Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN

[John Fields]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:45:43 -0400, you wrote:

>John Fields wrote:
>
>>As far as electric vehicles goes, I think the idea of a non-plug-in
>>charger is pure insanity.
>
>I think so too, but an intriguing idea would be electric vehicles 
>without pantographs, on roads equipped with wireless chargers under 
>the surface. This would not be a viable replacement for conventional 
>automobiles. But maybe it would work for something like an airport, 
>in which many small automatic vehicles replace the automated subway 
>and rail systems they have now, which are like horizontal elevators, 
>with inflexible paths. It would be nice if one automatic car could 
>stop at a gate while others zip by it. We could do this with battery 
>electric cars of course. There might not be an advantage.

---
Nice idea, but I think the problem with getting the power into the cars'
motors inductively would be that the air gap between the receiver on the
car and the transmitter in the road would waste so much power as to make
it impractical.
---

>Perhaps it would work in a large city center with high population 
>density, such as Manhattan. Only small, specially-made, fully 
>electric passenger vehicles would be allowed. You would not need a 
>charger under every meter of every road. You would not have to dig up 
>every street in Manhattan! I suppose one every few blocks in an urban 
>area might work. Sort of like cell phone towers.

---
Except that that would be like expecting the output from the cell phone
towers to power the cell phones. ;)

Same problem with the electric airport cars; the distance between the
transmitters and receivers and the inverse square law, which our dear
Mother Nature invokes in order to keep us from blowing up the universe,
makes the field strength fall off so quickly as the distance between
them increases.
--- 

>I think the best use for it might be to power a million nano-machines 
>that are working inside a vat, let us say, or inside a human body 
>looking for cancerous cells.

---
I like that, but I think they'd have to get their power
electrochemically, just like everybody else in the mix, and have their
waste products eliminated transparently in order to keep from being
toxic.

I think we're not there yet...

[Vo]:Progress in invisibility cloaks

[Jed Rothwell]

This is research at U. Tokyo. I have mentioned this topic here, and 
some of these videos. Here is a particularly striking photo of 
someone standing in front of a car and tree, half invisible, 
ghost-like (second image down):


http://science.howstuffworks.com/invisibility-cloak2.htm

Short videos:

http://projects.tachilab.org/rpt/movie.php

Spooky ones:

http://projects.tachilab.org/rpt/movie/bone2.mpg

http://projects.tachilab.org/rpt/movie/oc-okugai3.mpg

This looks kind of silly, and useless, but there is a great deal of 
sophisticated programming going on here. The hard part, I expect, is 
to have the computer synchronize the image with the objects in the 
distance. In the case of the video "bone2 it is displaying a fake, 
drawn image which is synchronized to the position on the body where 
the screen is held at the moment.


They are doing lots of other nifty stuff:

http://tachilab.org/index.php?easiestml_lang=en

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN

[John Fields]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:22:06 -0400, you wrote:

>On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:33 PM, John Fields
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:30:56 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>>These people claim they can improve over direct connection charging:
>>>
>>>http://www.wipower.com/
>>
>> ---
>> I have trouble following a long thread once it starts getting snipped
>> and top-posted to so, if you don't mind, I'll continue this one by
>> bottom posting:
>>
>> I couldn't find where they made the claim; do you have a link, please?
>
>Sorry, Google defaults to top-posting.  I think it is an ADA thingy.
>
>Here is one reference:
>
>http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/132/big-green-and-juicy.html
>
>"And according to WiPower, inductive charging systems work with about
>80% to 90% efficiency -- roughly the same as plugging directly into a
>wall socket. 

---
According to WiPower's white paper at:

http://www.wipower.com/PRESS_Files/WiPower%20White%20Paper.pdf

(Sorry, for some reason I can't copy the text)

A tightly coupled inductive system can have 90 to 95% DC to DC
efficiency, while a loosely coupled system can send 300 watts plus at >
80% efficiency.

The tightly coupled (because of its internal transformer) system is the
conventional switching supply which connects to the mains and charges
the load's batteries, while the loosely coupled system is WiPower's
approach to eliminating the electrical connection between the load and
the charger.

However, according to the video, WiPower's device can only do 74%, and
that's DC to DC, without considering the AC to DC conversion and
smoothing required to get the DC input to the transmitter.
---  


>That blows away the industry average for wired chargers,
>around 40%. So wireless juice is not only less messy, it's less
>hungry, too."

---
It's not less messy since it has to meet the same FCC radiation
intensity spec's as anybody doing switching supplies with crispy
waveform edges has to, and it's 74% efficient instead of 95%, it's not
less hungry either.
---

>But, as you say, there is no technical support that I can find.

---
Yup. :-(

RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier

[Roarty, Francis X]

Jones,
We can only hope to get honorable mention at best; I am not worried 
about reputation or remuneration other than savings due to free energy. I am 
resigned to let the mainstream take the ball and run with it, Without a big 
name to command respect ZPF will be forever shouted down - I am still answering 
critics that throw Parks 1991 comments at me and absolutely insist on centering 
the arguments around Mills sub ground state like all the other players and 
theories don't even exist. They stop just short of name calling. Why Mills 
evokes such hatred is beyond me but I have to go out of my way every time I 
mention his results to say the sub ground state was a wrong interpretation  or 
I immediately get nasty comments. Its' like waving a red flag! His mistake 
wasn't really all that big or surprising given the data he was observing and 
the date of his research, It was before the Italians had even introduced the 
idea that an equivalence could exist in a Casimir cavity or that a Casimir 
cavity and catalyst might be related, Anybody would have assumed from the 
equations that the radius must be changing because things like time and planks 
constant can only change relativistically and there wasn't sure any event 
horizon around .
Best Regards
Fran


From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier

Fran,

You might be interested in this alternative or reinforcing explanation for 
finding a gateway to "free energy" from the mainstream copycats and plagiarists 
at PhysOrg.com


"Could Exotic Matter Provide an Infinite Source of Energy?"

September 15th, 2009 By Lisa Zyga

The best thing about this piece is a cool image which is the cover of the 
October 1920 issue of Popular Science magazine, painted by Norman Rockwell - 
depicting an inventor working on a perpetual motion machine.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Generally, scientists prefer to avoid the concept of perpetual 
motion. The idea of a machine that could produce movement that goes on forever, 
and using that movement to generate an endless stream of energy, is usually 
considered more science fiction than science.

