Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Another indication of the use of 'selective oxidation' in Constantan by Celani can be found on slide 12 of an earlier presentation on his use of ISOTAN 44 in his demo setup: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBeXJCNXNUdEJVME0/edit?pli=1 This points again to the method describe in the Dutch patent that Celani backward cited. (see my earlier mail in this thread) On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: “Wouldn't a closed-cell nickel foam with hydrogen in the closed cells be intriguing?” I would suggest using a copper nickel foam to start out with. http://www.americanelements.com/nicufoam.html Then remove the copper from the foam with an acid bath to increase the porosity of the foam in the fashion of Celani. Cheers:Axil On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: I think I'll try both ways (AC and DC) to compare. I've been thinking about other materials too (such as tungsten/nickel wool or foam). See here: http://www.americanelements.com/tungsten-nickel-wool.html Here is some interesting info from the site on metal foam. A metallic foam or ceramic foam is a cellular structure consisting of a solid metal or ceramic material containing a large volume fraction of gas-filled pores. The pores can be sealed, closed-cell foam, or they can form an interconnected network, open-cell foam. The defining characteristic of these foams is a very high porosity, typically 75-95% of the volume consisting of void spaces. The strength of foamed material possesses a power law relationship to its density, for example a 20% dense material is more than twice as strong as a 10% dense material. Metallic foams typically retain some physical properties of their base material. Foam made from non-flammable metal will remain non-flammable and the foam is generally recyclable back to its base material. Coefficient of thermal expansion will also remain similar while thermal conductivity is likely to be reduced. Open-Cell Metal Foams. Open celled metal foams are usually replicas using open-celled polyurethane foams as a skeleton. These foams have found a wide variety of applications in heat exchangers, energy absorption, flow diffusion and lightweight optics. Extremely fine-scale open-cell foams are used as high-temperature filters in the chemical industry. Metallic foams used in compact heat exchangers increase the heat transfer at the cost of an additional pressure drop. However, their use permits the physical size of a heat exchanger to be reduced substantially, and therefore also the fabrication costs. Closed-Cell Metal Foams.Closed-cell metal foams have been developed since the 1950s, but although prototypes were available, commercial production was started only in the 1990s. Close-celled metal foams are commonly made by injecting a gas or mixing a foaming agent into molten metal. The material is then stabilized using a high temperature foaming agent (usually nano- or micrometer sized solid particles). The size of the pores, or cells, is usually 1 to 8 mm. Closed-cell metal foams are primarily used as an impact-absorbing material. Unlike many polymer foams,metal foams remain deformed after impact and can therefore only be used once. They are light, typically 10-25% of the density of the metal they are made of, which is usually aluminum, and stiff. Closed-cell foams retain the fire resistant and recycling capability of other metallic foams but add an ability to float in water. Wouldn't a closed-cell nickel foam with hydrogen in the closed cells be intriguing? On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: I read some discussions on reversing polarity doing electrolysis with contantan coins. This is actually an interesting topic. Using alloys in oxidizing mode (coin = anode = +), whole surface of the coin will oxidize. Reversing polarity (coin = cathode = -) will have an interesting effect on the oxidized alloy: - first the oxidized 'most noble' metal will be reduced by combining hydrogen en metal oxide, forming the original metal and H2O. This will create local holes in the coin's surface where 'most noble' metal clusters are present. - second: the oxidized 'least noble' metal will not as easy be re-combined to metal and water because this oxide has a stronger O-M bond and won't re-combine with H2 as easy as the 'most noble' metal in the alloy. - repeating this cycle of revering polarity will creat tiny craters in the surface of the coin's surface, leaving the most noble metal (Nickel in this case) able to absorb Hydrogen in the coin-cathode mode. This method could create the NAE's Edmund Storms is referring to. This proces of oxidation of alloys and selective oxide removal is part of a Dutch patent published in 1997 (NL1001123C2) which is cited in Francesco Celani's patent published in Feb. 2012 (WO2011016014A2) describing improving hydrogen
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
