RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
Jones, How about The Naudts explanation of relativistic hydrogen for the hydrino which by the stationary nature of Rayney Nickel points to a nano scale form of equivalent acceleration (Casimir effect amplifies the effect inversely to the cube of plate separation) - You have others saying the same thing regarding C inside a cavity increasing relative to an observer outside the cavity due to EM suppression which from a relativistic perspective means that ALL EM frequencies are up-shifting en mass from our perspective -the tail is wagging the dog and the entire fabric of space- time inside the cavity is curving not just up-translating the longer wavelengths that don't fit inside the geometry. http://froarty.scienceblog.com/files/2010/06/sine2.gif In a relativistic interpretation the longer vacuum fluctuation wavelengths that standard Casimir theory claims are being displaced from the cavity are actually still present inside the cavity but appear shorter in wavelength from our perspective because Space - Time is actually curving. Time dilation accumulates just like the twin paradox where one twin endures equivalent acceleration at the bottom of a deep gravity well while the other remains relatively stationary in free space or a shallow gravity field such as earth. Gravity also appears modified since the time metric and speed of light appear changed inside a cavity but DiFore et all never detected a change at macro scale because their stacked cavities acts more like a segregators where the suppression concentrated inside the cavity is balanced by a pressure dispersed over the surface area of the plates like sails of a ship. It is only gas atoms that are steered through the suppression areas (cavities/holes in the sails) while avoiding the pressure zones (outer plates/sails) that allow us to exploit the imbalance. With equivalent acceleration the spatial velocity of the hydrogen atom is unimportant - at the macro equivalent acceleration is an accumulated effect of mass and I am positing it also exists at the nano scale as the accumulated effect of Casimir geometry. Whenever that geometry changes rapidly you get catalytic action like the white water in a stream when boulders suddenly change the flow rate. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:24 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com He talks about Hydrogen isotopes embedded in heavier atoms, then goes on to suggest a new form of gravity to explain this. A more likely explanation is a Hydrinohydride ion displacing one of the inner electrons of the heavy atom ... Wow, Robin - you are really behind on your email ... but my reflexive response, also from memory is that the two explanations are not mutually incompatible. It does not have to be a new form of gravity at least not in some of the attempts at unification (of all the forces) where gravity is more than a long-range force, in that it flip-flops and increases exponentially at close range. ... not that I can explain it any better than that...
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com He talks about Hydrogen isotopes embedded in heavier atoms, then goes on to suggest a new form of gravity to explain this. A more likely explanation is a Hydrinohydride ion displacing one of the inner electrons of the heavy atom ... Wow, Robin - you are really behind on your email ... but my reflexive response, also from memory is that the two explanations are not mutually incompatible. It does not have to be a new form of gravity at least not in some of the attempts at unification (of all the forces) where gravity is more than a long-range force, in that it flip-flops and increases exponentially at close range. ... not that I can explain it any better than that...
