Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Sorry, I did not reply sooner. Thanks for the interest. Except for my encounters with Maxwell's demon this field is all new to me. Unfortunately I don't know anything about semiconductor theory. I found Sheehan's proposed epicatalytic method for violating of the second law of thermodynamics inspiring, because it only requires basic concepts from the kinetic theory of gases and chemistry to understand the gist of it. I am interested in the experimental problem of detecting a violation of the second law without necessarily having to posses a thorough understanding of the microscopic process which brings it about. For example, I wonder if what appears as energy production in LENR/CF experiments is in fact energy concentration, i.e. a 2nd law violation. Harry On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: A much wider set of principles can be found in patent applications by George Samual Levy. In particular his published provisional filing 61567455 which can be obtained at http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair is intreaging, My personal interest goes to the solid state versions of his claimed energy generators. By appying graded doped semiconductor slabs he claims to be able to withdraw electrical power by temporary periods of violated 2nd law of thermodynamics. The part that is key and needs some more prove by experts in my view is following part of his provisional filing where Levy claims that by themally shortcutting a graded doped semiconductor slab a current is flowing through such semiconducor. Quote: *An analog of Loschmidt's adiabatic gas column thought experiment can therefore* *be implemented in a semiconductor with graded doping. Carriers in such a semiconductor* *develop an adiabatic temperature profile. If the heavily doped end and lightly doped end* *of the semiconductor slab are thermally short circuited, the temperature of the* *semiconductor at each end deviates from the adiabatic profile. The relative temperature is* *colder at the heavily doped end and hotter at the lightly doped end. The hot probe effect* *results in a current flowing through the semiconductor, which can be tapped by* *electrodes. This particular implementation combines in a single semiconductor slab two* *aspects of the Loschmidt's thought experiment: the adiabatic gradient in the gas and the* *heat engine (Seebeck device).* We can further discuss if found interesting enough. On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:25 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The Paradigm Energy website is now empty (although you can still download the papers at the links given on the MFMP page). In the comments section Ryan Hunt explains why: That website has since been taken down. :( They decided not to do their research openly in the interest of being able to secure private funding and guarding against getting patented out of the game by onlookers is what I heard. Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat. http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/ Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:47 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
A much wider set of principles can be found in patent applications by George Samual Levy. In particular his published provisional filing 61567455 which can be obtained at http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair is intreaging, My personal interest goes to the solid state versions of his claimed energy generators. By appying graded doped semiconductor slabs he claims to be able to withdraw electrical power by temporary periods of violated 2nd law of thermodynamics. The part that is key and needs some more prove by experts in my view is following part of his provisional filing where Levy claims that by themally shortcutting a graded doped semiconductor slab a current is flowing through such semiconducor. Quote: *An analog of Loschmidt's adiabatic gas column thought experiment can therefore* *be implemented in a semiconductor with graded doping. Carriers in such a semiconductor* *develop an adiabatic temperature profile. If the heavily doped end and lightly doped end* *of the semiconductor slab are thermally short circuited, the temperature of the* *semiconductor at each end deviates from the adiabatic profile. The relative temperature is* *colder at the heavily doped end and hotter at the lightly doped end. The hot probe effect* *results in a current flowing through the semiconductor, which can be tapped by* *electrodes. This particular implementation combines in a single semiconductor slab two* *aspects of the Loschmidt's thought experiment: the adiabatic gradient in the gas and the* *heat engine (Seebeck device).* We can further discuss if found interesting enough. On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:25 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The Paradigm Energy website is now empty (although you can still download the papers at the links given on the MFMP page). In the comments section Ryan Hunt explains why: That website has since been taken down. :( They decided not to do their research openly in the interest of being able to secure private funding and guarding against getting patented out of the game by onlookers is what I heard. Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat. http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/ Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:47 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
The Paradigm Energy website is now empty (although you can still download the papers at the links given on the MFMP page). In the comments section Ryan Hunt explains why: That website has since been taken down. :( They decided not to do their research openly in the interest of being able to secure private funding and guarding against getting patented out of the game by onlookers is what I heard. Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat. http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/ Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:47 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
http://www.redwaveenergy.com/Index.html Competing technology On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:07 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, my use of the term 'equilibrium' is probably technically incorrect in this situation since they say the systems they study are non-equilibrium stationary systems. What I mean is that if enough time passed then any heat associated with absorption would spread throughout the system and not be capable of maintaining a temperature difference. More recently they claim to be able to do it now at room temperature and produce a bigger temperature difference: http://jointheparadigm.com/epicatalysis-at-room-temperature-preliminary-results/ However their recently observed temperature difference of 0.1C is still small when compared to so called cold fusion systems. Harry On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:33 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If equilibrium conditions were met shouldn't the contribution of heat from adsorption vanish? Harry On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: I just wonder whether they took into account that Tungsten at 2000K and 1 Torr likely absorbs Hydrogen. Absorption of Hydrogen into metal lattices is an exothermic mechanism. Nothing mentioned in their report. On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting how similar the description is to the Casimir effect.
