Re: [Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery
On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: Horace, My comments below, some things are still wrong 2009/11/25 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Gad. It still isn't right! Corrections below. I have vertigo at the moment and can't think straight. I've actually done half of this experiment, though decades ago, and it is interesting how the concentration gradient wanders, it doesn't follow what you would expect for any kind of E field. On Nov 23, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: See: http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/fuel_cell/ fuel_cell.html I had no idea an ultraclean rechargeable battery could be done so simply! Supplies: - One foot of platinum coated nickel wire, or pure platinum wire. Since this is not a common household item, we carry platinum coated nickel wire in our catalog. - A popsickle stick or similar small piece of wood or plastic. - A 9 volt battery clip. - A 9 volt battery. - Some transparent sticky tape. - A glass of water. - A volt meter. It seems to me a small amount of lye would help the reaction along. No matter, the intent is apparently not to create a working cell, i.e. generate power, it is merely to generate a voltage. I see they sell the wire for $14.41 plus shipping. A bulk source for wire and mesh might be: http://www.gerarddaniel.com/ H2 and O2 are produced by short electrolysis runs, after which the bubbles clinging to the electrodes are catalytically recombined by the electrode surface material (platinum) to generate electricity :) 1/ The article features nice explanations of how it works, but how does it _really_ work? In particular, in the generating (fuel cell) phase, they don't say what makes the positive hydrogen ions climb uphill from the negative electrode to the positive one, anyone can explain this miracle? ;-) 2/ It seems to me a much higher capacity (and perhaps even practical) rechargeable battery could be made by using a hydrogen absorbing/desorbing material e.g. Pd for the negative electrode, and by making gaseous oxygen available at the anode. Storing the latter is not required of course, O2 from the air is fine... maybe a floating support which would keep a grid or flat serpentine shaped positive electrode at the surface of the water or just below? Michel The explanation looks bogus to me. I think the cell works by reversible reactions, not recombination. Bockris states that conduction in an electrochemical cell in the volume between the interface layers is almost entirely due to concentration gradients. That is because almost all the potential drop is in the interface layers themselves. The E field in the bulk of the cell is very small. I expect the cell actually operates by creating even *more* bubbles, not consuming the gas already there in the form of bubbles. In the course of the brief electrolysis by battery, the volume of water around the *anode* is preferentially filled with H3O+ ions, as the OH- ions release their electrons and form O2 and H2O2, and the volume around the *cathode* is filled with OH- ions as the H3O+ ions present at the cathode surface are electrolyzed. This can actually be viewed by use of a dilute electrolyte, plus a pH indicator like phenolphthalein, which is colorless in acidic electrolytes, and pink in basic solutions. To do this first add the (liquid) phenolphthalein to distilled water. Connect the battery. To view the creation and migration of OH- ions: add a little bit of boric acid to the water, and stir. Repeat the process until you can see the electrolyte turns pink in the vicinity the *cathode* (- electrode) once the electrolyte settles down. Boric acid was chosen because it is commonly available from pharmacies. To view the creation and migration of H3O+ ions add a little bit of lye to the water and stir. Repeat the process until you can see the electrolyte is pink, but when the electrolyte settles down you can see the volume around the *anode* (+ electrode) gradually turing clear. It can take a little fooling around with concentrations to get the effect to work quickly and dramatically. The diffusion occurs slowly but at a clearly visible pace. I agree with the above paragraph now, but putting it right has broken your explanation for the generating phase two paragraphs below. This is the same principle I had in my original explanation. Here is the original explanation, less the garbled indicator test information: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I think the cell works by reversible reactions, not recombination. In the course of the brief electrolysis by battery, the volume of water around the anode is filled with H3O+ ions, and the volume around the cathode is filled with OH- ions. You can demonstrate the reversibility of the reactions by reversing the battery. Note, however, that the diffusion occurs in a somewhat
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Michel Jullian wrote: I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But it doesn't leave room for free will either. Just this random machine's opinion ;-) You're equating randomness with incommensurability. That which at the physico-mechanical(i.e. deterministic) level eludes us as random could be (in some cases) the manifestation of higher forms of order. In fact(and to be precise) randomness could be the window of opportunity by which higher ordered phenomena can manifest in the physical world. That is: that which is not balanced and equilibrated (i.e. explained and predicted) at a merely physico-mechanical level, seeks for equilibrium and balance(and also cries for an explanation) at a higher level. Life, perception and conscience are then manifestations of the Universe's quest for closure at higher and higher levels of existence, some of which are not (not necessarily) material. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Re: Eagle-Research eNotice