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:43:17 -0800: Hi, [snip] http://www.gravitation.org/Start/Foerderpreis/APPLICATION_FOR_GODE_PRIZE-J.DUFOUR.pdf Since some blithering idiot won't allow even the copying of a single passage, I'll comment from memory. He talks about Hydrogen isotopes embedded in heavier atoms, then goes on to suggest a new form of gravity to explain this. A more likely explanation is a Hydrinohydride ion displacing one of the inner electrons of the heavy atom (much as a negative muon would do). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
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]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
Michel, This is a very interesting paper, especially in the date - but can you explain how it supports the thesis of increased surface binding in two-way thermodynamic balance, with the heat of adsorption? Yes, the phrase enhanced bond strength is used, but it does not seem to follow logically from the results presented, that this is proved to be reciprocal bond strength. I agree that going to a smaller particle size increases the heat of adsorption, and that at the same time, the surface area increases, but the specific point in question (for alternative energy) is the possibility of asymmetry between the two, such that CoE is violated. Instead, it seems that the *presumption* of CoE is what is being used to support the argument that it is balanced, instead of actual proof. Don't get me wrong - it may be balanced. CoE is a strong presumption. But is it specifically shown in this paper? It is great to find that Kitamura's heat results are pre-approved back in 1987, so to speak, but that that does not really address the issue of an asymmetry at the nano level, does it? Plus, don't overlook that this 3 nm particle size is coincidentally near the peak of the Casimir force active geometry, so there is an underlying factor of importance which would tend to merit an exact thermodynamic study. Have you seen the Haisch/Moddell patent? In fact the reason that the Doebereiner cigarette lighter example was mentioned in the earlier post was to show that a fully complete study is absent in the record (or else I missed it). Early CF skeptics used the heat of adsorption (and perhpas this same paper) to explain away the putative excess heat of the PF effect (since the lighter apparently got quite hot following a hydrogen recharge). However, the precise thermodynamic balance was apparently never demonstrated - simply presumed. At the nano level, there could be a tiny, iterative in-out asymmetry at or near the surface binding layer - (which operates at the IR frequency range) such that a tiny consecutive imbalance is additive for net excess heat. That would be the fabled ZPE pump - which admittedly may be only a fable, but we need to leave open the possibility until a complete accounting is performed. This gives me one more opportunity to Pun the skeptical presumptiveness of the mainstream in 1989, which may have served to transmute palladium into irony ;-) Jones -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian 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.
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
Nice post Jones, I totally agree with your points and regarding CoE, ask Vorticians to keep an open mind towards a relativistic solution as an escape . Fran
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
Here is a recent SciNews article which gives hope that Casimir cycling for gain is ultimately doable: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210153657.htm ... indicating at least that some high-priced brain power at DoE and Argonne believe that Casimir attraction can be manipulated into repulsion. That would be the key to finding a useable asymmetry in the heat of adsorption, at this geometric level. It could be as simple as rapidly cycling an electric field, in which the nanoparticles are place with hydrogen ... As characteristic device dimensions shrink to the nanoscale, the effects of the attractive Casimir force becomes more pronounced making very difficult to control nano-devices. This is a technological challenge that need to be addressed before the full potential of NEMS devices can be demonstrated, ... The goal is to not only limit its attractive properties, but also to make it repulsive. -Original Message- From: Frank I totally agree with your points and regarding CoE, ask Vorticians to keep an open mind towards a relativistic solution as an escape . Fran
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
Michel * 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]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:22:14 Jones Beene said [snip] Others here on Vo - have mentioned or debated the fact that the gravity force must grow exponentially at close dimensions - IF - grand unification is accurate. I think it is accurate. Dufour puts some numbers to that hypothesis. He may be onto something.