Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Horace Heffner This is an indication the door was opened by the blast prior to the glass shards hitting it. The shards came through with enough energy to cause widespread injuries. This is only consistent with the primary energy of the blast being in the 1L-6 incubator, not the flask. I think Mizuno had it right when he said: The effluent hydrogen and oxygen were mixed in the cell headspace. There 2 ~ 3 cc of hydrogen at the time, although this is an open cell so only minimal amounts of gas remain in the headspace. It is possible that the tungsten cathode may have been exposed to the gas in the headspace. Even so - you neglect the major point Mizuno is making Not at all. In fact in the last post I said: The sudden heat output may be an anomaly, but the explosion does not appear to be one. about the rise in water temperature - captured by his temp. probe and data logging. If we accept this as accurate: There was 700 grams of H2O which was heated for only ten seconds. Mizuno was not using much power, but the heating rate of 700 grams of water in figure on page 31 shows a rise in water temperature of 60 C in about 10 seconds. This would constitute an energy input of 176,400 Joules! Page 14 describes the input parameters - 15 volts and 1.5 Amps. This is a power input of 22.5 watts for 10 seconds but the power apparently accepted by the water was (DeltaT) (Mass of water) (1 calorie/gram)(4.2Joules/calorie) /10seconds = 60(700grams) (4.2)/10 = 17,640 watts. That is a gain of 780 for power output versus power input. Elsewhere he calculates the gain in that same range. This explosion was NOT due to just a few cc of hydrogen in the headspace, Of course not, but that few cc, ignited, is plenty to pop the rubber top and ignite the large volume in the 1L-6 incubator. Or, even just a sudden boil off is probably enough to expose the electrodes and cause an ignition. nor even to that combined with much more outside the headspeace. The Chart in Fig. 6 in: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalouse.pdf shows a run time of over 10,000 seconds before the explosion. That's almost 3 hours. The beaker cap used in the explosion was black and both thin and thinly tapered compared to the white cap shown in the before photos. It is possible there was a leak in the cap or other leak in the system, or that hydrogen had accumulated in the 1L-6 incubator during prior runs. I vaguely recall talk about the recombiner being removed. Maybe the plumbing wasn't put back just right and there was a leak into the incubator. The plastic tubing in the post explosion photo http://www.lenr-canr.org/images/MizunoAccident.JPG looks to be in too good a condition to have been exposed to so much energy in so little volume. Horace Heffner
Re: Ambient Gravimagnetic Field and the Earth Field
On Jan 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: I wonder if there is a connection between Gravimagnetism and dowsing and ley lines... I'm clueless on that one. Horace Heffner
RE: Who Killed the EV?
-Original Message- From: John Coviello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:04 AM Subject: RE: Who Killed the EV? Cold weather makes electric cars even worse. The public wants wasteful, gas sucking monster SUV's , not dinky, 75 mile range, recharge - over night Toys. The lack of a Really Good Battery killed electric cars and no conspiracy is necessary. Find a miracle battery - and , yes, YOU WILL KILL THE OIL COMPANIES. That miracle battery is on it's way finally! If so, Hallelujah!If it won't work in Japan, they could still export them for here.. But I'm not sure about cycle life and battery price.
RE: Who Killed the EV?
From: John Coviello ... > That miracle battery is on it's way finally! Lithium ion > batteries have sufficient power densities to deliver 300 > mile per charge and can actually recharge in 5 to 10 minutes. > You know what that means? People can pull in and recharge > their EVs on the go, just like filling up the old gas tank. > That day is coming and it will kill oil when people realize > how cheap electricity is in comparisson. While I also look forward to the day when EV or equivalent non-petroleum based vehicles dominate our hi-ways I seem to recall that pushing that much juice through electrical cable to recharge car batteries may turn out to be hazardous to one's health! I don't know how much actual concentrated amperage would be involved to charge a battery within 5 - 10 minutes, but I'm sure it's substantial. I'm sure there are a few EEs in this group who are more than capable of doing the math. I seem to recall Mike Carrell once warning the readership that there is the danger of "vaporizing" the battery or nearby components. I can believe this. I purchased one of those 15 minute rechargers at a local battery store last year. It's a marvel. Works as advertised. Of course, you have to buy THEIR special brand of batteries in order to take advantage of the quick charge. Fortunately the device will recharge regular rechargeable batteries as well, but within a more traditional length of time: 4 - 6 hours. When the recharger is performing a 15 minute charge a very noisy fan turns on to keep the electronic components from melting down. Almost sounds like a mini-turbine turning on at full blast. Without a doubt, it's the loudest recharger I've ever heard. I'm surprised I don't smell ozone pouring out of the thing. And now, they can do this in less than 5 minutes? That means the amperage would have to be three times the volume than my already fast 15 minute charger. The device would be screaming! Still, I love watching the contraption. Not sure I would say the same thing if I was attempting to recharge my EV with equivalent technology. You want ME to to connect the cable to that anode??? All the more reason to hope that Mark Goldes' room temperature superconductive cable may make it to market within the near future. Otherwise, wear rubber boots. ...and stop sweating. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
RE: Who Killed the EV?