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:13 PM, William Beaty wrote: On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Horace Heffner wrote: I haven't looked at the referenced website yet, as I have little time at the moment. However, it seems this might be a future topic of interest on vortex-l, depending on how things go for Eaton, Sokol, and Allan. Who besides the inventor has achived closed-loop? I don't now of any. I think there are lots of groups that inject hydrogen and oxygen into their motors though, to increase efficiency. My impression was that HHO devices are only sold by dishonest scammers, because while they work as claimed, the sellers hide the fact that they shorten your engine life through hydrogen embrittlement. Has someone solved this problem? Or am I wrong? I don't think anyone injects pure hydrogen. It's a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen. If you think about it, it is really not too different from burning hydrocarbons in air. You get oxygen and hydrogen in the flame, from decomposing hydrocarbons and air, and make water. With H2 and O2 injection you just get more water. The excess water might be a problem, but we have discussed many times here, mainly thanks to Fred Sparber, that in WWII many farmers used commercial tractors that increased gas milage through water injection. I actually saw one of those on display here in Palmer, AK recently, still in running condition. The water extracted the heat from the combustion to make steam which increased the cylinder pressure, resulting in a better power stroke and lower temperature cleaner burning and a more efficient engine, due to the fact less waste heat was ejected. This is not to say excess water can't ruin some engines, especially modern ones! It also is not to say there is any reason to believe anyone can close the loop with this. It is just to say there may be efficiencies to be gained. OT: I never knew that Andrija Puharich ever was into FE devices. But apparently he had a maverick H2-splitting theory, and in the 1970s he was driving around an RV with an onboard high-freq hydrogen generator. I think the supposedly ou electrolysis of Puharich, including the 2nd law violating aspects of Puharich, have been discussed here in the past. Here are some old posts: On Jun 7, 1999, at 11:50 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: At 2:56 AM 6/8/99, Norman Horwood wrote: Horace said: The lower the cell resistance the more that can be gained from operating at resonance if the cell is AC. You aint 'arf gettin' close to Stan Meyer!! He used stainless steel concentric tubes, and ramped, pulsed, High voltage DC in tap- water. I could never get the cell to resonate at 10kv from 100Hz up to 20KHz pulse Some comments: Then maybe resonance was outside that range? Puharich used frequencies way above that. Using 10 kv sounds insane. Does Meyer give some reason for that? You want less than a couple volts per cell, right? Electrolyser cells using solid polymer electrolytes, e.g. GE's perflourinated sulfonic acid polymer, and high temperature (1000 C) vapor cells as well, operate at less than 1 volt. Stan Meyer produced Brown's gas? Achieving resonance using 10 KV should be fairly easy at *some* natural frequency? Here's some food for thought: Rotary Spark Gap 10 kV ---o o- | | | | Cell L1 | | C2 | | | Ground --C1-- C1 and/or C2 maybe not necessary C1, C2, or L2 variable if you want to be able to tune the freq. C2 possibly useful to block DC if the 10 kV supply is DC If doing electrospark or O-M type cell, then moving the cell into series with (or replacing) the spark gap, is possibly feasible. An oscillator and step down air core transformer might be useful for HF electrolysis. And the free association on water disassociation keeps on roiling. Isn't this fun? Can't be sure any of it is right, of course! On Jun 10, 1999, at 11:38 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: At 4:55 PM 6/10/99, Norman Horwood wrote: Horace, Did you ever try reconstructing and running at that resonant frequency? Yes, but since the rebuild could not be identical I never struck the same overall conditions so couldn't replicate (how unusual, where have I heard that before? ;^) Interesting. The condition might have been one of amplitude modulation of a carrier, via acoustic feed back from your system. I earlier (wrongly) suggested that it is unlikely to find a resonance under 40 kHz, but Puharich had other thigs to say about that in US Patent 4,394,230 (1983). True this patent has been around for a while, so if there were any truth or significane to it you would have heard of
Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper
