Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? Or one would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Note that multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this particular device, with its built-in heating resistor. For example, add AC current of a higher frequency than the meter's bandwidth. Is there any support on this research such as a published paper or a conference presentation or is it just this blog site that is made to look like a journal? Not that I know, apart from the patent application which of course isn't valid support either. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
If they have equal shares in this work, why isn't Focardi on the patent? Michel 2010/3/15, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? No. The authors are aware of this paper. It is really their work. Or one would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Note that multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this particular device, with its built-in heating resistor. For example, add AC current of a higher frequency than the meter's bandwidth. I do not think this method could make 80 W look like 3,000 W. Most meter have high bandwidth; I have never heard of high frequency AC adding more than a fraction of 1% to the total. You would have to design and build specialized equipment to put 97% of the electricity into the cell with high frequency AC. And as a practical matter, how would you do this? Sneak some equipment into the lab at night? Bribe a lab assistant? How would you keep Focardi from doing some elementary cross checking to find out? This sounds like something from a made-for-TV thriller. If there is a con involved, Focardi must be part of it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work? 2010/3/14, Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com: Ladies and gentlemen, The truth is, I plead, to a large degree, ignorance of this FocardiRossi matter. It had been originally brought to my attention as a patent, and then I pointed out to the person it was merely a patent application and I said, So what, don't bother me. Even granted patents don't mean that the devices work as stated. Just look at Seth Putterman's patent for sonofusion. So here's my question for all you science hounds: Have FocardiRossi actually published a real paper or presented one at a science conference? Has the FocardiRossi paper/work been vetted, in any way, in the formal science channel or has it just been hyped up on some bogus Web site that is masquerading as some sort of Journal? Journal or Nuclear Physics? Really??? Can someone please tell me something about this? http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com And can someone please explain why the good Dr. Melich, allegedly representing the entire DoD, is involved with this? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2 And isn't there some mention in the paper of this having to do with the DoD yet the paper provides no details? And a Board of Advisers comprising the key authors of this paper? Is this a con or what? Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone is not running a false flag to discredit Ni-H work. Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone did not go to Focardi and Rossi and represent himself as the DoD and thereby test and validate inflated claims to set them up for a fall. Steve
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Rouge, red, rosso/rossi, thought it was a multilingual pun ;) 2010/3/13, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: I wrote -- and I mean typed, not dictated: These rouge researchers don't make it any easier to trust them, do they? Also the rogue ones. A rouge researcher would be one who wears lipstick I suppose, like Sara Palin, who imagines herself going rogue. There is not much benefit to the complex orthography of English or Japanese, but it does make for hilarious mistakes! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Hi Jones, Thanks for the interesting story. According to Google the document you quoted from is this DOD report: http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf The link doesn't seem to be working right now, but the text remains available via Google's cache: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:aXtJ7qjancgJ:dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf The conclusion of the report is in fact quite positive about Rossi's TE technology : 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Thermoelectric (TE) power generation results from electricity that is induced in particular materials by a temperature differential. This is known as the “Seebeck Effect.” Historically, the cost of thermoelectric power generation has been high due to limitations in material knowledge and associated processing issues. Recent technology developments, based on advances in material science and advanced manufacturing techniques, have demonstrated a high potential for reduced production costs. Leonardo Technologies Inc. (LTI) has demonstrated their thermoelectric innovation as a cost-effective energy-producing alternative that is efficient and environmentally benign. Initial testing of LTI’s innovations demonstrate an approximate three-fold in-crease in energy conversion and potentially a ten-fold decrease in fabrication cost per kW of electrical generation capacity. It is projected that under mass production, the cost per kW of thermoelectric devices could approach that of combined-cycle gas central power plants, the least expensive power generation alternative, at about $500/kW – with the added economic benefit of no fuel costs. ... The results of this study will assist the development of a demonstration of LTI’s TE technology at a defense facility... ...so it's not clear to me that it affects the credibility of his fusion report that badly. What affects it more in my mind is his statement that he won't demonstrate anything publicly until he has a 1 MW device, why wait if he really has an Earth shattering 10 kW working device? In any case his claim that the DOD and DOE have looked at the technology is supported by the composition of the Board of Advisers of his strange self published online journal: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2 BOARD OF ADVISERS: Prof. Sergio Focardi (INFN – University of Bologna – Italy) ** Prof. Michael Melich (DOD – USA) Richard P. Noceti, Ph. D. , richard.noc...@lt.netl.doe.gov ** Prof. Alberto Carnera (INFM – University of Padova – Italy) Prof. Giuseppe Levi (INFN – University of Bologna – Italy) Prof. Pierluca Rossi (University of Bologna – Italy) Prof. Luciana Malferrari (University of Bologna – Italy) Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire – USA) Prof. Stremmenos Christos (Athen University – Greece) BTW I agree with you that the patent is very poorly written, have you noted isothermal instead of exothermal in claim 1? And it doesn't reveal anything that might be novel, hence the well deserved X rated prior art in the international search report (an Arata patent). What purpose can such a patent application serve? Michel 2010/3/11 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: FWIW: One more comment on Leonardo Technologies, Inc. and the past history of Dr Andrea Rossi. This is important only in that it may affect the credibility of the fusion report. Obviously, if the fusion RD were true in the apparent COP, it would be an earth-shaking discovery. It is far better than any prior NiH system which has been reported, but apparently there is a history here which cannot be ignored. LTI was incorporated as a response to the thermoelectric power generation research (and patent) by Dr. Rossi. Dr. Rossi indicated that his devices would produce 20 percent efficiencies, a vast increase from the current science of 4 percent conversion of waste heat to electrical power. Dr. Rossi believed that he could increase the physical size of the TE Devices and maintain superior power generation. In furtherance of his research, in early 2000, LTI had tests conducted at the University of New Hampshire (UNH), Durham, NH, using a small scale LTI TEG Device. Over a period of 7 days, the UNH power plant staff recorded voltage and amperage readings every 1/2 hr. The TE Device produced approximately 100 volts and 1 ampere of current, providing 100 watts of power. After this initial success, and a fire that destroyed his Manchester, NH location, Dr. Rossi returned to Italy to continue the manufacture of the TE Devices. In Italy, Dr. Rossi believed that LTI could manufacture more cost-effective TE generating devices with lower labor and assembly costs. Accordingly, Dr. Rossi engaged a subcontractor to fulfill the requirements of manufacturing and assembly. Unfortunately, the Italian subcontractor was unable to provide second-generation TE Devices with satisfactory power generation. Nineteen of 27 TE Devices shipped to CTC, Johnstown, PA, were incapable of generating
Re: [Vo]:Test
2010/3/10, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Alexander Hollins, who also uses Gmail, wrote: No, I did not see that particular email. [the Teller paper in HTML format] I saw it, even though I use gmail too. I wonder if this because I have your email address in my gmail contacts. Do you? Does Alexander? Ha! I'll bet it is caught in your Spam filter. I don't know why that should be. Maybe Gmail's artificial intelligence has it in for the father of the hydrogen bomb. Anyway, look in the spam filter for a message titled: How to see the text in image-over-text Acrobat files. It is not important. You can read the paper here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf I uploaded the HTML version only to demonstrate how well the underlying OCR text conversion worked. It is impressive, given how fuzzy the original text is. Yep, impressive indeed! Sufficient for searchability and copy-pastability in any case, without betraying the original image since that's what one sees in the image over text format. Less work for you, it's a win-win situation! Michel
Re: [Vo]:Will upload ICCF-3 and ICCF-5
Hi Jed, many thanks for this, but aren't there many other ICCF proceedings missing? According to your special collections page at http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/Introduction.htm you only have ICCF-10, ICCF-11 and ICCF-12 complete, and selected papers of ICCF-9 Michel 2010/2/27 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: After I finish these two books, I do not think there are many important old papers left that would benefit readers, so this will pretty much wrap up the LENR-CANR project.
