Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
I'm interested, where do you share your design? link? Guenter, the idea of an open source LENR project is worthwhile. I have shared my design and will continue to share it in the hopes that it will On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Thanks Bastiaan, very informative and timely link. This was just what I was looking for. 0.3 J per spark, means that at 300 hz, I am providing 90W of equivalent resistive heating to the reactor. I believe this should be enough to heat the reator to the necessary temperature to initiate the LENR effect. Guenter, the idea of an open source LENR project is worthwhile. I have shared my design and will continue to share it in the hopes that it will spur greater cooperation. My designs alway use off the shelf parts and pipe fittings you can get from McMaster, Lowe's or Ebay, so they are low cost. My entire setup including the vaccuum pump, the Data logging and all (except supplies) is under $350. My reactor design is disposable, and cost at the most $50 if using the best stainless steel fittings. I do not believe there will be any economies of scale to be had with my design cause they already use the cheapest parts. I think keeping it simple and low cost is one of the keys to successfully replicating Rossi. I wish Bill will consider converting this list into a forum format so that we can share attachments and other files. From: Bastiaan Bergman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark And a copy of the paper can be found here : http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/A-study-of-a-sparkdischarge-in-hydrogen-at-atmospheric-pressure.pdf On Mar 12, 2012 5:11 AM, Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl wrote: www.fusioncatalyst.org Andre On 03/11/2012 09:20 AM, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: hello guys, just an idea: Working together on an open source-LENR-device. There seems to be quite some knowledge here at vortex, and a couple of people seem to work in their backyard on their own devices. This is suboptimal. How about that: introduce some economy of scale: lets say ten devices, which need not be identical, but have a common base, e.g. nano-Nickel, a certain type of reaction chamber, hydrogen etc. the basic construction could be implemented via division of labour. one builds the basic reaction-chamber, the other procures the nano-Nickel, the third provides for some basic electronics, and so on. It does not make sense to procure nano-Nickel in every individual case. I'm thinking of about maybe ten devices, which share a common design, and can be freeley varied to optimize the effect. The overall concept seems to be straightforward enough, to make this a reasonable approach. It would have the consequence, that nobody can monopolize the technology via patents or secret sausages etc. Waiting for Godot in the form of Rossi or Defkalion otr Miles or McKubre is starting to go onto my nerves. What do You think? Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 11:14 Sonntag, 11.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark Awesome, Great minds think alike, eh? :-) Let us know how it goes. How are you driving your spark plug? I am planning a simple CDI Electronic Ignition Box for a CRRC-Pro 26cc engine: http://www.ebay.com/itm/130659127048
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
Hi Bastiaan and others, I'm currently a in a bit of a hurry in my job, so just a couple of lines of thinking: 1) I read this study A-study-of-a-sparkdischarge-in-hydrogen-at-atmospheric- ... which I found quite interesting. a) the setup allows good calorimetric measurements b) its is simple c) It produces about 3e19 H-atoms per second, which seems to be a good number and could be up to a distance of ca 40mm before recombining d) actually, due to the generating process, these must be mostly Ions (protons), because the pink light is is indicative of a plasma. e) at first I was sceptical wrt spark generation, but this one here serves a different purpose, more like ignition in a combustion motor, so it is easily controlled. 2) idea of a setup (proof of concept-type): a) use the basic setup for H-/proton generation b) use a planar layer of Nano-Nickel on the surface of the copper-block, which is used for calorimetry c) direct the Protons to the Nickel-layer via a moderate electrostatic field, say 100V/cm, which is easy. d) measure the amount of excess heat, if there is any e) use a heating coil to heat up the reactive side, where the Nickel is located to some 200-400deg Celsius. 3) Nickel-powder selection a) there are basically lots of suppliers, mostly Chinese b) particle-sizes offered are mostly in the sub-100nm region, which some here consider too small. I do 'nt know. c) a cheap way to get some compromise-size is this: http://www.ebay.de/itm/Nano-Nickel-Powder-1217g-N1-200-200nm-Ni-NanoNickel-/310248791616?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0hash=item483c44de40 200nm Nickel seems reasonable to me for a first try. look at it and tell 'us' what You think. 