RE: Helmholtz Layer electrode
BTW, anyone have a small Van De Graaff that could be used to put some static charge on a Joe Cell? - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l Sent: 6/2/2006 7:43:12 PM Subject: RE: Helmholtz Layer electrode Given the way electrostatic charge can accumulate on moving vehicles maybe Hamish Robertson is getting closer to the facts: http://www.thejoecell.com/ The most likely place for accumulated charge to settle is at the ~ 6,000 square centimeter Helmholtz Layer Interface of the electrodes/container vessel in the Joe Cell. Lots of ReDox possibilities there, even if it only spits out electrons near the air intake without actual connection to the Throttle Body, or for us older folks the carburetor. Fred
RE: Helmholtz Layer electrode
Given the way electrostatic charge can accumulate on moving vehicles maybe Hamish Robertson is getting closer to the facts: http://www.thejoecell.com/ The most likely place for accumulated charge to settle is at the ~ 6,000 square centimeter Helmholtz Layer Interface of the electrodes/container vessel in the Joe Cell. Lots of ReDox possibilities there, even if it only spits out electrons near the air intake without actual connection to the Throttle Body, or for us older folks the carburetor. Fred
FW: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday June 2, 2006
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Akira Kawasaki) > [Original Message] > From: What's New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 6/2/2006 2:19:32 PM Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday June 2, 2006 WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 2 Jun 06 Washington, DC 1. ADDICTION: ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION INCREASES WHEN TIMES ARE HARD. President Bush says we need "to move beyond a petroleum-based economy." Move where? The House cut the nuclear energy request in half; fusion is, as it has always been, decades away; ethanol from corn is nice, but it can't save much oil. President Bush gave a plug to ethanol from cellulosic biomass. He can't be wrong all the time can he? Some rich investors are backing it http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn033106.html , and some very smart scientists. MIT chemist John Deutch commented on it in the Wall Street Journal a month ago, and today's Science has an editorial about cellulosic biomass by Stanford biologist Chris Somerville. They think it's worth major investment in research. 2. EVOLUTION IN GEORGIA: FEDERAL APPEALS COURT SENDS CASE BACK. Since 1995, the Cobb County School Board had ordered pages on evolution torn out of science textbooks. But a new textbook in 2002 had too many pages to tear out, so they just added a sticker saying evolution is only a theory anyway. A federal District Court judge said the stickers violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment and told the school district to rip all 35,000 off http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn011405.html . Thursday, citing insufficient evidence, a Federal Appeals Court said put'em back on until the District Court determines if the school board acted "religiously neutral," or the case is retried. 3. FLAG POLE SITTING: DISCOVERY IS CLEARED FOR JULY 1 LAUNCH. The NASA Authorization bill, passed in May, makes "uninterrupted capability for human spaceflight during transition to the Crew Exploration Vehicle in 2010" US policy. To do what? No field of human endeavor has been advanced by the shuttle or the ISS. 4. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS: PLAYING NOW AT THE SUPREME COURT THEATER An evangelical Christian group in Washington, DC, Faith and Action, is erecting a stone monument to the stone tablets on the front lawn of a row house across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court building. The group does not have the approval they need according city officials, but perhaps they cleared it with a higher authority. The granite sculpture weighs 850 pounds. 5. HULK ROBERTSON: HOW DO YOU HANDLE AN 850 POUND RELIGIOUS ICON? Religious broadcaster Pat "The Hulk" Robertson, who had been pushing his "age-defying protein shake," should have no problem. On the Web site of his Christian Broadcasting Network, he says he has leg-pressed 2,000 pounds. When he proves he can do that, Ill convert. 6. IMMIGRATION: ADVOCATES OF TOUGHER BORDER SECURITY SEND BRICKS. No one pays attention to e-mail anymore. So at a time when everything entering the Capitol or Congressional Office Buildings is carefully screened, thousands of bricks have been sent to members of Congress to build a wall. "At least they're not being thrown through the windows" one staffer pointed out. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University of Maryland, but they should be. --- Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org What's New is moving to a different listserver and our subscription process has changed. To change your subscription status please visit this link: http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=bobparks-whatsnew&A=1