But recently, physicist Pavel Ivanov has investigated previous speculation that 
an exotic fluid with unusual properties could cause energy to flow continuously 
between different regions of space, resulting in a runaway transfer of energy. 
If an advanced civilization were able to construct a device to capture this 
energy, it might finally possess its own "perpetuum mobile" -- or perpetual 
motion.

Ivanov, from both the University of Cambridge and the Lebedev Physical 
Institute in Moscow, has analyzed this possibility in a study accepted to 
Physics Letters B. The idea is that a one-dimensional exotic fluid, whose 
unique properties such as violating the weak energy condition in particle 
physics, leads to a scenario in which there is a light cone with regions of 
negative and positive total energies.

Ivanov has calculated the equations of state which give a continuous energy 
transfer from the negative regions to the positive regions, resulting in what 
he calls "perpetuum mobile of the third kind." However, Ivanov conjectures that 
theories "plagued" by solutions involving continuous energy flows should be 
discarded as inherently unstable.

END of quoted material

My comment is that this "negative region of space" sounds all too much like 
Dirac's sea of negative energy, for it not to be called that from the git-go, 
and furthermore, this is all too similar to ZPE theories which are out there.

This could all be a thinly disguised ploy by the "Ivory Tower" late-comers to 
try to usurp some of the prior art of us perp-mo's and assorted vorticians - 
now that we are on the verge of demonstrating something that they have been 
trying to convince the public is impossible.

Shame on them ;-)

From: Roarty, Francis X


Jones,

  I don't believe in the hydrino definition regarding fractional ground 
states but Yes I do think "fast" or "relativistic" hydrogen is involved at a 
fundamental level in all of LENR. Below is a snip from Wikipedia on Balmer 
series visible light spectrum from hydrogen. I suspect the gradient of the 
equivalence boundary as suggested by Di Fiore et all is shifting the visible 
spectrum in the same way vacuum fluctuations are supposed to be upconverted. If 
you can accept that upconversion is relativistic and not just displacing long 
flux in favor of short then space time itself twists inside the cavity taking 
EVERY spectrum with it from our perspective. Why darker visible instead of 
lighter is beyond my skill set but perhaps there is a sub visible line that 
becomes dominant and exhibits itself as Black Light plasma?

Best Regards

Fran



[Snip from Wikipedia]
The visible spectrum of light from hydrogen displays four wavelengths, 410 nm, 
434 nm, 

RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier

[Jones Beene]

Fran,

 

You might be interested in this alternative or reinforcing explanation for
finding a gateway to "free energy" from the mainstream copycats and
plagiarists at PhysOrg.com

 

 

"Could Exotic Matter Provide an Infinite Source of Energy?"

 

September 15th, 2009 By Lisa Zyga 

 

The best thing about this piece is a cool image which is the cover of the
October 1920 issue of Popular Science magazine, painted by Norman Rockwell -
depicting an inventor working on a perpetual motion machine.

 

(PhysOrg.com) -- Generally, scientists prefer to avoid the concept of
perpetual motion. The idea of a machine that could produce movement that
goes on forever, and using that movement to generate an endless stream of
energy, is usually considered more science fiction than science. 

 

But recently, physicist Pavel Ivanov has investigated previous speculation
that an exotic fluid with unusual properties could cause energy to flow
continuously between different regions of space, resulting in a runaway
transfer of energy. If an advanced civilization were able to construct a
device to capture this energy, it might finally possess its own "perpetuum
mobile" -- or perpetual motion.

 

Ivanov, from both the University of Cambridge and the Lebedev Physical
Institute in Moscow, has analyzed this possibility in a study accepted to
Physics Letters B. The idea is that a one-dimensional exotic fluid, whose
unique properties such as violating the weak energy condition in particle
physics, leads to a scenario in which there is a light cone with regions of
negative and positive total energies. 

 

Ivanov has calculated the equations of state which give a continuous energy
transfer from the negative regions to the positive regions, resulting in
what he calls "perpetuum mobile of the third kind." However, Ivanov
conjectures that theories "plagued" by solutions involving continuous energy
flows should be discarded as inherently unstable.

 

END of quoted material

 

My comment is that this "negative region of space" sounds all too much like
Dirac's sea of negative energy, for it not to be called that from the
git-go, and furthermore, this is all too similar to ZPE theories which are
out there. 

 

This could all be a thinly disguised ploy by the "Ivory Tower" late-comers
to try to usurp some of the prior art of us perp-mo's and assorted
vorticians - now that we are on the verge of demonstrating something that
they have been trying to convince the public is impossible.

 

Shame on them ;-)

 

From: Roarty, Francis X 

 

Jones,

  I don't believe in the hydrino definition regarding fractional ground
states but Yes I do think "fast" or "relativistic" hydrogen is involved at a
fundamental level in all of LENR. Below is a snip from Wikipedia on Balmer
series visible light spectrum from hydrogen. I suspect the gradient of the
equivalence boundary as suggested by Di Fiore et all is shifting the visible
spectrum in the same way vacuum fluctuations are supposed to be upconverted.
If you can accept that upconversion is relativistic and not just displacing
long flux in favor of short then space time itself twists inside the cavity
taking EVERY spectrum with it from our perspective. Why darker visible
instead of lighter is beyond my skill set but perhaps there is a sub visible
line that becomes dominant and exhibits itself as Black Light plasma?

Best Regards

Fran

 

[Snip from Wikipedia] 

The visible spectrum of light from hydrogen displays four wavelengths, 410
nm, 434 nm, 486 nm, and 656 nm, that reflect emissions of photons by
electrons in excited states transitioning to the quantum level described by
the principal quantum number n equals 2.[1] There are also a number of
ultraviolet Balmer lines with wavelengths shorter than 400 nm.

[end snip]

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:08 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier

 

The big surprise, if one believes that a version of the Mills

hydrino/deuterino is involved at a fundamental level in all of LENR, would

be the appearance of EUV.