[End Snip] [snip] But here is an irony. We have often asked the rhetorical question: if the Casimir 'force' is essentially negative, then how can it produce a net energy gain? And now, with pico-gravity in the picture, we seems to have a tantalizing clue, in a reversed solution, so to speak. [End Snip] [reply] How about if the gravity is also a relativistic effect? If Naudts is correct then the hydrino can be explained relativistically. The Casimir plates are a negative energy sink reshaping longer vacuum fluctuations to fit between the plates meaning the Casimir cavity represents a different inertial frame. Any matter diffused inside the cavity is redrawn on these reshaped vacuum fluctuations which also modify gravity from our perspective outside the cavity because gravity is defined as distance/time^2. Gamma is changing inside the cavity in the same way as the Twin approaching C see his twin back on earth except the boundary is abrupt and the accumulating dv results from a difference in equivalent accelerations between the ambient gravitational field outside the cavity and reduced field inside. The cavity maintains the zones spatially stationary to each other but the reshaped / restricted vacuum flux open a novel relativistic solution for the dv. We pull away in our ambient inertial frame while the cavity contents fall behind in time proportional to the Casimir force/ plate spacing at their locality, different inertial frames forming a gradient for different spacing until finally reaching the plate boundaries and restoring the normal ambient energy levels for vacuum fluctuations. The gradient represents different levels of deceleration (or negative energy/sink), the energy would be conservative upon exiting the cavity unless we somehow pin the reshaped atoms into their new shape making the vacuum flux do work to restore the atoms on the way out such as forming a compound or molecule. I don't think the world will ever see a steep fractional hydrogen outside of a Casimir cavity / skeletal catalyst and I think this property can be exploited in conjunction with natures preference for diatomic states. The black light plasma could well be decelerated hydrogen oscillating between H1/H2 as it is drug back up to speed exiting the cavity.[end reply] Fran animation - long vacuum fluctuations reshaped instead of displaced http://www.byzipp.com/finished2.swf
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
-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 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? 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 even if you discount the 80% of air which is nearly inert. 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 - ... 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 - if your intent was to suggest that hydrogen can be burned in air with resultant steam being formed at about 17,000 degrees K. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
On 12/29/2009 11:19 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -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 Isn't combustion of hydrogen in air rather different from the situation we've got here? - but even so, it appears you did not first deduct the dissociation energy of O2 and H2 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? Parasitic losses, in particular, would not seem to apply in the present case. 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 even if you discount the 80% of air which is nearly inert. 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. ... 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 - if your intent was to suggest that hydrogen can be burned in air with resultant steam being formed at about 17,000 degrees K. Jones
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]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
-Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [ Or rather, as it turns out, exactly right. Physics works, contrary to your suggestions :) It works of course, but not as perfectly as you suggest, in real world applications. 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. Yes, but once again your reference is NOT to burning hydrogen in air. At the very top of the page you site, it clearly says The heat of combustion is the energy released as heat when one mole of a compound undergoes complete combustion with oxygen Burning H2 in air is not complete combustion with oxygen and in fact H2 can be leaned-out sufficiently in air so that it will not burn at all. Contrary to what you state, parasitic loses cannot be ignored - unless you are merely trying to prove a pedantic point, which seems to be the case. 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) NO! Absolutely not a relevant comparison, nor an accurate value. Otherwise metal hydrides could not be used for hydrogen storage, and palladium could not be used as a filter to separate H2 from other gases, both of which applications are common. Imagine having to apply 2 eV of thermal energy to a metal hydride in order to release the stored hydrogen gas for use in an engine. That is absurd. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
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 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). 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?re quest-id=e4195775-a6d5-4d5f-83b9-da98912aa8c1 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. This is too simple and robust to be real, no? This looks like a COP of close to three. For an accurate cross-comparison based on all reactants - it is fair to say that we are looking an initial gain of almost ten to one over combustion; moreover it is an infinite gain if based on the renewability of the hydrogen, that is: if the COP~3 allows that to happen, after the conversion losses of heat back into electricity. Before we can arrive at an accurate final appraisal for the usefulness of the process, we must consider the net energy necessary to release the hydrogen from the matrix. If that were to be .5 eV as the IOP paper suggests (or less with an electric field) - then there is a huge potential for net gain from recycling the hydrogen. IF of course, Kitamura got the 2 eV thermal number correct. Doubts remain on that issue. The big if. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