4) Nickel-powder treatment. a) My first intuition is, that the powder has to be deoxydized, by whatever method: hydrogen atmosphere at elevated temperatures. I currently do'nt know. Maybe its irrelevant, because the reactive chamber is reductive. 5) Spark-generation a) this should be easy (at least for me) Think TV-tubes which used to produce 20kV DC. 6) Yes, we should find a repository for non-text-documents. 7) This proposed first setup is intended as a intergroup (dis)proof of concept, and not a real working horse, warming one's home or such. Even if Rossi or Defkalion have working devices, which I have some doubts, the process to my opinion is not understood. My personal aim is, to intergrate available knowledge, and give the establishment-academics some boost, to move their butts and do their duty. This for the first round. best regards Guenter Von: Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 18:53 Dienstag, 13.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark I'm interested, where do you share your design? link? Guenter, the idea of an open source LENR project is worthwhile. I have shared my design and will continue to share it in the hopes that it will Thanks Bastiaan, very informative and timely link. This was just what I was looking for. 0.3 J per spark, means that at 300 hz, I am providing 90W of equivalent resistive heating to the reactor. I believe this should be enough to heat the reator to the necessary temperature to initiate the LENR effect. Guenter, the idea of an open source LENR project is worthwhile. I have shared my design and will continue to share it in the hopes that it will spur greater cooperation. My designs alway use off the shelf parts and pipe fittings you can get from McMaster, Lowe's or Ebay, so they are low cost. My entire setup including the vaccuum pump, the Data logging and all (except supplies) is under $350. My reactor design is disposable, and cost at the most $50 if using the best stainless steel fittings. I do not believe there will be any economies of scale to be had with my design cause they already use the cheapest parts. I think keeping it simple and low cost is one of the keys to successfully replicating Rossi. I wish Bill will consider converting this list into a forum format so that we can share attachments and other files. http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/A-study-of-a-sparkdischarge-in-hydrogen-at-atmospheric-pressure.pdf
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
www.fusioncatalyst.org Andre On 03/11/2012 09:20 AM, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: hello guys, just an idea: Working together on an open source-LENR-device. There seems to be quite some knowledge here at vortex, and a couple of people seem to work in their backyard on their own devices. This is suboptimal. How about that: introduce some economy of scale: lets say ten devices, which need not be identical, but have a common base, e.g. nano-Nickel, a certain type of reaction chamber, hydrogen etc. the basic construction could be implemented via division of labour. one builds the basic reaction-chamber, the other procures the nano-Nickel, the third provides for some basic electronics, and so on. It does not make sense to procure nano-Nickel in every individual case. I'm thinking of about maybe ten devices, which share a common design, and can be freeley varied to optimize the effect. The overall concept seems to be straightforward enough, to make this a reasonable approach. It would have the consequence, that nobody can monopolize the technology via patents or secret sausages etc. Waiting for Godot in the form of Rossi or Defkalion otr Miles or McKubre is starting to go onto my nerves. What do You think? *Von:* Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Gesendet:* 11:14 Sonntag, 11.März 2012 *Betreff:* Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark Awesome, Great minds think alike, eh? :-) Let us know how it goes. How are you driving your spark plug? I am planning a simple CDI Electronic Ignition Box for a CRRC-Pro 26cc engine: http://www.ebay.com/itm/130659127048
Re: [Vo]: To spark or Not to spark
Hello Jojo If you have not received my messages, please check your spam folder and add me to your whitelist. My mail adress seems to attract spam filters :( Marten 11.03.2012 06:55 skrev Jojo Jaro: I found this paragraph on Wiki. Rydberg atoms in plasmas Rydberg atoms form commonly in due to the recombination of electrons and positive ions; low energy recombination results in fairly stable Rydberg atoms, while recombination of electrons and positive ions with high often form Rydberg states. Rydberg atoms’ large sizes and susceptibility to perturbation and ionisation by electric and magnetic fields, are an important factor determining the properties of plasmas. Condensation of Rydberg atoms forms most often observed in form of long-lived clusters. The de-excitation is significantly impeded in Rydberg matter by exchange-correlation effects in the non-uniform electron liquid formed on condensation by the collective valence electrons, which causes extended lifetime of clusters. So it does seem hydrogen plasmas would easily recombine into Rydberg atoms. Does this mean sparks would be a good way to create Rydberg atoms? Oh, how I wished I had Axil's understanding right now.
