Re: [Vo]:Century old electrochemistry law gets and update.
This article brought to mind the Stanley Meyer lore from many years ago. That may sound like an odd connection. It is the double layer connection ,,, Although deceased for several decades, Meyer was a contentious figure in so called "water fuel" electrolysis, with a cult-like following even today. (mostly in Florida :-) The niche water-fuel field is still active, believe it or not, despite lack of commercial devices -- yet If there was any magic to Meyers design it probably related to optimizing the double layer - which is not all that well understood today. Note: Meyer's close electrode spacing and low salt, etc. and massive gas flow. Yet I'm skeptical of most of it - but will admit seeing results from Fast Freddy's Meyer cell which were great (but less than what would be needed to match his claims)... and so it is no surprise that many considered Stan to be well...either a martyr or somewhat less than honest. Yup. A persistent theme in alternative energy remains egoist inventors who find something interesting but can't take it further on their own. Apologies for the rant .
Re: [Vo]:Century old electrochemistry law gets and update.
I'm getting a 404 error on that link Try this one https://phys.org/news/2022-01-century-old-electrochemistry-law.html On Monday, January 24, 2022, 02:00:55 PM PST, CB Sites wrote: Phys.org has a nice snippet on the Gouy-Chapman theory that describes how charge is distributed in electrolysis, but now 40-50 years later they found that the description isn't really correct. They found that the double layer could be bigger or smaller than expected and it has dependencies on the size of the ion molecule and the electrode materials which can affect the electrochemistry of some reactions. It's a nice little read at https://phys.org/2022-01-century-old-electrochemistry-law.amp .
[Vo]:Century old electrochemistry law gets and update.
Phys.org has a nice snippet on the Gouy-Chapman theory that describes how charge is distributed in electrolysis, but now 40-50 years later they found that the description isn't really correct. They found that the double layer could be bigger or smaller than expected and it has dependencies on the size of the ion molecule and the electrode materials which can affect the electrochemistry of some reactions. It's a nice little read at https://phys.org/2022-01-century-old-electrochemistry-law.amp .
Re: [Vo]:A simpler test
Don't forget to give us the result of your experiment if you do it. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 9:06 PM, MSF wrote: > Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the acquisition > and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this test. The double > parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved or disproved > cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a radiative heat > sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other focus. At least > that's my opinion of it. > > The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling > radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: > > > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling > > > > radiation. > > > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > > > at the vertex of the cone. > > > > See diagram: > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing > > > > If cooling radiation does not exist then the temperature of the > > > > thermometer should be about the same or perhaps slightly warmer when > > > > the cone is above it. > > > > However, if cooling radiation is real and has wave-like properties > > > > then the cone should focus the cooling radiation from the sky onto the > > > > thermometer and lower its temperature. > > > > Harry
Re: [Vo]:A simpler test
Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the acquisition and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this test. The double parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved or disproved cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a radiative heat sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other focus. At least that's my opinion of it. The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV wrote: > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling > > radiation. > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > at the vertex of the cone. > > See diagram: > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing > > If cooling radiation does not exist then the temperature of the > > thermometer should be about the same or perhaps slightly warmer when > > the cone is above it. > > However, if cooling radiation is real and has wave-like properties > > then the cone should focus the cooling radiation from the sky onto the > > thermometer and lower its temperature. > > Harry
[Vo]:Fleischmann obituary by D. Williams
Here is an obituary of Martin Fleischmann by D. Williams: https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/martin-fleischmann-1927-2012/5401.article Some of this is pleasing. It reminds me of what McKubre and others said about Martin. Unfortunately, the parts about cold fusion are nonsense. Either Williams has not read the literature or he is lying. This is the kind of document I would prefer not to upload to LENR-CANR.org. If the author asked me to upload it, I would. Or if someone here asked me to. But I would prefer not to spread misinformation. People can find misinformation everywhere on the Internet so I see no reason to add to it. This presentation from ARPA-E is another example of misinformation: https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021LENR_workshop_Greco.pdf I thought about uploading it but I decided not to. The description of the 2004 DOE report is interesting but technically wrong. The author wrote: - Not clear that excess power is produced when integrated over experiment lifetime - All possible chemical and solid-state causes have not been investigated and eliminated - Excess power is a few percent of external power; hence calibration and systematic effects may be responsible Wrong, wrong, wrong. The author invented these problems. I do not think the panel cited anything like this. None of the panel members opposed to cold fusion raised any technically valid objection. All of their objections were elementary violations of the scientific method. If they had been high school students I would have given them failing grades. See: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJresponsest.pdf Also, the panel was about evenly divided. 6 in favor, 9 opposed, 2 abstentions (p. 41).
[Vo]:A simpler test
>From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling radiation. It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located at the vertex of the cone. See diagram: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing If cooling radiation does not exist then the temperature of the thermometer should be about the same or perhaps slightly warmer when the cone is above it. However, if cooling radiation is real and has wave-like properties then the cone should focus the cooling radiation from the sky onto the thermometer and lower its temperature. Harry