So, how does this compare to the recombination energy of atomic hydrogen? Here's a reference by a dubious source: http://www.cheniere.org/misc/a_h%20reaction.htm :-) Terry On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: 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 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). 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?re quest-id=e4195775-a6d5-4d5f-83b9-da98912aa8c1 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. This is too simple and robust to be real, no? This looks like a COP of close to three. For an accurate cross-comparison based on all reactants - it is fair to say that we are looking an initial gain of almost ten to one over combustion; moreover it is an infinite gain if based on the renewability of the hydrogen, that is: if the COP~3 allows that to happen, after the conversion losses of heat back into electricity. Before we can arrive at an accurate final appraisal for the usefulness of the process, we must consider the net energy necessary to release the hydrogen from the matrix. If that were to be .5 eV as the IOP paper suggests (or less with an electric field) - then there is a huge potential for net gain from recycling the hydrogen. IF of course, Kitamura got the 2 eV thermal number correct. Doubts remain on that issue. The big if. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
It is very difficult to understand this experiment. There is so much left unsaid. As I understand it, the first phase loading with zero change in pressure and the second phase loading is marked when pressure begins to increase presuming that all DH flow is being absorbed in the first phase. I also assume they determined the loading ratios by the flow rates instead of weighing the loaded samples. Are we to assume that multiple runs were with new Pd? In other words, the six PZ runs used six PZ samples. Or were they progressive runs with two samples. sigh I guess you had to be there. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Essentially that is what happens in a piston or Stirling engine, no? With the size of those error bars, it's difficult to say what is going on in some instances. But the phase one energy output of the H sample in the PZ is a real puzzler. And why the heck does it match the D? Is it something Casimir? Or is it an error? Listen to me, I sound like a skeptic. :-) Terry
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton ... But the phase one energy output of the H sample in the PZ is a real puzzler. And why the heck does it match the D? It is obviously non-nuclear in phase one. And since it is so rapidly energetic, why wait for phase two? Doh ! Is it something Casimir? Or is it an error? Since it cannot be reconciled with A-Z or with other findings, it is either an error ... or else it is the discovery of the decade (if it is not related to fractional hydrogen, since that would be an arguable explanation, were it not for the reversibility). Listen to me, I sound like a skeptic. :-) Speaking of logical skepticism, the Dufour hypothesis would be the one to jump on. Or not. Others here on Vo - have mentioned or debated the fact that the gravity force must grow exponentially at close dimensions - IF - grand unification is accurate. I think it is accurate. Dufour puts some numbers to that hypothesis. He may be onto something. But here is an irony. We have often asked the rhetorical question: if the Casimir'force' is essentially negative, then how can it produce a net energy gain? And now, with pico-gravity in the picture, we seems to have a tantalizing clue, in a reversed solution, so to speak. That being that the Casimir itself is NOT the active force of interest, but instead the Casimir is the energy sink for picogravity. Get it? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
I hope the Kitamura et al. run powders and some of each of the original materials are retained. The samples, especially the PZ samples, should be analyzed by someone (preferably multiple organizations) in a mass spectrometer for heavy transmutations. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
On 12/28/2009 11:59 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Essentially that is what happens in a piston or Stirling engine, no? With the size of those error bars, it's difficult to say what is going on in some instances. But the phase one energy output of the H sample in the PZ is a real puzzler. And why the heck does it match the D? Is it something Casimir? Or is it an error? Speaking of error bars, I see what may be a nit and I have a question about it... In table 1, they give the average loading of D into PdZr as 1.1 +/- 0.0. That appears to mean 1.1 D per Pd with a zero sized error bar -- the result is exact. Is that a correct reading? I find that puzzling because the process they describe for measuring loading doesn't seem likely to lead to an exact value. They say (p. 4, first paragraph): After the gas is introduced, pressure does not begin to rise for a while. During this phase (the first phase) the Pd powder absorbs almost all of the D2 (H2) gas atoms as they flow in, and heat is released as a result of adsorption and formation of deuterides (hydrides). After about 30 minutes, the powder almost stops absorbing gas; the gas pressure begins to rise, and the heat release from deuteride (hydride) formation subsides. This is the beginning of the 2nd phase, and the gas flow rate in the 1st phase is evaluated from the rate of the pressure increase. From the flow rate multiplied by the duration of the 1st phase, loading is estimated ... This description was for loading determination during the runs using Pd powder; they don't repeat the description for the other runs but one would tend to assume it would be about the same. So what we seem to have is this: They time phase during which pressure doesn't rise, then they measure the rate of pressure rise once the Pd gas absorption slows down, and they use that measured pressure rise, along with the duration of the constant-pressure phase, to *estimate* the amount of gas injected into the container. Using that, plus the weight of the Pd, they arrive at an estimated value for the loading. Is that how other folks understood this? How can this approach lead to a zero sized error bar? Surely there is a good bit of wiggle room in a number of the steps in forming the estimate, or so it appears to me. Listen to me, I sound like a skeptic. :-) Terry