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Jones, This is precisely my point.. that the atomic oven, MAHG and now Mills and Rossi are all chasing a form of super catalytic action that exceeds the portion already hidden/rolled into COE. The tapestry of DCE can extend down below the limits set by Liptschitz when hydrogen becomes fractional [or IMHO relativistic] to a level that breaks the isotropy by trumping the levels set in our gravitational well or any inertial frame even a spatially stationary one by creating a warp –negative value of vacuum pressure even relative to stationary. The geometry that produces the quantum effect also acts as a segregation device aka separating fractional hydrogen atoms from fractional hydrogen molecules by virture of opposition to random motion such that it creates a type of Maxwellian demon. I have said before that this would explain the different type of anomalous claims…hot vs cold and radioactive decay rate acceleration vs deceleration. I am quite happy to call it Epicatalysis but am convinced there will be a relativistic component soon discovered as the research progresses. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2014 11:05 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox From: H Veeder Suppose epicatalysis can cycle between hydrogen and shrunken hydrogen instead of just between H2 and H. That would be the logical progression to Mills’ view, especially if UV was present - except RM sez there is no shuttling, just a one-way, but strongly bonded shrunken state. If there is to be net gain from any kind of chemical asymmetry, it seems likely that a shuttling to f/H and then back again, rather than or in addition to atomic and molecular asymmetry, is likely – since the physical evidence for f/H is slim. In terms of the long mean free-path, many of Mills earlier experiments were run at vacuum. For Sheehan - the free path is not really all that long - about a micron and about 10^17 atoms/cc. Mills often uses a stronger vacuum which is less populated. Definitely, Sheehan should look for UV emission.
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
One more thing to add. Absorption/adsorption of hydrogen is usually exothermic - and degassing is usually endothermic. The balance of the two is zero. That much is usually true, with an emphasis on ”usually”. In hydrogen storage technologies, heat is usually added in order to release hydrogen. However, that is not always the case. Hydrogen can be stored as a hydride, which is a chemical bond (chemisorption) or it can be stored as physical diffusion into pores, or both – and with drastically different thermodynamic profiles. The “pore storage” of course invokes the dynamical Casimir effect. It can be exothermic. Hydrogen can be released “autothermically” where there is no added heat for release - and instead an exotherm on degassing. This is often the result of a side chemical reaction to supply heat, but can be engineered as an asymmetry involving DCE. Epicatalysis could be related to the asymmetry of hydrogen temporary adsorption and desorption on two different metals in another way. This sets the stage for “asymmetric” cycling of hydrogen with a small net gain on each cycle. Obviously there is not much in print on this as it has the potential to violate the Second Law (make that the Second Rule of Thumb)…There are patents on autothermic cycling, but if anything – asymmetric chemistry is more “fringe” than LENR ever was. From: Roarty, Francis X …the atomic oven, MAHG and now Mills and Rossi are all chasing a form of super catalytic action that exceeds the portion already hidden/rolled into COE. The tapestry of DCE can extend down below the limits set by Liptschitz when hydrogen becomes fractional [or IMHO relativistic] From: H Veeder Actually, my use of the term 'equilibrium' is probably technically incorrect in this situation since they say the systems they study are non-equilibrium stationary systems. What I mean is that if enough time passed then any heat associated with absorption would spread throughout the system and not be capable of maintaining a temperature difference… Teslaalset wrote: I just wonder whether they took into account that Tungsten at 2000K and 1 Torr likely absorbs Hydrogen. Absorption of Hydrogen into metal lattices is an exothermic mechanism. Nothing mentioned in their report. Terry Blanton wrote: Interesting how similar the description is to the Casimir effect. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The “pore storage” of course invokes the dynamical Casimir effect. It can be exothermic. Would those be very small pores? I believe the Casimir effect only occurs in very small dimensions. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Yes, the geometry is very specific – 2-12 nanometers. Higher or lower spacing is no good. In fact, buckyballs (C60) are just a bit too small to experience a Casimir effect, but some forms of CNT (nanotubes) can be part of a Casimir anomaly. For comparison purposes, a sphere of this size (diameter of 5 nanometers) could contain about 150-500 atoms. BTW - these spheres are being engineered in Labs now, and are called quantum dots, and have special electronic properties which are “apparently unrelated” to the Casimir effect, but also curious in the sense of being an inverted structure instead of pore. As it turns out – this dimensional range is also seen in a natural biological process – bioluminescence. The “firefly” effect happens because large molecules about the size of a quantum dot, interact via ions to produce photons of abnormally large energy. This process is called FRET. FRET (Forster radiant energy transfer) can be called a biological version of DCE (Dynamical Casimir) effect. This is important for LENR since there could be a non-fusion thermal anomaly which is related to FRET, and/or DCE, and which may be involved in the Sheehan papers as well. From: Jed Rothwell The “pore storage” of course invokes the dynamical Casimir effect. It can be exothermic. Would those be very small pores? I believe the Casimir effect only occurs in very small dimensions. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140818-at-multiverse-impasse-a-new-theory-of-scale/ Regarding the phase change of scale, as the size of things change, a new theory states that mass, length and energy are effected by a phase change in scale. The laws of physics that should be applied to such a system are sensitive to the scale of the system since the system acts differently as its scale changes. On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Yes, the geometry is very specific – 2-12 nanometers. Higher or lower spacing is no good. In fact, buckyballs (C60) are just a bit too small to experience a Casimir effect, but some forms of CNT (nanotubes) can be part of a Casimir anomaly. For comparison purposes, a sphere of this size (diameter of 5 nanometers) could contain about 150-500 atoms. BTW - these spheres are being engineered in Labs now, and are called quantum dots, and have special electronic properties which are “apparently unrelated” to the Casimir effect, but also curious in the sense of being an inverted structure instead of pore. As it turns out – this dimensional range is also seen in a natural biological process – bioluminescence. The “firefly” effect happens because large molecules about the size of a quantum dot, interact via ions to produce photons of abnormally large energy. This process is called FRET. FRET (Forster radiant energy transfer) can be called a biological version of DCE (Dynamical Casimir) effect. This is important for LENR since there could be a non-fusion thermal anomaly which is related to FRET, and/or DCE, and which may be involved in the Sheehan papers as well. *From:* Jed Rothwell The “pore storage” of course invokes the dynamical Casimir effect. It can be exothermic. Would those be very small pores? I believe the Casimir effect only occurs in very small dimensions. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Agreed that 2-12 rules the macro geometry but smaller geometry could still appear to meet this criteria from the perspective of relativistic hydrogen atom or molecule traversing the cavity in the direction of increased confinement. I don’t know how far this nesting effect could persist but IMHO it is much easier to open an umbrella [Casimir cavity]and decrease the ether rate than it is to out run the raindrops [ virtual particles] like we see in the Paradox twins. My point is Casimir effect BETWEEN THE PLATES may be limited to this 2-12 nm range to maintain the focal length needed to accumulate force from the parallel geometry – this would maximize the force trying to pull the plates together BUT if Naudt’s is correct about the hydrino being relativistic than these free floating hydrogen gas can still utilize Casimir force between boundaries that are seemingly below this focal point in our inertial frame.. my posit is that dimensional displacement/Lorentzian contraction extends the rang of confinement these gas atoms can squeeze into by exchanging time for space… I will suggest that this is the same basic principle underlying catalytic action but more so…Epic? Hence the new term epic. Anyway if correct than the fractional hydrogen could just keep following this trajectory down the rabbit hole.. not sure if it would ever reach the point where the plates actually close or just get progressively more contracted to infinity. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 10:47 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox Yes, the geometry is very specific – 2-12 nanometers. Higher or lower spacing is no good. In fact, buckyballs (C60) are just a bit too small to experience a Casimir effect, but some forms of CNT (nanotubes) can be part of a Casimir anomaly. For comparison purposes, a sphere of this size (diameter of 5 nanometers) could contain about 150-500 atoms. BTW - these spheres are being engineered in Labs now, and are called quantum dots, and have special electronic properties which are “apparently unrelated” to the Casimir effect, but also curious in the sense of being an inverted structure instead of pore. As it turns out – this dimensional range is also seen in a natural biological process – bioluminescence. The “firefly” effect happens because large molecules about the size of a quantum dot, interact via ions to produce photons of abnormally large energy. This process is called FRET. FRET (Forster radiant energy transfer) can be called a biological version of DCE (Dynamical Casimir) effect. This is important for LENR since there could be a non-fusion thermal anomaly which is related to FRET, and/or DCE, and which may be involved in the Sheehan papers as well. From: Jed Rothwell The “pore storage” of course invokes the dynamical Casimir effect. It can be exothermic. Would those be very small pores? I believe the Casimir effect only occurs in very small dimensions. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
In terms of surface adsorption and surface plasmonics, in “Enhanced Epicatalysis” - if the surface of the catalyst were to naturally form into Casimir sized cavities, due to impact dynamics … and given the millibar pressure level of hydrogen, we would expect to see perhaps only one molecule of hydrogen bouncing around inside any cavity, on average. This would seem to be the ideal way for that atom to benefit optimally from virtual photon acceleration – especially if the metal matrix itself could be composed of the “competing metals” – such as with a mixed matrix instead of an alloy. It would be ironic if the Moddel patented technology, using Casimir dynamics - which was generally deemed to be a failure, although some small effect was seen: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389212024959 was instead simply not carried out in an optimum way. Using too much hydrogen pressure is one way to ruin the effect. Which is to say that too many hydrogen atoms, forced into a proper Casimir cavity which will hold hundreds of them, could ruin the expected gain, and that is what happened in Moddel’s scheme ! An interesting way to engineer this particular kind of excess energy device (as a hybrid of Sheehan and Moddel) - for the enigmatic X-prize (which may never materialize) would be to pass a very thin hydrogen gas at millibar pressure through the porous metal, but to have the metal matrix composed of mixed metal powders (sintered), instead of an alloy of both (where one metal is tungsten and the other is a rhenium substitute such as nickel). Yes, the geometry is very specific – 2-12 nanometers. Higher or lower spacing is no good. In fact, buckyballs (C60) are just a bit too small to experience a Casimir effect, but some forms of CNT (nanotubes) can be part of a Casimir anomaly. For comparison purposes, a sphere of this size (diameter of 5 nanometers) could contain about 150-500 atoms.
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
I just wonder whether they took into account that Tungsten at 2000K and 1 Torr likely absorbs Hydrogen. Absorption of Hydrogen into metal lattices is an exothermic mechanism. Nothing mentioned in their report. On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting how similar the description is to the Casimir effect.
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
If equilibrium conditions were met shouldn't the contribution of heat from adsorption vanish? Harry On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: I just wonder whether they took into account that Tungsten at 2000K and 1 Torr likely absorbs Hydrogen. Absorption of Hydrogen into metal lattices is an exothermic mechanism. Nothing mentioned in their report. On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting how similar the description is to the Casimir effect.