-Original Message- From: John Coviello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:37 AM Subject: RE: Who Killed the EV? I don't see any need for any conspiracy to kill off electric cars at all. The range is awful, they take time to recharge, the battery life sucks and they are small - especially when compared to the profitable SUV's that US manufacturers produce. They suck. It's a chicken and egg thing. I spent many an hour reading about battery research in libraries at Cornell. There just wasn't anything worthwhile out there - and lithum ion is a maybe. The Don Quixote Car Company that built this stuff would also need a charging station infrastructure, trained repairmen, a parts dept, And possibly have to deal with liability issues from firemen and shade tree mechanics ( or their widows) who got zapped by the power pack. That's a pretty tall order from a company like GM or Ford, losing billions a quarter and draining market share, year after year.
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
Horace Heffner There was 700 grams of H2O which was heated for only ten seconds. Mizuno was not using much power, but the heating rate of 700 grams of water in figure on page 31 shows a rise in water temperature of 60 C in about 10 seconds. This would constitute an energy input of 176,400 Joules! Page 14 describes the input parameters - 15 volts and 1.5 Amps. This is a power input of 22.5 watts for 10 seconds but the power apparently accepted by the water was (DeltaT) (Mass of water) (1 calorie/gram)(4.2Joules/calorie) /10seconds = 60(700grams) (4.2)/10 = 17,640 watts. That is a gain of 780 for power output versus power input. Elsewhere he calculates the gain in that same range. This explosion was NOT due to just a few cc of hydrogen in the headspace, Of course not, but that few cc, ignited, is plenty to pop the rubber top and ignite the large volume in the 1L-6 incubator. Or, even just a sudden boil off is probably enough to expose the electrodes and cause an ignition. The previous run provides the active setting but it cannot be presummed that there was significant residual hydrogen in the hood - such as if the exhaust fan totally failed - and even if there was this is totaly unnecssary and moreover inconsistent with this kind of sudden power increase in the cell. If we are to accept everything Mizuno says, the explosion actually could NOT have been casued by hydrogen at all ! That's right, a hydrogen explosion it totally inconsistent with this situation - as it would have casued an explosion long before the 10 seconds, and the water in the cell COULD NOT have attained that temperature. At only 3-4 seconds the surface temperature of the cathode, down to a micron or so was already near its melting point. If hydrogen had been there, it would have exploded then - ending the episode and not allowing further heat-up of the water. The Stephan-Boltzmann law defines the maximum power per unit area that a perfect emitter of radiation (blackbody) can sustain. The total cathode area exposed to the electrolyte is a length of 1.5 cm. The cathode diameter is 0.1 cm. The maximum area exposed to the electrolyte is 0.47cm2. The power is 17,640 watts, so the power per unit area is 374,000 watts/cm2. (In reality, only about 10% of this cathode surface area is heated, so these calculations below (from Brian Ahern) are truly conservative. Power/area = sigma T ^ 4 Where s = sigma = 5.7 x 10-8 W/m^2/degreeK = 5.7 x 10^-12 W/cm2/degreeK T^4 = 374,000/5.7 x 10^-12 = 6.6 x 10^+16 T = ~ 16,K IOW if we are to believe Mizuno the cause of the explsoion was rapid heating and sublimation of the surface of the cathode (a few mils of tungsten blown off, resulting in the pitted appearance) probably caused by nuclear reactions - together with the flash steam that this cathode surface-boil-off would have created. A hydrogen explosion, or residual hydrogen left over from the previous run would have ended this episode long before the 10 seconds - so that possibility is eliminated. Given this, personally I am suspicious of Mizuno figures or at least wishing that an isoptic analysis of the metal surface had been made, since that is the only way to prove a real nuclear reaction. BTW - the most active part of the surface area could not have been tested as it must have alreadu boiled off. Jones
RE: Who Killed the EV?
Zell, Chris wrote: I spent many an hour reading about battery research in libraries at Cornell. There just wasn't anything worthwhile out there - and lithum ion is a maybe. . . . The Don Quixote Car Company that built this stuff would also need a charging station infrastructure, trained repairmen, a parts dept, And possibly have to deal with liability issues from firemen and shade tree mechanics . . . Valid points, all. These are other reasons why the plug-in hybrid is the ideal compromise for present-day circumstances. It can be recharged slowly, overnight, with household current. If you forget to recharge, or if you do not have time to recharge before setting out on another trip, it does not matter. You use of gasoline instead of electricity. You pay more for transportation that day. Suppose gasoline cost $5 dollars per gallon, but you only use it exclusively 10 or 20 days per year (on days when you forget to recharge or you travel long distances). The cost would not be a burden. - Jed
