[Vo]:general approximation of the viability of gamma quenching
I'm learning more and more how different the worlds of quantum mechanics and high energy physics are from that of everyday experience. There's been an ongoing discussion about the viability of active gamma suppression, or the quenching of gammas, during a LENR reaction. This is an interesting question because its outcome tells us something about the kinds of reactions that are possible in light of the available experimental evidence. In this context the question of the viability the quenching of gammas under any circumstances is an important one. I'm starting to collect a number of interesting articles and links that seem to be relevant here, which I hope to put together in an email at some point. But before I do that I wanted to share this particular link, which seems promising: Automatic quenching of high energy γ-ray sources by synchrotron photons http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0701633.pdf We investigate a magnetized plasma in which injected high energy gamma rays annihilate on a soft photon field, that is provided by the synchrotron radiation of the created pairs. For a very wide range of magnetic fields, this process involves gamma-rays between 0.3GeV and 30TeV. We derive a simple dynamical system for this process, analyze its stability to runaway production of soft photons and paris [pairs], and find conditions for it to automatically quench by reaching a steady state with an optical depth to photon-photon annihilation larger than unity. We discuss applications to broad-band γ-ray emitters, in particular supermassive black holes. Automatic quenching limits the gamma-ray luminosity of these objects and predicts substantial pair loading of the jets of less active sources. Some important details here -- the gammas that are thought to be quenched are 10 to 1,000,000 times more powerful than the ones we're interested in. So even though the conditions under which the quenching is thought to happen are extreme, these ranges also provide an upper bound that is well above what we would need. It is possible that the effect cannot be seen below these energies, but perhaps it might. The authors require a magnetic field, but they suggest that the effect can be seen between 10^-9 and 10^6 G. The lower bound, 10^-9 G, is what you find in the human brain, and the upper bound, 10^6 G, is greater than but not too different from the magnetic field of a magnetic resonance imaging machine. The authors mention in passing a related paper looking at the nonlinear effects of pair production generated by ultrarelativistic protons. A recent article at phys.org discusses how laser light coherently accelerates protons in a metal foil at higher energies than previously thought. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-higher-energies-laser-accelerated-particles.html So we could potentially have ultrarelativistic protons in our optical cavity, yielding pair production. The pair production cross section in nickel also becomes non-negligible in the energy range of 1 to 30 MeV. http://imgur.com/MrE0K Eric
[Vo]:Mills : Solid State eCat ?
Ref: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html *Lucky Saint · 37 weeks ago No. Take 2 copper disks size of a penny. Put a dent in one. Mix ultrafine magnesium hydride soft iron powder and nickel powder in equalportions. Make sure ALL ball milling, preparation and procedures arestrictly inert atmosphere and dry box manipulations. Compress a portionof the mix to a small pill which fits easily into the disk indentation.Seal the chamber, welding with jeweler's tools. Place reactor in asmall beaker with water. Place on top of induction coil heating unit.Cause the water to boil from heat induced by alternating magneticfield. Once boiling, turn off the induction heater. Keep adding wateras the boiling will continue by itself for ? years. Mine is stillboiling after over 5 yeaes.* Altermate Electromagnetic or RFG pulse controll?
RE: [Vo]:general approximation of the viability of gamma quenching
Interesting find Eric, If quenching gammas with gammas (pair production) is possible at lower energy – even at the expense of a lower cross-section rate which makes it not useful for real-world shielding– then perhaps all the money which we thought was wasted on the Tokomak and ITER etc can be put to some good use. This would assume that Ni-H LENR cannot be made reliable enough for primetime. I can see from prior knee-jerk comments here, that this is a painful subject for a few strong supporters of LENR to even consider, since they want this to be a complete advocacy forum … which it almost is… but yet it has to be open to opinion of that which is realistically achievable, as a fallback position. Even when you acknowledge that LENR is real in principle, as most of us do - as a practical matter the technology may still not make it to market, due to inherent stability issues. In a dispassionate viewpoint – that is exactly the problem we could be facing. Do not forget the date of Rossi’s first demo, and all of the failed promises and outright falsehoods, in between. He is the clown of clowns. This is a new suggestion brought on by extending Eric’s recent find: Automatic quenching of high energy γ-ray sources by synchrotron photons and it is not yet well-researched by me – but is intriguing on first blush. Aside from LENR applications of gamma quenching, think about fission/fusion hybrids in a completely new light, so to speak. We realize that although lower energy gamma quenching cannot include muonic pairs, fission can occasionally do this. At over 100 MeV, muons are too heavy for pair-production from almost all photon sources except cosmic rays, but, with fast fission, muons can catalyze and perhaps be produced, since the energy yield is occasionally extreme on the Boltzmann tail of the distribution. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=255465 So one must change horses, since in this chase we are accepting gamma quenching as real, despite the lack of proof - and proceeding from there to its best implementation – which could be lower cost, safer and cleaner hot nuclear energy, with the idea that it can make a contribution even if LENR does not succeed. We all hope that the balancing act of technology advancement, does not leave hot reactions as the best choice, but forewarned is forearmed, as they say. Consider: A small subcritical, unpressurized, unshielded molten-salt breeder reactor is designed to be placed in the center axis of a modified Tokomak, which itself is below breakeven (similar to state of the art). The internal fission reactor can be a fast reactor or hybrid with low inventory and mostly thorium fueled. The tokomak can look more like a small synchrotron. It can be cooled by the same salt coolant. Gammas and neutrons from fission and fusion are mutually self reinforcing in this hybrid, so the fission can be subcritical on its own and the fusion can be below breakeven (without the gamma flux from fission, which pushes it up). Together they work robustly, but divided they fail miserably. Synergy in the extreme. In fact, a version of this general concept has been circulating for some time but, it uses a recirculating beam line, which will be completely unnecessary if active gamma shielding is real and can be incorporated: http://iopscience.iop.org/0029-5515/27/4/001;jsessionid=F7D6F34FDA33BFCA6298 EBF495E82E11.c3 This could evolve into a brilliant concept to the extent gamma quenching can be demonstrated. Note that any time you base a fission design on subcriticality, that design can be inherently clean, since the waste can always be burned in situ to achieve the subcritical criterion. That should please some of the anti-nuke crowd. You may not be aware that the fast neutrons from fusion will split non-fissile thorium in a more advantageous way than neutrons from fission split U – to provide more secondary neutrons and far more energy. Another synergy. In fact, this system might work with 90% thorium and a tiny enriched fissile core. Another synergy. Let’s hope it does not come down to a “lesser of evils” which is any hot nuclear solution, and let’s pray that LENR can be our redemption. But if not, gamma quenching might come to the rescue in a way the so-called “4th generation” fission reactor cannot (it is really a sad PR ploy by a desperate industry). And of course, hot fusion is the saddest joke of all. Jones From: Eric Walker I'm learning more and more how different the worlds of quantum mechanics and high energy physics are from that of everyday experience. There's been an ongoing discussion about the viability of active gamma suppression, or the quenching of gammas, during a LENR reaction. This is an interesting question because its outcome tells us something about the kinds of reactions that are possible in light of the available experimental evidence. In this context the
[Vo]:Cool Quantum Locking Demonstration
http://www.ted.com/talks/boaz_almog_levitates_a_superconductor.html Doncha jus' love TED? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637725/ T
Re: [Vo]:general approximation of the viability of gamma quenching