direction than the other? I didn't use any W in the copper cathode cell (only in the one with the nickels). Now here's the really curious thing. In the copper cell, the 10 ml of borax is gone. I tried to mix it in at the beginning, but it just settled back to the bottom. Some kind of chemistry was taking place. Perhaps producing boric acid? Some of it also appears to have collected in/on the anode. I'm using two small measuring glasses (150 ml capacity filled to 110 ml). Before the power supply blew after 3 1/2 hrs the copper cell hit 129.7F and the nickel cell was at 79.1. The nickel cell peaked out at 92.1 after 1 hour and slowly dropped. I think it was a current flow problem as those results for the nickel cell were not consistent with my first run. Also, for anyone trying to replicate should head the following. If you use a cooking thermometer, do not leave it in the cell while you are running the experiment. I did this with my first one, and it permanently altered the readout making it 20F too high because of some deposit on the metal that could not be removed. Jack On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.comwrote: Jack, Congratulations, your report is exactly in lines with what I saw with Ni(+) Cu(-) in my jar experiments. That was typically 100ml of H2O and a 3gm Na2B4O7 solution. Once the Ni coin breaks down just a little, in a constant voltage system, the current would jump up and the Ni coin would get hot. (Your counter electrode, should be the temp of the solution). Those quick calculations are interesting because your doing it like I did, running an open system, no recombiner, and your system has hit equilibrium. The fun part is that it will go for days like that, as long as the water is replenished. Eventually you may need to add a little more electrolyte. I know there is some complex boron chemistry going on with metal oxides forming as a result which is typical of electrolysis. What is unusual about this as far as Joule heating, or Ohmic heating, is that in a typical wire, heating occurs in a location where current is pinched where Q is proportional to I^2 R. So typically as in a Nichrome wire, it's a small diameter, and slightly higher resistance than the feeding electrodes. Here you have this really large hunk of metal (the Ni coin) and the feeding wire is smaller than the metal. It just such a large are for resistive heating. I just read your update with the Cu coin as the (+) heating more. What is your counter electrode material. Tungsten? It maybe, W is also one of those interesting H absorbing materials. W was always on the todo list though. Keep going, I'm really interested in seeing what you get. Also, could you guess as to the size of your jar dimensions and weight.A typical glass jar also has a pretty good size heat capacity. Best Regards, Chuck On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: So that's 141.7g of water. It was an open container so heat freely dissipated and I would also presume that power was also going into electrolysis in addition to heating. So, based on Arnaud's calculations, we can't rule out purely electrical heating. I'll report on the next experiment which involves a control cell using pennies instead of nickels and no thoriated tungsten. I have two identical cells that I have filled with equal amounts of borax and water and will be powering from the same supply (one has thoriated tungsten/nickels and the other with pennies/copper). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: It was 5 oz of water. I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F. On Oct 1, 2012 12:29 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: ** Find here some simple calorimetry calculations : Electrical energy given to the system : 4.33 hours @ 12 watt = 187056 J = 44677 cal To rise the temp from 55 F to 146 F, the system need 50 cal/g of water. (Assuming electrodes and recipient are negligible) Assuming no loss of heat by dissipation, the electrical energy released will rise the temperature of 44677 / 50 = 884g of water. If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another energy source (chemical or other). -- *From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com] *Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of water 120 F. Best regards, kend On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks Jed, glad to do it. Small update: 7 am Temp 55F Start 9 am Temp 110F 10 am Temp 129F 11
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
that there is another energy source (chemical or other). -- *From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com] *Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of water 120 F. Best regards, kend On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks Jed, glad to do it. Small update: 7 am Temp 55F Start 9 am Temp 110F 10 am Temp 129F 11:20 am Temp 146F Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am. I'll keep running until the temp levels off. At that point, I'll work on setting up a control cell. The water has turned brown, so I presume something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for doing this! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
I read some discussions on reversing polarity doing electrolysis with contantan coins. This is actually an interesting topic. Using alloys in oxidizing mode (coin = anode = +), whole surface of the coin will oxidize. Reversing polarity (coin = cathode = -) will have an interesting effect on the oxidized alloy: - first the oxidized 'most noble' metal will be reduced by combining hydrogen en metal oxide, forming the original metal and H2O. This will create local holes in the coin's surface where 'most noble' metal clusters are present. - second: the oxidized 'least noble' metal will not as easy be re-combined to metal and water because this oxide has a stronger O-M bond and won't re-combine with H2 as easy as the 'most noble' metal in the alloy. - repeating this cycle of revering polarity will creat tiny craters in the surface of the coin's surface, leaving the most noble metal (Nickel in this case) able to absorb Hydrogen in the coin-cathode mode. This method could create the NAE's Edmund Storms is referring to. This proces of oxidation of alloys and selective oxide removal is part of a Dutch patent published in 1997 (NL1001123C2) which is cited in Francesco Celani's patent published in Feb. 2012 (WO2011016014A2) describing improving hydrogen absorbtion of Nickel nano structures. Remember Celani is the one that demo'ed the Constantan setup.so, could this be his pre-treatment method of his Constantan wire?