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Here's an interesting question: Is it possible to design a ground-fault interrupter which can carry -- and safely break -- a 1000 amp current going into a 1000 volt load? OrionWorks wrote: From: John Coviello ... That miracle battery is on it's way finally! Lithium ion batteries have sufficient power densities to deliver 300 mile per charge and can actually recharge in 5 to 10 minutes. You know what that means? People can pull in and recharge their EVs on the go, just like filling up the old gas tank. That day is coming and it will kill oil when people realize how cheap electricity is in comparisson. While I also look forward to the day when EV or equivalent non-petroleum based vehicles dominate our hi-ways I seem to recall that pushing that much juice through electrical cable to recharge car batteries may turn out to be hazardous to one's health! I don't know how much actual concentrated amperage would be involved to charge a battery within 5 - 10 minutes, but I'm sure it's substantial. I'm sure there are a few EEs in this group who are more than capable of doing the math. I seem to recall Mike Carrell once warning the readership that there is the danger of vaporizing the battery or nearby components. I'm no EE but maybe we can estimate it anyway. Say that 300 mile range involves an average output of 10 HP. (That's probably within a factor of 2 of the real number, which I seem to recall is ~ 15 to 20 HP for current cars without regenerative braking; the real range for an efficient electric car is probably somewhere between 5 HP and 20 HP.) 300 miles at 40 MPH = 7.5 hours 10 HP ~ 8 kW = 60 kW hours for 7.5 hours 5 minutes is about 0.1 hours. To push 60 kWh into the batteries in 0.1 hour, we need to run about 600 kW into the batteries. That's as much as a small generating station produces -- you don't pull that out of an ordinary outlet. (I suppose the charging station must be using batteries or supercaps to store the charge, and they fill them up during the night.) Now, if the battery pack puts out 400 volts (wild guess), then 600 kW would go in at a current of 1,500 amps. That's a lot of current, but it's not an impossible amount. Just the same it probably indicates that the battery pack should be more like a kilovolt than 400 volts; that would bring the current down to a far more manageable 600 amps. At that point, we're looking at a number which is in the same ballpark as the starting current for cars today -- and it's most likely _lower_ than the starting current for the old 6 volt cars from the days of my youth. It's clearly do-able, at least from a current standpoint. But, in any case, you'll want to use very hefty cables, maybe some silver, and you'll want to be very, very careful of the connector design, to avoid having the plug melt or burn. And, if the wires are long enough to have noticeable inductance, you don't want to be standing next to them if one of them breaks (or the plug pops out). I can believe this. I purchased one of those 15 minute rechargers at a local battery store last year. It's a marvel. Works as advertised. Of course, you have to buy THEIR special brand of batteries in order to take advantage of the quick charge. Fortunately the device will recharge regular rechargeable batteries as well, but within a more traditional length of time: 4 - 6 hours. When the recharger is performing a 15 minute charge a very noisy fan turns on to keep the electronic components from melting down. Almost sounds like a mini-turbine turning on at full blast. Without a doubt, it's the loudest recharger I've ever heard. I'm surprised I don't smell ozone pouring out of the thing. And now, they can do this in less than 5 minutes? That means the amperage would have to be three times the volume than my already fast 15 minute charger. The device would be screaming! Maybe, maybe not. Just because it handles more current doesn't mean the electronics must dump more heat. Classic example is a linear power supply versus a switching power supply. A well-regulated high-current high-voltage linear supply typically needs substantial heat sinks; a well-regulated high-current high-voltage switching supply typically doesn't. The difference is that the linear supply runs the electricity through what is, essentialy, a variable resistor in order to drop the voltage to the regulated value. The resistor (actually a power transistor) basically just throws away a fraction of the output power equal to the difference between the bulk supply voltage and the regulated voltage, divided by the bulk voltage. The switcher, on the other hand, uses a switching transistor which is always either fully on or fully off, and in principle, it doesn't need to throw away any of the input power as heat. So, the point is just that a better/fancier/more-expensive design could potentially produce more current to the battery without
RE: Who Killed the EV?
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Here's an interesting question: Is it possible to design a ground-fault interrupter which can carry -- and safely break -- a 1000 amp current going into a 1000 volt load? Peaks of a megawatt in my car? Defrosting the windows should be pretty easy.
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Jones Beene wrote: The previous run provides the active setting but it cannot be presummed that there was significant residual hydrogen in the hood Neither can it be assumed that there was no hydrogen in the incubator. The blast effects do not indicate the energy came from within the cell. - such as if the exhaust fan totally failed - and even if there was this is totaly unnecssary and moreover inconsistent with this kind of sudden power increase in the cell. A high volume low energy density blast makes sense of the blast effects. The explosion and the excess heat can have separate causes and separate energy sources. There is no inconsistency between this hypothesis and the evidence given. The necessity for the hypothesis is that any hypothesis is valid until ruled out by the evidence. Occam's Razor does not apply to anecdotes of single events. Horace Heffner
RE: Who Killed the EV?
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:31 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Who Killed the EV? Zell, Chris wrote: I spent many an hour reading about battery research in libraries at Cornell. There just wasn't anything worthwhile out there - and lithum ion is a maybe. . . . The Don Quixote Car Company that built this stuff would also need a charging station infrastructure, trained repairmen, a parts dept, And possibly have to deal with liability issues from firemen and shade tree mechanics . . . Valid points, all. These are other reasons why the plug-in hybrid is the ideal compromise for present-day circumstances. I agree. While we all would like to see a huge jump in tech evolution, we may have to settle for baby steps, for now. The most wonderful aspect of this is the full development of an electric car by major companies, under the title hybrid. Get the Miracle Battery invented ... And POOF! The whole world changes for the better.