 

Unfortunately this radiation spectrum is "universally absorbed" by every

element in the periodic table, so you would need to somehow incorporate the

detector into the electrode itself. 

 

Mills uses a pinhole detector.

 

-Original Message-

From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 

 

If we are looking at an active surface, what will we see in the 

visible and near-IR?

 

RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:07 AM 9/15/2009, Jones Beene wrote:

The big surprise, if one believes that a version of the Mills
hydrino/deuterino is involved at a fundamental level in all of LENR, would
be the appearance of EUV.

Unfortunately this radiation spectrum is "universally absorbed" by every
element in the periodic table, so you would need to somehow incorporate the
detector into the electrode itself.

Mills uses a pinhole detector.


Interesting. My take on it is that if Mills is right, everything will 
need to be rethought ... so, I'm operating as if he is not right. I 
expect we should know fairly soon.


I'm working on engineering something that we could expect will work 
the first time, or at least close. If someone can make an electrode 
that would detect the EUV, great. But it's way too speculative for me 
to think of taking on. Later, maybe.


I'd just like to know if there has been effort to see the electrode 
under high magnification during the experiment, and what has been 
seen. I've seen SEM photos of codep electrodes after, with the little 
volcanoes. Wouldn't those things glow?

Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:33 PM, John Fields
 wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:30:56 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>These people claim they can improve over direct connection charging:
>>
>>http://www.wipower.com/
>
> ---
> I have trouble following a long thread once it starts getting snipped
> and top-posted to so, if you don't mind, I'll continue this one by
> bottom posting:
>
> I couldn't find where they made the claim; do you have a link, please?

Sorry, Google defaults to top-posting.  I think it is an ADA thingy.

Here is one reference:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/132/big-green-and-juicy.html

"And according to WiPower, inductive charging systems work with about
80% to 90% efficiency -- roughly the same as plugging directly into a
wall socket. That blows away the industry average for wired chargers,
around 40%. So wireless juice is not only less messy, it's less
hungry, too."

But, as you say, there is no technical support that I can find.

Terry

Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN

[John Fields]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:30:56 -0400, you wrote:

>These people claim they can improve over direct connection charging:
>
>http://www.wipower.com/

---
I have trouble following a long thread once it starts getting snipped
and top-posted to so, if you don't mind, I'll continue this one by
bottom posting:

I couldn't find where they made the claim; do you have a link, please?


In any case, since their system is loosely coupled, I doubt whether it
would be possible to be more efficient than a tightly coupled system, so
their claim may be just that; a claim with no basis in fact.

Also, the more I read from them, the more skeptical I get.

For instance, on Youtube at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz5D5_Jzg-M

They claim:

"WiPower power 5 light bulbs using inductive coupling @ 74% DC to DC
efficiency." 

Efficiency is usually defined as the ratio of output power to input
power, so if they're talking about the input power coming from a DC
source, then they've glossed over the losses in the AC to DC conversion
process which must take place between the mains and the input of their
transmitting device, thereby making their machine look better than it
actually is.

Another troubling thing is that there's no mention made as to the
wattage of the light bulbs or the change of efficiency VS load.

As a matter of fact, there's a paucity of technical data on their web
site, particularly quiescent operating current which, if high enough,
could easily relegate their device to the class of devices which should
be unplugged when not in actual use.

RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier

[Roarty, Francis X]

Jones,

  I don't believe in the hydrino definition regarding fractional ground 
states but Yes I do think "fast" or "relativistic" hydrogen is involved at a 
fundamental level in all of LENR. Below is a snip from Wikipedia on Balmer 
series visible light spectrum from hydrogen. I suspect the gradient of the 
equivalence boundary as suggested by Di Fiore et all is shifting the visible 
spectrum in the same way vacuum fluctuations are supposed to be upconverted. If 
you can accept that upconversion is relativistic and not just displacing long 
flux in favor of short then space time itself twists inside the cavity taking 
EVERY spectrum with it from our perspective. Why darker visible instead of 
lighter is beyond my skill set but perhaps there is a sub visible line that 
becomes dominant and exhibits itself as Black Light plasma?

Best Regards

Fran



[Snip from Wikipedia]
The visible spectrum of light from hydrogen displays four wavelengths, 410 nm, 
434 nm, 486 nm, and 656 nm, that reflect emissions of photons by electrons in 
excited states transitioning to the quantum level described by the principal 
quantum number n equals 2.[1] There are also a number of ultraviolet Balmer 
lines with wavelengths shorter than 400 nm.

[end snip]





-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:08 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier



The big surprise, if one believes that a version of the Mills

hydrino/deuterino is involved at a fundamental level in all of LENR, would

be the appearance of EUV.



Unfortunately this radiation spectrum is "universally absorbed" by every

element in the periodic table, so you would need to somehow incorporate the

detector into the electrode itself.



Mills uses a pinhole detector.



-Original Message-

From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax



If we are looking at an active surface, what will we see in the

visible and near-IR?

Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Harry Veeder wrote:
> I don't know. Perhaps you are right. My understanding of the theory
> is limited, but please read the introduction here:
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/q6634pp556m08500/fulltext.pdf
>
> Even Feynman and Maxwell say there is no e-field.


They say nothing about Feynman in the introduction. Later they quote
from his description of an idealized wire in the Feynman lectures, which
were introductory and targeted toward undergraduates. In the quoted
text, Feynman's not considering the exact details of a *resistive* wire
carrying a current. Most of the time you can consider \rho, the
resistivity of the wire, to be *zero* and in that case there's no E
field outside the wire and that is what he's doing here, even though he
doesn't explicitly state it. Placing a charge outside the wire will
induce a charge on the wire -- but that's not something Feynman's
considering, either, in the brief quote they give.

This is a total straw man. The E field near a resistive wire is a well
known phenomenon and has nothing to do with consideration of the B field
as being anything other than a "relativistic effect".

Their claim that "some authors *believe* there is no force..." is kind
of silly, and they provide no evidence to back it. Some authors, in
introductory texts, ignore the E field which drives the charges through
the wire, and also ignore the surface charge which would be induced on
the wire by the presence of an external charge.

Really, so what?