On Nov 25, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: Very few labs have the ability to even attempt to examine the correlation accurately, and the studies which have been done have error bars which I think are too large to establish the actual mechanism by which the fusion occurs. The error bars are big and I gather some theorists agree they are too big to establish the mechanism. But the data does prove the correlation. Especially Miles' dataset. Whatever those error bars are, the ratio of heat to helium is pretty close to plasma fusion, if not bang on. I mean, it is not off by a factor of a million or a billion, the way neutrons appear to be. - Jed Agreed. However, a difference of 20% or more, if way outside the error bars, could eliminate some theories and support others. I just don't think the data is good enough yet, and may never be unless much larger helium volumes are created, or some means is found to skew the branching ratios toward producing more tritium. I think there is no doubt the main ash is He4, it is just the precise ratio of MeV to 4He that I think is not nailed down precisely enough to ascertain that the excess energy from D + D - 4He is derived solely from and corresponds perfectly to 23.9 MeV per fusion. If I recall, most of the He data indicates *less* energy than that. Miles and Hollins found a correlation to excess heat. They write: For this reaction 1 W corresponds to a rate of 2.62 • 1011 4He/s. The highest excess power observed at 528 mA (0.46 W, 10/21/90-B, Table 1) would therefore produce 5.4 • 10^14 atoms of 4He in the time period required to fill the 500 ml collection flask with D2 and O2 gases (4440 s). About 10^14 atoms of 4He were detected, which is within experimental error of the theoretical amount. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf A much more thorough review is by Miles: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatioa.pdf Miles' *best* result was 1.9 x 10^ 11 He atoms per s^-1 W^-1, vs the theoretical value of 2.6 He atoms per s^-1 W^-1, which shows a deficit of 27%. I bring this up mainly because the deflation fusion model predicts a deficit from the 23.9 MeV per fusion, at least as correlated to immediate excess heat generation. It also predicts the (slim) possibility of exceeding this value for very long running experiments especially ones which occupy a large enough volume to trap hyperons that may result. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper
Harry Veeder wrote: Right. And that is a weird idea! It is axiomatic that you cannot prove something is impossible, only that it is possible. Couldn't you say the amount of excess heat proves it is impossible to be chemical in origin? I guess I should have said 'you cannot prove something does not exist, only that it exists.' Or that something can happen. Some things appear to be ruled out by fundamental physics, such as a person who can jump over tall buildings. But if you see someone do that, you would have to admit it can happen after all. And once you see it happen repeatedly, with no tricks, you cannot un-see it. Once something is firmly established nothing can disprove it. As I said in the first message, it is hypothetically possible to disprove cold fusion but you have to overthrow a large amount of established science going back hundreds of years. There are some shortcuts, such as showing that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, and that electrolysis cells can magically suck in energy from cooler surroundings, without measurably cooling things down even more. - Jed
[Vo]:OT (sort of) - New Evidence of life on Mars, soon to be revealed
Those sympathetic to the notion that life once, or possibly still, exists on Mars, take heed: Martian meteorite surrenders new secrets of possible life http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0911/24marslife/ http://tinyurl.com/yhvlq7l ALH84001,0 is back in the news. Excerpt: Sources tell Spaceflight Now that the more detailed data on magnetite crystals and carbonate discs now available largely counter a wide range of opposing theories as to why the finding should not be supported as biological in origin. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:unsubscribe
unsubscribe
Re: [Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery
Horace, 2009/11/26 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: snip Here is the original explanation, less the garbled indicator test information: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... It is the presence of the high concentration of ions in solution that makes the residual potential when the battery is disconnected. The H3O+ ions take on electrons through the wire originally releasing hydrogen at the site where the hydrogen was generated, the anode, thus making *more* hydrogen bubbles. Similarly, the OH- ions donate electrons to make H2O2 and *more* O2 at the site where O2 was generated prior. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Still looks right to me, despite the fact I remain dizzy! snip Well no, the site where the hydrogen was generated (which was the cathode BTW, not the anode, let's call it the negative electrode rather, as anode and cathode names switch sides when current direction is reverted) was surrounded by OH- ions, and the site where O2 was generated prior (which was the anode, let's call it the positive electrode from now on) was surrounded by H3O+ ions. Therefore it can't be a case of more H2 where H2 was already bubbling and more O2 where O2 was already bubbling, agreed? Michel