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
I agree that more people should be working on some type of crowd-sourced building. A small lab to get started can be built for under $2000. Except for the hydrogen, everything can be purchased from the internet. (The hydrogen can be obtained through a local welding shop, although they should ask a number of safety questions that you should be prepared to answer.) I have extra 10 gram samples of nickel nano powder available to anyone with a reactor that can use it. For temperature logging, I'd recommend standardizing on the PICO USB TC-08. It is fairly priced, includes free software, and its what DGT uses. (Unless or until Bastian makes his BeagleBone system available!) I wasted too much time on labview and a custom app to record temps and times.. Keep it simple.. I also have some extra 1/2 NPT type-K thermocouples (stainless) that I'd sell at cost.. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
2011 Vague Recollections - possibly re: Chan - or Phen - or the person from HI whose leg was ripped open by H explosion while attempting cold fusion. 1. Chan powder in oil mixed with Diesel fed to engine caused runaway power. Tractor, I believe. 2. Santilli developed spark induced cold fusion years ago. 3. Monks in Brazil worked with arcs to create excess energy something to do with Broglie ? 4. Phen used powder and someone else tried it and blew a deep hole in the ground. 5. Some one put powder into lead bullet drilled cavity and blew a log to splinters. 6. Celine's duplicates Rossi. Vortex Plan: I love it when a plan comes together. That was an entertaining series but this is an exciting adventure. Sparks, RFG, heat, concussion, bubble, laser, pulses, Many ways to skin an Ecat. Reality Jojo Jaro wrote: Hey gang, another problem to mull over. (Snip)
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
Thanks Brad, Andre, Jojo. I dont know how many here have concrete intentions to build a LENR- device themselves. Let me say a couple of words -as simple as possible- about a device based on Ni-H: 1st) Nano-Nickel seems to be essential, and there seems to be some optimal particle size- 10-100nm. I tend to the lower sizes 2) The particles have to be handled such that they are not oxidized 3) the reaction itself takes place, when H, or some variant diffuses into the lattice in sufficient amount 4) A startup-temperature is needed, in the range of 300 to 500 deg C 5) an additional excitation is needed, maybe a spark (I doubt that) or other forms of excitation (RF), or a catalyst (I doubt that) 6) the excess heat has to be harvested in such a manner, that no Ni-melting occurs. On the other hand the reactive volume is so small, that it is quite difficult to remove the excess heat from a small volume, say a couple of cm3.Think of a processor, who produces some 100-200W on a surface of several cm2. 7) one should separate proof of concept from an optimized device with COP 6 and such. 8) energy-production and harvesting should be as evenly distributed as possible in the active volume. Which is hard, even in a proof-of-concept device. I conclude from that, that something like a spark finds its way of lowest resistance, and produces so much heat, that particles bake together, and stop the reaction. Think of a lightning. In addition to that, the spark is a positive-feedback and would further on enhance this path, stopping the reaction in short time. This is important to recognize. Contrast this with controlled RF -whatever optimal frequency- where a volume is involved, and not a path. On the other hand: there seems to be no reliable indication that anybody used RF or sparks in addition to heat. This is an open question. Comments welcome. So my basic first idea would be implementing a) effective influx of H2 in a Nano-Powder Ni-chamber b) constructing it such, that the VOLUME can be effectively heated for startup. c) that any excess heat can effectively be removed from a small volume (very difficult!) d) that some some additional excitation can be applied (RF: maybe; sparks: doubtful; catalysts, doubtful) This as a starter. Von: ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 19:21 Montag, 12.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark I agree that more people should be working on some type of crowd-sourced building - Brad
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
Reality, assuming that Chan is a real person, which is part of the riddle, but anyway. He seemed to think big . Too big in the first place. Maybe this cost him something. Who knows. WRT to reliability of information, Chan is an order of magnitude below Rossi. If a (LENR) reaction theoretically produces 10million times the power of the most powerful chemical reaction, one has to scale down. It seems to be logical to me, that Rossi or Defkalion compartmentalize the reaction into 10kW to max 50kW units. this is an indirect proof that they are not complete idiots or frauds. Also Defkalions compartmentalization of their reactors seems to hint into the same direction. If one starts such a project, one should be well-advised to consider, a 1W chemical device has an equivalent power-density of a 10MW LENR-device! A 1uW chemical device, or the snip of Your eyelid every couple of seconds would scale up to a 10W LENR, which could power (thermal equivalent) a typical tablet-computer. Just to get the idea. Message: be careful. Guenter Von: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:09 Montag, 12.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark 2011 Vague Recollections - possibly re: Chan - or Phen - or the person from HI whose leg was ripped open by H explosion while attempting cold fusion. 1. Chan powder in oil mixed with Diesel fed to engine caused runaway power. Tractor, I believe. 2. Santilli developed spark induced cold fusion years ago. 3. Monks in Brazil worked with arcs to create excess energy something to do with Broglie ? 4. Phen used powder and someone else tried it and blew a deep hole in the ground. 5. Some one put powder into lead bullet drilled cavity and blew a log to splinters. 6. Celine's duplicates Rossi. Vortex Plan: I love it when a plan comes together. That was an entertaining series but this is an exciting adventure. Sparks, RFG, heat, concussion, bubble, laser, pulses, Many ways to skin an Ecat.