Re: [Vo]:Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also ho
Hi Horace, Another typo: Frick instead of Fick. All these macroscopic phenomena you discuss regarding the motion of ions in an electrolyte boil down, at the atomic scale, to the electric force, don't you agree? In any case, in a dense conductor, whether liquid or solid or even a dense gas such as atmospheric air, if you have a _steady_ current of charged particles, then there exists a net DC electric field provoking it, and in the absence of a magnetic field each charged particle does a random walk whose average is the electric field line. Proof: the average velocity (drift velocity) of each charged particle is equal to its mobility times the local electric field, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility for the case of electrons, or look up drift velocity in the Feynman Lectures on Physics. The electric field between the anode and cathode interfaces of an electrolytic cell may be very small (it's indeed immensely larger in the interface regions), but it explains entirely the steady cell current. Michel 2010/2/24 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Consider Frick's first law of steady state diffusion, which states the flow vector J_i for species i is proportional to the concentration vector (d c_i)/( d x) in typical cell conditions, i.e., one dimensionally speaking: J_i = - D (d c_i)/( d x) where D is called the diffusion coefficient. I accidentally left out a word above: concentration vector above should say concentration gradient vector. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also ho
But Rich, like others who mentioned this before (as I recall Mike Carrell did), is right that the component of the internal field due to the *externally* applied DC Electric field in some SPAWAR experiments, through insulating walls, should rapidly reach zero in the electrolyte and stay there. I suggested at the time that what might be operative in modifying the cauliflower like structure of the deposits was the AC component of the field due to the HV supply's unavoidable ripple voltage at its switching frequency (typically 20 kHz), however small it may be. A simple way to test this hypothesis would be to use a high voltage capacitor instead of a HV supply. Michel 2010/2/23 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com: On 02/22/2010 10:32 PM, Rich Murray wrote: Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also hot spots from H and O microbubbles: Rich Murray 2010.02.22 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.htm Monday, February 22, 2010 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/42 _ Each charged plate attracts enough ions of the opposite charge right to the side of the conducting electrolyte against its insulating wall, until the charge on the plate is exactly balanced -- thus each side is a separate charged capacitor, connected by the wire of the liquid. All the electric field exists only in the insulating walls of the two capacitors -- no electric field exists inside the liquid. This is true only so long as no current is flowing through the liquid. Just as in the case of a wire, if there's current flowing in a conducting liquid, then there's an electric field in the liquid, as well. (Otherwise, what do you think makes the ions move?) It's a common *approximation* to say there's no E field in a conductor but it's not generally true, save in electrostatics. My general impression is that electrolytic cells used in CF experiments do indeed have a current flowing through them. Therefore there is also an electric field present throughout the region of the electrolyte between the electrodes. :-) If the experiments were done with a superconducting electrolyte the story would be different, of course.
Re: [Vo]:Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also ho
2010/2/23, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: ... Therefore ion motion in the electrolyte proper is mostly due to random walk and concentration gradients. ... The ion motion is due to a force, what kind of force do you think, the concentration gradient force? It's of course an electric force, entirely due to an electric field. Ultimately, that's what it is. Same thing for electrons in a metal. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Pycnodeuterium response from Muhlenberg HSG FORUM
The authors might be well placed to answer that, you'll find their email addresses on the paper: http://eprints.iisc.ernet.in/12432/1/Lochon_Catalyzed_D-D_Fusion.pdf 2010/2/17 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Enquiring minds want to know: 1) How does a Lochon differ from a Cooper pair ? 2) Is the formation of Lochons enhanced at cryogenic temperatures ? 3) Is the Lochon deflated ? -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Meulenberg's paper can be download online. Lochon Catalyzed D-D Fusion in Deuterated Palladium in the Solid State By K. P. Sinha and A. Meulenberg Abstract Lochons (local charged bosons or local electron pairs) can form on D+ to give D- (bosonic ions) in Palladium Deuteride in the solid state. Such entities will occur at special sites or in a linear channel owing to strong electron-phonon interaction or due to potential inversion on metallic electrodes. These lochons can catalyze D - D fusion as a consequence of internal conversion leading to the formation of He plus production of energy (Q = 23.8 MeV) which is carried by the alpha particle and the ejected electron-pair. reaction rate for this fusion process is calculated.
Re: [Vo]:IBM Trumps Nanosolar
2010/2/14 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com: With a printable cell which does not use tellurium nor indium: http://www.physorg.com/news185093054.html Only at the sample stage, and printed in pure nitrogen rather than air, but nice! They had the good idea to make the technical paper freely accessible: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123276375/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1SRETRY=0 Quote: Chalcogenide-based solar cells provide a critical pathway to cost parity between photovoltaic (PV) and conventional energy sources. Currently, only Cu(In,Ga)(S,Se)2 (CIGS) and CdTe technologies have reached commercial module production with stable power conversion efficiencies of over 9 percent.[1,2] Despite the promise of these technologies, restrictions on heavy metal usage for Cd and limitations in supply for In and Te are projected to restrict the production capacity of the existing chalcogen-based technologies to 100GWp per year, a small fraction of our growing energy needs, which are expected to double to 27TW by 2050.[3–5] Earth-abundant copper-zinc-tin-chalcogenide kesterites, Cu2ZnSnS4 and Cu2ZnSnSe4, have been examined as potential alternatives for the two leading technologies,[6–9] reaching promising but not yet marketable efficiencies of 6.7% and 3.2%, respectively, by multilayer vacuum deposition.[7,8]Here we show a non-vacuum, slurry-based coating method that combines advantages of both solution processing[10–13] and particlebased deposition,[14–17] enabling fabrication of Cu2ZnSn(Se,S)4 devices with over 9.6% efficiency—a factor of five performance improvement relative to previous attempts to use highthroughput ink-based approaches[16–18] and 40% higher than previous record devices prepared using vacuum-based methods.[7]
Re: [Vo]:IBM Trumps Nanosolar
2010/2/16 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com: On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: Only at the sample stage, and printed in pure nitrogen rather than air, but nice! Air is already 70% nitrogen. All we need do is remove the impurities. :-) 78% actually, even less impurities to remove!
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times continues the drama. Comment.
Nice post Abd. Just a terminology detail, I don't think Q factor is adequate for the heat released by a reaction. Q factor is a dimensionless factor used in resonance phenomena. I think you really mean Q value. Michel 2010/2/11 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: In a mail sent out, apparently, to NET subscribers, Steve Krivit continues his campaign about heat and helium. I did make an additional reply on his blog that he did not publish; it was published here when it did not show up there after a day. I don't know if it got lost somehow or he elected not to publish it, but other criticism contained in the other response that he *did* publish, besides the obvious error of imagining that 10 x 10^15 and 1 x 10^16 were different by an order of magnitude, was edited out by him. So, instead of submitting this response to NET, I'm putting it here, and I'm granting Krivit permission to publish this or non-misleading excerpts from this, according to his editorial judgment, provided that he provides a link to the original on the Vortex list. Cold Fusion (but not LENR) Claims Questioned Follow-up to New Energy Times Issue 34 Feb. 9, 2010 Dear Readers, We published Issue 34 of New Energy Times on Jan. 31. In it, we reveal how scientists at SRI International and MIT, claiming evidence for the theory of cold fusion, have misled the public, their peers, the Department of Energy and the reviewers of the 2004 DoE LENR review. That's a big claim. Was there any evidence provided that they actually misled anyone? What I've seen is that Krivit misinterprets what they've written, and then argues strongly against his own misinterpretation. The error he made where he imagined that a change between 10 x 10^15 and 1 X 10^15 represented a change in Violante's data (see below) revealed how much he was searching for inconsistencies and how little he was paying attention to what Violante was actually telling him. Since NET34 published, we have received no response, let alone corrections, from any of the principal subjects of the story, Michael McKubre (SRI International), Peter Hagelstein (MIT and Naval Postgraduate School) and Vittorio Violante (ENEA Frascati). The three are members of an informal consortium that has collaborated on research, publications, intellectual property claims and shared in federally funded LENR research. It is obvious from a careful review of the Violante report in NET that there was no reason for Violante to respond. He was improperly accused of stonewalling when, in fact, he'd answered Krivit's questions, as shown by Krivit's report and the original slide show and later-published conference paper, and then of making a huge error and of not retracting it. He'd already responded several times to what amounted to badgering, patiently explaining. The no response is, certainly for Violante, a non-story. As to McKubre and Hagelstein, I've examined those reports in much less detail, but where I have, so far, I've found that Krivit misinterprets and misrepresents what they actually wrote, and, I assume, by now, they are *so over* responding to Krivit. And that's a shame. It would be better if Krivit gets himself a real editorial board and listens to it. Otherwise he's likely to continue shooting himself in the foot, to imagine that a few people praising his boldness means that he's on the right track, and, in the end, see the collapse of NET. 1. 