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
If epicatalysis systems exist which can produce a higher temperature from just ambient temperature without any additional input power then COP in terms of heat output is infinity which is meaningless. By analogy applying the COP measure to a naturally occurring waterfall gives infinity...except with epicatalysis the water is falling up instead of down. harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I do not have a problem with low apparent COP at this early stage. BTW – we should step back and relook at the Cravens NI-Week demo in the context of Epicatalysis, and as an example of something similar but more robust than Sheehan. Cravens was getting much higher COP, at modest temps. There is no apparent reason to drop all the way back to ambient. The gain could be due to hydrogen bond asymmetry only – meaning that there is an asymmetry in hydrogen catalysis using some metal combinations which is actually gainful. That would be in the sense of allowing the chemical bond to be split with slightly less energy than it gives up on re-bonding. This could define Craven’s system as well, no? *From:* H Veeder The COP measure by itself is inadequate for evaluating the productivity of such systems. Carnot efficiency (which will exceed 100%) should be included in the measure somehow. harry
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Wow. Can’t keep the two threads separated… $20 million to the winner ? Nice incentive. It might be fun to merge this thread into the X-Prize thread, with the aim of framing a system which would look a little like Sheehan’s and a little like Cravens’, with Arata and Ahern thrown in for good measure. We can call it the vorteX entry. Unlike any of the above devices, we would strive to supersize it from the beginning – with the expectation that a minimum size will become part of the Rules. If we are talking about a gain of a watt per 10 grams – this means that kilogram levels of two active metals are needed. (guessing that there will be a minimum level requirement of at least 100 watts). Sheehan chose tungsten and rhenium. Re sits just to the left of palladium in the Periodic Table. The Arata-type of powder (supported by zirconia) could be a significant improvement for one or both of the two competing surfaces, due to surface chemistry - but is there an intrinsic advantage to W and Re? Did Sheehan try other hydrogen active elements? He says this is open source, so perhaps this is known. If one is going to start with a system which uses perhaps several kg of active competing metals, then one would prefer far lower cost than rhenium, which is among the most expensive of metals- approximately $5000 per kg. This assumes that Re is not specifically required. Tungsten is affordable, and actually scavengable (light bulb filaments). I have a mental image of a stack of filter plates imbedded with nanopowder – alternating layers of the competing metals and with only one torr of hydrogen which recirculates to give up the excess heat, looking somewhat like this. http://img.directindustry.com/images_di/photo-g/fuel-cell-stacks-119739-5501391.jpg From: H Veeder If epicatalysis systems exist which can produce a higher temperature from just ambient temperature without any additional input power then COP in terms of heat output is infinity which is meaningless. By analogy applying the COP measure to a naturally occurring waterfall gives infinity...except with epicatalysis the water is falling up instead of down. JB – we should step back and relook at the Cravens NI-Week demo in the context of Epicatalysis, and as an example of something similar but more robust than Sheehan. Cravens was getting much higher COP, at modest temps. There is no apparent reason to drop all the way back to ambient…. The gain could be due to hydrogen bond asymmetry only – meaning that there is an asymmetry in hydrogen catalysis using some metal combinations which is actually gainful. That would be in the sense of allowing the chemical bond to be split with slightly less energy than it gives up on re-bonding. This could define Craven’s system as well, no?
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
This is a theory paper that is available on their website which isn't linked to on MFMP website : Epicatalysis: Nonequilibrium Heterogeneous Catalysis in the Long Mean Free Path Regime http://jointheparadigm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/EpicatalPRE.pdf quote It is curious that epicatalysis was not identi ed long ago, given that heterogeneous catalysis has been studied and used extensively for more than a century. There might be several reasons for this. First, most chemists and physicists are trained to think in terms of thermodynamic equilibrium, so it is foreign to suppose that closed, isothermal blackbody cavities could harbor nonequilibrium stationary states. Furthermore, thermodynamic arguments are usually framed in the thermodynamic limit, that is, to treat systems as spatially in nite, in the longtime limit, free of boundary e ects. These assumptions fail here. Epicatalysis depends on strong gas-surface interactions (Criterion 1) as well as on nite system size and an inert gas phase (Criterion 2), thereby confounding common thermodynamic expectations. Finally, in practice most commercial catalysis is carried out in large vessels at high pressures such that the 1 criterion for epicatalysis is not satis ed. The Haber-Bosch process, for instance, is typically conducted at 150-400 atmospheres in vessels meters in size, thus operates at 10 9 (Fig. 3). As a result, epicatalysis was unlikely to have been discovered accidentally via industrial catalysts. There are, of course, commercial devices that seem to rely inadvertently on epicatalysis (e.g., hydrogen atom sources27). These, however, are niche markets whose research funding is usually inadequate for careful study of underlying physical chemistry so, again, it was unlikely to have been d iscovered. Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In the earlier Sheehan paper abstract, I was struck by the fact that this would be possible to achieve perpetual motion, if one could find an almost perfect mirror reflector of IR (gold works well to 1.5 microns). Does anyone have the full paper? Funny thing – they mention a Crookes radiometer with alternating blades of Rh and W – but was the spinner inside a mirrored sphere with a partial vacuum of hydrogen gas? The Rh would heat the W by conduction at the axis, and the vanes would spin because of the differential emission. The loss is manageable with a good reflector, and hydrogen bond asymmetry provides the gain - but since they did not mention it – apparently they did not get that far. Perpetual motion would be the result, but did they actually see it? *From:* David Roberson This result seems reasonable since a hot black body can emit IR radiation from its surface. This process is in effect changing internal thermal heat energy into radiation energy which can be harnessed to perform work. I have long pondered this apparent loophole. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Suppose epicatalysis can cycle between hydrogen and shrunken hydrogen instead of just between H2 and H. Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: YES! Thanks for posting this, Harry. Epicatalysis is a good name for a more general phenomenon which can replace the idea that LENR must involve fusion. This does not mean that there cannot be some forms of LENR which do involve fusion, but it opens the door for another branch of LENR which definitely does not. This alt/alt form of energy (alternative to an alternative) which we have called “suprachemical” at one point in time, may include Ni-H, and may even involve mass-to-energy conversions which are non-fusion (via spin coupling). However, there are no gammas in this form, and thus no need to invent a flimsy rationalization for why there are none. Epicatalysis is far easier to defend theoretically, despite CoE objections, and probably is limited in COP - but my prediction is that this will likely be the predominant vehicle for funding RD in the near future and “cold fusion” will fade from view at about the same rate. There are simply too many experiments which show COP near or slightly less than 2, with no indicia of fusion, for this to be a coincidence. *From:* H Veeder The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat. http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/ Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
From: H Veeder Suppose epicatalysis can cycle between hydrogen and shrunken hydrogen instead of just between H2 and H. That would be the logical progression to Mills’ view, especially if UV was present - except RM sez there is no shuttling, just a one-way, but strongly bonded shrunken state. If there is to be net gain from any kind of chemical asymmetry, it seems likely that a shuttling to f/H and then back again, rather than or in addition to atomic and molecular asymmetry, is likely – since the physical evidence for f/H is slim. In terms of the long mean free-path, many of Mills earlier experiments were run at vacuum. For Sheehan - the free path is not really all that long - about a micron and about 10^17 atoms/cc. Mills often uses a stronger vacuum which is less populated. Definitely, Sheehan should look for UV emission.
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Actually, my use of the term 'equilibrium' is probably technically incorrect in this situation since they say the systems they study are non-equilibrium stationary systems. What I mean is that if enough time passed then any heat associated with absorption would spread throughout the system and not be capable of maintaining a temperature difference. More recently they claim to be able to do it now at room temperature and produce a bigger temperature difference: http://jointheparadigm.com/epicatalysis-at-room-temperature-preliminary-results/ However their recently observed temperature difference of 0.1C is still small when compared to so called cold fusion systems. Harry On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:33 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If equilibrium conditions were met shouldn't the contribution of heat from adsorption vanish? Harry On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: I just wonder whether they took into account that Tungsten at 2000K and 1 Torr likely absorbs Hydrogen. Absorption of Hydrogen into metal lattices is an exothermic mechanism. Nothing mentioned in their report. On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting how similar the description is to the Casimir effect.