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton ... But the phase one energy output of the H sample in the PZ is a real puzzler. And why the heck does it match the D? It is obviously non-nuclear in phase one. And since it is so rapidly energetic, as a practical matter, why wait for phase two? Doh ! Is it something Casimir? Or is it an error? Since it cannot be reconciled with A-Z or with other findings, it is either an error ... or else it is the discovery of the decade (if it is not related to fractional hydrogen, since that would be an arguable explanation, were it not for the reversibility). Listen to me, I sound like a skeptic. :-) Speaking of logical skepticism, the Dufour hypothesis would be the one to jump on. Or not. Others here on Vo - have mentioned or debated the fact that the gravity force must grow exponentially at close dimensions - IF - grand unification is accurate. I think it is accurate. Dufour puts some numbers to that hypothesis. He may be onto something. But here is an irony. We have often asked the rhetorical question: if the Casimir 'force' is essentially negative, then how can it produce a net energy gain? And now, with pico-gravity in the picture, we seems to have a tantalizing clue, in a reversed solution, so to speak. That being that the Casimir itself is NOT the active force of interest, but instead the Casimir is the energy sink for picogravity. Get it? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Is that how other folks understood this? Roger that. I think maybe for all the non-zero error bars, they were out of the room and had to estimate when the pressure started rising. ;-) Terry
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: That being that the Casimir itself is NOT the active force of interest, but instead the Casimir is the energy sink for picogravity. Get it? Yeah, like, There is no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks. Terry
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence So what we seem to have is this: They time phase during which pressure doesn't rise, then they measure the rate of pressure rise once the Pd gas absorption slows down, and they use that measured pressure rise, along with the duration of the constant-pressure phase, to *estimate* the amount of gas injected into the container. Using that, plus the weight of the Pd, they arrive at an estimated value for the loading. Is that how other folks understood this? Yes and no. It is in seeming conflict with the charts at the end. BTW - and this is jumping ahead, since the results are in doubt and need to be carefully replicated ... but ... If there were some kind of useable loading gain that could be exploited; then apparently it would need to be engineered in a way that the cycling of active material is in a narrow range ... one which goes from almost completely loaded to fully loaded - and this happened at a rapid rate. Let's say you could go from a H/Pd ratio of 1.1 down to 1.05 and back, ad infinitum - and furthermore that there would be continuous excess heat in that small gap - due to some force like Casimir or picogravity. In general, we would still label this as ZPE pumping since we can probably define the zero point field in such a way that all of these putative forces and sources are covered. And a major point of the recent A-Z results is that there is that order of magnitude gain (10x) in moving from the Pd-zirconia material to the Nickel alloy. Catch-22 Arata does not show the gain with hydrogen like Kitamura does. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
On 12/28/2009 02:11 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence So what we seem to have is this: They time phase during which pressure doesn't rise, then they measure the rate of pressure rise once the Pd gas absorption slows down, and they use that measured pressure rise, along with the duration of the constant-pressure phase, to *estimate* the amount of gas injected into the container. Using that, plus the weight of the Pd, they arrive at an estimated value for the loading. Is that how other folks understood this? Yes and no. It is in seeming conflict with the charts at the end. BTW - and this is jumping ahead, since the results are in doubt and need to be carefully replicated ... but ... If there were some kind of useable loading gain that could be exploited; then apparently it would need to be engineered in a way that the cycling of active material is in a narrow range ... one which goes from almost completely loaded to fully loaded - and this happened at a rapid rate. Let's say you could go from a H/Pd ratio of 1.1 down to 1.05 and back, ad infinitum - and furthermore that there would be continuous excess heat in that small gap - due to some force like Casimir or picogravity. But why do you think there would be less energy needed to unload the Pd than it released during loading? Nothing in these results suggests that. Certainly if picogravity is at the bottom of it, you're dealing with a conservative force, and what comes out must go back in if you're return to your starting conditions. Casimir is going to behave conservatively too in situations where all you're doing is letting things smash together and then yanking them apart again.