This has *nothing* to do with considering the B field as a relativistic
effect. Rather, it has to do with casual assumptions regarding ideal
wires in simple circuits. A similar assumption is that the potential of
two nodes in a circuit connected by a wire is identical. That's false in
general, of course, as anyone working with long wires, high currents, or
fast edges is well aware, but in many cases it's so close to true that
it can be taken as true, and in introductory circuit theory it's usually
assumed.

They also mangle what Purcell said. They say,
> He [Purcell] then considers
> two current carrying metallic wires at rest in the frame of the laboratory
> and says ( p. 178) , ``In a metal, however, only the positive charges
> remain
> fixed in the crystal lattice. Two such wires carrying currents in opposite
> directions are seen in the lab frame in Fig. 5.23a. The wires being
> neutral,
Note well: Purcell is working with the question of whether there is an
*electrostatic* charge on the wire. To first order, there isn't, and as
a result no electrostatic field due to a charge imbalance is present. In
particular, as long as resistance is very low, the current in the wire
does not result in any RADIAL electric field, and that's what he's
concerned with here.
> there is no electric force from the opposite wire on the positive ions
> which
> are stationary in the lab frame.’’ That is, he believes that there
> will be no
> electric field generated by the stationary current-carrying resistive
> wire in
> any point outside itself.

BS. Their conclusion is a non sequetor. They don't know what Purcell
believes. All they know is that in this quote, from his *introductory*
E&M book, in which he is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF RESISTANCE
(despite their inclusion of the word "resistive" in their paraphrase),
he asserts that there will be no charge imbalance in the wire due to the
presence of the current, and hence no electrostatic E field due to an
imbalance in charge carriers in the wire. He is *correct*.

A more complete model of a wire doesn't ignore resistance. In saying
Purcell *believes* there can't be a field caused by a resistive wire,
they are, essentially, asserting that Purcell doesn't know that wires
can have resistance or doesn't know what resistance is, which is an
outrageous leap from his description in the text. In inserting the word
"resistive" in their paraphrase, when Purcell didn't use it in the
original quote, they are (apparently intentionally) distorting what he
said so they can appear to make a point.

As to Maxwell himself, the form of the theory he he initially proposed
was incomplete, and at this point his exact statements are of historical
interest and not much else.

>
> Harry
>
> - Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence"
>  Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:46 am Subject:
> Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire
> Carrying a Constant Current
>
>>
>> Harry Veeder wrote:
>>> Maxwell's theory needs the field concept. The theory says and
>>> electric force can not be present without an electric field.
>>>
>>> If we follow Maxwell's theory to the letter, it says there will
>> be no
>>> electric field outside a current carrying wire.
>> I don't know what you're talking about here. If by "Maxwell's
>> theory" you mean Maxwell's four equations, as they are normally
>> written, and as they are embedded in the model of special
>> relativity (which is how thisis normally applied), then wha

Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current

[Harry Veeder]

I don't know. Perhaps you are right. My understanding of the theory 
is limited, but please read the introduction here:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q6634pp556m08500/fulltext.pdf

Even Feynman and Maxwell say there is no e-field.

Harry

- Original Message -
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" 
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:46 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire
Carrying a Constant Current

> 
> 
> Harry Veeder wrote:
> > Maxwell's theory needs the field concept. The theory says and
> > electric force can not be present without an electric field.
> >
> > If we follow Maxwell's theory to the letter, it says there will 
> be no
> >  electric field outside a current carrying wire.
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about here.  If by "Maxwell's theory"
> you mean Maxwell's four equations, as they are normally written, 
> and as
> they are embedded in the model of special relativity (which is how 
> thisis normally applied), then what you said is simply false.
> 
> If there is a current flowing through a resistive wire, then there 
> is an
> E field within the wire directed parallel to the wire.  That E 
> field is
> what drives the current, and its value is proportional to \rho*I where
> \rho is the resistivity per unit length of the wire.  The curl of 
> the E
> field within the wire and near the surface of the wire is zero, since
> 
>   Del x E = -dB/dt
> 
> in rationalized CGS units.
> 
> Since the curl is zero, if the field  points along the wire just 
> withinthe wire, it must also point along the wire just outside the 
> wire. 
> Otherwise you'd get a nonzero integral of the E vector around a small
> loop which is partly inside the wire and partly outside the wire, 
> whichwould imply the curl was nonzero.
> 
> For points near the wire, that field runs parallel to the wire.  This
> field is independent of the presence or absence of a charge outside 
> thewire.
> 
> Arguments straight out of Purcell, based directly on Maxwell's 
> equationsand the Lorentz force law, lead to the conclusion that a 
> point charge
> located close to the wire will also induce a local charge on the wire,
> which will result in a local field which is perpendicular to the 
> surfaceof the wire.  This field vanishes if we remove the external 
> charge.
> But did you perhaps mean something else by "Maxwell's theory?
> 
> (Incidentally I said "As embedded in the model of SR" because without
> that extra bit of icing you have no way of transforming the equations
> from one frame of reference to another, and no answer to the 
> question of
> what happens when moving a uniform velocity.)
> 
> 
> > Consequently, the
> > theory leads one to expect an electric force is absent as well.
> >
> > Weber's theory is not built on the field concept, so this curious
> > expectation does not arise.
> >
> > My analysis is based on reading of this preface to the book 
> suggested>  by Taylor J. Smith.
> > http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Preface-Webers-Electrodynamics.pdf
> >
> >
> > Harry
> >
> > - Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence"
> >  Date: Monday, September 14, 2009 6:18 pm Subject:
> > Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire
> > Carrying a Constant Current
> >
> >>
> >> Harry Veeder wrote:
> >>> fyi Harry
> >>>
> >>> Foundations of Physics © Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999
> >>> 10.1023/A:1018874523513
> >>>
> >>> The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a
> >>>  Constant Current
> >>>
> >>> A. K. T. Assis, W. A. Rodrigues Jr. and A. J. Mania
> >>>
> >>> Abstract  We present the opinion of some authors who believe
> >> there is
> >>> no force between a stationary charge and a stationary resistive
> >>> wire carrying a constant current.
> >> That's stated a lot, but it's just sloppiness.  Anyone who knows
> >> electronics realizes it's not really true.
> >>
> >> A good conductor carrying small current has *nearly* zero voltage
> >> drop along any small length, and calling the drop "zero" is usually
> >> "good enough".  But really the voltage drop along any segment is
> >> equal to I*Rwhere R is the resistance of that segment.
> >>
> >> When the voltage drop along a (resistive) wire is nonzero, then
> >> *any* path which leads from a higher voltage point on the wire 
> to a
> >> lower voltage point on the same wire must traverse the same exact
> >> potential change, which means that there must be an electric field
> >> *outside* the wire, running parallel to the wire.
> >>
> >> This is well known but, as I said, usually neglected, because it's
> >> usually too small to matter in real-world problems.
> >>
> >> The fact that there's an "image charge" induced in the wire as
> >> well, which consequently must be having its effect on the charge
> >> sitting outside the wire, is certainly the case and could even be
> >> called "obvious", but it's not something I ever thought of until I
> >> saw it mentioned in the abstract.

Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Harry Veeder wrote:
> Maxwell's theory needs the field concept. The theory says and
> electric force can not be present without an electric field.
>
> If we follow Maxwell's theory to the letter, it says there will be no
>  electric field outside a current carrying wire.

I don't know what you're talking about here.  If by "Maxwell's theory"
you mean Maxwell's four equations, as they are normally written, and as
they are embedded in the model of special relativity (which is how this
is normally applied), then what you said is simply false.

If there is a current flowing through a resistive wire, then there is an
E field within the wire directed parallel to the wire.  That E field is
what drives the current, and its value is proportional to \rho*I where
\rho is the resistivity per unit length of the wire.  The curl of the E
field within the wire and near the surface of the wire is zero, since

   Del x E = -dB/dt

in rationalized CGS units.

Since the curl is zero, if the field  points along the wire just within
the wire, it must also point along the wire just outside the wire. 
Otherwise you'd get a nonzero integral of the E vector around a small
loop which is partly inside the wire and partly outside the wire, which
would imply the curl was nonzero.

For points near the wire, that field runs parallel to the wire.  This
field is independent of the presence or absence of a charge outside the
wire.

Arguments straight out of Purcell, based directly on Maxwell's equations
and the Lorentz force law, lead to the conclusion that a point charge
located close to the wire will also induce a local charge on the wire,
which will result in a local field which is perpendicular to the surface
of the wire.  This field vanishes if we remove the external charge.

But did you perhaps mean something else by "Maxwell's theory?

(Incidentally I said "As embedded in the model of SR" because without
that extra bit of icing you have no way of transforming the equations
from one frame of reference to another, and no answer to the question of
what happens when moving a uniform velocity.)


> Consequently, the
> theory leads one to expect an electric force is absent as well.
>
> Weber's theory is not built on the field concept, so this curious
> expectation does not arise.
>
> My analysis is based on reading of this preface to the book suggested
>  by Taylor J. Smith.
> http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Preface-Webers-Electrodynamics.pdf
>
>
> Harry
>
> - Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence"
>  Date: Monday, September 14, 2009 6:18 pm Subject:
> Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire
> Carrying a Constant Current
>
>>
>> Harry Veeder wrote:
>>> fyi Harry
>>>
>>> Foundations of Physics © Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999
>>> 10.1023/A:1018874523513
>>>
>>> The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a
>>>  Constant Current
>>>
>>> A. K. T. Assis, W. A. Rodrigues Jr. and A. J. Mania
>>>
>>> Abstract  We present the opinion of some authors who believe
>> there is
>>> no force between a stationary charge and a stationary resistive
>>> wire carrying a constant current.
>> That's stated a lot, but it's just sloppiness.  Anyone who knows
>> electronics realizes it's not really true.
>>
>> A good conductor carrying small current has *nearly* zero voltage
>> drop along any small length, and calling the drop "zero" is usually
>> "good enough".  But really the voltage drop along any segment is
>> equal to I*Rwhere R is the resistance of that segment.
>>
>> When the voltage drop along a (resistive) wire is nonzero, then
>> *any* path which leads from a higher voltage point on the wire to a
>> lower voltage point on the same wire must traverse the same exact
>> potential change, which means that there must be an electric field
>> *outside* the wire, running parallel to the wire.
>>
>> This is well known but, as I said, usually neglected, because it's
>> usually too small to matter in real-world problems.
>>
>> The fact that there's an "image charge" induced in the wire as
>> well, which consequently must be having its effect on the charge
>> sitting outside the wire, is certainly the case and could even be
>> called "obvious", but it's not something I ever thought of until I
>> saw it mentioned in the abstract.  :-)
>>
>>
>>> We show that this force is different from zero and present its
>>> main components: the force due to the charges induced in the wire
>>> by the test charge and a force proportional to the current in the
>>> resistive wire. We also discuss briefly a component of the force
>>> proportional to the square of the current which should exist
>>> according to some models and another component due to the
>>> acceleration of the conduction electrons in a curved wire
>>> carrying a dc current (centripetal acceleration). Finally, we
>>> analyze experiments showing the existence of the
>> electric> field proportional to the current in resistive wires.
>>> complete paper av

Re: [Vo]:Single Crystal Palladium

[Terry Blanton]

Citations?  Were these in his published works?

Thanks!

Terry

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
 wrote:
> At 09:00 AM 9/14/2009, Terry Blanton wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/763914-tTveZU/webviewable/763914.pdf
>>
>> The research shows single crystal loading with all three isotopes of
>> hydrogen.  I presume this is in support of the NIF.
>>
>> I wonder if the Beta phase loading is comparable to the 95% loading
>> claimed by CF researchers.  If so, I wonder why LLNL has not observed
>> the CF phenomenon.
>
> It's easy to miss. High loading of palladium was done for fusion experiments
> as targets or the like for years, Mizuno talks about two incidents where he
> saw what he later understood to be cold fusion effects.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier

[Jones Beene]

The big surprise, if one believes that a version of the Mills
hydrino/deuterino is involved at a fundamental level in all of LENR, would
be the appearance of EUV.

Unfortunately this radiation spectrum is "universally absorbed" by every
element in the periodic table, so you would need to somehow incorporate the
detector into the electrode itself. 

Mills uses a pinhole detector.