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
Horace Heffner wrote: Neither can it be assumed that there was no hydrogen in the incubator. I doubt there was any. They usually open the incubator between runs, to make adjustments. Also, with the outer door open the incubator is not a bit airtight. (It is not at a constant temperature either, with the door open.) The effluent gas was vented from the cell through Tygon tubes out of the incubator where a sample of it was diverted into the mass spectrometer. He confirmed after the experiment that these tubes were not plugged up. The time was around 4:00 p.m. so they may have done other runs that day, but I think it is unlikely there would be any gas left in the incubator. I will ask if they did a previous run that day. Anyway, this discussion is irrelevant, in a sense, because there is no question there was a huge burst of anomalous energy underwater before the explosion, so even if the explosion was caused by recombination of gas in the incubator, that does not begin to explain the anomalous heat in the cell. The blast effects do not indicate the energy came from within the cell. I do not see how that could be. Why would the cell shatter in all directions if the explosion was outside of it? Those cells are made of heavy-duty glass. A high volume low energy density blast makes sense of the blast effects. The explosion and the excess heat can have separate causes and separate energy sources. It seems unlikely to me. As Bockris and Mizuno have pointed out, recombination explosions are common during electrochemistry experiments. They usually amount to a small pop that breaks the emergency valve. In Mizuno's case, this valve is usually an ordinary plastic drinking straw bent into a V shape and plugged into two holes at the top of the cell, like a cork. It it offers little resistance. I do not think he had a valve in this case, but anyway, that is the extent of an ordinary explosion. I have not yet had a chance to ask Mizuno about the x-axis label in Fig. 6. - Jed
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Zell, Chris wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Here's an interesting question: Is it possible to design a ground-fault interrupter which can carry -- and safely break -- a 1000 amp current going into a 1000 volt load? Peaks of a megawatt in my car? Defrosting the windows should be pretty easy. Eh, that wasn't exactly what I was thinking. Rather, a roadside fast-charging station needs to be able to source 1000 kV at 1000 amp; how can we make that safe? But I also wasn't thinking clearly about that, either -- the volts from the charging station would have to be isolated from ground, so the only way to get a shock from it would be across the two leads. And a GFI won't help with that anyway. Something along the lines of a GFI might still be useful to detect insulation faults in the station itself which could accidentally ground one side. As to your car peaking at a megawatt, if the battery pack is high-capacity and fast-charging, then yes, it would very likely be able to put out a megawatt without any trouble. It could very probably put out a lot more than that, actually, and if you dropped a wrench across the main battery terminals you'd most likely get an explosion. On the other hand, on the balance it's probably a lot safer than driving around with a half-full tank of gasoline in the back of the car, which we almost never give a second thought to, partly because we're used to it and partly because the manufacturers have had decades to figure out how to package the bomb in the back reasonably safely and inexpensively.
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
On Jan 31, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Anyway, this discussion is irrelevant, in a sense, because there is no question there was a huge burst of anomalous energy underwater before the explosion, so even if the explosion was caused by recombination of gas in the incubator, that does not begin to explain the anomalous heat in the cell. I made no attempt to explain the heat in the cell, only to explain the blast effects. These are separate issues. The blast effects do not indicate the energy came from within the cell. I do not see how that could be. Why would the cell shatter in all directions if the explosion was outside of it? Those cells are made of heavy-duty glass. As I explained earlier. The black top is conical, tapered on the sides. An overpressure would have driven that downward and forced the top glass sides outward. The shards remaining in place at the bottom indicate an overpressure explosion. Had the force been internal to the cell the bottom pieces and the material below would have been pulled apart. The fact the Tygon tubing remains intact is another indication the main explosion was not internal to the cell. The fact the glass shards made it out of the incubator while leaving the door intact indicates the door was opened prior to their arrival, which is fully consistent with an overpressure explanation, but not with the source of the blast energy being within the cell. A high volume low energy density blast makes sense of the blast effects. The explosion and the excess heat can have separate causes and separate energy sources. It seems unlikely to me. As Bockris and Mizuno have pointed out, recombination explosions are common during electrochemistry experiments. They usually amount to a small pop that breaks the emergency valve. In Mizuno's case, this valve is usually an ordinary plastic drinking straw bent into a V shape and plugged into two holes at the top of the cell, like a cork. It it offers little resistance. I do not think he had a valve in this case, but anyway, that is the extent of an ordinary explosion. Exactly. This is even more evidence the majority of the blast energy originated outside the cell - assuming the blast is hydrogen fueled, a possibility that is not ruled out by an excess heat excursion in the cell. Horace Heffner
Re: Who Killed the EV?