RE: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Michel I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But it doesn't leave room for free will either. Just this random machine's opinion ;-) Hey I found out how your brain works and it's not exactly random but maybe it is closer to incommensurable (whatever that is ;-) : http://funstuff.lefora.com/2008/09/15/random-machine-image-i-found/ ... but seriously - Free will is such a nebulous and loaded term, why waste your time? It can be defined in such a way that it clearly exists, or absolutely doesn't exist, and everything in between - including physico-mechanical(i.e. deterministic) incommensurability. IOW - It means precisely whatever you want it to mean... unless you are of the Wiki-persuasion and in the interest of PC need to let everyone put in their 2 cents worth, in 10,000 words or less (not counting the charts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will Jones Mauro Lacy wrote re: Michel Jullian's quasi-random opinion: I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But it doesn't leave room for free will either. Just this random machine's opinion ;-) You're equating randomness with incommensurability. That which at the physico-mechanical(i.e. deterministic) level eludes us as random could be (in some cases) the manifestation of higher forms of order. In fact(and to be precise) randomness could be the window of opportunity by which higher ordered phenomena can manifest in the physical world. That is: that which is not balanced and equilibrated (i.e. explained and predicted) at a merely physico-mechanical level, seeks for equilibrium and balance(and also cries for an explanation) at a higher level. Life, perception and conscience are then manifestations of the Universe's quest for closure at higher and higher levels of existence, some of which are not (not necessarily) material. Mauro
RE: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Michel I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But it doesn't leave room for free will either. Just this random machine's opinion ;-) Hey I found out how your brain works and it's not exactly random but maybe it is closer to incommensurable (whatever that is ;-) : Hi Jones, By incommensurable I mean the residual that's always present in every calculation, measurement, modelling or simulation of a physical process. More often than not, this residual has important effects in the medium/long term. When they are significant, these effects are known by the generic colloquial term of butterfly effect, and chaos theory is the science that study these phenomena and systems which manifest them from the somewhat traditional scientific approach. http://funstuff.lefora.com/2008/09/15/random-machine-image-i-found/ ... but seriously - Free will is such a nebulous and loaded term, why waste your time? It can be defined in such a way that it clearly exists, or absolutely doesn't exist, and everything in between - including physico-mechanical(i.e. deterministic) incommensurability. IOW - It means precisely whatever you want it to mean... unless you are of the Wiki-persuasion and in the interest of PC need to let everyone put in their 2 cents worth, in 10,000 words or less (not counting the charts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will Ok, I agree that free will is not precisely a well defined and simple expression, potentially meaning many things. I can give my definition of that which I was referring as free will, which may or may not coincide with one of the definitions expressed in Wikipedia: free will is a conscientiously made choice. That is, an act of free will occurs when an individual makes a choice based not (or not only) on the information that's available to him, but also on that which is dictated by his own conscience. In this sense, free will based choices supersede rational choices. That is, an individual can make an informed(or not) decision dictated by her own conscience, which seen from the rational aspect alone can appear to be irrational, uninformed, or even plain wrong. Free will also allows us to choose wrongly, that is, deliberately choosing something we know is wrong or erroneous. This definition is a little bit stringent, but has the important consequence that subconscious decisions are not acts of free will of an individual(although conscious irrational or uninformed choices are). And anyway, my original reasoning applies to all that I consider to be non-mechanical phenomena, including life and perception, not only conscience and its cousin, free will. Mauro Jones Mauro Lacy wrote re: Michel Jullian's quasi-random opinion: I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But it doesn't leave room for free will either. Just this random machine's opinion ;-) You're equating randomness with incommensurability. That which at the physico-mechanical(i.e. deterministic) level eludes us as random could be (in some cases) the manifestation of higher forms of order. In fact(and to be precise) randomness could be the window of opportunity by which higher ordered phenomena can manifest in the physical world. That is: that which is not balanced and equilibrated (i.e. explained and predicted) at a merely physico-mechanical level, seeks for equilibrium and balance(and also cries for an explanation) at a higher level. Life, perception and conscience are then manifestations of the Universe's quest for closure at higher and higher levels of existence, some of which are not (not necessarily) material. Mauro