-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 

If we are looking at an active surface, what will we see in the 
visible and near-IR?

Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN

[Jed Rothwell]

John Fields wrote:


As far as electric vehicles goes, I think the idea of a non-plug-in
charger is pure insanity.


I think so too, but an intriguing idea would be electric vehicles 
without pantographs, on roads equipped with wireless chargers under 
the surface. This would not be a viable replacement for conventional 
automobiles. But maybe it would work for something like an airport, 
in which many small automatic vehicles replace the automated subway 
and rail systems they have now, which are like horizontal elevators, 
with inflexible paths. It would be nice if one automatic car could 
stop at a gate while others zip by it. We could do this with battery 
electric cars of course. There might not be an advantage.


Perhaps it would work in a large city center with high population 
density, such as Manhattan. Only small, specially-made, fully 
electric passenger vehicles would be allowed. You would not need a 
charger under every meter of every road. You would not have to dig up 
every street in Manhattan! I suppose one every few blocks in an urban 
area might work. Sort of like cell phone towers.


I think the best use for it might be to power a million nano-machines 
that are working inside a vat, let us say, or inside a human body 
looking for cancerous cells.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN

[Terry Blanton]

These people claim they can improve over direct connection charging:

http://www.wipower.com/

Terry

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:37 AM, John Fields
 wrote:
> The efficiency I was referring to was for a pair of untuned loops
> loosely coupled, but even at 50% for a more closely coupled resonant
> system, half the power out of the transmitter would be lost before it
> got to the load.
>
> And, no matter how efficient the system can be made to be, it can never
> be made more efficient than the direct ohmic contact made between a plug
> and a socket.
>
> I doubt whether the impact on batteries will even be noticeable, since
> devices designed to be mobile will still need to be powered by batteries
> when they're not in the vicinity of a transmitter, the only "advantage"
> being that their batteries can be charged without having to directly
> connect a charger to the device.
>
> As far as electric vehicles goes, I think the idea of a non-plug-in
> charger is pure insanity.
>
> Why?
>
> Arbitrarily pulling some numbers out of thin air, if we assume that the
> battery needs to be charged from a 120 volt source at 20 amperes for 8
> hours, that's 19.2 kilowatt-hours, and at US$0.15 per kilowatt-hour,
> that's $1.92.
>
> Not bad... but, with a non-plug-in charger running at 50%, that's $1.92
> thrown away for every $1.92 used.  Worse is the fact that it's not just
> money being thrown away, it's resources being squandered because of
> laziness.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:28:26 +0200, you wrote:
>
>>A more informative video on the subject of witricity here:
>>
>>http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_giler_demos_wireless_electricity.html
>>
>>Transfer efficiency is not 5% like John suggested but more like 50%
>>and growing. I suspect the energy loss compared to traditional
>>solutions will be globally more than made up by the savings in
>>disposable batteries or rechargeable battery cycles in many nomadic
>>battery powered applications such as hearing aids and cell phones.
>>
>>Not sure about electric cars though, unless the efficiency can be
>>significantly improved, which I guess can be done by bringing the
>>coils closer together (either the coil in the car or that in the floor
>>could be mobile and automatically brought into close proximity of the
>>other one before charging begins).
>>
>>Michel
>>
>>2009/9/15 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson :
 From: John Fields

 On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:11:48 -0400, you wrote:

 >As John Fields says, this is a harebrained scheme.
 >
 >My guess is that if the power is high enough to useful work, they
 >will eventually discover it can harm your health.
 >
 >I suppose there are some narrow applications that would benefit from
 >this technology.

 ---
 You're right; there are.

 One of them is battery powered toothbrushes with resting stations that
 allow  recharge of the cells, in the toothbrush, between brushings
 without the need for ohmic contacts between the load and the source.
>>>
>>> I suspect medical implants, like pacemakers would benefit as well. I believe
>>> they are working on this.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>>> www.OrionWorks.com
>>> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:59 AM 9/15/2009, Michel Jullian wrote:


Silver would be eaten away and would plate out onto the cathode, so
this anode too would have to be Pt or Pt plated I guess. Which makes
me wonder, Pd is close to Pt chemically, so why would it anodically
dissolve in this particular electrolyte if Pt doesn't ? I know Pd does
anodically dissolve in (at last some) acidic electrolytes, but in
LiCl, I have no idea. And if it does, will it dissolve at a
sufficiently high rate? Help, is there an electrochemist on the plane?


About the silver, of course. Yes, the anode must be platinum, or 
plated platinum. Plating would allow sturdier anodes and cathodes 
than using wire or foil, might not raise cost increase surface 
area by plating onto mesh, perhaps.


Reading a Szpak paper, they took a piezoelectric sensor and plated it 
to form a substrate (silver?) and then ran codep on top of that. They 
used a Croy digital oscilloscope to capture the sensor data, but the 
sample rate was fairly low, this could be cheaply captured.


Now, I've asked before with no response. Has anyone looked for 
visible light emission with a microscope from an operating electrode? 
I think that common CCD image sensors will detect IR, but not with 
the kind of sensitivity that was used in the SPAWAR published images. 
If we are looking at an active surface, what will we see in the 
visible and near-IR?

Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN

[John Fields]

The efficiency I was referring to was for a pair of untuned loops
loosely coupled, but even at 50% for a more closely coupled resonant
system, half the power out of the transmitter would be lost before it
got to the load.

And, no matter how efficient the system can be made to be, it can never
be made more efficient than the direct ohmic contact made between a plug
and a socket.

I doubt whether the impact on batteries will even be noticeable, since
devices designed to be mobile will still need to be powered by batteries
when they're not in the vicinity of a transmitter, the only "advantage"
being that their batteries can be charged without having to directly
connect a charger to the device.

As far as electric vehicles goes, I think the idea of a non-plug-in
charger is pure insanity.

Why?

Arbitrarily pulling some numbers out of thin air, if we assume that the
battery needs to be charged from a 120 volt source at 20 amperes for 8
hours, that's 19.2 kilowatt-hours, and at US$0.15 per kilowatt-hour,
that's $1.92. 

Not bad... but, with a non-plug-in charger running at 50%, that's $1.92
thrown away for every $1.92 used.  Worse is the fact that it's not just
money being thrown away, it's resources being squandered because of
laziness.