24 MeV/4He Does Not Exist Contrary to what the public has heard and believed, the purported best evidence for the theory of low-energy nuclear reactions as a cold fusion reaction, specifically the highly promoted http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=12443158msgid=222567act=3CD9c=229442destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iccf-14.org%2Fterminology.htmlclaim of ~24 MeV/4He, does not exist. With this, Krivit does effectively dismiss the strongest evidence for LENR (not for cold fusion, a much more complex subject that I will address as well). The evidence is not a claim of 24 MeV. It is correlation between excess heat as measured and excess helium as measured, at a Q value that is consistent with D-D fusion (which would ostensibly produce, if gamma emission is absent or other radiation where significant energy would escape measurement, 23.8 MeV/He-4, if helium is formed. Which Krivit correctly points out is not expected. However, helium *is* formed, it is correlated with excess energy, and the ratio of energy to helium is such that the conversion of deuterium to helium, by whatever process, would predict energy that is roughly the same as found. And this is multiply confirmed, many research groups, and not just Hagelstein and McKubre and Violante. That the ratio is in the right range for D-D fusion does not at all prove that the reaction is D-D fusion, what Krivit below calls thermonuclear fusion, nor have I seen claims that it does from any responsible
Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit
Hi Horace, sorry for the late response, my comments below. 2010/2/7 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: On Feb 7, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: 2010/2/7 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Two things to consider: (1) reversing the current *does* dissolve the Pd surface, True, but extremely slowly I believe. A Pd anode is known to dissolve relatively fast in acidic electrolytes such as D2SO4, but I don't think that's what they used. It is doubtful whether they reverted the current long enough to dissolve more than a few atomic layers. I think the experimenters were competent. They knew what they were doing. Using a Faraday constant of 96,485 C/mol, and (conservatively) a valence of 4, n for moles produced, I for current = .2 A, t for time = 1 s, we get: n = I * t / (96,485 C/mol * 4) n = (0.2 A)*(1 sec) / (385940 C/mol) = 5.182x10^-7 mol This means that at 200 mA/cm^2, 5.182x10^-7 mol/s is removed, or 3.12x10^17 atoms per second. We also have for Pd: (12.38 g/cm^3)/(106.42 g/mol) = 0.1163 mol/cm^3 = 7.006x10^22 atoms/cm^3. The atomic volume is 1.427x10^-23 cm^3, and the atomic dimension is 2.426x10^-8 cm. The amount of Pd removed per second is (3.12x10^17 atoms per second) * (1.427x10^-23 cm^3 per atom) = 4.45x10^-6 cm/s, or 445 angstroms per second. The number of layers of atoms removed is (4.45x10^-6 cm/s)/(2.426x10^-8 cm) = 183/s. If this is correct (highly suspect! 8^), then at a current density of 200 mA/cm^2 we have a thickness of 183 atoms removed per second, or 445 angstroms per second. This would be correct if palladium, when driven as an anode, did dissolve in an alkaline electrolyte (they classically used LiOD in that M4 experiment, according to their original report at http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/1998epri/TR-107843-V1.PDF , thanks to Steve Krivit for the link), which it doesn't, see the Pd/H2O Pourbaix diagram at http://www.platinummetalsreview.com/jmpgm/data/datasheet.do?record=532database=cesdatabase which shows that such corrosion only occurs in an acidic electrolyte (pH 3). and (2) previous work has shown that helium production takes place near but below the surface (order of microns), while tritium production tends to take place on or very close to the surface (within a few atomic widths). I guess you mean they are *found* there, couldn't they be both produced on the surface, only with more kinetic energy in the helium nuclei (alphas) than in the tritium nuclei for some reason, so that the helium is implanted more deeply? I find the idea of two different nuclear reaction sites producing different products a bit unlikely. No, most of the 4He reactions occur sub-surface. What do you think produces a volcano? A surface reaction? The volcanos you mention could also be impact craters produced by a local chain reaction on the surface. The typical 4He produced by CF does not have MeV kinetic energy, and is not surface produced. If it were there would be massive alpha counts. There is not sufficient kinetic energy to push alphas that deep into the Pd. You may well have a point here. A ref for those deep alphas would be welcome BTW. This has been a classic problem with CF, converting the process into a bulk effect instead of a surface effect for all practical purposes. Maybe it's just not possible, because you can't make large D fluxes collide head-on Head on collisions, i.e. kinetics, can not possibly account for cold fusion. Not alone I agree, it's more subtle than that, but the Ds do have to meet don't they? I submit that the Ds following/pushing each other down the lattice corridors like fish in a fish swarm have no reasons to experience frequent close encounters. in the bulk, this can only happen at a significant scale on the surface (desorbing vs incident fluxes). In the bulk, it seems to me the deuterons just push and follow each other down the lattice's concentration gradients, and never really collide hard. Also, if Bose Einstein Condensates are involved, they requires cold bosons for their formation. Head-on collisions may be a plausible mechanism for deuteron kinetic energy removal. This would only be the case if the collisions were almost all totally inelastic. Good point, although the combined effect of their respective colleagues pushing from behind could conceivably result in many of the collisions being inelastic. In any case, surface or subsurface, we certainly all agree that something special occurs in the surface region, so the surface plays a determinant role in CF. Maybe we could collaboratively establish a list of what we know is special about the surface, here are a few items for a start: a/ only place where frequent D encounters are possible (as mentioned above) b/ adsorption heat is higher than absorption heat, i.e. the trapping potential for Ds is deeper on the surface than in the bulk (probably due to the surface Pds having dangling bonds) c/ place
Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit
2010/2/2 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: ... A single SRI experiment has been published that made strong efforts to recover all the helium, and it came up with, as I recall, about 25 MeV. That experiment was discussed in the paper submitted by Hagelstein, McKubre et al to the DOE in 2004: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf They flushed helium out by simply desorbing and reabsorbing deuterium several times, by varying the cell current, which they reversed in the end to get all the D out. It seems to me that if they actually managed to extract all the helium this way, which their resulting Q value suggests (104±10 % of 23.8 MeV), the reaction can't possibly happen in the bulk. Not even subsurface. It has to happen exactly on the surface, with some (about half) of the produced helium nuclei going slightly subsurface. If the reaction itself was subsurface, surely about half of the produced helium couldn't be recovered without more radical means such as the one you suggested below. ... 2. Recovery of *all* the helium -- except perhaps for minor and unavoidable leakage, which should, of course, be kept as small as possible. What occurs to me is to dissolve the cathode. This seems a good idea. I forget the best acid to use, but I do know that palladium can be dissolved. As I recall, Aqua Regia is the best for Pd. Michel
Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit