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
I think I'll try both ways (AC and DC) to compare. I've been thinking about other materials too (such as tungsten/nickel wool or foam). See here: http://www.americanelements.com/tungsten-nickel-wool.html Here is some interesting info from the site on metal foam. *A metallic foam or ceramic foam* is a cellular structure consisting of a solid metal http://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html or ceramichttp://www.americanelements.com/Chloride_nitrate_etc_page.html material containing a large volume fraction of gas-filled pores. The pores can be sealed, closed-cell foam, or they can form an interconnected network, open-cell foam. The defining characteristic of these foamshttp://www.americanelements.com/AEfoams.html is a very high porosity, typically 75-95% of the volume consisting of void spaces. The strength of foamed material possesses a power law relationship to its density, for example a 20% dense material is more than twice as strong as a 10% dense material. Metallic foams typically retain some physical properties of their base material. Foam made from non-flammable metal http://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html will remain non-flammable and the foam is generally recyclable back to its base material. Coefficient of thermal expansion will also remain similar while thermal conductivity is likely to be reduced. *Open-Cell Metal Foams.* Open celled metalhttp://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html foams are usually replicas using open-celled polyurethane foams as a skeleton. These foams have found a wide variety of applications in heat exchangers, energy absorption, flow diffusion and lightweight optics. Extremely fine-scale open-cell foams are used as high-temperature filters in the chemical industry. Metallic foams used in compact heat exchangers increase the heat transfer at the cost of an additional pressure drop. However, their use permits the physical size of a heat exchanger to be reduced substantially, and therefore also the fabrication costs. *Closed-Cell Metal Foams.*Closed-cell metalhttp://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html foams have been developed since the 1950s, but although prototypes were available, commercial production was started only in the 1990s. Close-celled metal http://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html foams are commonly made by injecting a gas or mixing a foaming agent into molten metal http://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html. The material is then stabilized using a high temperature foaming agent (usually nano- or micrometer sized solid particles). The size of the pores, or cells, is usually 1 to 8 mm. Closed-cell metalhttp://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html foams are primarily used as an impact-absorbing material. Unlike many polymer foams,metal http://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html foams remain deformed after impact and can therefore only be used once. They are light, typically 10-25% of the density of the metalhttp://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html they are made of, which is usually aluminumhttp://www.americanelements.com/al.html, and stiff. Closed-cell foams retain the fire resistant and recycling capability of other metallic foams but add an ability to float in water. Wouldn't a closed-cell nickel foam with hydrogen in the closed cells be intriguing? On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: I read some discussions on reversing polarity doing electrolysis with contantan coins. This is actually an interesting topic. Using alloys in oxidizing mode (coin = anode = +), whole surface of the coin will oxidize. Reversing polarity (coin = cathode = -) will have an interesting effect on the oxidized alloy: - first the oxidized 'most noble' metal will be reduced by combining hydrogen en metal oxide, forming the original metal and H2O. This will create local holes in the coin's surface where 'most noble' metal clusters are present. - second: the oxidized 'least noble' metal will not as easy be re-combined to metal and water because this oxide has a stronger O-M bond and won't re-combine with H2 as easy as the 'most noble' metal in the alloy. - repeating this cycle of revering polarity will creat tiny craters in the surface of the coin's surface, leaving the most noble metal (Nickel in this case) able to absorb Hydrogen in the coin-cathode mode. This method could create the NAE's Edmund Storms is referring to. This proces of oxidation of alloys and selective oxide removal is part of a Dutch patent published in 1997 (NL1001123C2) which is cited in Francesco Celani's patent published in Feb. 2012 (WO2011016014A2) describing improving hydrogen absorbtion of Nickel nano structures. Remember Celani is the one that demo'ed the Constantan setup.so, could this be his pre-treatment method of his Constantan wire?