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
And a copy of the paper can be found here : http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/A-study-of-a-sparkdischarge-in-hydrogen-at-atmospheric-pressure.pdf On Mar 12, 2012 5:11 AM, Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl wrote: www.fusioncatalyst.org Andre On 03/11/2012 09:20 AM, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: hello guys, just an idea: Working together on an open source-LENR-device. There seems to be quite some knowledge here at vortex, and a couple of people seem to work in their backyard on their own devices. This is suboptimal. How about that: introduce some economy of scale: lets say ten devices, which need not be identical, but have a common base, e.g. nano-Nickel, a certain type of reaction chamber, hydrogen etc. the basic construction could be implemented via division of labour. one builds the basic reaction-chamber, the other procures the nano-Nickel, the third provides for some basic electronics, and so on. It does not make sense to procure nano-Nickel in every individual case. I'm thinking of about maybe ten devices, which share a common design, and can be freeley varied to optimize the effect. The overall concept seems to be straightforward enough, to make this a reasonable approach. It would have the consequence, that nobody can monopolize the technology via patents or secret sausages etc. Waiting for Godot in the form of Rossi or Defkalion otr Miles or McKubre is starting to go onto my nerves. What do You think? -- *Von:* Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com jth...@hotmail.com *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Gesendet:* 11:14 Sonntag, 11.März 2012 *Betreff:* Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark Awesome, Great minds think alike, eh? :-) Let us know how it goes. How are you driving your spark plug? I am planning a simple CDI Electronic Ignition Box for a CRRC-Pro 26cc engine: http://www.ebay.com/itm/130659127048
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
Thx Bastiaan, I take a look at that tomorrow. My preliminary take a gainst spark-induced reactions is poor COP, because sparks take a very narrow through the reactant, like a lightning through the atmosphere. Other extreme: Northern lights, which produce low-energy plasma in a big atmospheric volume. This is anecdotal, I agree. Maybe we should make up a thread like 'open source LENR', and collect relevant information there. As a sidenote: My job is generating socalled cold plasmas in a volume of ca 1dm3 via RF at low pressure. Quite different, but there is some similarity in thinking. As an electronics engineer I have no job to loose, when pursuing such an exotic matter. This is quite different from my Phd physics-colleagues, who would risk their career when doing so. I do not even give them a link to vortex, because doing so would put them near a -ahem- nutcase, who even considers that as a possibility. Such is physics today. To my experience Indian, Chinese, Russian, Japanese scientists are much more open to that than the holy grail of sclerotic science in the West. Wo'nt talk about that anymore, and hope it goes under in everpresent chatter-noise. best regards, Guenter. -- Von: Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:54 Montag, 12.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark And a copy of the paper can be found here : http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/A-study-of-a-sparkdischarge-in-hydrogen-at-atmospheric-pressure.pdf On Mar 12, 2012 5:11 AM, Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl wrote: www.fusioncatalyst.org Andre On 03/11/2012 09:20 AM, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: hello guys,
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
Thanks Bastiaan, very informative and timely link. This was just what I was looking for. 0.3 J per spark, means that at 300 hz, I am providing 90W of equivalent resistive heating to the reactor. I believe this should be enough to heat the reator to the necessary temperature to initiate the LENR effect. Guenter, the idea of an open source LENR project is worthwhile. I have shared my design and will continue to share it in the hopes that it will spur greater cooperation. My designs alway use off the shelf parts and pipe fittings you can get from McMaster, Lowe's or Ebay, so they are low cost. My entire setup including the vaccuum pump, the Data logging and all (except supplies) is under $350. My reactor design is disposable, and cost at the most $50 if using the best stainless steel fittings. I do not believe there will be any economies of scale to be had with my design cause they already use the cheapest parts. I think keeping it simple and low cost is one of the keys to successfully replicating Rossi. I wish Bill will consider converting this list into a forum format so that we can share attachments and other files. From: Bastiaan Bergman To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark And a copy of the paper can be found here : http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/A-study-of-a-sparkdischarge-in-hydrogen-at-atmospheric-pressure.pdf On Mar 12, 2012 5:11 AM, Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl wrote: www.fusioncatalyst.org Andre On 03/11/2012 09:20 AM, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: hello guys, just an idea: Working together on an open source-LENR-device. There seems to be quite some knowledge here at vortex, and a couple of people seem to work in their backyard on their own devices. This is suboptimal. How about that: introduce some economy of scale: lets say ten devices, which need not be identical, but have a common base, e.g. nano-Nickel, a certain type of reaction chamber, hydrogen etc. the basic construction could be implemented via division of labour. one builds the basic reaction-chamber, the other procures the nano-Nickel, the third provides for some basic electronics, and so on. It does not make sense to procure nano-Nickel in every individual case. I'm thinking of about maybe ten devices, which share a common design, and can be freeley varied to optimize the effect. The overall concept seems to be straightforward enough, to make this a reasonable approach. It would have the consequence, that nobody can monopolize the technology via patents or secret sausages etc. Waiting for Godot in the form of Rossi or Defkalion otr Miles or McKubre is starting to go onto my nerves. What do You think? -- Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 11:14 Sonntag, 11.