2010/2/7 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Two things to consider: (1) reversing the current *does* dissolve the Pd surface, True, but extremely slowly I believe. A Pd anode is known to dissolve relatively fast in acidic electrolytes such as D2SO4, but I don't think that's what they used. It is doubtful whether they reverted the current long enough to dissolve more than a few atomic layers. and (2) previous work has shown that helium production takes place near but below the surface (order of microns), while tritium production tends to take place on or very close to the surface (within a few atomic widths). I guess you mean they are *found* there, couldn't they be both produced on the surface, only with more kinetic energy in the helium nuclei (alphas) than in the tritium nuclei for some reason, so that the helium is implanted more deeply? I find the idea of two different nuclear reaction sites producing different products a bit unlikely. This has been a classic problem with CF, converting the process into a bulk effect instead of a surface effect for all practical purposes. Maybe it's just not possible, because you can't make large D fluxes collide head-on in the bulk, this can only happen at a significant scale on the surface (desorbing vs incident fluxes). In the bulk, it seems to me the deuterons just push and follow each other down the lattice's concentration gradients, and never really collide hard. Also, if Bose Einstein Condensates are involved, they requires cold bosons for their formation. Head-on collisions may be a plausible mechanism for deuteron kinetic energy removal. Michel On Feb 7, 2010, at 2:58 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: 2010/2/2 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@loma xdesi gn.com: ... A single SRI experiment has been published that made strong efforts to recover all the helium, and it came up with, as I recall, about 25 MeV. That experiment was discussed in the paper submitted by Hagelstein, McKubre et al to the DOE in 2004: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf They flushed helium out by simply desorbing and reabsorbing deuterium several times, by varying the cell current, which they reversed in the end to get all the D out. It seems to me that if they actually managed to extract all the helium this way, which their resulting Q value suggests (104±10 % of 23.8 MeV), the reaction can't possibly happen in the bulk. Not even subsurface. It has to happen exactly on the surface, with some (about half) of the produced helium nuclei going slightly subsurface. If the reaction itself was subsurface, surely about half of the produced helium couldn't be recovered without more radical means such as the one you suggested below. ... 2. Recovery of *all* the helium -- except perhaps for minor and unavoidable leakage, which should, of course, be kept as small as possible. What occurs to me is to dissolve the cathode. This seems a good idea. I forget the best acid to use, but I do know that palladium can be dissolved. As I recall, Aqua Regia is the best for Pd. Michel Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova
Rb 85 atom is 37 protons, 48 neutrons and 37 electrons (all fermions, with spins 1/2 or -1/2), that's an even number of fermions (122) so it's a boson atom (integer spin), even though it's nucleus is a fermion. However I believe I read (can't remember where) that in BECs of atoms, the bosons are only superimposed with an atomic scale precision (angstroms), not with a nuclear scale precision (fermis) as is the case of BECs of nuclei (e.g. BECs of deuterons). If confirmed, this makes nuclear reactions among Rubidium 85 atoms unlikely I think. Michel 2010/2/5 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Jones Beene wrote: As we mentioned in previous postings, any nuclear reaction with Rb is extremely unlikely, if we assume it is related in any way to a thermonuclear reaction. I think this is true. OTOH, the fact that a gas, Kr, would be produced from a Rb Bose condensate wavefunction collapse, it is very tempting to think such a thing is possible. The Bosenova was created using 85Rb: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bosenova.htm This gives the following potential reactions to stable products: 85Rb37 + 85Rb37 -- 86Sr38 + 84Kr36 + 2.620 MeV 85Rb37 + 85Rb37 -- 87Sr38 + 83Kr36 + 00.527 MeV 85Rb37 + 85Rb37 -- 88Sr38 + 82Kr36 + 4.177 MeV 85Rb37 + 85Rb37 -- 89Y39 + 81Br35 + 1.342 MeV 85Rb37 + 85Rb37 -- 90Zr40 + 80Se34 + 2.193 MeV 85Rb37 + 85Rb37 -- 92Zr40 + 78Se34 + 1.145 MeV It is notable that one of the potential products is a gas, krypton, which might escape detection in the experiment if produced. The nucleus 85Rb has an even number of neutrons, 48, plus 37 protons and electrons. Provided the electrons and protons pair spins, the net spin of the 85 Rb atom is zero. At one time I suggested the possibility that an (extrenal source provided) energetic particle could collapse the wave function of a Bose condensate to a point: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BoseHyp.pdf This would mean that both the nuclei and electrons would condense to (approximately) a point. Such a collapse would create a highly negative energy entity, having possibly on the order of many GeV negative energy. However, as the electron wavefunctions expand, the negative energy would be restored from the vacuum, and the nuclei would have the energy to react, producing nearly zero net energy reactions. The reaction that would be triggered first, from paired rubidium nuclei, would be: 85Rb37 + 85Rb37 -- 86Sr38 + 84Kr36 + 2.620 MeV Thus producing a large proportion of krypton gas. The 2.620 MeV is otherwise irrelevant, because it is essentially consumed by the electron negative energy. The explosion would be produced with nominal energy. This is admittedly far fetched, for various reasons, one of the most obvious ones being this: an amount of strontium corresponding to the krypton created would be left behind. Surely this strontium would have been noticed, if present in such a large proportion. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spam has been eliminated? Robin posts considered spam (was Re: OFF TOPIC Davos predictions: predictably wrong?)
Robin, have you watched the Youtube video Terry linked to? Here is the link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE It's the 1970 Monty Python sketch, Spam, which is the actual origin of the use of the word for unsolicited email, due to the high number of times the word is repeated in the sketch, in spite of one of the characters vehemently not wanting any Spam: I don't like Spam!. Absolutely hilarious :) Michel PS Strange how Gmail's algorithms consider some messages are spam for some people and not for others. Personalized spam blocking! 2010/1/27 mix...@bigpond.com: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:09:31 -0500: Hi, [snip] On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: SPAM - SPurious Advertising Material. Also SPiced hAM: That was the original definition before the advent of the Internet. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
The elevator cable doesn't have to be electrically conductive. Michel 2010/1/25 Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com: best link ive found so far. http://www.data4science.net/essays.php?EssayID=850 hmm, i think its the same one you are talking about. I THOUGHT there was another one done, but i could be wrong. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 01/25/2010 03:39 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote: unfortunately, space elevator research has stalled due to a lot of issues with voltage differentials in the upper atmosphere. The last test I heard of of stretching a ribbon between the ground and leo, after it got about 5 miles long, it vaporized in a discharge, acting as a ground. not pretty. I don't recall that. I know the tethered satellite experiment done on the Shuttle failed with a burned cable, but I hadn't heard of any further work with long tethers after that. I'd be interested in hearing more about the 5 mile cable drop-and-fry from LEO, if you have a link to more info. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If the space elevator people succeed the rest will be easy. I would include the elevator advocates and experimentalists in the top ranks of those promoting space travel. I don't know how much support NSS is giving elevators but they should be a top priority. NASA, unfortunately, gave the elevator people the frozen boot years ago, in favor of retro-design rockets. - Jed
[Vo]:Spam has been eliminated? Robin posts considered spam (was Re: OFF TOPIC Davos predictions: predictably wrong?)
2010/1/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: By the way, I think Bill Gates (2004) was right and spam has been largely eliminated. Jed, I see you use Gmail, have you checked the number of emails in your spam folder? (the spams you have received in the last month if you haven't deleted them manually). Mine contains more than 1400 spams, so maybe it would be more accurate to say that spam is less problematic because big email providers do a better job at blocking them. Not such a good job BTW. While checking my SPAM folder I found 3 Vortex posts in it, all 3 from Robin (mixent, why mixent BTW Robin?). I just marked them as non-spam but I, and maybe others, may have lost other posts this way. Could other Vortexians who also use Gmail check their Spam folders for such posts? E.g. in your search box, type: in:spam Vo I am curious to know if it happened to them too. Michel
Re: [Vo]:orbo is a heat pump?
2010/1/25 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: If orbo were extracting heat from the air then part of the orbo would become hotter than the surrounding air, but for that to happen wouldn't part of the orbo have to be cooler than the surrounding air? I guess so, isn't it the case? Michel
Re: [Vo]:orbo is a heat pump?
I suggested it could be a heat pump about a week ago, after someone (you, I think) said that the orbo generated more heat than its electrical energy consumption. If it's a high COP (2) heat pump it can be quite useful for heating purposes, although totally useless for electrical power generation as we discussed a few years back (loop closed? thread). It being a heat pump would imply that the surrounding air gets cooler of course. It would also imply that if the device with its surrounding air is enclosed in a calorimeter it will not be found to be overunity! Michel 2010/1/24 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: Orbo discussed as a heat pump: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=62574page=1#Item_0 Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Re: [Vo]:orbo is a heat pump?
