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 Dutc
“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 f
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
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 ox
;>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
gt;>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>
;>>>> 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 ne
, Jack Cole 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"
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>>> Find here some simple calorim
; **
>>>>> 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
>>>>
ise 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 =
y 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 Sit
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,
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 -
ectrical 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 de
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]:Replica
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 rais
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 w
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 brow
Thanks for doing this!
- Jed
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