On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:28:26 +0200, you wrote:

>A more informative video on the subject of witricity here:
>
>http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_giler_demos_wireless_electricity.html
>
>Transfer efficiency is not 5% like John suggested but more like 50%
>and growing. I suspect the energy loss compared to traditional
>solutions will be globally more than made up by the savings in
>disposable batteries or rechargeable battery cycles in many nomadic
>battery powered applications such as hearing aids and cell phones.
>
>Not sure about electric cars though, unless the efficiency can be
>significantly improved, which I guess can be done by bringing the
>coils closer together (either the coil in the car or that in the floor
>could be mobile and automatically brought into close proximity of the
>other one before charging begins).
>
>Michel
>
>2009/9/15 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson :
>>> From: John Fields
>>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:11:48 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
>>> >As John Fields says, this is a harebrained scheme.
>>> >
>>> >My guess is that if the power is high enough to useful work, they
>>> >will eventually discover it can harm your health.
>>> >
>>> >I suppose there are some narrow applications that would benefit from
>>> >this technology.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> You're right; there are.
>>>
>>> One of them is battery powered toothbrushes with resting stations that
>>> allow  recharge of the cells, in the toothbrush, between brushings
>>> without the need for ohmic contacts between the load and the source.
>>
>> I suspect medical implants, like pacemakers would benefit as well. I believe
>> they are working on this.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>> www.OrionWorks.com
>> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Michel Jullian  wrote:

> Not sure about electric cars though, unless the efficiency can be
> significantly improved, which I guess can be done by bringing the
> coils closer together (either the coil in the car or that in the floor
> could be mobile and automatically brought into close proximity of the
> other one before charging begins).

The Koreans claim:

"The Korea Advanced Institute of Technology (KAIST) has developed a
revolutionary electric vehicle that neatly side-steps the looming
political/economic issue of scarcity of advanced battery materials, as
well as the practical limitations imposed by battery weight and life,
by dispensing with batteries altogether!   The OLEV (On Line Electric
Vehicle) draws power  from cables buried in the road-bed, differing
from existing electric train and bus technology in that the power is
transfered by magnetic induction without physical contact of any kind.
  KAIST claims to achieve 80% efficiency of power-transfer across a
1cm gap, and 60% efficiency across a 12cm gap!"

http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1034778_korean-ev-runs-without-batteries-by-induction-charging

http://tinyurl.com/l66ehr

with their vehicle sans battery.

Terry

Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier

[Michel Jullian]

2009/9/14 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> At 06:38 AM 9/14/2009, you wrote:
>
>> I'll wait for the detail of your ideas regarding the electronics, but
>> it seems to me a few dollars worth of components would be sufficient
>> for the computing and electrical "equipment", which could boil down to
>> a tiny "USB key" with some relatively simple microcontroller and power
>> electronics design work. A full blown computer plus a programmable
>> power supply are certainly not necessary.
>
> "Programmable power supply" means that the electrolysis protocol can be
> automatically followed. That's pretty simple. It's not different from the
> "power electronics design work" you mention. By the way, I was primarily a
> printed circuit designer for years, I still have the business, but the
> design work is now being done in Brazil, I'm really rusty, but I have the
> Altium software.

That's good. The design work could be simplified by starting from a
reference design, what do you think of this one:

http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/51798a.pdf

>
>> Regarding current reversal:
>>
>> a/ no it's not stupid I don't think, indeed I seem to recall platinum
>> works as a cathode substrate in those experiments (i.e. pits are
>> produced). But you'll have to verify that the plating on the cathode
>> does redissolve when it becomes an anode, things are not exactly
>> symmetrical as Cl2 will have evolved from the solution in the first
>> run I think. Anyone knows?
>>
>> b/ if it does redissolve,  the electrode on the bottom doesn't have to
>> be a permanent anode as you proposed, it could be an extension of one
>> of only two electrodes (rather than three), which would thus occupy
>> one side and the bottom, agreed?
>
> No, it should be separate, very simple to do, and it allows the "bottom"
> anode to function with either polarity. Otherwise we would have to do the
> de-plating run as a separate run.

Good point. You're right, three electrodes is better.

> The cathode doesn't care whether the
> palladium in the electrolyte was added as a chemical at the beginning or was
> dissolved from the anode. The bottom anode can be silver, it's just there to
> scavenge palladium.
> So we'd have two platinum wire electrodes which do alternate duty as
> cathode/anode, and a bottom electrode which is probably silver foil, or some
> other metal with silver plating, or maybe silver plating on the bottom of
> the cell?

Silver would be eaten away and would plate out onto the cathode, so
this anode too would have to be Pt or Pt plated I guess. Which makes
me wonder, Pd is close to Pt chemically, so why would it anodically
dissolve in this particular electrolyte if Pt doesn't ? I know Pd does
anodically dissolve in (at last some) acidic electrolytes, but in
LiCl, I have no idea. And if it does, will it dissolve at a
sufficiently high rate? Help, is there an electrochemist on the plane?

Michel

> Ideas about the chlorine would be useful. Could that be recycled? Or would
> it limit the number of runs that could be done?

[Vo]:More UFO Gogle Logos

[Terry Blanton]

Have you googled today?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/twitter-users-solve-googles-crop-circle-mystery-1787561.html

http://snipurl.com/rv1nh

Twitter users solve Google's crop circle mystery

Tuesday, 15 September 2009

Eagle-eyed users of microblogging site Twitter claim to have unearthed
the secret meaning of today's "Google doodle", a depiction of crop
circles spelling out the Google name which has puzzled many users of
the ubiquitous search engine.

In conjunction with today's alien-themed logo, the official Google
Twitter account tweeted a set of coordinates at around 4AM, as well as
a link to an image of the crop circle logo. As Twitter users noted in
reference to the image, those coordinates indicate the position of the
town of Woking and speculation began on the significance of the town.

As residents of Woking will attest, the West Surrey town's affinity to
UFOs lies in its position as the setting for the first martian landing
in science fiction author H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds, and moreover
the author lived there for much of his adult life. With the 143rd
anniversay of Well's birth next week, Twitter users now believe they
have got to the bottom of the mystery, concluding that the images (and
tweet) are coded references to the upcoming anniversary. User
joshgjohnson noted, 'this is a "lead-up" as was the Sept 5th logo', an
earlier Google doodle which depicted a flying saucer apparently in the
act of abducting the letter 'O'.