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
“Wouldn't a closed-cell nickel foam with hydrogen in the closed cells be intriguing?” I would suggest using a copper nickel foam to start out with. http://www.americanelements.com/nicufoam.html Then remove the copper from the foam with an acid bath to increase the porosity of the foam in the fashion of Celani. Cheers:Axil On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: I think I'll try both ways (AC and DC) to compare. I've been thinking about other materials too (such as tungsten/nickel wool or foam). See here: http://www.americanelements.com/tungsten-nickel-wool.html Here is some interesting info from the site on metal foam. *A metallic foam or ceramic foam* is a cellular structure consisting of a solid metal http://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html or ceramichttp://www.americanelements.com/Chloride_nitrate_etc_page.html material containing a large volume fraction of gas-filled pores. The pores can be sealed, closed-cell foam, or they can form an interconnected network, open-cell foam. The defining characteristic of these foamshttp://www.americanelements.com/AEfoams.html is a very high porosity, typically 75-95% of the volume consisting of void spaces. The strength of foamed material possesses a power law relationship to its density, for example a 20% dense material is more than twice as strong as a 10% dense material. Metallic foams typically retain some physical properties of their base material. Foam made from non-flammable metal http://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html will remain non-flammable and the foam is generally recyclable back to its base material. Coefficient of thermal expansion will also remain similar while thermal conductivity is likely to be reduced. *Open-Cell Metal Foams.* Open celled metalhttp://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html foams are usually replicas using open-celled polyurethane foams as a skeleton. These foams have found a wide variety of applications in heat exchangers, energy absorption, flow diffusion and lightweight optics. Extremely fine-scale open-cell foams are used as high-temperature filters in the chemical industry. Metallic foams used in compact heat exchangers increase the heat transfer at the cost of an additional pressure drop. However, their use permits the physical size of a heat exchanger to be reduced substantially, and therefore also the fabrication costs. *Closed-Cell Metal Foams.*Closed-cell metalhttp://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html foams have been developed since the 1950s, but although prototypes were available, commercial production was started only in the 1990s. Close-celled metal http://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html foams are commonly made by injecting a gas or mixing a foaming agent into molten metal http://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html. The material is then stabilized using a high temperature foaming agent (usually nano- or micrometer sized solid particles). The size of the pores, or cells, is usually 1 to 8 mm. Closed-cell metalhttp://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html foams are primarily used as an impact-absorbing material. Unlike many polymer foams,metal http://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html foams remain deformed after impact and can therefore only be used once. They are light, typically 10-25% of the density of the metalhttp://www.americanelements.com/AEmetals.html they are made of, which is usually aluminumhttp://www.americanelements.com/al.html, and stiff. Closed-cell foams retain the fire resistant and recycling capability of other metallic foams but add an ability to float in water. Wouldn't a closed-cell nickel foam with hydrogen in the closed cells be intriguing? On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: I read some discussions on reversing polarity doing electrolysis with contantan coins. This is actually an interesting topic. Using alloys in oxidizing mode (coin = anode = +), whole surface of the coin will oxidize. Reversing polarity (coin = cathode = -) will have an interesting effect on the oxidized alloy: - first the oxidized 'most noble' metal will be reduced by combining hydrogen en metal oxide, forming the original metal and H2O. This will create local holes in the coin's surface where 'most noble' metal clusters are present. - second: the oxidized 'least noble' metal will not as easy be re-combined to metal and water because this oxide has a stronger O-M bond and won't re-combine with H2 as easy as the 'most noble' metal in the alloy. - repeating this cycle of revering polarity will creat tiny craters in the surface of the coin's surface, leaving the most noble metal (Nickel in this case) able to absorb Hydrogen in the coin-cathode mode. This method could create the NAE's Edmund Storms is referring to. This proces of oxidation of alloys and selective oxide removal is part of a Dutch patent published in 1997
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
of chemistry was taking place. Perhaps producing boric acid? Some of it also appears to have collected in/on the anode. I'm using two small measuring glasses (150 ml capacity filled to 110 ml). Before the power supply blew after 3 1/2 hrs the copper cell hit 129.7F and the nickel cell was at 79.1. The nickel cell peaked out at 92.1 after 1 hour and slowly dropped. I think it was a current flow problem as those results for the nickel cell were not consistent with my first run. Also, for anyone trying to replicate should head the following. If you use a cooking thermometer, do not leave it in the cell while you are running the experiment. I did this with my first one, and it permanently altered the readout making it 20F too high because of some deposit on the metal that could not be removed. Jack On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Jack, Congratulations, your report is exactly