Re: More on Meyer
- Original Message - From: "Patrick Vessey" As usual, Jones' timing is 'interesting', to say the least. Earlier today, Dave Lawton posted a file (MeyerRep.pdf) to the JoesCell2 Y! group, which is claimed to be a replication of Meyer's demonstration electrolyser http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JoesCell2/message/2472. Hmm. I don't know Dave Lawton, but have seen the video of this Meyer rep. http://www.opensourceenergy.org/_layouts/apps/vplayer2.asp?vID=19# He did a decent job, but there are also improved versions out there, which I am just "tuning into" (more on that later)... ... and no, the coincidental timing is not "telepathy", ESP, magic, or an alias - simply I am using a self-designed "Meme-Antenna" which seems to work quite well It is vaguely reminiscent of something-seen in the excellent David Cronenberg film: eXistenZ. A must-see in many ways...the film that is... the antenna is strictly off-limits to earthlings Because of Meyer's fraud conviction, shortly before he died (he had already gone nuts by then) no one is going to believe the full importance of this invention until they see the device powering an ICE, and using only recycled power from the ICE. This was accomplished by Meyer on occassion (curiously for only 2 miles to a 'tankful') but it is terribly corrosive to metal, and begs for a ceramic engine. The fact the engine was unavailable at the time of his trial is a main reason he lost - and that really pushed him over the edge. Wait! ... Hold the Presses! the meme-antenna is getting a new message right now, but it is in another language... Yes, yes... You will be seeing a water-powered auto (err... WasserCar) this summer, and it will be coming from... where else - the former East Berlin, now wall-less. and it looks like it will be powering one of those vintage Skodas ... oops. Bad Choice. Stay tuned... Jones
Re: Still Another Bettery?
-Original Message- From: Terry http://www.physorg.com/news67796415.html "Russian scientists have invented a battery that can capture energy not only from the sun, but also from the stars, the head of a research institute at the Dubna Nuclear Institute, near Moscow, said. "The scientists have successfully created a new substance," Valentin Samoilov announced, "thanks to which this battery can work on earth, independently of meteorological conditions, using solar and stellar energy. "This is a battery like no other," Samoilov, who head's the Institute's center for applied research, told the Itar-Tass news agency, explaining that it could function 24 hours a day and was twice as effective as an ordinary solar panel at converting light into electricity. Moreover, Samoilov declared, the new battery was cheaper than a solar panel. <><><><><><> Okay, another Ruskie hoax? <><><><><><> Maybe not: http://pesn.com/2006/05/31/9500274_Star_Battery/ Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
RE: More on Meyer
As usual, Jones' timing is 'interesting', to say the least. Earlier today, Dave Lawton posted a file (MeyerRep.pdf) to the JoesCell2 Y! group, which is claimed to be a replication of Meyer's demonstration electrolyser (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JoesCell2/message/2472). I've not yet had chance to read through, but it may be worth a look. Patrick -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/354 - Release Date: 01/06/2006
RE: More on Meyer
Has ANYONE ever replicated Meyer's results? Even the Puharich patent doesn't seem as dramatic. OT, I feel more strongly about the work of Paul Brown - who, it appears to me, was far more rigorous and publically demonstrated than any ZPE/"free energy" enthusiast. Yet, I never hear about anyone taking up his work on Betavoltaics. As with Meyer, what's the truth in this?