Didn't even know this existed, thanks Jones for making me look more learned than I am! No, I was just saying that IF it is a heat pump, THEN of course the surrounding air should get cooler, I had no mechanism in mind, I don't even know what the Orbo is made of. Your magnetocaloric effect could be the explanation for what I know. Michel 2010/1/24 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence Not 'of course'. No mechanism has been proposed, nor can I imagine one, for making the surrounding air get cooler as a result of running an Orbo Michel is probably referring to some kind of Magnetocaloric effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetocaloric_effect
Re: [Vo]:steorn addendum video posted on youtube
2010/1/21 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: My point was that Mr. Mrs. Jane Joe Public are not the entities Steorn is going after. Steorn is mostly going after companies, enterprises, corporate entities (big or small) that might be interested. I think on the contrary that the entirety of their licensing revenue will be from individuals. If I understand correctly their licensing model, enterprises will only pay a percentage of their sales of products implementing the technology. So if the technology doesn't work they won't pay a cent. Individuals on the contrary pay a flat fee! Michel
Re: [Vo]:steorn addendum video posted on youtube
2010/1/21 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com: From Michel: My point was that Mr. Mrs. Jane Joe Public are not the entities Steorn is going after. Steorn is mostly going after companies, enterprises, corporate entities (big or small) that might be interested. I think on the contrary that the entirety of their licensing revenue will be from individuals. If I understand correctly their licensing model, enterprises will only pay a percentage of their sales of products implementing the technology. So if the technology doesn't work they won't pay a cent. Individuals on the contrary pay a flat fee! Interesting point, Michel. Let me try to redeem my thoughts on the matter. Yes, indeed, I agree that anyone, including myself can purchase an ORBO license - a flat fee. I have no idea what an ORBO license would cost me, but it's probably more than I would care to spend. But why would I want to? What could I do with an ORBO license? Tinker away in my garage after work, hoping to discover an elusive improvement to ORBO's alleged OU? Yeah, I suppose that's possible, and some might actually end up doing just that. But not too many, methinks. Ergo, very little profit will be generated from the selling of ORBO flat fee licenses to anyone, be it world renown corporate giants or indigenous garage inventors. If that is Steorn's actual profit strategy in regards to marketing ORBO, they would have to be dumber than a pot of steaming cauliflower. 8-0 Since you have no idea of the cost of the individual license, nor of how many enthusiasts will buy it, nor of what they can be persuaded to buy from Steorn after that (Steorn measurement instruments at a preferential price, maybe?), how can you tell? Adding to peatbog's recent speculations, t seems to me that Steorn believes that the real profits would eventually come from the small percentage of the gross/net sales generated from products implementing their ORBO technology. If Steorn's ORBO technology is the equivalent of a pink energizer bunny, such small percentage profits would eventually turn out to be a floodgate of obscene riches. This premise assumes that Stoern BELIEVES their ORBO is valid technology... that Steorn just needs a few of those big spending corporate entities to buy a cheap (for them) licenses and subsequently work out a few minor pesky bugs! Well not exactly, your premise assumes that the technology IS valid (what Steorn believes is irrelevant to what will ultimately happen). Mine assumes it isn't, but whether it is valid or not, they will make money. I have seen dumber schemes :) Michel
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
2010/1/16, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net: I sent one post which hasn't shown up yet... Perhaps its awaiting Bills scrutiny before allowing it thru. It had a JPEG attachment This is because posts above 40 KB total size are not allowed on this Eskimo hosted list, which is one of several reasons why Bill considers switching list hosting to e.g. Google Groups (free hosting, more reliable delivery, several MB attachment allowance, web interface for browsing-posting-archiving-searching) Michel
Re: [Vo]:Capacitors for Steorn
Yes, good point William, that's the way to make a capacitor both large and fast. However, if their claim is that they produce more heat than they consume electrical power as Harry said (some form of heat pump maybe?), then the capacitor voltage could drop even if their claim was valid couldn't it? Michel 2010/1/15 William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com: On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Terry Blanton wrote: I seriously doubt it since the statement is false. IIRC, he said that the capacitor was too slow in current delivery. Actually, the Well, that's true of supercapacitors. They take seconds to discharge during a direct short, not microseconds. So if a large electrolytic has too small a value, parallel it with a supercap. That gives the sharp edge as well as the large value. (( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
Hi Jones, Sorry for the delay, here is the ref (note it refers to hydrogen, not deuterium, whose heat of adsorption could thus conceivably be the 2 eV per D found by Kitamura for 5 nm particle sizes): JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS 104, 1-16 (1987) Calorimetric Heat of Adsorption Measurements on Palladium I. Influence of Crystallite Size and Support on Hydrogen Adsorption PEN CHOU AND M. ALBERT VANNICE Here is the abstract (some OCR errors may have escaped my scrutiny): A modified differential scanning calorimeter was used to measure integral heats of adsorption of hydrogen, Qad, at 300 K on unsupported Pd powder and on Pd dispersed on SiO2, SiO2-Al2O3, Al2O3, and TiO2. The supports were found to have no significant effect on Qad, and although reduction of Pd/TiO2 samples at 773 K sharply decreased the amount of hydrogen chemisorbed on these samples, the Qad values measured on these samples were comparable to the other catalysts. In contrast, Pd crystallite size had a very pronounced effect on Qad. On all these catalysts the heat of adsorption for hydrogen remained constant at 15 +- 1 kcal mole^-1 as the average Pd crystallite size decreased from 1000 to 3 nm, but it increased sharply as the size dropped below 3 nm. The highest value, 24 kcal mole^-1, was obtained on one of the most highly dispersed samples. Heats of formation of bulk Pd hydride showed a similar behavior, remaining constant at 8.7 +- 1.0 kcal mole^-1 for samples with low Pd dispersions and then increasing noticeably as the crystallite size dropped below 3 nm. Most of this variation in Qad is attributed to changes in the electronic properties of small Pd crystallites because the differences in Qad values reported on single crystal surfaces are not sufficient to explain the enhanced bond strength. Michel 2009/12/30 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Michel Ø The spread is not large for a given set of conditions. In particular there is one very important (IMHO) point which seems consistently overlooked, not just by you, which is that the binding energy is not the same on the surface (heat of adsorption) as it is in the bulk (heat of absorption). It's much higher on the surface. Interestingly, decreasing the Pd particle size increases the surface binding energy (I can dig up a ref if anyone is interested) which is what the Kitamura work re-discovers IMHO. By all means - we are very interested, since this is really one of the two important points left to be decided. And providing this reference in an unequivocal way (i.e. specifically wrt hydrogen and palladium) would salvage your other comments out of the category of “fishy”. Therefore, we eagerly await your (hopefully authoritative) reference, since the “much higher” surface binding attribute as you claim, is a bit counter-intuitive; and without it we have a compelling set of circumstances for expanding the importance of the putative anomaly – which as Terry opined, might possibly be related to nascent hydrogen. The next issue, of course, is whether or not the 2 eV per atom loading heat of Kitamura is accurate and reproducible by others. That is where I suspect the problem will be found. Side note: as many of us are aware, hydrogen comes off of bulk palladium easily enough that it can be, and once was, once used as a cigarette lighter (which presumably did not require much input to ignite – other than a spark) but was surely an expensive indulgence. As I recall – and a brief googling confirms, the so-called Doebereiner cigarette lighter from the 1800’s was used by early CF skeptics to explain away the excess heat of the PF effect, since it apparently got quite hot following a hydrogen recharge. Problem is – they apparently never checked the complete thermodynamic balance of the Doebereiner effect … at least there is no record of that which I can find. Is it presumptive to suggest, given Kitamura, that the very same effect used by skeptics to try to disprove CF could instead point to another, and perhaps more usable anomaly? Nah, probably not. But it would be one great way to convert palladium into irony ;-) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Horrace help
2009/12/30 fznidar...@aol.com: I liked what you did. It gave a first approximation very good answer. Now the next thing I have been trying to get a grip on is, What is the phonon frequency of the dissolved hydrogen in a cold fusion palladium electrode? Haven't followed his calculation closely but I think this is what Horace (one 'r') calculated. BTW, it would be interesting to know the adsorbed (as opposed to absorbed) D phonon frequency too, since the surface tetrahedral sites are probably where things happen (deeper trapping potential, corresponding to a higher electron density, which is useful whatever the mechanism at play: electron capture, DD fusion... Michel I don't even know what the restraints are. Does is move in a group and what then is M? Were is it attached and what then is K. Any ideas. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