in lines with what I saw with Ni(+) Cu(-) in my jar experiments. That was typically 100ml of H2O and a 3gm Na2B4O7 solution. Once the Ni coin breaks down just a little, in a constant voltage system, the current would jump up and the Ni coin would get hot. (Your counter electrode, should be the temp of the solution). Those quick calculations are interesting because your doing it like I did, running an open system, no recombiner, and your system has hit equilibrium. The fun part is that it will go for days like that, as long as the water is replenished. Eventually you may need to add a little more electrolyte. I know there is some complex boron chemistry going on with metal oxides forming as a result which is typical of electrolysis. What is unusual about this as far as Joule heating, or Ohmic heating, is that in a typical wire, heating occurs in a location where current is pinched where Q is proportional to I^2 R. So typically as in a Nichrome wire, it's a small diameter, and slightly higher resistance than the feeding electrodes. Here you have this really large hunk of metal (the Ni coin) and the feeding wire is smaller than the metal. It just such a large are for resistive heating. I just read your update with the Cu coin as the (+) heating more. What is your counter electrode material. Tungsten? It maybe, W is also one of those interesting H absorbing materials. W was always on the todo list though. Keep going, I'm really interested in seeing what you get. Also, could you guess as to the size of your jar dimensions and weight.A typical glass jar also has a pretty good size heat capacity. Best Regards, Chuck On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: So that's 141.7g of water. It was an open container so heat freely dissipated and I would also presume that power was also going into electrolysis in addition to heating. So, based on Arnaud's calculations, we can't rule out purely electrical heating. I'll report on the next experiment which involves a control cell using pennies instead of nickels and no thoriated tungsten. I have two identical cells that I have filled with equal amounts of borax and water and will be powering from the same supply (one has thoriated tungsten/nickels and the other with pennies/copper). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: It was 5 oz of water. I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F. On Oct 1, 2012 12:29 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: ** Find here some simple calorimetry calculations : Electrical energy given to the system : 4.33 hours @ 12 watt = 187056 J = 44677 cal To rise the temp from 55 F to 146 F, the system need 50 cal/g of water. (Assuming electrodes and recipient are negligible) Assuming no loss of heat by dissipation, the electrical energy released will rise the temperature of 44677 / 50 = 884g of water. If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another energy source (chemical or other). -- *From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com] *Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of water 120 F. Best regards, kend On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks Jed, glad to do it. Small update: 7 am Temp 55F Start 9 am Temp 110F 10 am Temp 129F 11:20 am Temp 146F Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am. I'll keep running until the temp levels off. At that point, I'll work on setting up a control cell. The water has turned brown, so I presume something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the exposed portion
[Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Hi All, I've been lurking and reading about Chuck's nickel/boron electrolysis experiments, and decided to try to do a replication. I had purchased some thin thoriated tungsten welding electrodes recently to see if I could replicate some of the effects seen with the Athanor reactor and thought I'd try to put the two together. So yesterday, I took 3 nickles and drilled 1/16 holes through them and attached them to one of the thoriated tungsten electrodes. I set this up as the cathode (-) and used another thoriated tungsten electrode without nickels for the anode. I ran this all night and did not see any heat production and the eletrolysis was very slow (gas bubbles seen only rarely). This morning, I modified the setup. I took a 1 1/2 piece of a thoriated tungsten electrode and put the nickels on it and submerged it in the solution of distilled water and borax. For the anode, I used a makeshift electrode that I had made for a previous experiment (nickel shavings soldered to a piece of solid copper wire). This change resulted in vigorous electrolysis. I am using a 12V DC 1 amp transformer for power. At 7am when the experiment started, the air temperature was 55 degrees and the water in my cell was 55 degrees. At 9 am, air temp was still 55 degrees, and the water temp in the cell was 110 degrees F. The top of the glass jar is open to the air, so there is significant heat loss there. Whether this is LENR or not, I don't know, but is certainly interesting and different from anything I've seen before with electrolysis. What I plan to do next is to setup a parallel control cell with all the same components utilizing table salt / distilled water as the electrolyte and to compare. Any thoughts, questions, or ideas on what to try next would be welcome. If there is interest, I'll update the group on my progress. Warm Regards, Jack