RE: Helmholtz Layer electrode
Hi Jones, > > My post was prompted by my interest in anecdotal evidence of the > > functioning of the Joe cell. There is a school of thought that > > it is 'merely' an ultra-efficient low voltage electrolysis cell > > However, such a theory is at odds with reports of the > > actual physical functioning of the cell. > > How so? > > ... please do not mention that 'red herring' of disinformation > which will not die, it seems... that being the cell that works > when it is sealed from the manifold. That statement has been I thought that we were trying to keep an open mind ? Nonetheless, acceptance or otherwise of BPR does not preclude the suggestion that something other than electrolysis is at work here - assuming that we are accepting that any definition of electrolysis as currently understood includes disassociation and consequent 'use' of electrolyte. It has been widely reported that users running in 'shandy mode' (i.e. with cell output directly entering the engine's carb) frequently see little or no gas production within the cell and, more pertinently, do not notice the cell's water volume varying over a matter of weeks or months of use - whilst typically seeing a 25% increase in MPG performance terms. > If "orgone" exists, it is the most likely hydrino, which hydrides > immediately and will not pass through a seal in enough quantity to > power the ICE (most likely). I think if you want to approach this > with some modicum of scientific rationality, you must weed out the > disinformation. But of course, one man's weed is another's flower. At this stage - with no real science having been undertaken on these cells - I would consider it extremely rash to dismiss any reported phenomenon. Sure, it could be that certain 'facts' are simply bunk, but they could also provide insight into the underlying mechanics (e.g. the supposed cold running of BPR engines - electrostatic cooling? If so, this would point us in a specific direction for cell operation). I'm not proposing that we immediately accept a paradigm changing position, but that we certainly should leave the door slightly ajar. All that we can do is trust the data. Sadly, and coming full circle, it is the absence of anything other than anecdotal data which prompted me to start down this path in the first place. I remain hopeful that by testing a variety of theories intellectually - and then the more promising ones practically - that we will be able to advance our understanding. Patrick -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/354 - Release Date: 01/06/2006
More on Meyer
Excerpts from: Electronics World & Wireless World (Jan 1991) also: Infinite Energy 19:(1998) Obituary, and KeelyNet File MEYER1.ASC and the famous UK panel evaluation, which Frank Grimer will sympathize with. "Eye-witness accounts suggest that US inventor Stanley Meyer developed an electric cell which will split ordinary tap water into hydrogen and oxygen with far less energy than that required by a normal electrolytic cell." Emphasis in "far less". Another of those eye witnesses in the US was vortexian Mark Goldes, and there have been many others, on both sides of the Atlantic. Most agree that there was "something" going-on here, and of a 'not-normal' variety, or as Pierre might opine, Pas Normal... that would be- both in the experiment and the mind of the experimenter. "In a demonstration made before Professor Michael Laughton, Dean of Engineering at Mary College, London, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, a former controller of the British Navy, and Dr Keith Hindley, a UK research chemist ... Meyer's cell, developed at the inventor's home in Grove City, Ohio, produced far more hydrogen/oxygen mixture than could have been expected by simple electrolysis." Yes, these naturally skeptical UK experts can probably be fooled, but rarely. They were probably invited to the panel because of life-long pathological skepticism. Did they let their guard down, was Meyer a Randi-dandy magician, or was there some conspiracy in play? No, not likely. Instead, the answer may be closer to "Karma," if you really understand the ultimate meaning of that term. Meyer's name, to the linguist is roughly the English equivalent of 'maker' or '-mizer' - i.e. one who does something - as distinguished from miester - the one who gets the credit. Whereas normal water electrolysis requires the passage of current measured in amps (or even kiloamps) to power an ICE, as Meyer's cell was able to do - he achieves the same amount of gas with milliamps. Furthermore, ordinary tap water requires the addition of an electrolyte such as sulfuric acid to aid conduction; Meyer's cell functions at greatest efficiency with pure water - no electrolyte. According to the witnesses, the most startling aspect of the Meyer cell was that it remained cold, perhaps even below ambient (actively cold), even after hours of gas production. How is that possible? "Meyer's experiments," the UK study announced, "which he seems to be able to perform to order, have earned him a series of US patents granted - under Section 101." The granting of a patent under this section is dependent on a successful *physical* demonstration of the invention to a normally skeptical Patent Review Board. Meyer's cell seems to have many of the attributes of an electrolytic cell except that it functions at high voltage, low current rather than the other way around and with much less energy than the normal technique (which is itself efficient). Since the unavoidable implication of this equation is the dreaded "perpetual motion" which the USPTO hates beyond all reason, these patents of Meyer could not have been granted without an actual demonstration to skeptical experts. Construction is unremarkable. The electrodes - referred to as "excitors" by Meyer - are made from parallel plates of stainless steel formed in either flat or concentric topography. Gas production seems to vary directly with surface area and as the inverse of the distance between them; the patents suggest a spacing of 1.5 mm produces satisfactory results. The real differences occur in the power supply to the cell. Meyer uses an external inductance