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence But I also wasn't thinking clearly about that, either -- the volts from the charging station would have to be isolated from ground, so the only way to get a shock from it would be across the two leads. EV-1 used inductive charging. No way to get shocked: http://home.earthlink.net/~bdewey/EV_charging.html Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Zell, Chris wrote: -Original Message- From: John Coviello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:37 AM Subject: RE: Who Killed the EV? I don't see any need for any conspiracy to kill off electric cars at all. The range is awful, they take time to recharge, the battery life sucks and they are small - especially when compared to the profitable SUV's that US manufacturers produce. They suck. It's a chicken and egg thing. I spent many an hour reading about battery research in libraries at Cornell. There just wasn't anything worthwhile out there - and lithum ion is a maybe. The Don Quixote Car Company that built this stuff would also need a charging station infrastructure, trained repairmen, a parts dept, And possibly have to deal with liability issues from firemen and shade tree mechanics ( or their widows) who got zapped by the power pack. That's a pretty tall order from a company like GM or Ford, losing billions a quarter and draining market share, year after year. Well tax money built most roads, why can't tax money be used to build a charging infrastructure?? Harry
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
--- Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 31, 2006, Jed Rothwell wrote: Anyway, this discussion is irrelevant, in a sense, because there is no question there was a huge burst of anomalous energy underwater before the explosion, so even if the explosion was caused by recombination of gas in the incubator, that does not begin to explain the anomalous heat in the cell. Wait a minute. You guys are not listening. This is not irrelevant because the anomalous energy itself is what disproves a hydrogen explosion. This is the most relevant item of all. I made no attempt to explain the heat in the cell, only to explain the blast effects. These are separate issues. No. Once again. A temperature rise of 17,000 degrees in 10 seconds in the cathode is proof postive that there could have been NO preexisting hydogen in the headspace (unless oxygen was totally absent). No prexisting hydrogen in the headspace indicates that there was none in the hood. Had there been any significant remnant hydrogen in either place, the explosion would have occured much sooner than the ten seconds and we could not possibly have seen the 60 degrees delta T in the remaining water. As to the damage, this is consistent with a few micrograms of sublimated tungsten at 17,000 degrees transfering heat to the water so that there was a flash steam explosion. The very small mass of accelerating material at high kinetic energy could not have damaged a much larger mass of tubing or other parts (million to one mass difference). Jones
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
> From: Jones Beene ... > As to the damage, this is consistent with a few > micrograms of sublimated tungsten at 17,000 degrees > transfering heat to the water so that there was a > flash steam explosion. The very small mass of > accelerating material at high kinetic energy could not > have damaged a much larger mass of tubing or other > parts (million to one mass difference). > > Jones This brings to mind a conversion I think we had over a year ago where you did you best to explain the power of statistics and its relationship with the density ratio of loaded hydrogen in a metal lattice. It was easy for me to grasp the concept that while CF heat is typically nowhere near as high as what goes on in a hot fusion reactor the density ratio of H loaded in the metal lattice is on the order of several magnitudes more dense than hot plasma. That was easy to grasp! Therefore, statistically speaking, the probability of there being a combination may be just as possible, if not more. Did I get this right, Jones? Asimov in one of his puckish essays on the laws of probability and statistics discussed the chances of all the molecules in a room suddenly finding themselves all bunched up in a corner. It's not likely, but statistically speaking, it could happen in a zillion gazillion years. It makes me wonder if something similar might have happened in Mizuno's experiment where statistically speaking a sufficient amount of bunching of hydrogen may have occurred, in some little corner (or corners) of the metal lattice. Perhaps in another decade or two historians will look back at these historic events and shudder, amazed that more people weren't blown to smithereens as they tried to figure out what the hell was happening with there little glass jars. They did what??? Where they crazy??? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
Jones Beene wrote: No. Once again. A temperature rise of 17,000 degrees in 10 seconds in the cathode is proof postive that there could have been NO preexisting hydogen in the headspace (unless oxygen was totally absent). Yes, I was going to say I agree with that too -- and your previous message. Actually, the event was about 15 or 20 seconds, not 10. Anyway, a heat release on that scale lasting even a fraction of a second would have triggered a conventional recombination explosion in the headspace, although not in the incubator I suppose. Mizuno reported that the glow began underwater, as shown in the drawings recreating the event from memory. It remained underwater for an appreciable length of time -- enough for him to take note of it. The very small mass of accelerating material at high kinetic energy could not have damaged a much larger mass of tubing or other parts (million to one mass difference). The Tygon tubes were reportedly undamaged. - Jed
Re: LIghtweight Ultraconducting E S
Hi Mark, Somewhere I read about advances in polymer research that promises even better materials. I have tried to search but I can't find it. Will keep looking .. I recall it had something to do with carbon nanos with magnetic properties.Russian Academy of Sciences ?? Richard Mark wrote.. Los Alamos National Laboratory patented a lightweight containment system using Kevlar. While the Patent was in force, our firm had rights for use with our polymers. Now that their Patent has expired we still expect to use that lightweight system of containment for UMES electron flywheels.Carbon fiber may prove to be an even better alternative and we are watching wire development progress with that extremely light material many times stronger than steel.
