Jer, et al, Some time ago (years), jnlabs did experiments with 'CFR' using tungsten as the cathode, with COP>1 results proportional to voltage (current) input. Results seemed to indicate that a very hot plasma cathode is needed, and that hydrogen trapped around the cathode is excited and gives the incandescence glow - which then produces the results. From these experiments, he moved on to Free Energy from Atomic Hydrogen with the ( MAHG )http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/index.htm leaving CFR behind. Before these experiment, or sometime around them, he had used a Carbon Rod to make Bingo Fuel COH2. In all these experiments, however, the cathode is giving up 'matter', resulting in pitting plating of residual matter. If the cathode is not replaced after XX hours, the experiment slowly fades and does not give COP>1 results. What is missing from the equations of energy is this missing pitting. Is the cathode 'chemically' giving up energy from the pitting? Both tungsten and carbon cathodes are eaten away and must form part of the resultant energy gain. The Bingo fuel uses this carbon cathode to form hydro carbons, and then reburned. So the carbon depletion of the cathode is necessary and forms part of the energy balance equation. Take away from one, to form something else, one has to consider and take account for all matter/energy used in the experiment. No free lunches, and certainly no free energy. The loss of carbon from the cathode equates to loss of energy from the cathode, I suspect the same is true for the tungsten rod. If platinum were to be used, it might not give up matter - only electrons, but then again, COP>1 will probably not occur do to the cathode not giving up matter.
It is the weak electromagnetic force which holds atoms and molecules together which is unaccounted for in each of these experiments, and the recombination of cathode atoms into lower/higher form of energy/molecules. The Cathode is not a catalyst. v/r Ken Carrigan -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marshall Dudley Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:45 AM To: interact Subject: Re: [Keelynet] anomolous energy research His work is interesting, but I am going more for a steady state effect, whereas most of his research is directed I believe toward rail gun and water explosion drilling and launching systems. I am aware of the carbon arc phenomena, and am considering trying it under water as well as testing the tungsten rods and titanium core spark plug I have. One paper I find intriguing is at http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/samplearticle.pdf page 79, "Nuclear Transmutation Reaction Caused by Light Water Electrolysis on Tungsten Cathode Under Incandescent Conditions". Many others have repeated these experiments and gotten over 200% energy out vs in, but no one that I know of has exceeded 300%. Then on http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue32/iccf8.html we have this tidbit of interesting information: ------------------------------- An interesting connection: Storms discovered that the excess heat effect does not take place in the Pt bulk, but rather in layers of deposited material on the surface of the Pt. When he cleaned this Pt surface off by scrubbing the metal and placing it in boiling water, the effect went away for a while until another layer of deposited material grew on the metal surface. Mobberley takes this a step further, moving the reaction site away from the metal to holes in a ceramic--in fact, he employs a pepper-shaker (known as a "pepper-pot" in the UK). Rothwell's first reaction was to say that this removes metal from the picture altogether and makes the effect look like something that happens in water, but Mallove reminded him that there is a great deal of lithium in the highly concentrated electrolyte used by Mobberley. ------------------------------- Additional information on these experiments can be found at: http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/74naudin.html http://www.amasci.com/weird/anode.txt http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf http://www.rexresearch.com/eccles/1eccles.htm http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTconfirmatia.pdf http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue26/deviceupdate.html http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/files/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/html/cfr10.htm http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/html/cfrtpwr.htm Some of these experiments have deteremined that a glow extends out 1/2 inch or so from the plasma into the water, a possible indicate of Cherenkov radiation. >From what I have been able to determine, it is necessary to get an area of plasma to get these anomalous results. In the experiments referenced above this is accomplished by letting the solution reach temperatures near boiling, so that at the cathode, or the hole in the pepper shaker, steam is produced, forcing the current to travel through the steam, producing an arc or plasma. Another possible way to do this would be to use the "ampere longitudinal force" to separate a column of liquid inside a tube to produce the same effect, but at temperatures far below that of boiling water. However this would likely have to be done with a pulsating current, so that the column collapses and then blows apart again. The simple act of blowing apart a column using these forces also appears to generate anomalous energy as evidenced by experiments with thin wires using ampere longitudinal force to segment the wires. This is more like what Graneau was doing, and I will likely blow my column container (a glass or ceramic rod) apart if I can get the currents up high enough to get this force to separate the column of water, but I am wanting to try it anyway. I have a 15 KV @ 120 mA supply, and plan to construct a .1 or .2 uF 20 KV cap to supply large pulse currents. I have acquired lithium carbonate to experiment with as one of the electrolytes (baking soda, or sodium hydrogen carbonate, and sodium chloride will be another ones), but lithium carbonate is sparingly soluble. I plan to react it with vinegar (acetic acid), to produce lithium acetate, which is highly soluble, and will also provide some carbon atoms, which may enhance the effect (carbon arcs as you indicated below can also give excess energy). I will keep everyone posted on the results. BTW, I have an article that is to be published in the Jan/Feb issue of Infinite Energy (they keep pushing it back though) on a simply and repeatable way to use a form of Maxwell's demon to produce electricity directly from ambient temperature with no "cold sink" in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Once it is published I will make details of the experiment known to this group. Unfortunately the amount of power this produces is minuscule, but is still sufficient to demonstrate the falsification of the second law in a macro system. Marshall Jerry Decker - KN wrote: > Hola Marshall! > > I'm not but be sure to get whatever you can on the experiments of > Peter Graneau with water arcs...and there is a company or two I can't > recall the name of offhand that uses carbon arcs to burn hotter and > produce more energy...as I recall there are disputes between claimants > of this technology but it held promise as everything converts back to > carbon according to Walter Russell. > > Marshall Dudley wrote: > > Is anyone here doing any experimenting with incandescent > > electrolysis, underwater arcs, or Ampere Longitudal Forces for > > anomolous energy generation. I have purchased a number of items to > > begin experimenting on these subjects, and was wondering if anyone > > else has done so, or is planning on doing do. If so, exchanging > > information on what works and what doesn't will assist us along our path. > > > > Marshall > > > > > > > > -- > Jerry Decker - http://www.keelynet.com Donations to > support KeelyNet: http://www.keelynet.com/donate1.htm > Public Archive http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet > Order out of Chaos - From an Art to a Science