which appears to resonate with the capacitance of the cell - pure water apparently possesses a dielectric constant of about 5 - to produce a parallel resonant circuit. This is excited by a high power pulse generator which, together with the cell capacitance and a rectifier diode, forms a charge pump circuit. Mark Goldes believes that Meyer himself did not understand the electronics, and had them built by others, and that much of the resultant success was 'inspired' or serendipity. It always is ... on the fringe. High frequency pulses build a rising staircase DC potential across the electrodes of the cell until a point is reached where the water breaks down and a momentary high current flows. This is reminiscent of the similar work of Puharich. In the Meyer cell, a current measuring circuit in the supply detects this breakdown and removes the pulse drive for a few cycles allowing the water to "recover" whereas with Puharich is was a set frequency of 42.8 kHz (USPTO # 3629521 1971 Puharich). A witness team of independent UK scientific observers testified that the results were accurate. The witnesses report the lack of any heating within the cell - and perhaps active cooling. Meyer declined to release some trade secret details which would allow UK scientists to duplicate the device. However, he has supplied just enough detail to the US Patent Office, along with the working device,
Re: Scientists? We note voltage..but no mention of current
Title: Re: Scientists? We note voltage..but no mention of current I don't know anything about this experiment, but current is not essential for calculating the power. P = (V^2)/R since P =VI and I = V/R Harry john herman wrote: Dear Vortex, Below text mentions X voltage in increments but there does not seem to be a Current Meaurement! What happened to the other part of the figure to be able to compute energy, ie., in WATTS? Thank you for the article. Can we find out the current measured. La Petomaine On 6/1/06, Frederick Sparber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Based on the work of Thiel and Madey, on "auto-dissociation" of water on metal surfaces I vote for the latter. http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~wchen/Madey_page/Full_Publications/PDF/madey_SSR_1987_T.pdf THE INTERACI'ION OF WATER WITH SOLID SURFACES: FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/ppclkrs/index.htm "2) Here is our protocol, more or less. a) Our container is an ordinary two-liters beaker. The level of the K2CO3 electrolyte (0.2 M, as we had) is about 1.2 liters. The beaker is open and fresh hot water is added when the level folls to about 1.0 liters, or more often. There is no splashing at all (or very little, less than one gram for 50 grams evaporated. We do have splashing when power is too high at 300 or 350 W. Under such conditions the COPs are always close to 1.0. Under favorable conditions, on the other hands, we hear a steady machine-gun-like roar. The surface of the electrolyte is suprisingly quite. We do not mix the liquid; intensive boiling takes place only between the electrodes, mostly near the very hot cathode. The thermometer, situated near the wall, shows the temperature of between 89 and 91 C. b) Mizuno told me that the rate at which the voltage changes should be small. Here is how we arrive to favorable conditions: aa) Apply 100 V for about 15 minutes. bb) Apply 150 V for the next ~5 minutes cc) Apply 200 V for the next ~15 min dd) Apply 250 V for the next ~15 min ee) Apply 300 V for about 60 min ff) Apply 350 V and start measuring the COP (5 min per run)" "Data collected under favorable conditions are in agreement with what was reported by Fauvarque et al. We constructed a histogram of the COP distribution for the run performed at 300 and 350 V. So far it has 33 data "bricks." It shows 24 results with the COP between 1.2 and 1.4, 3 results with the COP between 1.4 and 1.4, 10 data points with the COP between 1 and 1.2, and one result with the COP of 0.81"
Re: Helmholtz Layer electrode
Terry wrote: > > -Original Message- > From: Jones Beene > > Since were throwing around the names of - shall we say, controversial > personalities like Bob Lazar ... > > <><><><><><> > > Here's an interesting analysis of Meyer's patent: > > http://www.waterfuelcell.org/Patent.html > All you have to do is substitute a metal plate (the biased floating/neutral plates) and the OH - ions on one side will give up it's electron through the plate to the H3O+ on the other side and the OH and H will come off as a gas. > > I got this link from: > > http://waterpoweredcar.com/ > > Terry > ___ > Try the New Netscape Mail Today! > Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List > http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Helmholtz Layer electrode
And since I was calling the Throttle Body a carburetor. Boy am I behind the times. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/sub_care_sat/1272341.html?page=1&; c=y "Cleaning Throttle Bodies" Terry wrote: > > -Original Message- > From: Jones Beene > > Since were throwing around the names of - shall we say, controversial > personalities like Bob Lazar ... > > <><><><><><> > > Here's an interesting analysis of Meyer's patent: > > http://www.waterfuelcell.org/Patent.html > > I got this link from: > > http://waterpoweredcar.com/ > > Terry > ___ > Try the New Netscape Mail Today! > Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List > http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Helmholtz Layer electrode
-Original Message- From: Jones Beene Since were throwing around the names of - shall we say, controversial personalities like Bob Lazar ... <><><><><><> Here's an interesting analysis of Meyer's patent: http://www.waterfuelcell.org/Patent.html I got this link from: http://waterpoweredcar.com/ Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Paper about three explosions
See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangXontheexplo.pdf Zhang, X., et al. On the Explosion in a Deuterium/Palladium Electrolytic System. in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion". 1992. Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. - Jed
Re: Who Killed the Electric Car