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Jones Beene wrote: The previous run provides the active setting but it cannot be presummed that there was significant residual hydrogen in the hood - such as if the exhaust fan totally failed - and even if there was this is totaly unnecssary and moreover inconsistent with this kind of sudden power increase in the cell. There is no indication of a previuos run other than the fact the electrolysis was shut down briefly. If we are to accept everything Mizuno says, the explosion actually could NOT have been casued by hydrogen at all ! He is assuming it could not have been caused by hydrogen in the cell, and that is most propbably correct. That's right, a hydrogen explosion it totally inconsistent with this situation - as it would have casued an explosion long before the 10 seconds, and the water in the cell COULD NOT have attained that temperature. It merely took 10 seconds to reach the conditions for the incubator hydrogen to be ignited by the exposed cell. At only 3-4 seconds the surface temperature of the cathode, down to a micron or so was already near its melting point. If hydrogen had been there, it would have exploded then - ending the episode and not allowing further heat-up of the water. It is not the hydrogen in the cell that made the big bang, it is the hydrogen in the incubator. The Stephan-Boltzmann law defines the maximum power per unit area that a perfect emitter of radiation (blackbody) can sustain. Nonsense. The Stephan-Boltzmann law refers only to photon radiation. It has little to do with heat transfer by direct contact. [snip irrelevant calculation] A hydrogen explosion, or residual hydrogen left over from the previous run would have ended this episode long before the 10 seconds - so that possibility is eliminated. Only when the cell reaches a state where the external hydrogen can be ignited does the bang occur, and clearly that took about 10 seconds. Given this, personally I am suspicious of Mizuno figures or at least wishing that an isoptic analysis of the metal surface had been made, since that is the only way to prove a real nuclear reaction. BTW - the most active part of the surface area could not have been tested as it must have alreadu boiled off. The excess heat part of the event is indeed anomalous, and at least needs some looking at. My point is simply that there is not a *necessary* connection between the blast and the excess heat event other than the ignition. A high volume low energy density blast in the incubator makes sense of the blast effects. The black top is conical, tapered on the sides. An overpressure would have driven that downward and forced the top glass sides outward. The shards remaining in place at the bottom indicate an overpressure explosion. Had the force been internal to the cell the bottom pieces and the material below would have been pulled apart. The fact the Tygon tubing around the cathode remains intact, not even rearranged, is another indication the main explosion was not internal to the cell, and certainly not internal to the Tygon coil. The fact the glass shards made it out of the incubator while leaving the door intact indicates the door was opened prior to their arrival, which is fully consistent with an overpressure explanation, but not with the source of the blast energy being within the cell. Horace Heffner
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
On Jan 31, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: No. Once again. A temperature rise of 17,000 degrees in 10 seconds in the cathode is proof postive that there could have been NO preexisting hydogen in the headspace (unless oxygen was totally absent). This is completely out of touch with physical reality. Yes, I was going to say I agree with that too -- and your previous message. Actually, the event was about 15 or 20 seconds, not 10. Anyway, a heat release on that scale lasting even a fraction of a second would have triggered a conventional recombination explosion in the headspace, although not in the incubator I suppose. What scale? What is the evidence such a heat release actually took place? Mizuno reported that the glow began underwater, as shown in the drawings recreating the event from memory. It remained underwater for an appreciable length of time -- enough for him to take note of it. The very small mass of accelerating material at high kinetic energy could not have damaged a much larger mass of tubing or other parts (million to one mass difference). Utter nonsense! The Tygon tubes were reportedly undamaged. Yes, not even rearranged. Yet the explosion pressure wave, the origin of which is perportedly the cathode nestled inside the Tygon tubes, was sufficient to blow apart the cell, and blow open the incubator door prior to the arrival of the glass shards. Quite a bunch of miracles! You don't need a report. The evidence is at: http://www.lenr-canr.org/images/MizunoAccident.JPG Horace Heffner
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
Horace Heffner wrote: What scale? What is the evidence such a heat release actually took place? I do not know how Jones Beene computed a 17,000 deg C temperature rise (presumably in a small area on the cathode). The energy release that is clear is 132,000 joules in 15 seconds, based on the three RTD readings in the electrolyte. This works out to 8,800 W average power. Concentrated in the area of the cathode that would cause a high temperature. The cathode was incandescent -- white in the visual range. Actually, 8,800 W is a large underestimation for two reasons: 1. Much of the heat went directly into pyrolysis, which does not raise the water temperature. 2. Every indication is that the heat continued to increase rapidly after the last data point was taken. We do not know how many seconds elapsed from the time of the last data point until the explosion. It could not have been more than five seconds. In any case, there was a rapid upward trend, so there must have been thousands more joules of heat released. In the last few seconds, a pronounced thermal gradient appeared. This means there was an extremely concentrated point source of heat in the water, because the water was rapidly and thoroughly mixed by the magnetic stirrer, and normally you do not see a large gradient, even during an intense glow discharge reaction. (You would if the RTDs were placed close to the cathode, but they aren't.) - Jed
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