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat. http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/ Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:47 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
YES! Thanks for posting this, Harry. Epicatalysis is a good name for a more general phenomenon which can replace the idea that LENR must involve fusion. This does not mean that there cannot be some forms of LENR which do involve fusion, but it opens the door for another branch of LENR which definitely does not. This alt/alt form of energy (alternative to an alternative) which we have called “suprachemical” at one point in time, may include Ni-H, and may even involve mass-to-energy conversions which are non-fusion (via spin coupling). However, there are no gammas in this form, and thus no need to invent a flimsy rationalization for why there are none. Epicatalysis is far easier to defend theoretically, despite CoE objections, and probably is limited in COP - but my prediction is that this will likely be the predominant vehicle for funding RD in the near future and “cold fusion” will fade from view at about the same rate. There are simply too many experiments which show COP near or slightly less than 2, with no indicia of fusion, for this to be a coincidence. From: H Veeder The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat. http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/ Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
This result seems reasonable since a hot black body can emit IR radiation from its surface. This process is in effect changing internal thermal heat energy into radiation energy which can be harnessed to perform work. I have long pondered this apparent loophole. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 13, 2014 2:47 pm Subject: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
In the earlier Sheehan paper abstract, I was struck by the fact that this would be possible to achieve perpetual motion, if one could find an almost perfect mirror reflector of IR (gold works well to 1.5 microns). Does anyone have the full paper? Funny thing - they mention a Crookes radiometer with alternating blades of Rh and W - but was the spinner inside a mirrored sphere with a partial vacuum of hydrogen gas? The Rh would heat the W by conduction at the axis, and the vanes would spin because of the differential emission. The loss is manageable with a good reflector, and hydrogen bond asymmetry provides the gain - but since they did not mention it - apparently they did not get that far. Perpetual motion would be the result, but did they actually see it? From: David Roberson This result seems reasonable since a hot black body can emit IR radiation from its surface. This process is in effect changing internal thermal heat energy into radiation energy which can be harnessed to perform work. I have long pondered this apparent loophole. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
The COP measure by itself is inadequate for evaluating the productivity of such systems. Carnot efficiency (which will exceed 100%) should be included in the measure somehow. harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: YES! Thanks for posting this, Harry. Epicatalysis is a good name for a more general phenomenon which can replace the idea that LENR must involve fusion. This does not mean that there cannot be some forms of LENR which do involve fusion, but it opens the door for another branch of LENR which definitely does not. This alt/alt form of energy (alternative to an alternative) which we have called “suprachemical” at one point in time, may include Ni-H, and may even involve mass-to-energy conversions which are non-fusion (via spin coupling). However, there are no gammas in this form, and thus no need to invent a flimsy rationalization for why there are none. Epicatalysis is far easier to defend theoretically, despite CoE objections, and probably is limited in COP - but my prediction is that this will likely be the predominant vehicle for funding RD in the near future and “cold fusion” will fade from view at about the same rate. There are simply too many experiments which show COP near or slightly less than 2, with no indicia of fusion, for this to be a coincidence. *From:* H Veeder The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat. http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/ Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
I do not have a problem with low apparent COP at this early stage. BTW – we should step back and relook at the Cravens NI-Week demo in the context of Epicatalysis, and as an example of something similar but more robust than Sheehan. Cravens was getting much higher COP, at modest temps. There is no apparent reason to drop all the way back to ambient. The gain could be due to hydrogen bond asymmetry only – meaning that there is an asymmetry in hydrogen catalysis using some metal combinations which is actually gainful. That would be in the sense of allowing the chemical bond to be split with slightly less energy than it gives up on re-bonding. This could define Craven’s system as well, no? From: H Veeder The COP measure by itself is inadequate for evaluating the productivity of such systems. Carnot efficiency (which will exceed 100%) should be included in the measure somehow. harry
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
While we are on the subject of Second Law violators - Ken Rauen published an interesting article in Infinite Energy magazine which discusses the history of the Second Law and some known exceptions and comes to the final conclusion that what has been known about the behavior of heat and entropy, as embodied in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is incomplete. Here is the complete article: http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Rauen%2355.pdf Maybe he should have called it a “rule of thumb” :-) BTW – we should step back and relook at the Cravens NI-Week demo in the context of Epicatalysis, and as an example of something similar but more robust than Sheehan. Cravens was getting much higher COP, at modest temps. There is no apparent reason to drop all the way back to ambient. The gain could be due to hydrogen bond asymmetry only – meaning that there is an asymmetry in hydrogen catalysis using some metal combinations which is actually gainful. That would be in the sense of allowing the chemical bond to be split with slightly less energy than it gives up on re-bonding. This could define Craven’s system as well, no? From: H Veeder The COP measure by itself is inadequate for evaluating the productivity of such systems. Carnot efficiency (which will exceed 100%) should be included in the measure somehow. harry
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
My son (doing a theoretical physics PhD) tends to quote Pirates of the Caribbean on this and say that it is not so much a rule as more what you'd call guidelines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6kgS_AwuH0 Nigel On 13/09/2014 19:47, H Veeder wrote: Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Interesting how similar the description is to the Casimir effect.