The quantum mechanical mechanism which supports this gamma suppression is entanglement. Entanglement was introduced into QM to explain how two particles that had sprung from the same original, meaning identical systems, that is to say “cloned off from the same particle” would behave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cloning Quantum cloning is the process that takes an arbitrary, unknown quantum state and makes an exact copy without altering the original state in any way. Quantum cloning of two non-identical systems is not possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_cloning_theorem Quantum cloning is forbidden by the laws of quantum mechanics as shown by the no cloning theorem Though perfect quantum cloning is not possible, it is possible to perform imperfect cloning, where the copies have a non-unit fidelity with the state being cloned. From the referenced article in this thread, particle pairs are entangled, so suppression of gamma radiation is an exercise in quantum entanglement. I take this all to mean that we cannot turn two dissimilar systems into one system through entanglement but we can get these two systems to act the same. We cannot turn two different sheets of paper into a single sheet, but we can copy the information written on the first sheet onto another sheet. Of the most interest for us, we can get protons into an entangled state using entangle phonons in a metal lattice crystal that store those protons. Entangled protons can thermalize gamma radiation. Lasers can entangle other things like electrons. Entangled electrons can thermalize gamma radiation. Particle pairs are entangled so suppression of gamma radiation is an exercise in quantum entanglement. The bottom line, entangle systems share energy among their member units; this is how high energy radiation is thermalized. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I'm learning more and more how different the worlds of quantum mechanics and high energy physics are from that of everyday experience. There's been an ongoing discussion about the viability of active gamma suppression, or the quenching of gammas, during a LENR reaction. This is an interesting question because its outcome tells us something about the kinds of reactions that are possible in light of the available experimental evidence. In this context the question of the viability the quenching of gammas under any circumstances is an important one. I'm starting to collect a number of interesting articles and links that seem to be relevant here, which I hope to put together in an email at some point. But before I do that I wanted to share this particular link, which seems promising: Automatic quenching of high energy γ-ray sources by synchrotron photons http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0701633.pdf We investigate a magnetized plasma in which injected high energy gamma rays annihilate on a soft photon field, that is provided by the synchrotron radiation of the created pairs. For a very wide range of magnetic fields, this process involves gamma-rays between 0.3GeV and 30TeV. We derive a simple dynamical system for this process, analyze its stability to runaway production of soft photons and paris [pairs], and find conditions for it to automatically quench by reaching a steady state with an optical depth to photon-photon annihilation larger than unity. We discuss applications to broad-band γ-ray emitters, in particular supermassive black holes. Automatic quenching limits the gamma-ray luminosity of these objects and predicts substantial pair loading of the jets of less active sources. Some important details here -- the gammas that are thought to be quenched are 10 to 1,000,000 times more powerful than the ones we're interested in. So even though the conditions under which the quenching is thought to happen are extreme, these ranges also provide an upper bound that is well above what we would need. It is possible that the effect cannot be seen below these energies, but perhaps it might. The authors require a magnetic field, but they suggest that the effect can be seen between 10^-9 and 10^6 G. The lower bound, 10^-9 G, is what you find in the human brain, and the upper bound, 10^6 G, is greater than but not too different from the magnetic field of a magnetic resonance imaging machine. The authors mention in passing a related paper looking at the nonlinear effects of pair production generated by ultrarelativistic protons. A recent article at phys.org discusses how laser light coherently accelerates protons in a metal foil at higher energies than previously thought. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-higher-energies-laser-accelerated-particles.html So we could potentially have ultrarelativistic protons in our optical cavity, yielding pair production. The pair production cross section in nickel also becomes non-negligible in the energy range of 1 to 30 MeV.
Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
At 11:47 PM 7/2/2012, Rich Murray wrote: SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 Coldfusionnow.org posted the following video today: 68 minutes April, 2012 Robert Duncan discusses experiments at Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance http://coldfusionnow.org/robert-duncan-discusses-experiments-at-sidney-kimmel-institute-for-nuclear-renaissance/ I've been unable to view this video, unfortunately. I view most videos on my iPhone and the presentation seems to be incompatible with my iPhone version Robert V. Duncan shows a slide from SPAWAR Navy lab (Pamela Mosier-Boss) that claims a 6 kv DC electric field from plates external to a wet conducting electrolyte has effects within the electrolyte -- but the reality in simple electrostatics is the electric field exists in the two plastic walls of the cell, between the liquid and the two external plates, i.e., a simple double capacitor setup, with no field in the conductor (electrolyte) that connects the two charged capacitors. Yes. I have the paper by Mosier-Boss, Szpak, Gordon, and Forsley, that was published in the 2008 ACS LENR Sourcebook, which refers to the effect of electric and magnetic fields on heat generation and the production of nuclear ash, as explored by earlier researchers. In those earlier reports, the experiment was gas phase, and it seems most work was with magnetic fields, plus the gas phase electric field work described involved, presumably, a low voltage field, since it was applied across the length of a Pd sheet. This paper refers to prior work examining the effect of external electric and magnetic fields on the Pd/D codeposition process. They mix up electric and magnetic field results. Technically, there is no error, at least not in the paper, since they do not state a value for the electric field, they refer only to an external electric field. However, Rich is correct. The external electric field is almost certainly not visible to the location of the alleged effect, the cell cathode. This problem is not true for external magnetic fields, which do penetrate the materials and are present. The error is in the interpretation of the effects. The primary paper is http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakStheeffecto.pdf The paper title is The effect of an external electric field on surface morphology of co-deposited Pd/D films This is a very useful piece of work. It shows that an effect may appear, when subjective judgments are involved, that does not exist, i.e., that is based on something other than the particular hand-waving involved. Can we be sure that there is no actual effect of the electric field? Well, no. However, if there is an effect, it is almost certainly not through what is discussed in the article, which seems to assume the presence of the electric field inside the cell, which is assumed to be 2500 3000 V cm-1. From other reports, the total voltage is about 6000 V. The field strength (v/cm) seems to be a value calculated from the total voltage divided by the distance between the external plates used to set up the field. However, the region of interest (the cell contents) is filled with electrolyte. Electrolytic current is flowing in the electrolyte, and the resistance of the electrolyte would be known to the experimenters, from the current and voltage involved. The current starts out at 1 mA per cm2. Bottom line, the voltage across the cathode and anode in the early phases of codeposition, by their approach, is less than 2 volts. That is an actual voltage between two points intermediate between the locations of the high voltage plates. The analytical error is quite shocking, I understand why Rich is exercised about it. For the record, it would indeed be useful if an author of the original paper were to retract the conclusions and clarify the matter of absence of the high voltage field inside the cell. As Rich points out, that voltage is almost entirely across the plastic cell walls. Because of leakage, there might be some current in the electrolyte, but I'd expect it to be in the nanoamp range, swamped by the electrolytic current and voltages. However, Rich goes on to speculate in a different direction: There may be small leakage currents through the plastic walls that short out the two capacitors, allowing unexpected currents to flow through the electrolyte, applying high voltages to many tiny locations, creating localized and evolving damage, thus generating sporatic unexpected local heat and depositing elements from all parts of the cell within these complex, scattered micro regions. Um, very highly unlikely. The plastic walls are intact, or electrolyte would leak out. They have high dielectric resistance. If this is acrylic, it's about 1/16 inch thick. Current will be very, very low. If there is leakage
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
