[Vo]:Electrochemical compression and craters (was Re: Shanahan...)
2010/5/10 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Michel, Can you cite the reference for this kind of bursting tube, due to internal pressurization, having being actually performed? Some electrolytic compressor literature: 1/ Arata - Method of producing ultrahigh pressure gas (US pat. 5647970, 1997, based on a JP patent filed in 1994): http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5647970.html FIG. 2 shows the pressure PH2 in atm produced in a metallic container made of palladium and having a 2 cm outer diameter x 5 cm and a 1.5 cm inner diameter x 4 cm when an electrolytic current of 10 A is passed. As shown, at 100 hours, a pressure of about 200 atm was produced. In 500 hours, an ultrahigh pressure of about 1000 atm will be produced. 2 - Celani et al ELECTROCHEMICAL COMPRESSION OF HYDROGEN INSIDE A PD-AG THIN WALL TUBE, BY ALCOHOL-WATER ELECTROLYTE (JCF7 invited paper, Apr 2006): http://www.lnf.infn.it/sis/preprint/detail.php?id=4994 We reached a maximum value of pressure inside the hollow cathode of about 8.5atm (absolute 9.5). The maximum value of 8.5atm was imposed by the mechanical strength limit of the 50μm wall of the tube. Talking about this bursting hollow cathode phenomenon, it just occurred to me that it may well be responsible for the microscopic post-electrolysis craters which have been observed: in the course of long electrolysis runs hydrogen pressure builds up in sub surface voids until their thinnest wall bursts inescapably. Craters may thus not be evidence for LENRs occurring some distance below the surface, contrary to what Horace suggested in a recent post (CC-ing him). Michel
FW: [Vo]:NASA: David Adair\'s \'Quasi-Fusion:\' ?Cold, Warm, Hot?
Frank Point taken: Other than bone-jarringly poor editing(stream of consciousness nearly 'autistic' focus of mine), the basic premise is that the classic atomic model(s) need revision. And the revision lends (I believe) a profoundly altered (and I see as 'accurate') perspective on chemical /or nuclear reactions. It's the 'Proton is a Balanced Gray-Hole Micro-Singularity Model.' The(my) revision is that (all)Protons are micro-singurities as creating a circulating flux electro-valent shell gradiated system. Hydrogen's electro-valent shell= ONE QUANTUM ELECTRON and as QUANTUM-ELECTRON levels per added outer SHELL layers are added etc. the addition of 'Quantum electron electro-plasma' follows classic chemistry empiricle models. But the notion of 'electrons' as small globes of electro-plasma orbiting Protons is error. The atomic system more resembles in microcosm our Planets Electro-magnetic-core flux flow circulating into the outer geo-magnetic-flux quasi-atmospheric 'shell.' For simplicity sake, Hydrogen is just the easiest basic model to work with and so makes certain points that virtually 'all' inter-elemental-chemical reactions need 'first' to have the total-energy enviroment amplified electro-plasmically in which the Protons as singularities balanced gray-status systems become stimulated by 'quasi-catalytic' induction and become thereby DIALATED allowing the reaction(whether chemical /or fusion) promoted by 'more'(much more a la' fusion) inflowing parallel-space-Aexoplasma from the center of the dialated Proton singularity centers. Still word salad? Blame it on my incipient dislexia.~:-) Jack Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 12:44:49 -0400 From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com Subject: [Vo]:NASA: David Adair\'s \'Quasi-Fusion:\' ?Cold, Warm, Hot? To: alset9te...@hotmail.com CC: Jack, I try to understand your posts and almost think I follow you for 2 or 3 paragraphs before it just turns into a word salad. You obviously have some Insights but could you please dumb it down a little for those of us still trying to catch up with the pack. Regards Fran _ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
[Vo]:Sun In a Bottle
I have just finished reading ‘Sun in a Bottle’ by Charles Seife. He was not very kind to the hot fusion people, the cold fusion people, or the sonafusion people. I would say that he has no imagination and needs to read my work. In his cold fusion review he never mentions the work of Miley, McKubry, or any of the collection at Jed Rothwell’s site. He beats it up with comments about Tom Valone’s conferences on future energy. I spoke at the first conference of future energy and there was a lot of good there. There was also a lot a bad like the Geet engine ( the operation of which smelled the whole place up ) and presentations that stated the velocity of gravitational disturbances were superluminal. So cold fusion was beat up on the basis of this company. I saw it all rejected the bad stuff and learned from the good. It showed, at least to me, a way forward. We shall see how all of this shakes out. Science is about truth, and the truth will emerge. I hope this happens within my lifetime. Frank Znidarsic