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark Awesome, Great minds think alike, eh? :-) Let us know how it goes. How are you driving your spark plug? I am planning a simple CDI Electronic Ignition Box for a CRRC-Pro 26cc engine: http://www.ebay.com/itm/130659127048
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: I wish Bill will consider converting this list into a forum format so that we can share attachments and other files. I created a forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/vortex-l-backup for times when the remailer server is down. You are welcome to dump files or images there. It's open to the public. T
[Vo]:Ang.: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
Hello You are thinking like me. I have a spark plug in my reactor design to. Not tried it yet though. Marten Skickat från min HTC - Reply message - Från: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com Till: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Rubrik: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark Datum: sön, mar 11, 2012 06:10 Hey gang, another problem to mull over. I was studying Spark discharges based on the suggestion of a person I have great respect for, and I found this study. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5379213 According to this abstract, spark discharges are an efficient means of producing nascent monoatomic hydrogen. The efficiency of conversion to monoatomic hydrogen appears to be 30 to 40% with a low recombination rate with monoatomic hydrogen still found 40 mm away from the initial discharge. If somebody has access to this paper, please let us know what the entire paper says. Anyways, this got me wondering. Could Rossi be using a spark discharge inside his reactor. The evidence for this appears to be anecdotal. I wonder if he calls this spark discharge his RF as some have suggested. With a 30 to 40% efficiency, this appears to be a very efficient and low energy means to supply a steady availability of nascent hydrogen which would already be partially ionized. Could this be the Rossi Catalyst we've been hunting for? Could it be that the electical energy required to maintain the Rossi reaction be the energy to create sparks to provide a constant strean of nascent ionized hyrdogen? This would seem logical cause Rossi seems to insist on using electricity to heat his reactor to maintain the reaction. Logic would dictate that a more efficient way to maintain throttling heat would be to divert some of the output heat back to the input, as our dearly departed friend George Hody (Mary Yugo) would say. It seems that Rossi is not doing this because it won't work. He needs sparks not raw heat to maintain his reaction. What do you guys think. Is sparking a necessary ingredient for the Rossi formula. Would sparks be an efficient means of creating Rydberg hydrogen atons to create an environment suitable for LENR? If sparks are a necessary ingredient, I have found a very cheap and efficient way to create these sparks - by using a spark plug driven by a CDI electronic ignition box. The rate of spark ignition can be controlled by a cheap function generator. I have incorporated this design into my reactor. I will try this out. In the meantime, I need to hear from smart theoriticians here to see if this research direction makes sense.
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
Awesome, Great minds think alike, eh? :-) Let us know how it goes. How are you driving your spark plug? I am planning a simple CDI Electronic Ignition Box for a CRRC-Pro 26cc engine: http://www.ebay.com/itm/130659127048 This box appears to be connected directly to the spark plug without the need for another ignition coil. The connector is a spark plug cap connector so it must connect directly to the spark plug. The input appears to be a sensor on the flywheel. I suspect a square wave voltage of say 3v would would probably drive the box electronics to fire the spark plug. The CRRC-Pro engine has a max RPM of 9500 and since this engine is a two strike engine, the spark must be firing 9500 time every minute or 158 times per second or 158 hz on the square wave. I suspect this will support firing maybe up to 300 hz or so. I only found 1 paper on the energy released by a spark and it said 2.4 joule/sec per spark. It seems high to me. Does anyone have any idea how much power a spark releases? I am wondering if the sparks would provide enough energy to heat the reactor sufficiently. Could it be that the heat is only needed for ionizing the hydrogen, and since the spark ionizes the hydrogen directly, the raw heat may not be required? or maybe less raw heat is required. Anyone has any ideas on whether sparks would be a great way to create a Rydberg Hydrogen environment? Axil? - Original Message - From: mårten Sundling To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:33 PM Subject: [Vo]:Ang.: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark Hello You are thinking like me. I have a spark plug in my reactor design to. Not tried it yet though. Marten Skickat från min HTC - Reply message - Från: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com Till: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.com Rubrik: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark Datum: sön, mar 11, 2012 06:10 Hey gang, another problem to mull over. I was studying Spark discharges based on the suggestion of a person I have great respect for, and I found this study. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5379213 According to this abstract, spark discharges are an efficient means of producing nascent monoatomic hydrogen. The efficiency of conversion to monoatomic hydrogen appears to be 30 to 40% with a low recombination rate with monoatomic hydrogen still found 40 mm away from the initial discharge. If somebody has access to this paper, please let us know what the entire paper says. Anyways, this got me wondering. Could Rossi be using a spark discharge inside his reactor. The evidence for this appears to be anecdotal. I wonder if he calls this spark discharge his RF as some have suggested. With a 30 to 40% efficiency, this appears to be a very efficient and low energy means to supply a steady availability of nascent hydrogen which would already be partially ionized. Could this be the Rossi Catalyst we've been hunting for? Could it be that the electical energy required to maintain the Rossi reaction be the energy to create sparks to provide a constant strean of nascent ionized hyrdogen? This would seem logical cause Rossi seems to insist on using electricity to heat his reactor to maintain the reaction. Logic would dictate that a more efficient way to maintain throttling heat would be to divert some of the output heat back to the input, as our dearly departed friend George Hody (Mary Yugo) would say. It seems that Rossi is not doing this because it won't work. He needs sparks not raw heat to maintain his reaction. What do you guys think. Is sparking a necessary ingredient for the Rossi formula. Would sparks be an efficient means of creating Rydberg hydrogen atons to create an environment suitable for LENR? If sparks are a necessary ingredient, I have found a very cheap and efficient way to create these sparks - by using a spark plug driven by a CDI electronic ignition box. The rate of spark ignition can be controlled by a cheap function generator. I have incorporated this design into my reactor. I will try this out. In the meantime, I need to hear from smart theoriticians here to see if this research direction makes sense.
[Vo]:Re: [VO] To spark or Not to spark
I think Rossi is misdirecting us with this heat answer. I doubt any heat would work. If it does, why can't the process heat inside provide the needed heat? Why is there a need to provide electrical heat. Rossi appears to be insistent that electricity is needed to drive the process, to control it; which leads me to conclude that he is using electricity for something other than raw heat. Maybe RF or sparks from electricity. This speculation would also apply to DGT's Triggered Reaction as speculated by many here in Vortex. There was a discussion a few post back where the temperature of the hydrogen spiked and then dropped suddenly. Only one process in my mind is capable of doing this - sparks. Sparks could bring the hydrogen temps up rapidly and the temps would die down just a quickly. DGT must be controlling the reaction by modulating the frequency and intensity of the sparks. Sparks require very little energy, hence the COP can be high. I suspect some kind of bulk heat is needed to bring the hydrogen to near ionization temps. Then the sparks ionize the hydrogen to maintain the reactions. Many have speculated that the catalyst was needed to dissociate H2 to H+ atoms. I suspect Rossi was initially using copper and iron powder to do so. Later on, he found out that sparks worked better at this; hence, he introduced his RF which was essentially sparks. I believe all of Rossi's later e-Cats now use RF. (Somebody correct me if I misunderstood this.) - Original Message - From: Brad bhl...@gmail.com To: jth...@hotmail.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:24 PM Subject: Rossi replication? I too am interested in the spark plug idea. I asked Rossi if there was a cathode/annode in his reactor or if any heat source such as Bunsen would work and he said any heat... But he may have been lying or had not tried it. Where is your lab? I am In The Bay Area, California. Brad Sent from my iPhone
Re: [Vo]: To spark or Not to spark
I found this paragraph on Wiki. Rydberg atoms in plasmas Rydberg atoms form commonly in plasmas due to the recombination of electrons and positive ions; low energy recombination results in fairly stable Rydberg atoms, while recombination of electrons and positive ions with high kinetic energy often form autoionising Rydberg states. Rydberg atoms' large sizes and susceptibility to perturbation and ionisation by electric and magnetic fields, are an important factor determining the properties of plasmas.[16] Condensation of Rydberg atoms forms Rydberg matter most often observed in form of long-lived clusters. The de-excitation is significantly impeded in Rydberg matter by exchange-correlation effects in the non-uniform electron liquid formed on condensation by the collective valence electrons, which causes extended lifetime of clusters.[17] So it does seem hydrogen plasmas would easily recombine into Rydberg atoms. Does this mean sparks would be a good way to create Rydberg atoms? Oh, how I wished I had Axil's understanding right now.