It should be noted that in an electrolyte the current results from a chemical reaction at the anode and cathode (in this case the generation of hydrogen and oxygen) there are no free charge carriers in the solution itself. The cations and anions are bound together by electrostatic attraction and exist inside cloud quasi organized solvent molecules. Electrolyte ions do organize on the surface of electrodes to screen the electric field at low potentials (most of the voltage drop in an electrochemistry experiment happens within the first nanometer of the electrode surface). At the high fields quoted in the linked paper, I cannot imagine how the electrolyte could screen the applied field. It seems reasonable to me that an electric field could exist inside the cell, since electrolytes do not have free charges that can migrate to the surface of the dielectric. Electrolytes do not conduct electrons, they accept electrons and donate electrons. There are no charges flowing through the solution, just reactions at the electrode surface. Now I must get back to my electrodeposition experiment. Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:15:05 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; dunca...@missouri.edu; rmfor...@gmail.com From: a...@lomaxdesign.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 At 11:47 PM 7/2/2012, Rich Murray wrote: SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 Coldfusionnow.org posted the following video today: 68 minutes April, 2012 Robert Duncan discusses experiments at Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance http://coldfusionnow.org/robert-duncan-discusses-experiments-at-sidney-kimmel-institute-for-nuclear-renaissance/ I've been unable to view this video, unfortunately. I view most videos on my iPhone and the presentation seems to be incompatible with my iPhone version Robert V. Duncan shows a slide from SPAWAR Navy lab (Pamela Mosier-Boss) that claims a 6 kv DC electric field from plates external to a wet conducting electrolyte has effects within the electrolyte -- but the reality in simple electrostatics is the electric field exists in the two plastic walls of the cell, between the liquid and the two external plates, i.e., a simple double capacitor setup, with no field in the conductor (electrolyte) that connects the two charged capacitors. Yes. I have the paper by Mosier-Boss, Szpak, Gordon, and Forsley, that was published in the 2008 ACS LENR Sourcebook, which refers to the effect of electric and magnetic fields on heat generation and the production of nuclear ash, as explored by earlier researchers. In those earlier reports, the experiment was gas phase, and it seems most work was with magnetic fields, plus the gas phase electric field work described involved, presumably, a low voltage field, since it was applied across the length of a Pd sheet. This paper refers to prior work examining the effect of external electric and magnetic fields on the Pd/D codeposition process. They mix up electric and magnetic field results. Technically, there is no error, at least not in the paper, since they do not state a value for the electric field, they refer only to an external electric field. However, Rich is correct. The external electric field is almost certainly not visible to the location of the alleged effect, the cell cathode. This problem is not true for external magnetic fields, which do penetrate the materials and are present. The error is in the interpretation of the effects. The primary paper is http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakStheeffecto.pdf The paper title is The effect of an external electric field on surface morphology of co-deposited Pd/D films This is a very useful piece of work. It shows that an effect may appear, when subjective judgments are involved, that does not exist, i.e., that is based on something other than the particular hand-waving involved. Can we be sure that there is no actual effect of the electric field? Well, no. However, if there is an effect, it is almost certainly not through what is discussed in the article, which seems to assume the presence of the electric field inside the cell, which is assumed to be 2500– 3000 V cm-1. From other reports, the total voltage is about 6000 V. The field strength (v/cm) seems to be a value calculated from the total voltage divided by the distance between the external plates used to set up the field. However, the region of interest (the cell contents) is filled with electrolyte. Electrolytic current is flowing in the electrolyte, and the resistance of the electrolyte would be known to the experimenters, from the current and
Re: [Vo]:Quantum superposition.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:51:43 -0400: Hi, [snip] In this experiment, Piantelli removes one of his nickel rods from his reactor and places into in a cloud chamber. This operation must have had to take an extended period of time assuming the reactor is cooled down enough to be disassembled. This means that the release of 6 MeV of cold fusion reaction energy derived from the binding force of nickel after it is transmuted into copper of a high energy proton takes a macroscopic amount of time: taking from minutes to hours. What supports this delay? First, you need to know which particles you are actually seeing in the cloud chamber. Are they positrons or heavier particles? If the former, then these are obviously from beta decay, and a delay is to be expected (half life). If the latter (or electrons), then the delay is more likely to be due to delayed entry of the proton into the nucleus than due to delayed particle emission from the nucleus. IOW the fusion reactions themselves are delayed, not the relaxation. This is to be expected as tunneling of the proton into the nucleus is a statistical process. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: Daves Demon and Radiation Free LENR
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 1 Jul 2012 00:22:11 -0400: Hi, [snip] When heat is produced, so are transmuted elements. f/h creation would not produce transmuted elements. Please read my other post. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Quantum superposition.
Mixent states: “First, you need to know which particles you are actually seeing in the cloud chamber.” Axil quotes: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49583.html “protons of 6-7 Mev energy have been confirmed (in a cloud chamber)” Mixent states: “IOW the fusion reactions themselves are delayed, not the relaxation. This is to be expected as tunneling of the proton into the nucleus is a statistical process.” Axil states: If the nickel bar is cold enough to handle: to put into a cloud chamber, the assumption is that the reaction has stopped and that the only thing going on is the relaxation process after the reaction has terminated. In other words, the presence of heat implies that the reaction is on-going. The lack of heat implies that the reaction has stopped. Of course, this cold condition of the bar is an assumption because no details of how the reactor was disassembled and the cloud chamber was loaded are given. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:51:43 -0400: Hi, [snip] In this experiment, Piantelli removes one of his nickel rods from his reactor and places into in a cloud chamber. This operation must have had to take an extended period of time assuming the reactor is cooled down enough to be disassembled. This means that the release of 6 MeV of cold fusion reaction energy derived from the binding force of nickel after it is transmuted into copper of a high energy proton takes a macroscopic amount of time: taking from minutes to hours. What supports this delay? First, you need to know which particles you are actually seeing in the cloud chamber. Are they positrons or heavier particles? If the former, then these are obviously from beta decay, and a delay is to be expected (half life). If the latter (or electrons), then the delay is more likely to be due to delayed entry of the proton into the nucleus than due to delayed particle emission from the nucleus. IOW the fusion reactions themselves are delayed, not the relaxation. This is to be expected as tunneling of the proton into the nucleus is a statistical process. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
At 03:44 PM 7/3/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote: It should be noted that in an electrolyte the current results from a chemical reaction at the anode and cathode (in this case the generation of hydrogen and oxygen) there are no free charge carriers in the solution itself. The cations and anions are bound together by electrostatic attraction and exist inside cloud quasi organized solvent molecules. Electrolyte ions do organize on the surface of electrodes to screen the electric field at low potentials (most of the voltage drop in an electrochemistry experiment happens within the first nanometer of the electrode surface). At the high fields quoted in the linked paper, I cannot imagine how the electrolyte could screen the applied field. It seems reasonable to me that an electric field could exist inside the cell, since electrolytes do not have free charges that can migrate to the surface of the dielectric. Electrolytes do not conduct electrons, they accept electrons and donate electrons. There are no charges flowing through the solution, just reactions at the electrode surface. Now I must get back to my electrodeposition experiment. An ounce of experiment is worth a pound of theory. Or even a ton. Now, I'd love to be wrong here. However, I remain unconvinced, and obviously so does Rich. The objection is an obvious one, so one might think there would be a definitive answer somewhere. I see, however, that Mr. MacNab may have confused himself with his own knowledge. The situation has nothing to do with free charges that can migrate to the surface of anything. The mode of conduction is irrelevant. An electric field *does* exist in the cell. It is complex, and varies from location to location. If the statement about the first nanometer is true, we could be looking at a field strength there of more than 10^7 V/cm. Much higher than the field from the high voltage supply. But just for a nanometer. Here is the problem. Electric fields