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence But why do you think there would be less energy needed to unload the Pd than it released during loading? Nothing in these results suggests that. First off - the level of heat released itself is anomalous. 2 eV is clearly much higher than expected. That fact (if accurate) gives hope that the underlying process for providing it, is asymmetrical. Actually, I see a glimmer of that non-conservative suggestion in the other data as well, but obviously it is only an interpretation. Look again at Table I with an appreciation that the unloading itself could provide excess energy via gas expansion, instead of requiring it. The negative energy data - going from phase 1 to phase 2 with hydrogen, are clearly ambiguous in the details. But the fact it exists at all could be an implication that manipulation of pressure (and heat via Boyles' Law) is providing a reversible trigger for the anomalous gain, as Arata suggests. Going beyond that: to a reversible and asymmetrical trigger, is a stretch for you, but to me it is not ruled out. Certainly if picogravity is at the bottom of it, you're dealing with a conservative force, and what comes out must go back in if you're return to your starting conditions. That would depend on such details as to whether the Casimir negative energy gap could provide a proper 'sink' or energy dump, and whether in the process, a range of distance near the critical Casimir dimensions (around 2 nm) could be cycled by the sink, so that we get the fabled ZPE pump with energy from another dimension being harnessed. Check out the Dufour paper. I am not saying it is right. In fact it is new to me. It might have merit, especially if all of the natural forces are indeed becoming unified at a smaller geometry. We are starting to see this in many nano phenomena and we are knocking on the door of pico. Basically, it goes back to this - if the heat from loading is indeed anomalous - that fact alone may indicate an asymmetry, since excess heat in and of itself implies new physics. New physics will not necessarily conform to old laws in the way you are assuming. Yes, this would be grasping at straws without Kitamura's published results. Let's hope they can be confirmed by others. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
on Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:17:23 -0800 Stephen A. Lawrence very correctly said [snip] But why do you think there would be less energy needed to unload the Pd than it released during loading? Nothing in these results suggests that. Certainly if picogravity is at the bottom of it, you're dealing with a conservative force, and what comes out must go back in if you're return to your starting conditions. Casimir is going to behave conservatively too in situations where all you're doing is letting things smash together and then yanking them apart again. [end snip] Yes! The force is conservative unless you perform a chemical reaction while the atoms are in the depleted zone. Without taking sides about whether the orbitals are fractional , pancaked, relativistic or whatever I think we will all agree they are in some way different than atoms outside of a Casimir cavity. If these orbitals form into a compound or molecule their orbitals become locked into a specific mode or orientation that is NOT appropriate for the isotropic field outside the cavity. As the bonded atoms diffuse away from the specific depletion level where they bonded the gradient of the depletion field changes in opposition to the molecular bond - I suspect that the bond is broken by this opposition and that a hydrino will never be seen outside of the cavity but it may be strong enough to maintain a weak hydrino or FH outside the cavity. See animation http://www.byzipp.com/finished1.swf the atoms once decelerated by the cavity can oscillate between monatomic and diatomic until they escape the depletion field - the normally chaotic vacuum fluctuations are able to donate energy in a non chaotic manner thanks to the energy sink of the cavity. The favored molecular bond becomes our rectifier when formed by altered atoms that find themselves no longer able to unaltered because the bond is holding them in the altered state despite the restoration of the ZPF when the molecule diffuse away from the particular gradient of depletion (1/(2-137) at which it formed.
[Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
Hey guys - Why beat a dead stinkin' horse (Steorn), when there is a significant alternative energy paper out now; one that apparently has been overlooked (as to a key point), and might actually work ? http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KitamuraAanomalouse.pdf At first, I thought this was going to be an Arata replication, and little else.. Wrong. There are significant differences, and one important implication from Table 1, if I am reading it correctly. That is why I called it an alternative energy paper instead of an LENR paper. Hint: Kitamura has probably discovered a way to get repeatable energy out of a basic hydride nano-powder (NOT EVEN the best alloy ! if AZ are correct) and most importantly without deuterium, without LENR, without nuclear reactions, and without combustion. I suspect that it is even without Mills hydrino, but that is unclear. Although, I should add that the authors do not state the glaring implication in so many words. I do not think they could have missed this. Hint: the line entry begins with [H-PZ4#1]. Jones