>From Terry: > Coming to a theatre near you: > > http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/ > > "The electric car is not for everybody. It can only meet the needs of > 90% of the population." > > - Ed Begley, Jr. in the trailer. > > more here: > > http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article623261.ece > > Terry That was hilarious! Begley at his best! Thanks, Terry. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: Helmholtz Layer electrode
Since were throwing around the names of - shall we say, controversial personalities like Bob Lazar ... don't forget the original (not in time but in independently verified successful demonstrations). And it is not 'Joe' nor Yull Brown nor Archie Blue but instead is a guy with even more baggage, but also with real scientific credentials, and some 'hint' of real proof: Stanley Meyer. Without getting into the sordid details of that episode in alternative-energy, and the psychological problems of a tormented-soul, here is a fairly authoritative report, supposedly independent, from an expert in electrolysis who witnessed one of the successful demos (other demos were apparently not successful): "A second cell carried nine stainless steel double tube cell units and generated much more gas. A sequence of photographs was taken showing gas production at milliamp levels. When the voltage was turned up to its peak value, the gas then poured off at a very impressive level. "We did notice that the water at the top of the cell slowly became discolored with a pale cream and dark brown precipitate, almost certainly the effects of the chlorine in the heavily chlorinated tap water on the stainless steel tubes used as "excitors". [Meyer elsewhere stated that the water was not chlorinated and should be either distilled or demineralized, but what did he know?] "He was demonstrating hydrogen gas production at milliamp and kilovolt levels." [This high voltage (~2000 v) is in contrast to the Joe Cell (12 v) and to normal electrolysis (~ 2.5 v) and indicates an electrostatic modality, which actually may be more consistent with the electrical input being a "tickler" for the Helmholtz surface reaction] "The most remarkable observation is that the cell and all its metal pipework remained quite cold to the touch, even after more than twenty minutes of operation. The splitting mechanism clearly evolves little heat in sharp contrast to electrolysis where the electrolyte warms up quickly." "The practical demonstration of the Meyer cell appears substantially more convincing than the para-scientific jargon which has been used to explain it. The inventor himself talks about a distortion and polarization of the water molecule resulting in the H:OH bonding tearing itself apart under the electrostatic potential gradient, of a resonance within the molecule which amplifies the effect." "Apart from the copious hydrogen/oxygen gas evolution and the minimal temperature rise within the cell, witnesses also report that water within the cell disappears rapidly, presumably into its component parts and as an aerosol from the myriad of tiny bubbles breaking the surface of the cell. Meyer claims to have run a converted VW on hydrogen/oxygen mixture for the last four years using a chain of six cylindrical cells." END of quoted excerpts (original can be found on Keelynet) The biggest departure from Meyer's work by the Joe-Cell proponents (more like a degeneration from more advanced predecessor work) is the sharply lower voltage. Given the Meyer success (occasional at least), however, it would be wise for any experiment to try to accommodate both high voltage and low voltage operation in the same type of cell. However, to his credit, Joe did make on big advance over Meyer. Query: The one advance made by Joe could very well be the long *pretreatment* of the water in a DC electric field ... causing one to wonder what would have happened had Meyer known about that particular detail ... and/or also causing the observer to wonder how long it will take for someone else to re-connect all the dots... not just these tow but all the dots. We have Stan, Joe, Archie, Yull and others - all of which prior-art has been hitting around the edges of the 'bulls-eye' which is ultra-efficient electrolysis . IMHO, given that necessity is the mother-of-invention, and Hubbert has provided the nedssity, it is only a matter of time before someone refocused the sights and scores a direct hit... Apparently the mother-of-invention is romantically attracted to these 'characters' ... who as Pierre sez ... are mostly Pas-Normal ? Jones I should phonetically explain that attempted cross-cultural pun, but not today
Who Killed the Electric Car
Coming to a theatre near you: http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/ "The electric car is not for everybody. It can only meet the needs of 90% of the population." - Ed Begley, Jr. in the trailer. more here: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article623261.ece Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Free Radical Chain Reactions
Actually 2 H2 + O2 > 2 H2O has about 14 reaction steps. http://www.cheresources.com/reactionkinetics3.shtml "Another important consideration is the formation of chain reactions. The basic premise of chain reaction mechanisms is also that free radicals play a leading role in the destruction of reactant molecules. The chain reaction mechanism itself consists of several steps: initiation, propagation, branching (not always present), and termination. This can be illustrated, for certain range of temperature and pressure, by some of the reactions in the following Hydrogen oxidation mechanism:" "To summarize, reaction mechanisms can be assembled from elementary reactions using free radicals as the means for decomposition of the reactant, and intermediate products. Chain branching reactions, if they occur, take a very important role in the mechanism as they lead to the formation of increasing concentrations of radicals. Reaction time and temperature have a bearing on radical concentration, and the type of reaction initiating the consumption of the reactant"
Re: Never better cant be f0und.