The timing of the reference is unusual, however, with six days until
the crucial date, and further speculation has turned to its
significance, with some suggesting a link to a sighting of a UFO in
nearby Bagshot Heath, made on 15 September 1985. With next Monday the
date of the official anniversary, internet users and science fiction
fans alike will be searching for clues in the coming days to try and
work out what Google is planning as a tribute to a man generally
regarded as the finest science fiction writer of all time.



Well, I have found a better explanation of the abducted 'O':

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10345951-71.html

Google's mystery UFO doodle finally explained
by Chris Matyszczyk

I know there are some people who have not slept for fear that Google
had finally committed itself to some alien culture.

Well, some outerworldly alien culture. Well, some outerworldly alien
culture where all beings were green and no one used phrases like
"market segmentation" and "41 shades of blue."

You see, a mysterious doodle appeared on the Google home page. It
showed an alien spacecraft making off with the second "O" in the word
"Google."

Were we really expected to merely gogle now? Didn't that sound
uncomfortably close to ogling?

Though there were no references to the Church of Scientology, Google's
first pronouncement on the subject did not quell the concern.

The questionably benign company declared: "We consider the second 'o'
critical to user recognition of our brand and pronunciation of our
name. We are actively looking into the mysterious tweet that has
appeared on the Google twitter stream and the disappearance of the 'o'
on the Google home page. We hope to have an update in the coming
weeks."

The world continued experiencing the occasional shudder, until
Google's Twitter page produced this revelatory tweet on Friday:
"1.12.12 25.15.21.18 15 1.18.5 2.5.12.15.14.7 20.15 21.19."

Well, it was revelatory to those who think in a certain way, one to
which I can only aspire.

"Yes, of course," those who think that way said to themselves, while
simultaneously slapping their heads with a fly-swatter. "It's a
reference to that wonderful Japanese video game of the 1980s, Zero
Wing."

Now, look, I've heard of Vera Wang. But somehow Zero Wing passed me
by, though I think it would be an excellent name for a fashion
designer.

However, those on the inside (of the spacecraft) tell me that Zero
Wing is terribly cool and features extremely characteristic English
translations.

Apparently, Cats, a villain even greater than the Andrew Lloyd Webber
musical, makes this declaration at the beginning of Zero Wing: "How
are you gentlemen. All your base are belong to us."

Well, when you take all those numbers in the Google tweet and turn
them into the corresponding letters of the alphabet, you get: "All
your O are belong to us."

Why would some Googlies want to feature Zero Wing now? Well, it's the
game's 20th anniversary.

So there. The problem is solved. The world is safe. Google has not
been taken over by aliens.

Or can we really be sure of that?



Hey, who took my Cherios?

Terry

PS  Speaking of Vera

"Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn
Remember how she said,
That we would meet again,
Some sunny day.

Vera
Vera
What has become of you?
Does anybody else in here feel the way I do?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/arts/music/15arts-VERALYNNTOPS_BRF.html

I'll never forget her song at the end of Dr. Strangelove

"All your Beatles are belo

Re: [Vo]:Buffett Boosts BYD Basis

[Michel Jullian]

They say it's "lithium ion ferrous phosphate" in this Fortune article
reproduced on their site:

http://www.byd.com/buzz/media-reproduced/warren-buffett-takes-charge/

BYD LiPO4 batteries equip OLPC (one laptop per child) laptops, see:

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Laptop_Batteries#BYD_LiFePO4

so they must be reasonably inexpensive. I was surprised to see on that
page that they work on a wider temperature range than NiMH!

Michel

2009/9/15  :
> In reply to  Michel Jullian's message of Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:19:30 +0200:
> Hi Michel,
> [snip]
>>Hi Robin, see here:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery#Table_of_rechargeable_battery_technologies
>>
>
> Thanks, that's very useful. :) However how do you know that the Fe ion
> technology mentioned is in fact referring to LiFePO4?
>
>>Energy density of LiFePO4 is not as good as Li ion (0.1 kWh/Kg vs 0.16
>>kWh/Kg), which means their 72 kWh battery must weigh 720Kg --which may
>>not be much of a problem since EVs have regenerative braking--, but
>>cycle life is better (2000 cycles vs 1200 cycles).
>>
>>I also gather cost per kWh of capacity is lower. I seem to recall
>>reading  USD 300 per kWh, which would account for about half of the
>>USD 4 projected price of the car (300*72 = 21600). This would be
>>about USD 100 per cycle, i.e. USD 100 for 400km, i.e. USD 0.25 per km
>>or USD 0.40 per mile of battery wear out, this seems reasonable,
>>what's the wear out cost for an ICE of equivalent output power anyone
>>knows?
>>
>>Michel
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN

[Michel Jullian]

A more informative video on the subject of witricity here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_giler_demos_wireless_electricity.html

Transfer efficiency is not 5% like John suggested but more like 50%
and growing. I suspect the energy loss compared to traditional
solutions will be globally more than made up by the savings in
disposable batteries or rechargeable battery cycles in many nomadic
battery powered applications such as hearing aids and cell phones.

Not sure about electric cars though, unless the efficiency can be
significantly improved, which I guess can be done by bringing the
coils closer together (either the coil in the car or that in the floor
could be mobile and automatically brought into close proximity of the
other one before charging begins).

Michel

2009/9/15 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson :
>> From: John Fields
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:11:48 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> >As John Fields says, this is a harebrained scheme.
>> >
>> >My guess is that if the power is high enough to useful work, they
>> >will eventually discover it can harm your health.
>> >
>> >I suppose there are some narrow applications that would benefit from
>> >this technology.
>>
>> ---
>> You're right; there are.
>>
>> One of them is battery powered toothbrushes with resting stations that
>> allow  recharge of the cells, in the toothbrush, between brushings
>> without the need for ohmic contacts between the load and the source.
>
> I suspect medical implants, like pacemakers would benefit as well. I believe
> they are working on this.
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
>