are measured relative to some potential. There is only one electric field at any given location. How do we know what the electric field is at a location? Well, we can use a voltage probe. That won't tell us the field, we will need to use two probes for that, which will give us the potential difference between the two locations. We can use a bridge to measure potential difference without any need for current to flow through the probe, complicating things. So if we stick two probes into the electrolyte, on either side of the cell, when we have this 6 KV sitting across the cell, what voltage will we need to place across the probes, so that the current through them is zero? In the electrochemical cell, I'll predict this. The voltage will be very low, probably less even than the voltage between the anode and cathode, if Mr. MacNab's statement about the voltage drop is true (and I have no reason to doubt it). Imagine, though, that it would instead be thousands of volts. This is at zero current. But thousands of volts across two probes -- electrodes -- in a conductive electrolyte? If you had the available current, the thing would blow up! (In fact, here, the high voltage power supply is from a TV set, there is only low available current.) So the voltage across the probes would be very low, perhaps millivolts. If the probes were in contact with the cathode and anode, respectively, it might be a few volts, whatever the electrolysis voltage is. There is no screening of the field. There is just the shorting of a portion of the field, by the electrolyte. The current from the HV supply is very low, it might be picoamps. [I estimate it below] If we plot the field with a series of measurements, we'd find that there is about 3 KV across a cell wall, about 1/16 inch thick. Acrylic plastic, probably. Then there is a very low voltage across the electrolyte. then there would be another 3 KV across the opposite wall, giving us a total drop across the cell of 6 KV. The cell wall is about 1.6 mm thick, and with 3 KV across it -- which could easily be measured -- that's 19 KV/cm. Looking for the electrical properties of acrylic, I found that it has a bulk resistance of 1.6 X 10^16 ohm-cm . We might be looking at about 16 cm^2 for each plate. I get on the order of 1.6 x 10^14 ohms per piece of acryclic. Current for 3 KV would be about 5 x 10^10 amps, or 500 pA. That is the leakage current through the acrylic. Breakdown voltage for acrylic is 17 KV/mm. That's probably a minimum guarantee. 170 KV/cm. Actual breakdown would not normally occur until substantially higher voltage. (I've tested actual breakdown voltage, it was, under the situations I was testing, over double the specification or more.) If the acrylic does break down, all bets are off. The current though the acrylic would go way up, but the supply, though, won't supply much current. The current from the electrolysis supply will probably still be greater. I.e.,
Re: [Vo]:Cool Quantum Locking Demonstration
Very cool indeed. I have been saying for years that quantum locking holds the electrons in the stationary quantum states of the atoms. Vibration at a dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters per second releases the electrons from these states. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 3, 2012 2:01 pm Subject: [Vo]:Cool Quantum Locking Demonstration http://www.ted.com/talks/boaz_almog_levitates_a_superconductor.html Doncha jus' love TED? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637725/ T
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
As far as Finlay's statement that There are no charges flowing through the solution. I would qualify it by saying that there are no electrons flowing thru the solution, but for a simple electrolyte such as NaCl, the NaCl dissociates into Na+1 and Cl-1 ions in solution and they *are* influenced by the E-flds within the electrolyte. I have done considerable RF/microwave measurements of the electrical properties of electrolytic solutions in our noninvasive glucose technology, and there most certainly is an E-fld present, but again, this is an AC system, not DC. -mark From: Finlay MacNab [mailto:finlaymac...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 1:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 It should be noted that in an electrolyte the current results from a chemical reaction at the anode and cathode (in this case the generation of hydrogen and oxygen) there are no free charge carriers in the solution itself. The cations and anions are bound together by electrostatic attraction and exist inside cloud quasi organized solvent molecules. Electrolyte ions do organize on the surface of electrodes to screen the electric field at low potentials (most of the voltage drop in an electrochemistry experiment happens within the first nanometer of the electrode surface). At the high fields quoted in the linked paper, I cannot imagine how the electrolyte could screen the applied field. It seems reasonable to me that an electric field could exist inside the cell, since electrolytes do not have free charges that can migrate to the surface of the dielectric. Electrolytes do not conduct electrons, they accept electrons and donate electrons. There are no charges flowing through the solution, just reactions at the electrode surface. Now I must get back to my electrodeposition experiment.
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
A quick web-search verifies that E-fields most assuredly CAN exist in conductive electrolytes. for both DC and AC conditions. Electric fields in an electrolyte solution near a strip of fixed potential http://jcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpsa6/v123/i13/p134705_s1 Excerpt from Abstract: Electrostatic fields produced by flat electrodes are often used to manipulate particles in solution. To study the field produced by such an electrode, we consider the problem of an infinite strip of width 2a with imposed constant potential immersed in an electrolyte solution. Influence of electrolyte composition on the effective electric field strength in capillary zone electrophoresis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8529611 and this one: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/259274/1/PhysRevE_III.pdf I was going to include some piccys, but even though black-n-white, they were too large. There was one figure which shows the visual manifestations photographed from the experiments, with the theoretical model of the E-flds (on the right). It was very clear that fields were present in the electrolyte, as one could see the manifestations of the field-lines in the photographs taken of the area above the electrodes. Electrolyte concentrations varied from 0.02 to 0.08M KCl. I believe LENR typically uses 0.1M, so just slightly more conductive than this reference. Now, this experiment was done using AC, 100Hz to 1 Hz. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
To clarify: An electrolyte does not conduct. Chemical reactions occur at the electrodes that accept and give up electrons. Current flows through the metal conductors between the anode and cathode. When I say that the voltage drop occurs withing around 1nm of the electrode (the debye length), that is only the case for low voltage experiments on the order of the red-ox potentials for a given electrochemical reaction. At 6kV this would not necessarily be true. Because the ions in the electrolyte of much much lower mobility than electrons in a metal conductor they may not be able to effectively screen the high applied fields, especially if the solution is being mixed (a quick search of the literature did not yield a relevant example at high field) . If the fields were oscillating, the E field would definitely be felt within the electrolyte (this is what I would have done). When you say: The situation has nothing to do with free charges that can migrate to the surface of anything. The mode of conduction is irrelevant. I fail to understand what you mean. The only reason that the field inside the electrolyte can be zero is if charge carriers migrate to the surface of the cell to screen the bulk of the electrolyte from the externally applied field. I don't believe your example of probing the electrolyte with two probes and a bridge is relevant to this experiment, since the external electrodes are not in contact with the electrolyte, no chemical reaction can take place, and so no current can flow, the field can only be screened by the build up of charged ions at the cell walls. Maybe you can explain it in a way i can understand. What would happen if you had two metal plates separated by an air gap, then you applied a 6kv bias between them, and then put your two probes into the air gap? Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 19:13:40 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@lomaxdesign.