2009/12/29 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: OK, vorticians. This is could be an important paper and topic, so let me add one more point of clarification to Michel Jullian's point about the heat of combustion of hydrogen, compared to the anomalous loading heat of Kitamura's claim. Michel correctly finds that if you only look at one-half of the reaction, and ignore the mass of the end product, then what we have is: (294.6 / 2) / 6.02e23) * kJ = ~1.5 electron volts/amu based on hydrogen I didn't ignore anything, I converted the energy released by the reaction of D2O formation (all two halves of the reaction ;) from a per D2O mole basis to a per D atom basis, the same basis Kitamura used for his 2 eV value, and the same basis you used for your 0.5 eV value presumably, since you compared it with Kitamura's. Begin Fish drowning This is the energy released relative to initial hydrogen mass, but that might assume that oxygen is unnecessary, if you leave it out. One should take the mass of O2 into consideration for the comparison with reversible hydride loading. ERGO. It would have been clearer back a few posts ago - if I had broken the comparison down this way. The steam from hydrogen combustion will have a molecular wt of 18 amu per hot molecule. The heat of combustion of the two hydrogen atoms is ~3+ eV in total. The resultant energy per amu of the steam, therefore, is 3/18 or .16 eV per amu of combustion end product. When we compare that energy per mass of combustion product - with the Kitamura reaction of hydrogen which has been reversibly loaded into a metal matrix, and then released, then we find that the amu of the end product is still about one since there is/was no permanent bond. The thermal energy released, according to Kitamura is ~2 eV, so the eV per amu is about a *ten to one ratio,* when the energy of the hydride bond is deducted - compared to hydrogen combustion (by mass of all non-renewable reactants). End Fish drowning (those who understand French, see http://www.linternaute.com/expression/langue-francaise/450/noyer-le-poisson/) Come on my dear Jones, a little more work and you will find that your 0.5 eV is correct for some thing or other I am sure ;-) Next big issue. What is the real hydride bond energy for Pd? There is a chart here (Fig 3): http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/79/1/012028/jpconf7_79_012028.pdf?request-id=e4195775-a6d5-4d5f-83b9-da98912aa8c1 Interesting paper, thanks for the pointer! It appears that the bond energy for Pd varies between .9 eV and a negative value, depending of a number of variables. The bond is field influenced, which could be important. From the chart - an average value appears to be less than .5 eV. However, the indication is that it could be much lower. Therefore, if Kitamura were correct on the heat energy (which I am beginning to doubt), then this kind of iterative recycling of hydrogen would be a window of opportunity for gainfulness, since the spread is very large. The spread is not large for a given set of conditions. In particular there is one very important (IMHO) point which seems consistently overlooked, not just by you, which is that the binding energy is not the same on the surface (heat of adsorption) as it is in the bulk (heat of absorption). It's much higher on the surface. Interestingly, decreasing the Pd particle size increases the surface binding energy (I can dig up a ref if anyone is interested) , which is what the Kitamura work re-discovers IMHO. The surface binding energy is of course relevant for putative LENRs occurring there! Michel
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
2009/12/28 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: - but the 2 eV available from loading alone without deuterium (contrast that to about .5 eV if the hydrogen were burned in air) is a huge surprise - Jones, where did you get that .5 eV figure? I did the maths and found about 1.5 eV instead, here is the Google calculator result; ((294.6 / 2) / 6.02e23) * kJ = 1.52719998 electron volts 294.6 kJ/mol is the energy released per mole of D2O formed (=minus the enthalpy of formation of D2O), which I divided by 2 (2 D per D2O) and by Avogadro's number and then converted to eV to find the burning energy in eV per D atom. Did I get it wrong? Michel
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
2009/12/29 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian - but the 2 eV available from loading alone without deuterium (contrast that to about .5 eV if the hydrogen were burned in air) is a huge surprise - MJ: Jones, where did you get that .5 eV figure? I did the maths and found about 1.5 eV instead, here is the Google calculator result; ((294.6 / 2) / 6.02e23) * kJ = 1.52719998 electron volts Michel, the half-eV figure is the common 'real world' estimate based on the maximum average temperature of the resultant steam - but even so, it appears you did not first deduct the dissociation energy of O2 and H2 Their formation enthalpy is zero, by convention and then later deduct the parasitic losses of NOx, peroxides etc. and the other losses that are expected in actual practice, for combustion in air? Negligible IOW there are lies, damn lies, and theoretical calculations ;) when trying to go from 'paper numbers' to actual practice. Kitamura's numbers were indicated to be actual practice (if they can be trusted) so it is fair to contrast those numbers with that which would happen if one were to actually burn H2 in air - and .5 eV is a fair estimate No (see below) even if you discount the 80% of air which is nearly inert. why would you not discount them??? Since water can be split into H2 and O2 with 1.23 volts - does it stand to reason that one could get 1.5 eV in return ? That was rhetorical; and of course this one of nature's built-in cases of systemic overunity - This was not rhetorical at all actually, I hadn't made the connexion but yes, the combustion energy per D atom in eV should be, of course, exactly equal to the thermoneutral electrolysis voltage... and it is, as a matter of fact: the thermoneutral voltage for electrolysis of D2O is 1.54V, which confirms my 1.53V calculation. And BTW, it's 1.48V for H2O, not 1.23V. ... except for the damn lie that it simply does not work out that way in practice - but it does serve to contrast the large disparity of the actual with the calculated. Did I get it wrong? Well, let's say that you got it partly right and mostly wrong Or rather, as it turns out, exactly right. Physics works, contrary to your suggestions :) Besides, you don't have to take my word, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion Hydrogen: 140 kJ/g, which is about 1.5eV per atom. The important result here is that the 2 eV you get by letting an hydrogen atom bond to the _surface_ of a Pd nanoparticle are comparable with the chemical energy you get by letting it bond to an oxygen atom (starting from molecular gas phase in both cases) Michel
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
2009/12/29 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com: On 12/29/2009 11:19 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Since water can be split into H2 and O2 with 1.23 volts - does it stand to reason that one could get 1.5 eV in return ? That was rhetorical; and of course this one of nature's built-in cases of systemic overunity - Now you're neglecting the splitting cost of H2-2H and O2-2H. No he isn't, that's comprised in the price (if you use the correct value of 1.48V that is). What's the energy needed to go from water to the gases? 1.48V, times the charge of the transferred electrons (1 electron per hydrogen atom). Of course, you get the same energy when going the other way. Michel
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Nick Palmer uploads video on Climategate
I'm asking because I can't recall anybody ever quoting documents from that office. The NYTimes did (this must be the paper the French journalist refers to in his blog and documentary): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html Michel 2009/12/10 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com: On 12/09/2009 05:51 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: You're right Rick that suppression can occur even in the US: http://premiereslignes.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/12/08/enfumes.html (in French, sorry) Intéressant, peut-etre, mais je parie que Rick ne trouverait pas ce blog très amusant. The example of Patrick Michaels, evil climatologist churning out dubious reports, would be more surprising if he hadn't been with the Cato Institute. I mean, everybody already knows those guys are just a mouthpiece for the far right and the oil lobby, don't they? I actually had a serious (though maybe rather dumb) question, regarding the last part of the blog: What was Philip Cooney's actual impact with regard to the reports that he allegedly watered down? I mean, who actually sees the publications produced by the Environmental Quality Council of the Whitehouse? Was this stuff just being given to Bush (i.e., was this a way of manipulating the Prez)? Or are their reports widely published and read? I'm asking because I can't recall anybody ever quoting documents from that office.
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Nick Palmer uploads video on Climategate
You're right Rick that suppression can occur even in the US: http://premiereslignes.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/12/08/enfumes.html (in French, sorry) Michel 2009/12/9, Rick Monteverde r...@highsurf.com: Stephen wrote: ... I can't help but think any assertion that expressing any particular belief should be ILLEGAL [in the United States] must be nothing more than a personal expression of frustration, or possibly a straw man set up to start an argument. ... I think what NP was referring to was for the UK, and he said or implied that there is precedence for such a thing there and that he was basically optimistic that it could happen. We First Amendment huggers (believers) here in the US tend to react less favorably to such moves than do the poor blighted furriners in Europe who have demonstrated a tendency to embrace true tyranny over the years. But like I said, our worst mistake would be thinking it can't happen here. - R.