Hey, Bill, Looks like you got yourself a STD that's using your contact list. :-) Terry -Original Message- From: Eloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 07:23:52 +0400 Subject: Never better cant be f0und. Hello my friend! Please open your mind for a simple thing Internet provided products always cheaper than others. You may agree or not, but this is a fact Just compare the numbers and get the same goods for a half value You may agree or not, but this is a fact. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Helmholtz Layer electrode
Terry wrote: > > -Original Message- > From: Frederick Sparber > > The current stabilized at ~ 800 milliamperes with lots > of gas production inflating a balloon, which my > able-bodied "lackey" stored away and refuses to light until > "maybe on the 4th of July" but he has the unit set up on a vehicle > ready for a road test. :-) > > <><><><><><> > > Caution Mr. Lackey not to use a vehicle of value; but, a visionary > vehicle which can be junked if he experiences catastrophic failure of > the engine due to hydrogen embrittlement. This has already happened to > one of Bob Lazar's four wheeled ufos. > Your typical "ufo" burning up the pavement at 15 to 75+ mph is reacting that hydrogen in motor fuel (CxHy) + O2 > x CO2 + y H2O with a lot of O, H2, H, OOH, and OH free radicals created during the burn. We just want to pre-charge the intake air with lighter O, H2, H, OH, radicals to get them distributed in the cylinder during the compression stroke to enhance the combustion of the heavier CxHy fuel. Personally, I would like to have seen more bench experiments, but my "lackey" promoted himself to Heap Big Chief Field Engineer, and is now flying on his own with his 6 cylinder fuel-injected 1993 GMC pickup. He attached the cell outlet tube to the plumbing that comes out below the butterfly valve on the carburetor. At idle the vacuum almost collapsed the plastic container and sucked liquid into the manifold. He compensated for this by some means that I don't understand yet.. We/He intend to use sensing the liquid level current change on the cell stack to operate a solenoid valve to allow metering makeup water into the cell, otherwise the chicken waterier approach would let the engine suck the 5 gallon reservoir dry in nothing flat. I'll be following this saga closely. :-) Fred . > > Speaking of "visionary vehicles", Malcolm Bricklin, who brought you > Subaru (a good thing) and the Yugo (not a good thing) is bringing to > the US a new line of vehicles from Wuhu China. No it's not a joke and > GM should not be laughing. > > http://vvcars.com > > I might have posted this before; but, there are rumors that there just > might be a PHEV in the works, too. > > Terry > > ___ > Try the New Netscape Mail Today! > Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List > http://mail.netscape.com >
Re: Helmholtz Layer electrode
-Original Message- From: Frederick Sparber The current stabilized at ~ 800 milliamperes with lots of gas production inflating a balloon, which my able-bodied "lackey" stored away and refuses to light until "maybe on the 4th of July" but he has the unit set up on a vehicle ready for a road test. :-) <><><><><><> Caution Mr. Lackey not to use a vehicle of value; but, a visionary vehicle which can be junked if he experiences catastrophic failure of the engine due to hydrogen embrittlement. This has already happened to one of Bob Lazar's four wheeled ufos. Speaking of "visionary vehicles", Malcolm Bricklin, who brought you Subaru (a good thing) and the Yugo (not a good thing) is bringing to the US a new line of vehicles from Wuhu China. No it's not a joke and GM should not be laughing. http://vvcars.com I might have posted this before; but, there are rumors that there just might be a PHEV in the works, too. Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Helmholtz Layer electrode
This goes a long way towards explaining why the combined Baking Soda-Borax increased the cell current by nearly 400 times over what it was using distilled (CO2 laced) water. Since Hydrogen Peroxide HO-OH decomposes in alkali, the OH should come off the SS plate surfaces. Possibly the release of CO2 From HCO3 - at the interface keeps them from interacting to form H2O + O2 in the cell. http://www.borax.com/detergents/pheffect.html# Sodium borate salts are classic alkaline buffers in detergent formulations, with pH determined principally by the acid:base ratio, i.e. [H+]=Ka[H3BO3] / [B(OH)-4]. Borax is particularly effective as it releases boric acid and its conjugate base B(OH)-4 in equal amounts. An essential function of detergent buffers is the ability to maintain the wash liquor in the pH range of 9 - 10.5. In this