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 At 03:44 PM 7/3/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote: It should be noted that in an electrolyte the current results from a chemical reaction at the anode and cathode (in this case the generation of hydrogen and oxygen) there are no free charge carriers in the solution itself. The cations and anions are bound together by electrostatic attraction and exist inside cloud quasi organized solvent molecules. Electrolyte ions do organize on the surface of electrodes to screen the electric field at low potentials (most of the voltage drop in an electrochemistry experiment happens within the first nanometer of the electrode surface). At the high fields quoted in the linked paper, I cannot imagine how the electrolyte could screen the applied field. It seems reasonable to me that an electric field could exist inside the cell, since electrolytes do not have free charges that can migrate to the surface of the dielectric. Electrolytes do not conduct electrons, they accept electrons and donate electrons. There are no charges flowing through the solution, just reactions at the electrode surface. Now I must get back to my electrodeposition experiment. An ounce of experiment is worth a pound of theory. Or even a ton. Now, I'd love to be wrong here. However, I remain unconvinced, and obviously so does Rich. The objection is an obvious one, so one might think there would be a definitive answer somewhere. I see, however, that Mr. MacNab may have confused himself with his own knowledge. The situation has nothing to do with free charges that can migrate to the surface of anything. The mode of conduction is irrelevant. An electric field *does* exist in the cell. It is complex, and varies from location to location. If the statement about the first nanometer is true, we could be looking at a field strength there of more than 10^7 V/cm. Much higher than the field from the high voltage supply. But just for a nanometer. Here is the problem. Electric fields are measured relative to some potential. There is only one electric field at any given location. How do we know what the electric field is at a location? Well, we can use a voltage probe. That won't tell us the field, we will need to use two probes for that, which will give us the potential difference between the two locations. We can use a bridge to measure potential difference without any need for current to flow through the probe, complicating things. So if we stick two probes into the electrolyte, on either side of the cell, when we have this 6 KV sitting across the cell, what voltage will we need to place across the probes, so that the current through them is zero? In the electrochemical cell, I'll predict this. The voltage will be very low, probably less even than the voltage
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
Hey Mark, Very interesting links (although I dont have full access to the second one). From: zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 17:26:13 -0700 A quick web-search verifies that E-fields most assuredly CAN exist in conductive electrolytes… for both DC and AC conditions. Electric fields in an electrolyte solution near a strip of fixed potential http://jcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpsa6/v123/i13/p134705_s1 Excerpt from Abstract:“Electrostatic fields produced by flat electrodes are often used to manipulate particles in solution. To study the field produced by such an electrode, we consider the problem of an infinite strip of width 2a with imposed constant potential immersed in an electrolyte solution.” Influence of electrolyte composition on the effective electric field strength in capillary zone electrophoresis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8529611 and this one:http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/259274/1/PhysRevE_III.pdf I was going to include some piccys, but even though black-n-white, they were too large. There was one figure which shows the visual manifestations photographed from the experiments, with the theoretical model of the E-flds (on the right). It was very clear that fields were present in the electrolyte, as one could see the manifestations of the field-lines in the photographs taken of the area above the electrodes. Electrolyte concentrations varied from 0.02 to 0.08M KCl. I believe LENR typically uses 0.1M, so just slightly more conductive than this reference. Now, this experiment was done using AC, 100Hz to 1 Hz. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
At 07:26 PM 7/3/2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: There was one figure which shows the visual manifestations photographed from the experiments, with the theoretical model of the E-flds (on the right). It was very clear that fields were present in the electrolyte, as one could see the manifestations of the field-lines in the photographs taken of the area above the electrodes. Electrolyte concentrations varied from 0.02 to 0.08M KCl. I believe LENR typically uses 0.1M, so just slightly more conductive than this reference. Now, this experiment was done using AC, 100Hz to 1 Hz. First of all, the work being criticized uses a DC field. AC is considerably more complicated. AC will, for example, effectively pass right through the acrylic wall. If this was 6000 V AC, at 10,000 Hz, and if it actually had some available current, the thing would blow up! Secondly, there is no question that electric fields exist in the electrolyte. But not fields of a few thousand volts per cm, produced by the external field. The external DC field has, essentially, no effect on the fields in the electrolyte, which are, in this experiment, produced entirely by the electrolytic voltage.
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
At 08:02 PM 7/3/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote: To clarify: An electrolyte does not conduct. Chemical reactions occur at the electrodes that accept and give up electrons. Current flows through the metal conductors between the anode and cathode. An electrolyte does conduct. That is, there is movement of charge. That is all that conduction means. Finlay, you are not being careful. I suggest you try it. When I say that the voltage drop occurs withing around 1nm of the electrode (the debye length), that is only the case for low voltage experiments on the order of the red-ox potentials for a given electrochemical reaction. Sure. The experiment is a low voltage experiment, by the way. The palladium deposition in this work is often done below the potential at which heavy water will evolve deuterium at the cathode. At 6kV this would not necessarily be true. You aren't kidding. The thing would explode if somehow you maintained 6 KV across the cell. Because the ions in the electrolyte of much much lower mobility than electrons in a metal conductor they may not be able to effectively screen the high applied fields, especially if the solution is being mixed (a quick search of the literature did not yield a relevant example at high field) . If the fields were oscillating, the E field would definitely be felt within the electrolyte (this is what I would have done). Well, there is work with oscillating fields, but they are oscillating the electrolytic current. You seem to have a concept of an electric field that is different from how such fields are understood by electronic engineers and physicists. You ask a question below that is actually quite easy to answer. When you say: The situation has nothing to do with free charges that can migrate to the surface of anything. The mode of conduction is irrelevant. There is no surface here, not that is defined. There is a conductive medium, it has a certain resistance. Current flows through it when there is a potential across it (actually such electrolytes can also generate potentials, I won't go there.). Ohms law is obeyed. I fail to understand what you mean. The only reason that the field inside the electrolyte can be zero is if charge carriers migrate to the surface of the cell to screen the bulk of the electrolyte from the externally applied field. No, any region of low potential screens the field. You are making it much more complicated than it is. Imagine a line between the two high-voltage plates. Imagine an equipotential region inside the electrolyte, parallel to the plate, the line crosses that region. Let's assume, to keep this simple, that the equipotential region is larger than the high voltage plate. How can the high voltage on the other side of this equipoential region affect *any* region beyond the equipotential region? This is DC, remember. There is a very high voltage drop across the acrylic, about 3 KV. That's a done deal! The voltage doesn't then rise up! I don't believe your example of probing the electrolyte with two probes and a bridge is relevant to this experiment, since the external electrodes are not in contact with the electrolyte, no chemical reaction can take place, and so no current can flow, the field can only be screened by the build up of charged ions at the cell walls. This is how to measure voltage! Because no charge movement is involved, the whole issue about charge carriers is irrelevant. That's why a bridge is used, in fact. In practice, what is needed is a very sensitive current meter, which is zeroed out by applying the reference voltage and adjusting it until the current is zero. A bridge here just means that current is measured, and the experimental voltage is measured by opposing it with a known voltage, such that no current flows in the circuit. Maybe you can explain it in a way i can understand. Sure, I hope. What would happen if you had two metal plates separated by an air gap, then you applied a 6kv bias between them, and then put your two probes into the air gap? Air conducts electricity. If the air conducts uniformly, the resistance of the air will be even and the voltage will uniformly decline, linearly, between the plates. The bridge will measure the voltage accordingly. In the subject example, there are three regions between the plates. Two regions are filled with acrylic, which has very high resistance, higher than air, if I'm correct. And then there is the electrolyte, which has relatively low resistance. The voltage gradient is directly proportional to the current times the resistance per unit length. That's simply another version of Ohm's law. In an elecric circuit, we do not need to know what voltages are present elsewhere in the circuit to know the relationship between current, voltage, and resistance, in one leg of the circuit. Electric field strength is just another name for voltage gradient.
Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
Here are my two cents from reading up on dielectrics: With the 6000 V capacitor isolated from the electrolyte by the plastic, the electrolyte acts as a dielectric which reduces the E field in the electrolyte almost to zero in the middle but increases the the capacitance of the capacitor. If there is zero ionic current then I assume there has to be zero E field in the center of the electrolyte. As soon as the 6000 V is applied, there is a momentary current in the electrolyte and a polarization of the dielectric electrolyte. After that there is zero current assuming the plastic is an infinite insulator. So the positive ends of the water molecules are facing the negative plate of the capacitor and the negative ends of the water molecules are facing the positive plate of the capacitor. Initially, positive ions travel towards the negative plate and vice versa. But as the positive ions build up near the negative plate, they start to repel any newly arriving positive ions and therefore there must be an increasing positive ion concentration with decreasing distance from the negative plate at steady state. I'm not an electrochemist so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or not quite correct. you can see some details on dielectrics here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dielec.html http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/becker/physics51/capacitors.htm I assume the water molecules nearest the electrodes feel the strongest orientating E field compared to the center of the electrolyte. I'm in the process of trying to replicate Randell Mills electricity generating CIHT device which has a Lithium Bromide, Lithium Hydride electrolyte. Somehow Mills is creating electricity during the production of hydrinos. Should have it up and running in 2 months. Details here: http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620 Jeff On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 07:26 PM 7/3/2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: There was one figure which shows the visual manifestations photographed from the experiments, with the theoretical model of the E-flds (on the right). It was very clear that fields were present in the electrolyte, as one could see the manifestations of the field-lines in the photographs taken of the area above the electrodes. Electrolyte concentrations varied from 0.02 to 0.08M KCl. I believe LENR typically uses 0.1M, so just slightly more conductive than this reference. Now, this experiment was done using AC, 100Hz to 1 Hz. First of all, the work being criticized uses a DC field. AC is considerably more complicated. AC will, for example, effectively pass right through the acrylic wall. If this was 6000 V AC, at 10,000 Hz, and if it actually had some available current, the thing would blow up! Secondly, there is no question that electric fields exist in the electrolyte. But not fields of a few thousand volts per cm, produced by the external field. The external DC field has, essentially, no effect on the fields in the electrolyte, which are, in this experiment, produced entirely by the electrolytic voltage.
Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
At 11:47 PM 7/2/2012, Rich Murray wrote: Robert V. Duncan shows a slide from SPAWAR Navy lab (Pamela Mosier-Boss) that claims a 6 kv DC electric field from plates external to a wet conducting electrolyte has effects within the electrolyte -- but the reality in simple electrostatics is the electric field exists in the two plastic walls of the cell, between the liquid and the two external plates, i.e., a simple double capacitor setup, with no field in the conductor (electrolyte) that connects the two charged capacitors. A writer interpreted no field in the conductor (elecrolyte) to literally mean no field. Here, it means no significant voltage gradient. There will be such a gradient in any conductor with non-zero resistance and any current flowing. However, the point here is that the voltage gradient set up *by the external field* will be tiny, almost certainly undetectable, not the kilovolts per cm that was claimed in the SPAWAR paper. A field of kilovolts per cm, if maintained across a significant distance in an electrolyte such as used in the SPAWAR experiments, would result in extremely high currents, it would create a plasma.
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
I think your assessment is spot on Jeff. The only question in my mind is whether or not the mixing of the electrolyte caused by the evolution of gas at the working electrode might generate a varying electric field by redistributing the ions in solution. Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 23:17:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 From: hcarb...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Here are my two cents from reading up on dielectrics: With the 6000 V capacitor isolated from the electrolyte by the plastic, the electrolyte acts as a dielectric which reduces the E field in the electrolyte almost to zero in the middle but increases the the capacitance of the capacitor. If there is zero ionic current then I assume there has to be zero E field in the center of the electrolyte. As soon as the 6000 V is applied, there is a momentary current in the electrolyte and a polarization of the dielectric electrolyte. After that there is zero current assuming the plastic is an infinite insulator. So the positive ends of the water molecules are facing the negative plate of the capacitor and the negative ends of the water molecules are facing the positive plate of the capacitor. Initially, positive ions travel towards the negative plate and vice versa. But as the positive ions build up near the negative plate, they start to repel any newly arriving positive ions and therefore there must be an increasing positive ion concentration with decreasing distance from the negative plate at steady state. I'm not an electrochemist so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or not quite correct. you can see some details on dielectrics here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dielec.html http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/becker/physics51/capacitors.htm I assume the water molecules nearest the electrodes feel the strongest orientating E field compared to the center of the electrolyte. I'm in the process of trying to replicate Randell Mills electricity generating CIHT device which has a Lithium Bromide, Lithium Hydride electrolyte. Somehow Mills is creating electricity during the production of hydrinos. Should have it up and running in 2 months. Details here: http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620 Jeff On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 07:26 PM 7/3/2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: There was one figure which shows the visual manifestations photographed from the experiments, with the theoretical model of the E-flds (on the right). It was very clear that fields were present in the electrolyte, as one could see the manifestations of the field-lines in the photographs taken of the area above the electrodes. Electrolyte concentrations varied from 0.02 to 0.08M KCl. I believe LENR typically uses 0.1M, so just slightly more conductive than this reference. Now, this experiment was done using AC, 100Hz to 1 Hz. First of all, the work being criticized uses a DC field. AC is considerably more complicated. AC will, for example, effectively pass right through the acrylic wall. If this was 6000 V AC, at 10,000 Hz, and if it actually had some available current, the thing would blow up! Secondly, there is no question that electric fields exist in the electrolyte. But not fields of a few thousand volts per cm, produced by the external field. The external DC field has, essentially, no effect on the fields in the electrolyte, which are, in this experiment, produced entirely by the electrolytic voltage.
Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
At 10:17 PM 7/3/2012, Jeff Driscoll wrote: Here are my two cents from reading up on dielectrics: With the 6000 V capacitor isolated from the electrolyte by the plastic, the electrolyte acts as a dielectric which reduces the E field in the electrolyte almost to zero in the middle but increases the the capacitance of the capacitor. Arrggh. A dielectric is an insulator. The electrolyte is not an insulator. This system is like two capacitors with a common plate. The two dielectrics are the two cell walls. The common plate is the electrolyte in the cell. There are then two outer metal plates. If there is zero ionic current then I assume there has to be zero E field in the center of the electrolyte. There is significant ionic current from the electrolytic current generated by the cell power supply. There is very little current through the cell walls. There is not zero ionic current. There are two currents here, the electrolytic current from the normal operation of the electrolytic cell, it's on the order of 1 mA maybe up to 500 mA. There is a current in addition to this, from the high voltage supply, based on the leakage through the acrylic, I estimated at about 0.5 nA. That is less than a million times smaller. Undetectable under the experimental conditions. As soon as the 6000 V is applied, there is a momentary current in the electrolyte and a polarization of the dielectric electrolyte. After that there is zero current assuming the plastic is an infinite insulator. That is correct. This is why I mentioned DC. When the voltage changes, current will flow until the dielectric becomes polarized. Basically, current will appear to flow through a capacitor until the capacitor is charged. What is happening is that charge is building up on the plates. There need not be any actual current flowing *through* the capacitor, but the effect is as if there were. So the positive ends of the water molecules are facing the negative plate of the capacitor and the negative ends of the water molecules are facing the positive plate of the capacitor. This has confused the electrolyte with the dielectric, i.e., the plastic. Immediately next to the acrylic, there would be some level of polarization of the water. But the field strength within the water would only be tiny, far less than full polarization would represent. The water, in this cell, is essentially at ground potential. And that's interesting in itself. Is the HV supply isolated, floating, or is it 6 KV with respect to ground? If the latter, then there is no voltage across one cell wall, and 6 KV across the other. It really doesn't make any difference. There is no discernable electric field inside the cell, within the electrolyte, from the external high-voltage field. Maybe it's homeopathic.