Re: [Vo]:Journal Of Applied Science
Yes, good point Robin. BTW, Google is very helpful for this kind of calculations, try Googling: 1e19 MeV per 10 s in kW Michel 2009/12/5 mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:02:45 +0100: Hi, [snip] For instance, the laser welding nuclear fusion used by Arata and Zhang was only 300 watts and generated about 1019 to 1020 particles per 10 seconds. ...as I believe I have pointed out previously, this has to be wrong. 1E19 particles / 10 sec = 1E18 / sec. which in turn represents 1E18 reactions / sec. If we assume a very modest 1 MeV / nuclear reaction, this equates to a power of 160 kW, which I very strongly doubt actually happened. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Yomiuri reports that Toyota will sell a plug-in hybrid
Terry meant that one doesn't often use brakes on interstate highways, so regenerative braking has no reason to improve mileage. Michel 2009/12/8 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Terry Blanton wrote: Actually, this one will probably have the ~600 mile range of the regular Prius, or possibly more, because the extra batteries improve mileage in hybrid mode. How is this so when there is no regenerative braking? (on the interstate system) Surely there is regenerative braking. There always is with a Prius. Or is there a Federal law against it on the interstate system? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark
2009/12/5 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: So, who had the foresight to envision the cross-connection? Well that remark was not phrased very well, I agree - but if you google [Julian Schwinger LENR] this will be the first hit: www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusiona.pdf Well, Feynman would have been hard put to beat Schwinger to any connection related to CF obviously. But had he lived longer he might well have! Anyway, yes, QCD is necessary to complete the story after the close encounter. It may even have a more active role if a nuclear chain reaction is at play! Michel
Re: [Vo]:Journal Of Applied Science
2009/12/5 Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com ... Solid State Nuclear Fusion http://www.wbabin.net/science/shrair3.pdf This seems to be a very good up to date review of the field, by a Ph.D. candidate in surface physics and electron devices. Full text: Can a Solid-State Nuclear Fusion Reactor Be the Ultimate Green Energy Solution? 03.12.2009 Jamal S. Amar Shrair* Introduction We all know that palladium (Pd) is an ideal material to study hydrogen storage kinetics because its bulk hydride properties are well characterized. Pd absorbs hydrogen gas up to 900 times its volume. Furthermore, recent investigations have shown that the rate of hydrogen trapping inside Pd is even higher in the case of Pd nanoparticles. Hydrogen atoms are strongly trapped and stabilized in the lattice of Pd nanoparticles, compared to bulk Pd. The benefit of studying and modifying the surface of nanoparticle Pd and other large surface area nanoparticles can lead to better understanding of nuclear transmutation reactions in solids heavily loaded with H, D or both. The phenomenon is known as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). Since 1989 and particularly in the last two years, different research groups around the world have reported undisputable evidence on the presence of nuclear reactions in the Pd/D lattice. It was unfortunate that Fleischmann and Pons, who were the first to observe LENR in 1989, made mistakes and added wild extrapolations; nevertheless, they were not wrong with regard to their finding of excess heat, which has now been validated by so many research groups worldwide, like the valuable results that have been achieved by U.S.Navy researchers, Yasuhiro Iwamura of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and especially the results of Yoshiaki Arata and Yue Chang Zhang. However, by comparing the results and methods of these experiments, it seems that there is a better experimental approach to increase the reaction rates of this process and obtain clear and sound results. LENR is a surface-dependent phenomena. Thus, in order to increase the reaction rate and have a suitable process from a practical point of view, one has to focus on the surface area and try to create the right environment. Better results can be obtained by comparing the surface reactivity of different materials and different size nanoparticles in a new experimental configuration called “laser-driven solid-state nuclear reactor.” In addition to the above, better experimental results can lead to formulating a theoretical model for nuclear transmutation reactions in solids. I believe there are certain conditions that can be created which might bring the ions of H/D isotopes at distances of a few Fermi so the spontaneous fusion rate would increase considerably. Evaluations of the Research Activities Experiments show that when deuterium (or at times even hydrogen) atoms are inserted (or loaded) inside a metal — such as palladium, titanium, nickel, etc. — occupying interstitial lattice positions in sufficiently large numbers and if the right “active environment” is created, a variety of nuclear reactions are found to occur involving not only the deuterium nuclei but also the host metal atoms. In this process “excess energy” is often found to be produced and in some cases nuclear particles such as neutrons, X-rays and even charged particles are released. But increasingly it has been observed that new “transmutation” elements not present prior to the commencement of the experiments have been detected. Most of those stunning experiments demonstrating low energy nuclear transmutations are readily available for sincere skeptics in the website www.lenr-canr.org. LENR was first observed in 1989 by Fleischmann and Pons. Their work got embroiled in a worldwide controversy. Now there are hundreds of researchers in several countries working on this field to unravel the mystery behind what has now come to be also known as Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS). Some of the leading researchers in this field are or were employed at well known research institutes such as Los Alamos National Laboratory. Dr. Igor Goryachev from the famous Kurchatov Institute, for example, is expecting to demonstrate his 100 KW “alchemical reactor” in the very near future. In 2007 researchers from the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California threw cold water on skeptics of LENR. They achieved “direct and undisputable evidence” of LENR in the Pd lattice and successfully detected the passage of atomic particles emitted from the reactions using CR-39 detectors. They say their method can be replicated and verified by the scientific community. The results were published in the respected journal Naturwissenschaften. Yasuhiro Iwamura of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries designed a flawless experiment that demonstrated 100% reproducibility. On May 22, 2009, Osaka University physicist Yoshiaki Arata and his associate Yue Chang Zhang continuously generated excess energy in the form of
Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark
Jones, QCD comes into play once the reacting nuclear particles are within femtometers of each other. But first, it must be explained how they get that close with sufficient probability, and this is purely a QED problem if I am not mistaken. So, who had the foresight to envision the cross-connection? (between what and what BTW?) Michel 2009/12/5 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: The key phrase here is “triple tracks” … http://www.physorg.com/news157046734.html Because this article came ahead of (or even instigated) some of the recent popularization of new theories relating LENR to the likelihood of quark interaction (identity or ‘color’ change statistics in quarks), many observers … (well, at least one ;-) … were not able to ‘connect the dots’ very well till now (today actually). Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory of the strong nuclear interaction, describing the interactions of the quarks and gluons making up all hadrons. The theory of “color-charged fermions” (quarks) is the key component. “Color” is probably an unfortunate descriptor here, but so be it – semantics be damned. QCD has become an important part of the Standard Model of particle physics, and it would be informative to find and credit the first theorist to make the connection of QCD to LENR. I suspect that sometime in the next decade, PF will eventually be given the credit they deserve, along with whomever has made the best theoretical study of the dynamics. My bet is that it could be Pamela Mosier-Boss if she can jump on this bandwagon fast enough and get enough positive PR. Interesting connection is that Julian Schwinger shared a Nobel prize with Richard Feynman (for QED the predecessor of QCD) and yet only one of them had the foresight to envision the cross-connection. Can you guess which one? A huge body of experimental evidence for QCD has been gathered over the years, and the crowning jewel of that could well be its use to explain LENR in a way which leads to ultimate commercialization. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Electrolysis Looks Very Weird
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/33/ Hope this helps (haven't watched the vid but the lecturer, Walter Lewin, is one of the best physics teachers of our times). Michel 2009/11/28 Chris Zell chrisrz...@yahoo.com Ordinary things often look weird to me. Like how do zillions of raindrops create a consistent appearance of a rainbow when they are randomly falling thru the air... seems like you would get a mess of mostly white light and not a neat march of apparently organized Roy G. Biv's.