alkalinity range the effectiveness of detergents is optimized and hence good pH buffering makes a direct contribution to the washing process. Borates buffer in precisely this region, and can produce a pH jump effect, which is useful in certain detergent applications. Alkaline buffering Under alkaline washing conditions the surfaces of soil particles and the substrates (e.g. fabrics, tableware or hard surfaces) to which they adhere, acquire negative electrostatic charges and repel each other, loosening the soil into the liquor and inhibiting redeposition. - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l Sent: 6/1/2006 8:50:19 PM Subject: Re: Helmholtz Layer electrode To recap a bit. The distilled water in the 12 wall-plate cell (12 volt 10 floated plates) gave a reading of about 2 milliamperes, adding a small amount of baking soda (NaHCO3) boosted the current to about 20 milliamperes which figures since no matter the amount of NaHCO3 in solution the pH locks at 8.3. We added a small amount of Borax (Na2B407-10 H2O) which forms 2 Na+ + B4O7= which undergoes hydrolysis to Boric Acid 4 H3BO3 + 2 OH -. The current stabilized at ~ 800 milliamperes with lots of gas production inflating a balloon, which my able-bodied "lackey" stored away and refuses to light until "maybe on the 4th of July" but he has the unit set up on a vehicle ready for a road test. :-) Fred Sodium Perborate: http://www.chem-world.com/htm/product/sodium_perborate.htm NaBO3.H2O"Sodium perborate monohydrate is prepared by dehydrating sodium perborate tetrahydrate. The monohydrated form is essentially showing three advantages in comparison with the tetrahydrated form: a higher content of available oxygen, a higher heat stability and a higher dissolution rate into water. It provides a high available oxygen content equivalent to 32% hydrogen peroxide - 50% more active oxygen than the same weight of sodium perborate tetrahydrate. Sodium perborate releases nascent oxygen at elevated temperatures, it is a stable, solid source of active oxygen" Sodium Percarbonate http://www.chem-world.com/htm/product/sodium_percarbonate.htm 2Na2CO3.3H2O2 "Sodium percarbonate is a free-flowing powder with a common name of solid hydrogen peroxide, it is an addition compound of sodium carbonate and hydrogen peroxide. Sodium Percarbonate has an active available oxygen content which is equivalent to 27.5% H2O2. It breaks down to oxygen, water and sodium carbonate upon decomposition"
Scientists? We note voltage..but no mention of current
Dear Vortex, Below text mentions X voltage in increments but there does not seem to be a Current Meaurement! What happened to the other part of the figure to be able to compute energy, ie., in WATTS? Thank you for the article. Can we find out the current measured. La Petomaine On 6/1/06, Frederick Sparber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Based on the work of Thiel and Madey, on "auto-dissociation" of water on metal surfaces I vote for the latter. http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~wchen/Madey_page/Full_Publications/PDF/madey_SSR_1987_T.pdf THE INTERACI'ION OF WATER WITH SOLID SURFACES: FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/ppclkrs/index.htm "2) Here is our protocol, more or less. a) Our container is an ordinary two-liters beaker. The level of the K2CO3 electrolyte (0.2 M, as we had) is about 1.2 liters. The beaker is open and fresh hot water is added when the level folls to about 1.0 liters, or more often. There is no splashing at all (or very little, less than one gram for 50 grams evaporated. We do have splashing when power is too high at 300 or 350 W. Under such conditions the COPs are always close to 1.0. Under favorable conditions, on the other hands, we hear a steady machine-gun-like roar. The surface of the electrolyte is suprisingly quite. We do not mix the liquid; intensive boiling takes place only between the electrodes, mostly near the very hot cathode. The thermometer, situated near the wall, shows the temperature of between 89 and 91 C. b) Mizuno told me that the rate at which the voltage changes should be small. Here is how we arrive to favorable conditions: aa) Apply 100 V for about 15 minutes. bb) Apply 150 V for the next ~5 minutes cc) Apply 200 V for the next ~15 min dd) Apply 250 V for the next ~15 min ee) Apply 300 V for about 60 min ff) Apply 350 V and start measuring the COP (5 min per run)" "Data collected under favorable conditions are in agreement with what was reported by Fauvarque et al. We constructed a histogram of the COP distribution for the run performed at 300 and 350 V. So far it has 33 data "bricks." It shows 24 results with the COP between 1.2 and 1.4, 3 results with the COP between 1.4 and 1.4, 10 data points with the COP between 1 and 1.2, and one result with the COP of 0.81"