Re: [Vo]:Quantum superposition.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 3 Jul 2012 18:36:55 -0400: Hi, [snip] Mixent states: IOW the fusion reactions themselves are delayed, not the relaxation. This is to be expected as tunneling of the proton into the nucleus is a statistical process. Axil states: If the nickel bar is cold enough to handle: to put into a cloud chamber, the assumption is that the reaction has stopped and that the only thing going on is the relaxation process after the reaction has terminated. In other words, the presence of heat implies that the reaction is on-going. The lack of heat implies that the reaction has stopped. Of course, this cold condition of the bar is an assumption because no details of how the reactor was disassembled and the cloud chamber was loaded are given. Indeed. A cloud chamber is a very sensitive instrument. A single particle leaves a track. In order to generate sensible heat you need billions of reactions per second. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
Sorry, I fail to see why the voltage drop is 3kv across the acrylic layer. Why is that exactly? Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:49:25 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@lomaxdesign.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claimsof effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 At 08:02 PM 7/3/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote: To clarify: An electrolyte does not conduct. Chemical reactions occur at the electrodes that accept and give up electrons. Current flows through the metal conductors between the anode and cathode. An electrolyte does conduct. That is, there is movement of charge. That is all that conduction means. Finlay, you are not being careful. I suggest you try it. When I say that the voltage drop occurs withing around 1nm of the electrode (the debye length), that is only the case for low voltage experiments on the order of the red-ox potentials for a given electrochemical reaction. Sure. The experiment is a low voltage experiment, by the way. The palladium deposition in this work is often done below the potential at which heavy water will evolve deuterium at the cathode. At 6kV this would not necessarily be true. You aren't kidding. The thing would explode if somehow you maintained 6 KV across the cell. Because the ions in the electrolyte of much much lower mobility than electrons in a metal conductor they may not be able to effectively screen the high applied fields, especially if the solution is being mixed (a quick search of the literature did not yield a relevant example at high field) . If the fields were oscillating, the E field would definitely be felt within the electrolyte (this is what I would have done). Well, there is work with oscillating fields, but they are oscillating the electrolytic current. You seem to have a concept of an electric field that is different from how such fields are understood by electronic engineers and physicists. You ask a question below that is actually quite easy to answer. When you say: The situation has nothing to do with free charges that can migrate to the surface of anything. The mode of conduction is irrelevant. There is no surface here, not that is defined. There is a conductive medium, it has a certain resistance. Current flows through it when there is a potential across it (actually such electrolytes can also generate potentials, I won't go there.). Ohms law is obeyed. I fail to understand what you mean. The only reason that the field inside the electrolyte can be zero is if charge carriers migrate to the surface of the cell to screen the bulk of the electrolyte from the externally applied field. No, any region of low potential screens the field. You are making it much more complicated than it is. Imagine a line between the two high-voltage plates. Imagine an equipotential region inside the electrolyte, parallel to the plate, the line crosses that region. Let's assume, to keep this simple, that the equipotential region is larger than the high voltage plate. How can the high voltage on the other side of this equipoential region affect *any* region beyond the equipotential region? This is DC, remember. There is a very high voltage drop across the acrylic, about 3 KV. That's a done deal! The voltage doesn't then rise up! I don't believe your example of probing the electrolyte with two probes and a bridge is relevant to this experiment, since the external electrodes are not in contact with the electrolyte, no chemical reaction can take place, and so no current can flow, the field can only be screened by the build up of charged ions at the cell walls. This is how to measure voltage! Because no charge movement is involved, the whole issue about charge carriers is irrelevant. That's why a bridge is used, in fact. In practice, what is needed is a very sensitive current meter, which is zeroed out by applying the reference voltage and adjusting it until the current is zero. A bridge here just means that current is measured, and the experimental voltage is measured by opposing it with a known voltage, such that no current flows in the circuit. Maybe you can explain it in a way i can understand. Sure, I hope. What would happen if you had two metal plates separated by an air gap, then you applied a 6kv bias between them, and then put your two probes into the air gap? Air conducts electricity. If the air conducts uniformly, the resistance of the air will be even and the voltage will uniformly decline, linearly, between the plates. The bridge will measure the voltage accordingly. In the subject example, there are three regions between the plates. Two regions are filled with acrylic, which has very high resistance, higher than air, if I'm correct. And
Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
I'm glad to see my post has ignited a local hot spot in Vortex-L... Lomax: Um, very highly unlikely. The plastic walls are intact, or electrolyte would leak out. They have high dielectric resistance. If this is acrylic, it's about 1/16 inch thick. Current will be very, very low. If there is leakage current, the current will create a voltage drop. It will not create sporadic local heat. Basically, that field does nothing. If Rich wants to assert that it does something, well, that kind of contradicts his thesis, eh? Murray: that's a pretty thin film of plastic to put 6 kv on -- local radioactivity and cosmic rays will leave subtle ionized paths across the plastic, without making tunnels that could leak the electrolyte, while then the high voltages would tend to penetrate these paths and increase the local ionization, always finding and expanding paths until routes evolve right across the film -- very thin, complex routes with all kinds of weird chemistry and physics as the 6 kv potential is brought to bear on micro and nano size structures within the walls -- still without creating routes wide enough for liquids to flow through -- so the vision becomes available for a multitude of strange processes, constantly evolving and varying as time marches on, creating anomalies -- there need to be research on whether micro and nano currents are indeed flowing along the surfaces and within the conductors and electrolyte inside these small cells -- and whether they are creating chaotic corrosion on the micro and nano scales, releasing complex chemicals and gases into the electrolyte... Look at Widom-Larsen descriptions of water tree breakdown in 40 kv high voltage DC power cables with centimeters of high density polyethylene insulation over weeks and months of exposure to the voltage, reported by Japanese scientists to show anomalous elements... By sporadic local heat I am talking about micro and and nano regions, where a nanoamp of current backed by by 6 KV can exert huge transient forces in a small place, enough to vaporize Pd... Add to that, Pd fully loaded with H or D, and consider that the reaction of 2 H with 1 O that hits the rough Pd surface will create enough energy in the nano size molecule size region to separate a Pd atom from the Pd lattice, i.e. vaporization... chemical energy thus is easily able to provide the energy to vaporise 10 micron size craters in Pd -- it would just take a 10 micron size bubble of O2 -- Bubbles this small do not float the way larger bubbles do -- being so tiny, they experience Browning motion, random jitters from random kinetic impacts from the hot electrolyte molecules, mostly H2O -- they will, however, respond to electric potentials on all scales from cm to micro cm -- so, what is the actual distribution of nano and micro bubbles of H2 and O2 and other gases after a few days of this chaotic electrochemical commotion, corroding all surfaces in contact with the electrolyte -- perhaps with bits of dust falling in from lab air, adding perhaps catalytic elements right up to uranium -- Such 10 micron bubbles would be so small that the chemical detonation wave would be single pass, reaching the whole bubble so fast that the bubble would not have time to pop off the local vaporizing Pd surface (which releases the adsorbed H right in proximity with the combustion shock wave of the O2 bubble), so that the entire explosion would be like a shaped charge stuck to the Pd -- in fact the spherical or hemispherical symmetry would tend to make a fierce, high density, central jet aimed straight at the Pd surface, uh, maybe -- so, maybe, no need to invoke nuclear nano explosions -- Murray's Law: nothing is as complex and devious as an apparently simple electrolysis experiment...
Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
MacNap: It should be noted that in an electrolyte the current results from a chemical reaction at the anode and cathode (in this case the generation of hydrogen and oxygen) there are no free charge carriers in the solution itself. The cations and anions are bound together by electrostatic attraction and exist inside cloud quasi organized solvent molecules. Electrolyte ions do organize on the surface of electrodes to screen the electric field at low potentials (most of the voltage drop in an electrochemistry experiment happens within the first nanometer of the electrode surface). At the high fields quoted in the linked paper, I cannot imagine how the electrolyte could screen the applied field. It seems reasonable to me that an electric field could exist inside the cell, since electrolytes do not have free charges that can migrate to the surface of the dielectric. Electrolytes do not conduct electrons, they accept electrons and donate electrons. There are no charges flowing through the solution, just reactions at the electrode surface. Murray: It only takes a very tiny percentage of charges, positive and negative to separate from the electrolyte onto the two opposite plastic cell walls to balance the 6 kv external electric field. That's a factoid I recall from 1960 freshman chemistry at MIT. Once micro and nano wide channels of breakdown within the 1 mm plastic walls, with 6 kv external metal plates outside the cells, evolve to actually cross the walls, then sporatic micro and nano electric currents will start to do complex things in tiny places on the surfaces and within the electrolyte within the cell -- the conducting channels in the walls may shut themselves down by melting the plastic on the micro and nano scale, invisible to the eye -- resulting in sporatic bursts of events.
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
Here's a good PDF for the static dielectric constants of electrolytes. http://downloads.olisystems.com/ResourceCD/MixedSolventElectrolytes/Dielectr ic.pdf ABD wrote: A 'dielectric' is an insulator. The electrolyte is not an insulator. This system is like two capacitors with a common plate. The two dielectrics are the two cell walls. The common plate is the electrolyte in the cell. There are then two outer metal plates. I disagree. Pure water is an *excellent* dielectric/insulator, and adding ions only makes it a LEAKY capacitor. (I remember someone telling me that the coolant used in the early Cray's was *pure* water; and did not Tesla use water-filled jugs for capacitors?). To precisely describe any dielectric, one has to consider both the energy storage aspect as well as the conductivity (resistive) aspect! To be precise, the electrolyte used in LENR experiments *is* a leaky/lossy capacitor. From wikipedia's entry on relative permittivity: Lossy medium ... relative permittivity for lossy materials can be formulated as (equation may not copy): in terms of a dielectric conductivity σ (units S/m, siemens per meter), which sums over all the dissipative effects of the material; it may represent an actual [electrical] conductivity caused by migrating charge carriers and it may also refer to an energy loss associated with the dispersion of ε' [the real-valued permittivity]. The sigma variable in the above equation is the conductivity (S/m) resulting from the mobile ions, and represents a *RESISTIVE* property to the salt solution. The dielectric constant or 'energy storage' part due to the water molecules is still present. -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 9:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 At 10:17 PM 7/3/2012, Jeff Driscoll wrote: Here are my two cents from reading up on dielectrics: With the 6000 V capacitor isolated from the electrolyte by the plastic, the electrolyte acts as a dielectric which reduces the E field in the electrolyte almost to zero in the middle but increases the the capacitance of the capacitor. Arrggh. A dielectric is an insulator. The electrolyte is not an insulator. This system is like two capacitors with a common plate. The two dielectrics are the two cell walls. The common plate is the electrolyte in the cell. There are then two outer metal plates. If there is zero ionic current then I assume there has to be zero E field in the center of the electrolyte. There is significant ionic current from the electrolytic current generated by the cell power supply. There is very little current through the cell walls. There is not zero ionic current. There are two currents here, the electrolytic current from the normal operation of the electrolytic cell, it's on the order of 1 mA maybe up to 500 mA. There is a current in addition to this, from the high voltage supply, based on the leakage through the acrylic, I estimated at about 0.5 nA. That is less than a million times smaller. Undetectable under the experimental conditions. As soon as the 6000 V is applied, there is a momentary current in the electrolyte and a polarization of the dielectric electrolyte. After that there is zero current assuming the plastic is an infinite insulator. That is correct. This is why I mentioned DC. When the voltage changes, current will flow until the dielectric becomes polarized. Basically, current will appear to flow through a capacitor until the capacitor is charged. What is happening is that charge is building up on the plates. There need not be any actual current flowing *through* the capacitor, but the effect is as if there were. So the positive ends of the water molecules are facing the negative plate of the capacitor and the negative ends of the water molecules are facing the positive plate of the capacitor. This has confused the electrolyte with the dielectric, i.e., the plastic. Immediately next to the acrylic, there would be some level of polarization of the water. But the field strength within the water would only be tiny, far less than full polarization would represent. The water, in this cell, is essentially at ground potential. And that's interesting in itself. Is the HV supply isolated, floating, or is it 6 KV with respect to ground? If the latter, then there is no voltage across one cell wall, and 6 KV across the other. It really doesn't make any difference. There is no discernable electric field inside the cell, within the electrolyte, from the external high-voltage field. Maybe it's homeopathic. image001.png
[Vo]:Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL)
Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL) http://phys.org/news172341986.html In December 2011, Lowes will begin carrying a new cathodoluminescence or Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL) R30 light bulb by Vu1 Corporation. The flood light is expected to retail for $14.98. Cold cathode technology has come to the foreground with the discovery of carbon nanotubes – nature’s ideal cathode technology. ESL technology works by firing electrons at phosphor, which then glows. As Vu1 explains, the technology is similar to that used in cathode ray tubes and TVs. However, the bulbs have several improvements, such as in uniform electron distribution, energy efficiency, phosphor performance and manufacturing costs. “CRT and TV technology is based on delivering an electron ‘beam’ and then turning pixels on and off very quickly,” the company explains on its website. “ESL technology is based on uniformly delivering a ’spray’ of electrons that illuminate a large surface very energy efficiently over a long lifetime.” From the time, carbon nanotubes have been discovered; cold cathode technology has come to the forefront, which the company wants to utilize for attaining better efficiency, highly accurate turn on times, simpler electronics and lower cost. I am very lazy, why reinvent the wheel when all the work has already been done for us. It is a pain in the butt to build our own nanotubes for our cold fusion reactor. It might be possible to repurpose an existing device to do what we want. At $15 it won’t cost us much to try. The cold cathode technology uses a nanotube based electron emitter to stimulate a phosphorous screen. We might be able replace the phosphorous screen with a thin layer of nickel nano-powder. Then use this nanotube based cold cathode to push electrons onto nickel nano powder that is enclosed in a high pressure hydrogen envelope. This is the kind of thing NASA (and maybe the Navy?) is doing on their chip. Some info I looked at as follows: http://www.google.com/patents?id=JPX3AQAAEBAJpg=PA1dq=Drawings+8,035,293hl=ensa=Xei=fdXzT_ytH6Xi0gHCudzFBgved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepageq=Drawings%208%2C035%2C293f=false http://lighting.com/vu1-moves-forward/ Cheers: Axil