RE: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Mauro By incommensurable I mean the residual that's always present in every calculation, measurement, modeling or simulation of a physical process. Okay - I am with you there. What you seem to be describing is the difference between true randomness and a stochastic process - which itself is a loaded term (and Wiki totally blew it, IMHO in defining 'stochastic'). In my estimation a stochastic process is NEVER a totally random process, due to what you are calling a residual - and insofar as random is the true counterpart to a deterministic process. Instead, a stochastic process means there is usually indeterminacy in its precise outcome or future evolutionary state, but probability distributions will indicate in hindsight that some outcomes can be influenced by an unknown input, possibly non-physical or inter-dimensional... unlike a random process where there is nothing but chance, and no favored distribution curve. There is a thin line there. Actually not that thin, but ... if there is something valid in nature such as what may be called the meme of Rupert Sheldrake, or a self-perpetuating information field; and personally I am certain that there is such an abstraction - then it can explain things in evolution that seem non-random but not precisely predictable either... ... like convergent evolution for instance ... which describes the acquisition of the same biological trait in totally unrelated lineages (the sabre-tooth marsupial tiger and other marsupials being strikingly identical to mammalian, except for a couple of radical hidden differences, and 20 million years of elapsed time where true randomness was NOT evident in hindsight). In terms of free will this means that when the initial condition (or starting point) is known, even if there is an infinite range of possibilities where a process of change (evolutionary process) might proceed, some paths are far more probable (in retrospect) and other paths are far less probable (randomness be damned). And this can be due to a residual influence going beyond so-called survival of the fittest. This influence may in many cases also be called an information field ... especially if one's aesthetics and other sensibilities are of a certain slant. ... and even if - it should be added, such a rationalization permits the theist enough room to scientifically justify I.D. to some large degree ! They are after all, most likely correct - if they are moderate in the scope of claims and dispense with revealed dogma stuff. All of which brings us full-circle in the ongoing Galileo (or Darwin) vs. the establishment struggle of wills. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
Mauro By incommensurable I mean the residual that's always present in every calculation, measurement, modeling or simulation of a physical process. Okay - I am with you there. What you seem to be describing is the difference between true randomness and a stochastic process - which itself is a loaded term (and Wiki totally blew it, IMHO in defining 'stochastic'). In my estimation a stochastic process is NEVER a totally random process, due to what you are calling a residual - and insofar as random is the true counterpart to a deterministic process. Instead, a stochastic process means there is usually indeterminacy in its precise outcome or future evolutionary state, but probability distributions will indicate in hindsight that some outcomes can be influenced by an unknown input, possibly non-physical or inter-dimensional... unlike a random process where there is nothing but chance, and no favored distribution curve. There is a thin line there. Actually not that thin, but ... if there is something valid in nature such as what may be called the meme of Rupert Sheldrake, or a self-perpetuating information field; and personally I am certain that there is such an abstraction - then it can explain things in evolution that seem non-random but not precisely predictable either... ... like convergent evolution for instance ... which describes the acquisition of the same biological trait in totally unrelated lineages (the sabre-tooth marsupial tiger and other marsupials being strikingly identical to mammalian, except for a couple of radical hidden differences, and 20 million years of elapsed time where true randomness was NOT evident in hindsight). In terms of free will this means that when the initial condition (or starting point) is known, even if there is an infinite range of possibilities where a process of change (evolutionary process) might proceed, some paths are far more probable (in retrospect) and other paths are far less probable (randomness be damned). And this can be due to a residual influence going beyond so-called survival of the fittest. This influence may in many cases also be called an information field ... especially if one's aesthetics and other sensibilities are of a certain slant. ... and even if - it should be added, such a rationalization permits the theist enough room to scientifically justify I.D. to some large degree ! They are after all, most likely correct - if they are moderate in the scope of claims and dispense with revealed dogma stuff. All of which brings us full-circle in the ongoing Galileo (or Darwin) vs. the establishment struggle of wills. Yes! I agree with all you said, and thanks for clearly defining the difference between stochastic and random processes. Relating revealed dogma, that's a contradiction in terms, because if something is revealed to you, it cannot be dogmatic. Dogmatic can be, nevertheless, the attempt to inculcate some personal revelations or beliefs to others. That is forever prohibited, as the revelation process must always be an individual endeavour, to be a sane and really fructify. Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Global Warming
Jeff Fink wrote: THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM 11-24-09 There is interesting news as a result of leaked e-mails. Since when are leaked emails a source of anything except noise? What reason is there for believing that a leaked email which supports the agenda of the one who reveals it is not a actually a *forged* email? Got a PGP sig proving provenance?