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Thanks for doing this! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Thanks Jed, glad to do it. Small update: 7 am Temp 55F Start 9 am Temp 110F 10 am Temp 129F 11:20 am Temp 146F Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am. I'll keep running until the temp levels off. At that point, I'll work on setting up a control cell. The water has turned brown, so I presume something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for doing this! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of water 120 F. Best regards, kend On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Jed, glad to do it. Small update: 7 am Temp 55F Start 9 am Temp 110F 10 am Temp 129F 11:20 am Temp 146F Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am. I'll keep running until the temp levels off. At that point, I'll work on setting up a control cell. The water has turned brown, so I presume something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for doing this! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Find here some simple calorimetry calculations : Electrical energy given to the system : 4.33 hours @ 12 watt = 187056 J = 44677 cal To rise the temp from 55 F to 146 F, the system need 50 cal/g of water. (Assuming electrodes and recipient are negligible) Assuming no loss of heat by dissipation, the electrical energy released will rise the temperature of 44677 / 50 = 884g of water. If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another energy source (chemical or other). _ From: ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com] Sent: lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of water 120 F. Best regards, kend On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Jed, glad to do it. Small update: 7 am Temp 55F Start 9 am Temp 110F 10 am Temp 129F 11:20 am Temp 146F Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am. I'll keep running until the temp levels off. At that point, I'll work on setting up a control cell. The water has turned brown, so I presume something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for doing this! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
It was 5 oz of water. I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F. On Oct 1, 2012 12:29 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: ** Find here some simple calorimetry calculations : Electrical energy given to the system : 4.33 hours @ 12 watt = 187056 J = 44677 cal To rise the temp from 55 F to 146 F, the system need 50 cal/g of water. (Assuming electrodes and recipient are negligible) Assuming no loss of heat by dissipation, the electrical energy released will rise the temperature of 44677 / 50 = 884g of water. If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another energy source (chemical or other). -- *From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com] *Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of water 120 F. Best regards, kend On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Jed, glad to do it. Small update: 7 am Temp 55F Start 9 am Temp 110F 10 am Temp 129F 11:20 am Temp 146F Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am. I'll keep running until the temp levels off. At that point, I'll work on setting up a control cell. The water has turned brown, so I presume something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for doing this! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
So that's 141.7g of water. It was an open container so heat freely dissipated and I would also presume that power was also going into electrolysis in addition to heating. So, based on Arnaud's calculations, we can't rule out purely electrical heating. I'll report on the next experiment which involves a control cell using pennies instead of nickels and no thoriated tungsten. I have two identical cells that I have filled with equal amounts of borax and water and will be powering from the same supply (one has thoriated tungsten/nickels and the other with pennies/copper). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: It was 5 oz of water. I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F. On Oct 1, 2012 12:29 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: ** Find here some simple calorimetry calculations : Electrical energy given to the system : 4.33 hours @ 12 watt = 187056 J = 44677 cal To rise the temp from 55 F to 146 F, the system need 50 cal/g of water. (Assuming electrodes and recipient are negligible) Assuming no loss of heat by dissipation, the electrical energy released will rise the temperature of 44677 / 50 = 884g of water. If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another energy source (chemical or other). -- *From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com] *Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of water 120 F. Best regards, kend On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Jed, glad to do it. Small update: 7 am Temp 55F Start 9 am Temp 110F 10 am Temp 129F 11:20 am Temp 146F Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am. I'll keep running until the temp levels off. At that point, I'll work on setting up a control cell. The water has turned brown, so I presume something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for doing this! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
DC electrolysis is inefficient at raising the temperature of an electrolyte for two obvious reasons. Water-splitting itself uses up much of the current, and when the split gases are not recombined, then that energy is completely lost; plus the split gases, apart from the energy used to split them - can also carry away an additional amount of the heat as saturated mist, which actually cools the electrolyte. You were less than 50% efficient in heating the water with DC. If there was any slight gain from Ni-H or boron, it would have been completely missed in the inefficiency. If your main goal is to raise the heat of the electrolyte - then DC is not the way to go - use AC and use wider separation of electrodes - limit bubble formation as much as possible - thus to maximize the Ohmic heat retained in the electrolyte. That way, if there is any excess heat from an anomalous source - you will at least have a chance that it can be seen. From: Jack Cole It was 5 oz of water. I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F. Arnaud Kodeck wrote: If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another energy source (chemical or other).