RE: Helmholtz Layer electrode
Jones, > There have been some good practical ideas for improvement of the > basic cell - already appearing in many of these posts, but often > you have to "read between the lines," to move forward towards an > actual design. Here is more specific detail from this one > observer. The difficulty in 'reading between the lines' is obviously that one brings one's own preconceptions and experiences to the party in interpreting such comments, potentially leading to misunderstanding or, worse, (sub)conscious rejection of what is being suggested. So, thank you for the fulsome reply (filed for now, but not forgotten - see below). > Of course, you might not get agreement on every detail from others > on vortex, because many are looking at this from differing > perspective - i.e. as being LENR or hydrino-based - and probably a > few are still grasping at "orgone" ... I sincerely hope that there will be considerable disagreement! My post was prompted by my interest in anecdotal evidence of the functioning of the Joe cell. There is a school of thought that it is 'merely' an ultra-efficient low voltage electrolysis cell (and parallels have been drawn with Kanarev's work) - with this theory being vociferously promulgated by one of the more vocal members of the JC community. However, such a theory is at odds with reports of the actual physical functioning of the cell. I am assuming that not everyone here with a potential interest has had the time to closely follow the JC community since the relatively recent surge in popular interest - the two Y! groups alone jointly generate several hundred messages weekly. This was one of the reasons that I proposed to summarise some of the theoretical thinking for the consideration of this group. My hope would be that in discussing the alternative theories - coupled with the increasing anecdotal evidence - we may come up with several different (possibly complimentary, possibly not) strands of practical research to follow. I believe that it would also be likely - as your own mail actually demonstrates - that by initially keeping the focus on the Joe cell itself, potentially interesting avenues of investigation may open up, even if they have little to do with how that particular cell operates. [As a side note, I must reiterate that I have not seen a working Joe cell in person. However, I neither wish to continue prefacing comments with 'if this is true' or some such, nor do I believe that we can merely ignore the mounting anecdotal evidence. As Jones noted previously, suspension of (dis)belief can be a useful technique, at times.] Consequently, I'd quite like to have that more general theoretical discussion prior to moving down to specifics for any particular investigation. I wouldn't want us to limit ourselves simply to examining ultra-efficient electrolysis, no matter how valid that approach may transpire to be, at the expense of alternative, but equally interesting theories, such as those suggested here by Robin. I'll pull together a summary of current thinking within the JC groups for posting over the next week or so, which I hope will prove interesting and stimulate some debate. Patrick -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/353 - Release Date: 31/05/2006
RE: Cold fusion advocates should put up or shut up
My oh my, what a heated discussion! I hate to disappoint you Walter, but I don't see myself as the savior of cold fusion, or anything else, for that matter. I agree with Keith. You should try the experiment yourself. I doubt if my experiment or it's results are unique. I did this trial myself just to see if all the postings I had read about it might be true and for the same reason you should. I doubt if I had fifty bucks into this bit of "scientific research". I bought a rather high power DC supply in a surplus store for $10. And as I recall (this was about ten years ago) the spectroscopic grade carbon rods were $30. These rods come with an analysis sheet showing how pure they are. I still have some of the rods, but seem to have lost the sheet. There was essentially no iron in them. You really must do this. It's probably less time consuming than this discussion. It's certainly not expensive, nor does it require special knowledge. As for Mr. Randi's prize, I have no interest in trying to convince him or his cohorts of anything. Besides, a million dollars just doesn't do it for me anymore;) As Jed has eloquently pointed out, Randi makes the rules up as he goes along. Jed has also stated that he is not Michael Foster. Isn't he lucky? M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