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
Jed, (sorry for the late reply, finding it hard to keep up with the high volume of postings lately, could power contributors make attempts at conciseness please?) 2009/11/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: I forgot to mention a critical factor. Heat stimulation of cold fusion reactions seems to occur remarkably slowly. Fleischmann and Biberian both told me they used a heat pulse to trigger the boil off reaction. It worked something like this: Turn up electrolysis power for 3 minutes. The temperature starts to rise. Turn the power back down again. Temperature stabilizes, starts to fall . . . Wait for it . . . Wait for it . . . Minutes later the cell starts to self-heat, as positive feedback kicks in. It ramps up slowly, over several minutes, and finally reaches the climax boil off (as Biberian calls it). Interesting! It may not be the heat pulse per se that triggered the LENRs. When you turn the electrolysis power back down (to a non zero initial value previously maintained for a long time, right?) after having turned it up for several minutes, you get desorption don't you? This, plus the flickering hot spots observed on the (probably desorbing) back of the Mylar backed SPAWAR cathode discussed the other day (if they are indeed CF effects which I see Horace disputes)... Any additional experimental evidence of the PF effect occurring on simultaneously desorbing and electrolyzing Pd surfaces? Michel
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Free-willing (or is it -weeling? :) friends, Harry, When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that there is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if this list is infinitely long it still means that certain possibilities will be OFF the list, other wise it could not be a predictive theory! Yes. And interestingly, the possibilities which are off the list (zero probability) can be very exactly defined in some experiments, as can be seen by entering a large number e.g. 10 and hitting the More button repeatedly in this nice double slit applet: http://www.ianford.com/dslit/ Selecting, at the other extreme, one particle per shot will yield, after a proportionately larger number of shots, the very same fringe pattern, and that's what actually happens in experiments. And that's where QM beats any classical or neoclassical theory with both hands tied behind its back! Jones, it's not nice to have published the blueprints of my brain ;-) BTW I didn't see multiple definitions of free will in the WP article, nor did I see much useful information there. Philosophy should be left to scientists, as the name says and as it was in the early days! Mauro, I suspect that your concept that conscience is not physico-mechanical will be laughed at heartily by your desktop computer in 2042, date at which it will have as many logical gates as a human brain according to Moore's law (IIRC). Michel
Re: [Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery
2009/11/27 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: I'd like to see what happens to the bubbles when the battery is disconnected. If it really is a fuel cell it should be possible to bubble O2 and H2 (from another cell) around the separate wires and get a sustained current. A very good idea, seems quite easy to implement with a couple of tubings going from the electrolytic cell to the fuel cell, this reminded me I had seen similar bubbling of an external gas on an electrode in articles on reference electrodes ( see e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_hydrogen_electrode ). Reference electrodes are probably quite relevant to the present discussion, in that they seem capable to maintain a reference voltage as long as you keep bubbling the gas, without any additional energy input! This looks like an interesting high school science project. Indeed, and it might even allow practical clean batteries for low power devices. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
2009/11/27 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar: Free-willing (or is it -weeling? :) friends, Hi, I assume you meant -wheeling. Yes Harry, When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that there is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if this list is infinitely long it still means that certain possibilities will be OFF the list, other wise it could not be a predictive theory! Yes. And interestingly, the possibilities which are off the list (zero probability) can be very exactly defined in some experiments, as can be seen by entering a large number e.g. 10 and hitting the More button repeatedly in this nice double slit applet: http://www.ianford.com/dslit/ Selecting, at the other extreme, one particle per shot will yield, after a proportionately larger number of shots, the very same fringe pattern, and that's what actually happens in experiments. And that's where QM beats any classical or neoclassical theory with both hands tied behind its back! Jones, it's not nice to have published the blueprints of my brain ;-) BTW I didn't see multiple definitions of free will in the WP article, nor did I see much useful information there. Philosophy should be left to scientists, as the name says and as it was in the early days! Mauro, I suspect that your concept that conscience is not physico-mechanical will be laughed at heartily by your desktop computer in 2042, date at which it will have as many logical gates as a human brain according to Moore's law (IIRC). Well, we don't need to wait that longer. We already know that certain phenomena are simply not contained within the framework of classical mechanics, due to its stochastic nature. So, for computers or machines to be able to achieve conscience, they'll have to be built in a way which allows stochastic processes to occur in their circuits. That is, they'll have to be capable of non-deterministic behavior. just let them run on Vista :) Seriously, I don't think built-in randomness is required to create conscience, sheer complexity should suffice. I certainly think that that is possible, and a machine like that will be probably made one day. That day, those machines will achieve not only conscience, but also free will. Not any more than us. What remains to be seen is what drastic decisions they'll probably take when aware of their origins, reality and planned destiny. This will be fun. The literature abounds in speculations on this subject, 2001 Space Odyssey being one of the classical (and better) examples. I love this film. Hopefully, real computers of the future will have a better sense of humor than Hal! Michel
Re: [Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery
Horace, 2009/11/26 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: snip Here is the original explanation, less the garbled indicator test information: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... It is the presence of the high concentration of ions in solution that makes the residual potential when the battery is disconnected. The H3O+ ions take on electrons through the wire originally releasing hydrogen at the site where the hydrogen was generated, the anode, thus making *more* hydrogen bubbles. Similarly, the OH- ions donate electrons to make H2O2 and *more* O2 at the site where O2 was generated prior. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Still looks right to me, despite the fact I remain dizzy! snip Well no, the site where the hydrogen was generated (which was the cathode BTW, not the anode, let's call it the negative electrode rather, as anode and cathode names switch sides when current direction is reverted) was surrounded by OH- ions, and the site where O2 was generated prior (which was the anode, let's call it the positive electrode from now on) was surrounded by H3O+ ions. Therefore it can't be a case of more H2 where H2 was already bubbling and more O2 where O2 was already bubbling, agreed? Michel
Re: [Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery
Hi Horace, Your alternative explanation for the device doesn't work, see my comments in your text below. 2009/11/23 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: On Nov 23, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: See: http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/fuel_cell/fuel_cell.html I had no idea an ultraclean rechargeable battery could be done so simply! Supplies: - One foot of platinum coated nickel wire, or pure platinum wire. Since this is not a common household item, we carry platinum coated nickel wire in our catalog. - A popsickle stick or similar small piece of wood or plastic. - A 9 volt battery clip. - A 9 volt battery. - Some transparent sticky tape. - A glass of water. - A volt meter. It seems to me a small amount of lye would help the reaction along. No matter, the intent is apparently not to create a working cell, i.e. generate power, it is merely to generate a voltage. I see they sell the wire for $14.41 plus shipping. A bulk source for wire and mesh might be: http://www.gerarddaniel.com/ H2 and O2 are produced by short electrolysis runs, after which the bubbles clinging to the electrodes are catalytically recombined by the electrode surface material (platinum) to generate electricity :) 1/ The article features nice explanations of how it works, but how does it _really_ work? In particular, in the generating (fuel cell) phase, they don't say what makes the positive hydrogen ions climb uphill from the negative electrode to the positive one, anyone can explain this miracle? ;-) 2/ It seems to me a much higher capacity (and perhaps even practical) rechargeable battery could be made by using a hydrogen absorbing/desorbing material e.g. Pd for the negative electrode, and by making gaseous oxygen available at the anode. Storing the latter is not required of course, O2 from the air is fine... maybe a floating support which would keep a grid or flat serpentine shaped positive electrode at the surface of the water or just below? Michel The explanation looks bogus to me. I think the cell works by reversible reactions, not recombination. Bockris states that conduction in an electrochemical cell in the volume between the interface layers is almost entirely due to concentration gradients. Gradients of charged particle concentration translate as E field. That is because almost all the potential drop is in the interface layers themselves. The E field in the bulk of the cell is very small. True, but it is non-null and has a direction, which would have to be (and indeed, is, I believe) the wrong direction IF indeed protons are travelling in the bulk from the (-) to the (+) electrode in the generating phase, agreed? I expect the cell actually operates by creating even *more* bubbles, not consuming the gas already there in the form of bubbles. In the course of the brief electrolysis by battery, the volume of water around the anode (+) is filled with H3O+ ions, and the volume around the cathode (-) is filled with OH- ions. **Correct** (polarities added by me, to clarify things since polarities don't switch when switching from electrolysis to generating mode, contrary to anode/cathode names) This can actually be viewed by use of a dilute electrolyte, plus a pH indicator like phenolphthalein, which is colorless in acidic electrolytes, and pink in basic solutions. To do this first add the (liquid) phenolphthalein to distilled water. To view the creation and migration of OH- ions: before connecting the battery add a little bit of hydrochloric acid to the water, and stir until it just turns pink. Adding acid can't make it turn pink (pink=basic), I guess you meant lye When the battery is connected the volume around the cathode (- electrode) will turn clear. If it turns clear (=acidic), then it must be the water around the (+) electrode, where H3O+ ions are appearing. You see it's all the wrong way round, including the paragraph below, and if you put it back the right way round (as it was where I commented **Correct** above) you'll see that your explanation below for the scitoy device doesn't hold. To view the creation and migration of H3O+ ions: before connecting the battery add a little bit of lye to the water, and stir. When the battery is connected the volume around the anode (+ electrode) will turn pink. It can take a little fooling around with concentrations to get the effect to work quickly and dramatically. The diffusion occurs slowly but at a clearly visible pace. ... In any case I doubt it is actually recombination that causes the potential at the electrodes. It is the presence of the high concentration of ions in solution that makes the residual potential when the battery is disconnected. The H3O+ ions take on electrons through the wire originally releasing hydrogen at the site where the hydrogen was generated, the anode, thus making *more* hydrogen bubbles. Similarly, the OH- ions donate electrons to make
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar: Yes. The problem with all these approaches will always fortunately be human free will Then there is no problem is there? Michel
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
No, no, all I meant is that since there doesn't seem to exist such a thing as free will in physical systems --fortunately for physicists!-- there is no problem. Unless we humans are not bound by the rules obeyed by the rest of the universe, which remains to be proved. Michel 2009/11/25 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar: 2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar: Yes. The problem with all these approaches will always fortunately be human free will Then there is no problem is there? Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I meant problem in the sense that the outcomes of the future experiments in human cloning/eugenics (i.e. trying to clone a genius) could in my opinion turn out not to be the expected ones. That's why I have quoted the word. If you're asking about the ethical considerations of such experiments, or the potential consequences of such actions, I was not talking about them. Do you wanted to know personal opinions regarding the ethical dimension of eugenics and human cloning, and genetic manipulation in general? Best regards, Mauro