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Sadly more than an hour into a controlled experiment, pennies are outdoing the nickel (100.7F vs. 92.1F). So for now, this looks to be a failure to replicate on two fronts (copper not resulting in heating and superiority of nickel). I'll report again if I find something different. On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: DC electrolysis is inefficient at raising the temperature of an electrolyte for two obvious reasons. Water-splitting itself uses up much of the current, and when the split gases are not recombined, then that energy is completely lost; plus the split gases, apart from the energy used to split them - can also carry away an additional amount of the heat as saturated mist, which actually cools the electrolyte. ** ** You were less than 50% efficient in heating the water with DC. If there was any slight gain from Ni-H or boron, it would have been completely missed in the inefficiency. ** ** If your main goal is to raise the heat of the electrolyte – then DC is not the way to go - use AC and use wider separation of electrodes - limit bubble formation as much as possible – thus to maximize the Ohmic heat retained in the electrolyte. That way, if there is any excess heat from an anomalous source - you will at least have a chance that it can be seen.*** * ** ** *From:* Jack Cole ** ** It was 5 oz of water. I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F.*** * ** ** Arnaud Kodeck wrote: If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another energy source (chemical or other). ** **
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Jack, Congratulations, your report is exactly in lines with what I saw with Ni(+) Cu(-) in my jar experiments. That was typically 100ml of H2O and a 3gm Na2B4O7 solution. Once the Ni coin breaks down just a little, in a constant voltage system, the current would jump up and the Ni coin would get hot. (Your counter electrode, should be the temp of the solution). Those quick calculations are interesting because your doing it like I did, running an open system, no recombiner, and your system has hit equilibrium. The fun part is that it will go for days like that, as long as the water is replenished. Eventually you may need to add a little more electrolyte. I know there is some complex boron chemistry going on with metal oxides forming as a result which is typical of electrolysis. What is unusual about this as far as Joule heating, or Ohmic heating, is that in a typical wire, heating occurs in a location where current is pinched where Q is proportional to I^2 R. So typically as in a Nichrome wire, it's a small diameter, and slightly higher resistance than the feeding electrodes. Here you have this really large hunk of metal (the Ni coin) and the feeding wire is smaller than the metal. It just such a large are for resistive heating. I just read your update with the Cu coin as the (+) heating more. What is your counter electrode material. Tungsten? It maybe, W is also one of those interesting H absorbing materials. W was always on the todo list though. Keep going, I'm really interested in seeing what you get. Also, could you guess as to the size of your jar dimensions and weight. A typical glass jar also has a pretty good size heat capacity. Best Regards, Chuck On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: So that's 141.7g of water. It was an open container so heat freely dissipated and I would also presume that power was also going into electrolysis in addition to heating. So, based on Arnaud's calculations, we can't rule out purely electrical heating. I'll report on the next experiment which involves a control cell using pennies instead of nickels and no thoriated tungsten. I have two identical cells that I have filled with equal amounts of borax and water and will be powering from the same supply (one has thoriated tungsten/nickels and the other with pennies/copper). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: It was 5 oz of water. I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F. On Oct 1, 2012 12:29 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: ** Find here some simple calorimetry calculations : Electrical energy given to the system : 4.33 hours @ 12 watt = 187056 J = 44677 cal To rise the temp from 55 F to 146 F, the system need 50 cal/g of water. (Assuming electrodes and recipient are negligible) Assuming no loss of heat by dissipation, the electrical energy released will rise the temperature of 44677 / 50 = 884g of water. If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another energy source (chemical or other). -- *From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com] *Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of water 120 F. Best regards, kend On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Jed, glad to do it. Small update: 7 am Temp 55F Start 9 am Temp 110F 10 am Temp 129F 11:20 am Temp 146F Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am. I'll keep running until the temp levels off. At that point, I'll work on setting up a control cell. The water has turned brown, so I presume something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for doing this! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Hi Chuck, My experiment has ended for today with my power supply blowing out. I think my last test was not a good test of the nickel vs copper. I was using what looks like a chrome plated alligator type clip as the anode in both. I can see where that could have been a problem as well as I don't know what it was plated with. Also, I think it's not a good idea to use the same power supply for two cells as it seems more current may flow one direction than the other? I didn't use any W in the copper cathode cell (only in the one with the nickels). Now here's the really curious thing. In the copper cell, the 10 ml of borax is gone. I tried to mix it in at the beginning, but it just settled back to the bottom. Some kind of chemistry was taking place. Perhaps producing boric acid? Some of it also appears to have collected in/on the anode. I'm using two small measuring glasses (150 ml capacity filled to 110 ml). Before the power supply blew after 3 1/2 hrs the copper cell hit 129.7F and the nickel cell was at 79.1. The nickel cell peaked out at 92.1 after 1 hour and slowly dropped. I think it was a current flow problem as those results for the nickel cell were not consistent with my first run. Also, for anyone trying to replicate should head the following. If you use a cooking thermometer, do not leave it in the cell while you are running the experiment. I did this with my first one, and it permanently altered the readout making it 20F too high because of some deposit on the metal that could not be removed. Jack