>From Jones Beene ... > What the Casimir/ZPE explanation would amount to is > that because the tungsten lattice is vibrating in the > terahertz range, in any period of only one second, it > might arguably be possible to cohere several eV of net > energy from ZPE per proton/deuteron IF the different > phase changes are additive, due to Casimir > (beta-aether) pressure being able to punch the > expansion back down. Notice that this is somewhat > similar to Horace's AEH, and the two concepts may have > overlap. Since HH did not mention this, perhaps he > does not think AEH is applicable. But I believe that > Casimir/ZPE provides the best explanation for the > range of Mizuno's experiments with tungsten going back > many years. > > All I can say is that NO WAY is this only a > hydrogen-only explosion - IF Dr. Mizuno has supplied > us with accurate information. > > Hydrogen in the headspace would have exploded in less > than 3 seconds at this rate of temperature gain - and > the water would never have had the chance to heat up. > There is zero doubt about that (given accurate > inforamtion) > > Jones Two things come to mind. I've often wondered if (1) a unique combination of EM frequencies and (2) carefully constructed topological surfaces might enhance the effect. I'm was thinking of frequencies that resonated with the surrounding tungsten atoms within the lattice. I don't remember the details offhand but I seem to recall another series of intriguing CF experiments where a laser light was added to the experiment. The result created additional heat. It makes me think of the marching soldiers effect that are crossing the bridge. As the saying goes, it's advisable to break formation while crossing a bridge least the garrison bring the structure down with everyone marching in step. I wonder if portions of the tungsten lattice in Mizuno's jar were, to a certain extent, "brought down" by a similar resonating effect, an effect that ultimately resulted a chain reaction. I wonder if there might be a practical way to apply external EM frequencies that are tuned to the same terahertz frequency range as is suspected to be occurring within the tungsten lattice. I also wonder if a carefully constructed surface topology applied to the tungsten lattice would be of some additional benefit as well. A visual analogy would be row upon row of nano-scaled grooves, similar to what one would see at typical Japanese rock garden. What I'm speculating on is whether supplied EM frequencies that have been specifically tuned to the desired terahertz range of the lattice structures were allowed to bounce around within a carefully constructed lattice structure (the rock garden) - whether the combination of these two factors might boost the amount of energy generated in a more predictable manner. I wonder if it might be possible to generate a collection of EM interference patterns as dictated by the surface topology that might, in turn, become magnified in desirable ways, and that could be taken advantage of in driving the tungsten to generate additional heat in a predictable manner. I would imagine one of the major problems with the current effect (besides its unpredictability) is the fact that it seems to be extremely destructive! Gotta figure out a way to make it reusable. I would also imagine that by today's technological standards to attempt the construction of such a nano-scaled "rock garden" surface topology to the tungsten lattice structure would be a pretty damned difficult feat in itself. Very sophisticated nanotechnology would be involved. Needless to say, this is all uninhibited pie in-the-sky-speculation on my part. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Using Sound Waves To Induce Nuclear Fusion
Another bubble/sonofusion replication. I am surprised nobody posted this already. Using Sound Waves To Induce Nuclear Fusion With No External Neutron Source A team of researchers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Purdue University, and the Russian Academy of Sciences has used sound waves to induce nuclear fusion without the need for an external neutron source, according to a paper in the Jan. 27 issue of Physical Review Letters. The results address one of the most prominent questions raised after publication of the team's earlier results in 2004, suggesting that "sonofusion" may be a viable approach to producing neutrons for a variety of applications. By bombarding a special mixture of acetone and benzene with oscillating sound waves, the researchers caused bubbles in the mixture to expand and then violently collapse. This technique, which has been dubbed "sonofusion," produces a shock wave that has the potential to fuse nuclei together, according to the team. The telltale sign that fusion has occurred is the production of neutrons. Earlier experiments were criticized because the researchers used an external neutron source to produce the bubbles, and some have suggested that the neutrons detected as evidence of fusion might have been left over from this external source. "To address the concern about the use of an external neutron source, we found a different way to run the experiment," says Richard T. Lahey Jr., the Edward E. Hood Professor of Engineering at Rensselaer and coauthor of the paper. "The main difference here is that we are not using an external neutron source to kick the whole thing off." In the new setup, the researchers dissolved natural uranium in the solution, which produces bubbles through radioactive decay. "This completely obviates the need to use an external neutron source, resolving any lingering confusion associated with the possible influence of external neutrons," says Robert Block, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at Rensselaer and also an author of the paper. The experiment was specifically designed to address a fundamental research question, not to make a device that would be capable of producing energy, Block says. At this stage the new device uses much more energy than it releases, but it could prove to be an inexpensive and portable source of neutrons for sensing and imaging applications. To verify the presence of fusion, the researchers used three independent neutron detectors and one gamma ray detector. All four detectors produced the same results: a statistically significant increase in the amount of nuclear emissions due to sonofusion when compared to background levels. As a cross-check, the experiments were repeated with the detectors at twice the original distance from the device, where the amount of neutrons decreased by a factor of about four. These results are in keeping with what would be predicted by the "inverse square law," which provides further evidence that fusion neutrons were in fact produced inside the device, according to the researchers. The sonofusion debate began in 2002 when the team published a paper in Science indicating that they had detected neutron emissions from the implosion of cavitation bubbles of deuterated-acetone vapor. These data were questioned because it was suggested that the researchers used inadequate instrumentation, so the team replicated the experiment with an upgraded instrumentation system that allowed data acquisition over a much longer time. This led to a 2004 paper published in Physical Review E, which was subsequently criticized because the researchers still used an external neutron source to produce the bubbles, leading to the current paper in Physical Review Letters. The latest experiment was conducted at Purdue University. At Rensselaer and in Russia, Lahey and Robert I. Nigmatulin performed the theoretical analysis of the bubble dynamics and predicted the shock-induced pressures, temperatures, and densities in the imploding bubbles. Block helped to design, set up, and calibrate a state-of-the-art neutron and gamma ray detection system for the new experiments. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060130155542.htm
Re: Lightweight Ultraconducting Energy Storage