[Vo]:Ang.: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
Jojo Im using a plc Transistor output connected to a car ignition coil. I can push 8A directly sl it should be enough. Atleast i believe sl. Marten Skickat från min HTC - Reply message - Från: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com Till: vortex-l@eskimo.com Rubrik: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark Datum: sön, mar 11, 2012 11:14 Awesome, Great minds think alike, eh? :-) Let us know how it goes. How are you driving your spark plug? I am planning a simple CDI Electronic Ignition Box for a CRRC-Pro 26cc engine: http://www.ebay.com/itm/130659127048 This box appears to be connected directly to the spark plug without the need for another ignition coil. The connector is a spark plug cap connector so it must connect directly to the spark plug. The input appears to be a sensor on the flywheel. I suspect a square wave voltage of say 3v would would probably drive the box electronics to fire the spark plug. The CRRC-Pro engine has a max RPM of 9500 and since this engine is a two strike engine, the spark must be firing 9500 time every minute or 158 times per second or 158 hz on the square wave. I suspect this will support firing maybe up to 300 hz or so. I only found 1 paper on the energy released by a spark and it said 2.4 joule/sec per spark. It seems high to me. Does anyone have any idea how much power a spark releases? I am wondering if the sparks would provide enough energy to heat the reactor sufficiently. Could it be that the heat is only needed for ionizing the hydrogen, and since the spark ionizes the hydrogen directly, the raw heat may not be required? or maybe less raw heat is required. Anyone has any ideas on whether sparks would be a great way to create a Rydberg Hydrogen environment? Axil? - Original Message - From: mårten Sundling To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:33 PM Subject: [Vo]:Ang.: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark Hello You are thinking like me. I have a spark plug in my reactor design to. Not tried it yet though. Marten Skickat från min HTC - Reply message -Från: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.comTill: Vortex Vortex-l@eskimo.comRubrik: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to SparkDatum: sön, mar 11, 2012 06:10 Hey gang, another problem to mull over. I was studying Spark discharges based on the suggestion of a person I have great respect for, and I found this study. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5379213 According to this abstract, spark discharges are an efficient means of producing nascent monoatomic hydrogen. The efficiency of conversion to monoatomic hydrogen appears to be 30 to 40% with a low recombination rate with monoatomic hydrogen still found 40 mm away from the initial discharge. If somebody has access to this paper, please let us know what the entire paper says. Anyways, this got me wondering. Could Rossi be using a spark discharge inside his reactor. The evidence for this appears to be anecdotal. I wonder if he calls this spark discharge his RF as some have suggested. With a 30 to 40% efficiency, this appears to be a very efficient and low energy means to supply a steady availability of nascent hydrogen which would already be partially ionized. Could this be the Rossi Catalyst we've been hunting for? Could it be that the electical energy required to maintain the Rossi reaction be the energy to create sparks to provide a constant strean of nascent ionized hyrdogen? This would seem logical cause Rossi seems to insist on using electricity to heat his reactor to maintain the reaction. Logic would dictate that a more efficient way to maintain throttling heat would be to divert some of the output heat back to the input, as our dearly departed friend George Hody (Mary Yugo) would say. It seems that Rossi is not doing this because it won't work. He needs sparks not raw heat to maintain his reaction. What do you guys think. Is sparking a necessary ingredient for the Rossi formula. Would sparks be an efficient means of creating Rydberg hydrogen atons to create an environment suitable for LENR? If sparks are a necessary ingredient, I have found a very cheap and efficient way to create these sparks - by using a spark plug driven by a CDI electronic ignition box. The rate of spark ignition can be controlled by a cheap function generator. I have incorporated this design into my reactor. I will try this out. In the meantime, I need to hear from smart theoriticians here to see if this research direction makes sense.
Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
hello guys, just an idea: Working together on an open source-LENR-device. There seems to be quite some knowledge here at vortex, and a couple of people seem to work in their backyard on their own devices. This is suboptimal. How about that: introduce some economy of scale: lets say ten devices, which need not be identical, but have a common base, e.g. nano-Nickel, a certain type of reaction chamber, hydrogen etc. the basic construction could be implemented via division of labour. one builds the basic reaction-chamber, the other procures the nano-Nickel, the third provides for some basic electronics, and so on. It does not make sense to procure nano-Nickel in every individual case. I'm thinking of about maybe ten devices, which share a common design, and can be freeley varied to optimize the effect. The overall concept seems to be straightforward enough, to make this a reasonable approach. It would have the consequence, that nobody can monopolize the technology via patents or secret sausages etc. Waiting for Godotin the form of Rossi or Defkalion otr Miles or McKubre is starting to go onto my nerves. What do You think? Von: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 11:14 Sonntag, 11.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark Awesome, Great minds think alike, eh? :-) Let us know how it goes. How are you driving your spark plug? I am planning a simple CDI Electronic Ignition Box for a CRRC-Pro 26cc engine: http://www.ebay.com/itm/130659127048
Re: [Vo]:Re: [VO] To spark or Not to spark
I don't think he his misdirecting us. electric heating is much more simple to control and apply locally than other. DGT talk of a heating technique, confidential. maybe is it chemicla/physical (like some hydride unloading, as patented and shown here about a device heating car catalytic exhaust device)... anyway if chemical/physical sources can heat stongly they are harder to control. another technic to control heat is plumbing and throtling of fluid. another is structural retroaction, like there is in classic fission reactor, or even stronger in lead-bismuth reactors. someone talk about a simple method to stabilize the temperature, is to have the cooling fluid nearly at the same temperature as the target temperature. when temp increase, the heat flux increase greatly... but note that DGT explained that to control the reactor they use a pulse modulation. Since their reactor is evolving constantly (like a wood fire change as the wood log is burned), it should be adaptative and fine tuned to avoid melting... electric is much more practical than ultra fast and find plumbing to distribute heat. to increase the COP, there are other tracks... maybe controling the losses, using hotter fluid, using another catalyst, increasing the pressure... 2012/3/11 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com I think Rossi is misdirecting us with this heat answer. I doubt any heat would work. If it does, why can't the process heat inside provide the needed heat? Why is there a need to provide electrical heat. Rossi appears to be insistent that electricity is needed to drive the process, to control it; which leads me to conclude that he is using electricity for something other than raw heat. Maybe RF or sparks from electricity. This speculation would also apply to DGT's Triggered Reaction as speculated by many here in Vortex. There was a discussion a few post back where the temperature of the hydrogen spiked and then dropped suddenly. Only one process in my mind is capable of doing this - sparks. Sparks could bring the hydrogen temps up rapidly and the temps would die down just a quickly. DGT must be controlling the reaction by modulating the frequency and intensity of the sparks. Sparks require very little energy, hence the COP can be high. I suspect some kind of bulk heat is needed to bring the hydrogen to near ionization temps. Then the sparks ionize the hydrogen to maintain the reactions. Many have speculated that the catalyst was needed to dissociate H2 to H+ atoms. I suspect Rossi was initially using copper and iron powder to do so. Later on, he found out that sparks worked better at this; hence, he introduced his RF which was essentially sparks. I believe all of Rossi's later e-Cats now use RF. (Somebody correct me if I misunderstood this.) - Original Message - From: Brad bhl...@gmail.com To: jth...@hotmail.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:24 PM Subject: Rossi replication? I too am interested in the spark plug idea. I asked Rossi if there was a cathode/annode in his reactor or if any heat source such as Bunsen would work and he said any heat... But he may have been lying or had not tried it. Where is your lab? I am In The Bay Area, California. Brad Sent from my iPhone
[Vo]:To Spark or Not to Spark
Hey gang, another problem to mull over. I was studying Spark discharges based on the suggestion of a person I have great respect for, and I found this study. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5379213 According to this abstract, spark discharges are an efficient means of producing nascent monoatomic hydrogen. The efficiency of conversion to monoatomic hydrogen appears to be 30 to 40% with a low recombination rate with monoatomic hydrogen still found 40 mm away from the initial discharge. If somebody has access to this paper, please let us know what the entire paper says. Anyways, this got me wondering. Could Rossi be using a spark discharge inside his reactor. The evidence for this appears to be anecdotal. I wonder if he calls this spark discharge his RF as some have suggested. With a 30 to 40% efficiency, this appears to be a very efficient and low energy means to supply a steady availability of nascent hydrogen which would already be partially ionized. Could this be the Rossi Catalyst we've been hunting for? Could it be that the electical energy required to maintain the Rossi reaction be the energy to create sparks to provide a constant strean of nascent ionized hyrdogen? This would seem logical cause Rossi seems to insist on using electricity to heat his reactor to maintain the reaction. Logic would dictate that a more efficient way to maintain throttling heat would be to divert some of the output heat back to the input, as our dearly departed friend George Hody (Mary Yugo) would say. It seems that Rossi is not doing this because it won't work. He needs sparks not raw heat to maintain his reaction. What do you guys think. Is sparking a necessary ingredient for the Rossi formula. Would sparks be an efficient means of creating Rydberg hydrogen atons to create an environment suitable for LENR? If sparks are a necessary ingredient, I have found a very cheap and efficient way to create these sparks - by using a spark plug driven by a CDI electronic ignition box. The rate of spark ignition can be controlled by a cheap function generator. I have incorporated this design into my reactor. I will try this out. In the meantime, I need to hear from smart theoriticians here to see if this research direction makes sense.