On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Jack, Congratulations, your report is exactly in lines with what I saw with Ni(+) Cu(-) in my jar experiments. That was typically 100ml of H2O and a 3gm Na2B4O7 solution. Once the Ni coin breaks down just a little, in a constant voltage system, the current would jump up and the Ni coin would get hot. (Your counter electrode, should be the temp of the solution). Those quick calculations are interesting because your doing it like I did, running an open system, no recombiner, and your system has hit equilibrium. The fun part is that it will go for days like that, as long as the water is replenished. Eventually you may need to add a little more electrolyte. I know there is some complex boron chemistry going on with metal oxides forming as a result which is typical of electrolysis. What is unusual about this as far as Joule heating, or Ohmic heating, is that in a typical wire, heating occurs in a location where current is pinched where Q is proportional to I^2 R. So typically as in a Nichrome wire, it's a small diameter, and slightly higher resistance than the feeding electrodes. Here you have this really large hunk of metal (the Ni coin) and the feeding wire is smaller than the metal. It just such a large are for resistive heating. I just read your update with the Cu coin as the (+) heating more. What is your counter electrode material. Tungsten? It maybe, W is also one of those interesting H absorbing materials. W was always on the todo list though. Keep going, I'm really interested in seeing what you get. Also, could you guess as to the size of your jar dimensions and weight. A typical glass jar also has a pretty good size heat capacity. Best Regards, Chuck On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: So that's 141.7g of water. It was an open container so heat freely dissipated and I would also presume that power was also going into electrolysis in addition to heating. So, based on Arnaud's calculations, we can't rule out purely electrical heating. I'll report on the next experiment which involves a control cell using pennies instead of nickels and no thoriated tungsten. I have two identical cells that I have filled with equal amounts of borax and water and will be powering from the same supply (one has thoriated tungsten/nickels and the other with pennies/copper). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: It was 5 oz of water. I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F. On Oct 1, 2012 12:29 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: ** Find here some simple calorimetry calculations : Electrical energy given to the system : 4.33 hours @ 12 watt = 187056 J = 44677 cal To rise the temp from 55 F to 146 F, the system need 50 cal/g of water. (Assuming electrodes and recipient are negligible) Assuming no loss of heat by dissipation, the electrical energy released will rise the temperature of 44677 / 50 = 884g of water. If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another energy source (chemical or other). -- *From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com] *Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment Very interesting, indeed
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
1 octobre 2012 19:00 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of water 120 F. Best regards, kend On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Jed, glad to do it. Small update: 7 am Temp 55F Start 9 am Temp 110F 10 am Temp 129F 11:20 am Temp 146F Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am. I'll keep running until the temp levels off. At that point, I'll work on setting up a control cell. The water has turned brown, so I presume something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for doing this! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
/ 50 = 884g of water. If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another energy source (chemical or other). -- *From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com] *Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of water 120 F. Best regards, kend On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Jed, glad to do it. Small update: 7 am Temp 55F Start 9 am Temp 110F 10 am Temp 129F 11:20 am Temp 146F Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am. I'll keep running until the temp levels off. At that point, I'll work on setting up a control cell. The water has turned brown, so I presume something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for doing this! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
that's 141.7g of water. It was an open container so heat freely dissipated and I would also presume that power was also going into electrolysis in addition to heating. So, based on Arnaud's calculations, we can't rule out purely electrical heating. I'll report on the next experiment which involves a control cell using pennies instead of nickels and no thoriated tungsten. I have two identical cells that I have filled with equal amounts of borax and water and will be powering from the same supply (one has thoriated tungsten/nickels and the other with pennies/copper). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: It was 5 oz of water. I shut it down after the temp maxed out at 158F. On Oct 1, 2012 12:29 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: ** Find here some simple calorimetry calculations : Electrical energy given to the system : 4.33 hours @ 12 watt = 187056 J = 44677 cal To rise the temp from 55 F to 146 F, the system need 50 cal/g of water. (Assuming electrodes and recipient are negligible) Assuming no loss of heat by dissipation, the electrical energy released will rise the temperature of 44677 / 50 = 884g of water. If Jack use more than 884g of water, we are sure that there is another energy source (chemical or other). -- *From:* ken deboer [mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com] *Sent:* lundi 1 octobre 2012 19:00 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment Very interesting, indeed. How much water are you using? If everything were 100% efficient, and you were inputting 12 watts/hr = ~40 btu/hr, over 3 hours you would have 120 btu, which theoretically could raise 1 pound of water 120 F. Best regards, kend On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Jed, glad to do it. Small update: 7 am Temp 55F Start 9 am Temp 110F 10 am Temp 129F 11:20 am Temp 146F Outside temp started at 55F and was at 57F at 11:20 am. I'll keep running until the temp levels off. At that point, I'll work on setting up a control cell. The water has turned brown, so I presume something is also happening with the copper (either in the nickels or the exposed portion of copper wire attaching to the electrode). On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for doing this! - Jed