True, lightweight high-strength containment materials may make such a system practical, although they tend to be expensive. But there's no need to wait. Both mechanical flywheels and compressed-air energy storage share the same characteristics in this regard: stored energy scales directly with the strength and size (and thus mass) of the container. Both will have the same energy capacity as a superconducting storage system; so why wait for ultraconductors? If Kevlar is practical, go ahead and build flywheels into electric cars! Mark Goldes wrote: Los Alamos National Laboratory patented a lightweight containment system using Kevlar. While the Patent was in force, our firm had rights for use with our polymers. Now that their Patent has expired we still expect to use that lightweight system of containment for UMES electron flywheels. Carbon fiber may prove to be an even better alternative and we are watching wire development progress with that extremely light material many times stronger than steel. Mark From: Bob Fickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Room Temperature Superconductors and EVs Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:50:05 -0600 Much as I'd like to have some ultraconductor wire to play with, I'm not convinced that Ultrqaconducting Magnetic Energy Storage will replace batteries. Magnetic fields create a pressure equal to the energy density- and therefore require a strong (read heavy and expensive) mechanical container. Mark Goldes wrote: Harry, They can be made, but not yet in wire form. Thin films containing Ultraconductors 1 or 2 microns in diameter (1/50th the diameter of a human hair) can always carry 50 Amperes. The Ultraconductors run through the film in the thin direction, (i.e. normal to the film). Wire is 3 years and $18 million in front of us. Once available as wire, electron flywheels can begin to replace batteries. Ultraconducting Magnetic Energy Storage systems are expected to prove practical. Electric motors made with Ultraconducting wire can be much smaller and lighter, and may require no iron. Alll plastic motors may therefore prove practical. Superconducting motors require no iron. We suspect the same will be true of Ultraconductors. Mark From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:29:14 -0500 If room temperature superconductors can be made they would also boost the performance of electric vehicles. If I remember correctly, a Time magazine cover from around '86 or '87 showed an artist's rendering of a futuristic electric vehicle as one of the promises of high temperature superconductors. Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? It used both: disc in front, electric in rear. Here are the EV-1 specs: http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/specs/specs_specs_top.h tm or http://tinyurl.com/ckaju ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Lightweight Ultraconducting Energy Storage
It has been some time since I reviewed the energy density of electron flywheels, but as I recall, it was double that of mechanical ones. Incidenlty, the latter are being developed for a hybrid by at least one flywheel manufacturer. Mark From: Bob Fickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Lightweight Ultraconducting Energy Storage Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:30:55 -0600 True, lightweight high-strength containment materials may make such a system practical, although they tend to be expensive. But there's no need to wait. Both mechanical flywheels and compressed-air energy storage share the same characteristics in this regard: stored energy scales directly with the strength and size (and thus mass) of the container. Both will have the same energy capacity as a superconducting storage system; so why wait for ultraconductors? If Kevlar is practical, go ahead and build flywheels into electric cars! Mark Goldes wrote: Los Alamos National Laboratory patented a lightweight containment system using Kevlar. While the Patent was in force, our firm had rights for use with our polymers. Now that their Patent has expired we still expect to use that lightweight system of containment for UMES electron flywheels. Carbon fiber may prove to be an even better alternative and we are watching wire development progress with that extremely light material many times stronger than steel. Mark From: Bob Fickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Room Temperature Superconductors and EVs Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:50:05 -0600 Much as I'd like to have some ultraconductor wire to play with, I'm not convinced that Ultrqaconducting Magnetic Energy Storage will replace batteries. Magnetic fields create a pressure equal to the energy density- and therefore require a strong (read heavy and expensive) mechanical container. Mark Goldes wrote: Harry, They can be made, but not yet in wire form. Thin films containing Ultraconductors 1 or 2 microns in diameter (1/50th the diameter of a human hair) can always carry 50 Amperes. The Ultraconductors run through the film in the thin direction, (i.e. normal to the film). Wire is 3 years and $18 million in front of us. Once available as wire, electron flywheels can begin to replace batteries. Ultraconducting Magnetic Energy Storage systems are expected to prove practical. Electric motors made with Ultraconducting wire can be much smaller and lighter, and may require no iron. Alll plastic motors may therefore prove practical. Superconducting motors require no iron. We suspect the same will be true of Ultraconductors. Mark From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:29:14 -0500 If room temperature superconductors can be made they would also boost the performance of electric vehicles. If I remember correctly, a Time magazine cover from around '86 or '87 showed an artist's rendering of a futuristic electric vehicle as one of the promises of high temperature superconductors. Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? It used both: disc in front, electric in rear. Here are the EV-1 specs: http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/specs/specs_specs_top.h tm or http://tinyurl.com/ckaju ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
On Jan 31, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote: All I can say is that NO WAY is this only a hydrogen-only explosion - IF Dr. Mizuno has supplied us with accurate information. There is no evidence that prevents the possibility of the explosion being solely hydrogen fueled, especially fueled by hydrogen in the incubator. That is not to say the cell heating was hydrogen fueled. Nobody has said that. The cell heating and the explosion likely had differing energy sources. There is no indication the explosion occurred inside the Tygon coils, thus no indication the explosion itself or the energy for the explosion was linked directly to the cathode or anode. Hydrogen in the headspace would have exploded in less than 3 seconds at this rate of temperature gain Please explain how you came up with this number. It sounds like an arbitrary guess, based on erroneous assumptions. The mechanism of the heating and even the source of heat is not nailed down. Second, the explosion and the cell heating are not even linked except that one may have triggered the other. - and the water would never have had the chance to heat up. This depends on the mechanism for heating the water. There is zero doubt about that (given accurate inforamtion) There is only zero doubt that we don't have all the needed information to draw certain conclusions. Horace Heffner
Turbulence research news
Turbulence yields secrets to 73-year-old experiment http://www.physorg.com/news10409.html
iesi
http://diyduediligence.blogspot.com
