[Vo]:Re: Sapphire Energy
What is their concentrated CO2 source? Michel - Original Message - From: R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:39 AM Subject: [Vo]:Sapphire Energy Howdy Vorts, Another algae to gasoline startup venture. This one with all the bells and whistles that's possible with California venture capitalists plus some old money from Wellcome. They have more PhD'd on deck than a Dime Box saloon academic marathon. Reading the credits, I keep wondering why so many changed jobs so often, built business and sold for high dollar and are still in the game of promoting the next fad. Oh well, I'm sorta old fashion in my business thinking.. I believe a business is supposed to make a profit.. but... as the stock market demonstrates.. that's really NOT where the money is made.. the money is made by IPO whereas an initial share is offered at 20 bucks par.. climbs to 60 overnight, drops to 10 the next day and the profit is in the entertainment of watching your stock shares hoping the price will rise. With the world awash in cash.. it actually beats Vegas for thrills. Now IF they can get past the will be, can be. if and when... to.. done it. http://www.sapphireenergy.com/ Richard
Re: [Vo]:Re: Sapphire Energy
Howdy Michel, Inhale, exhale hot air, result, CO2 hot air. The concentration process takes place later during the evaluation of intellectual property for the purpose of pumping tactics like commodities brokers . Since this whole process requires a certain article of faith, one must become a believer. PhD's that have learned to use their credentials to sell ice to eskimos represent the asset base since nothing yet is coming out of the end of the pipe. Somewhere along the way IF their technology proves or simply IF it attracts attention of the people that are in the business of mass production of fuels ( oil companies), the people behind the venture rake the cream and go onto the next opportunity. There is no guarantee the true producers will pay for useful intellectual property. This only happens in Hollywood and in closed circuits like music and software. The Chinese have perfected the transfer of technology without the need to buy the rights or pay patent royalties. They simply get the firm making the product to set up a plant in China and it morphs into Chinese while destroying the original firm by competitive pricing. The insidious nature of this strategy comes out of their ancient playbooks on methods of conquering enemies. Richard Michel wrote, What is their concentrated CO2 source? Another algae to gasoline startup venture. This one with all the bells and whistles that's possible with California venture capitalists plus some old money from Wellcome. They have more PhD'd on deck than a Dime Box saloon academic marathon. Reading the credits, I keep wondering why so many changed jobs so often, built business and sold for high dollar and are still in the game of promoting the next fad. Oh well, I'm sorta old fashion in my business thinking.. I believe a business is supposed to make a profit.. but... as the stock market demonstrates.. that's really NOT where the money is made.. the money is made by IPO whereas an initial share is offered at 20 bucks par.. climbs to 60 overnight, drops to 10 the next day and the profit is in the entertainment of watching your stock shares hoping the price will rise. With the world awash in cash.. it actually beats Vegas for thrills. Now IF they can get past the will be, can be. if and when... to.. done it. http://www.sapphireenergy.com/ Richard No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1475 - Release Date: 5/30/2008 2:53 PM
[Vo]:Re: Sapphire Energy
Howdy Richard, - Original Message - From: R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Sapphire Energy Howdy Michel, Inhale, exhale hot air, result, CO2 hot air. LOL Seriously though, all these intensive algae schemes suffer the same drawback: carbon supply. Only an extensive approach will be able to draw the CO2 out of thin air, agreed? Michel
[Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?
Since I haven't read all the papers on LENR-CANR, I'm not sure if this subject has already been covered. The recent Arata demonstration confirms what I've thought for some time concerning the CF phenomenon. That is, the electrolytic version of CF has been difficult to reproduce because electrolysis is not the actual mechanism at work in producing fusion and heat. Maybe it is merely another but more difficult way of creating the same conditions that Arata presents. The well-known period of cathode loading in the CF electrolysis cells has been shown to require the formation of micro-fissures in the palladium before excess heat is produced. This makes a lot of sense because those who are familiar with the history of catalysis know that platinum and palladium are considered to be poisoned catalysts if they have been in contact with water. In other words, no hydrogen adsorption would take place if the catalyst had been poisoned with water, among other substances. So how could the deuterium adsorption take place in a palladium cathode under water? Short answer: It couldn't. The formation of the micro-fissures in the palladium surface would clearly be dependent on the stresses in the crystal structure of the metal, or perhaps its thickness, explaining the difficulty of reproducibility. It's possible that once these small cracks are formed, no water comes into contact with the walls of the fissures. This might happen for either of two reasons. Either the cracks are so small as to present a surface tension barrier and no electrolyte would penetrate them, or the continuous formation of deuterium gas directly above them prevents the electrolyte from entering them. So what we have inside the cracks is pure, freshly exposed, unpoisoned palladium, suitable for catalysis and, in this case, deuterium adsorption. What about the gas pressure? In Arata's demonstration, up to 100 atm of deuterium is introduced into the cell. How could we possibly get so much pressure into our micro-fissures? Actually, there's probably much more pressure than that at the surface of the palladium, at least for a short time each time a deuterium bubble is formed. Anyone who's done water electrolysis knows that you get hydrogen bubbles at the cathode. The gas in a bubble you can see with the naked eye is probably at not much more than atmospheric pressure. But at the micron level, it requires an enormous gas pressure to form a bubble in water. A rule of thumb is that you need about 100,000 atm to overcome the van der Waals forces trying to collapse a 1 micron bubble. This explains why you never see little bubbles under a microscope when observing protozoa, for example. So at some point during the formation of a deuterium bubble during electrolysis of heavy water, the gas pressure is very high. Inside the cracks of the palladium cathode, just below the surface, the deuterium pressure would also be very high, at least for a short time until the bubble grows larger. In effect, you now have the same conditions as the Arata device, dry palladium exposed to high pressure deuterium. This latest announcement and public demonstration by Arata bodes well for cold fusion research. I see that around the world, new interest has been aroused. It will be kind of fun to watch what the Torquemada of the American Physical Society, Robert Park, will do to demean and obfuscate Arata's rather unequivocal results. Maybe this time, h? M.
[Fwd: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?]
Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry? Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:04:24 -0600 From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Energy K. Systems To: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before you get carried away with this idea, consider that electrolytic action, under water, supplies deuterium ions to the surface at a very high activity (pressure). As a result, loading of Pd with D is much easier using this method than is any other method. In all cases, two conditions must be met. The NAE must be formed and the D concentration in the region of the NAE must be high. The electrolytic method is not often successful because the NAE does not easily form even though the D concentration is high. In the Arata method, the NAE is more easily created even though the D concentration is relatively low. Ed Nick Palmer wrote: because those who are familiar with the history of catalysis know that platinum and palladium are considered to be poisoned catalysts if they have been in contact with water. In other words, no hydrogen adsorption would take place if the catalyst had been poisoned with water, among other substances. So how could the deuterium adsorption take place in a palladium cathode under water? Short answer: It couldn't. Blimey Michael - I've never seen this mentioned before! If true, it is a *Eureka* observation - well done!!! Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?
Michael Foster wrote: Since I haven't read all the papers on LENR-CANR, I'm not sure if this subject has already been covered. The recent Arata demonstration confirms what I've thought for some time concerning the CF phenomenon. That is, the electrolytic version of CF has been difficult to reproduce because electrolysis is not the actual mechanism at work in producing fusion and heat. Maybe it is merely another but more difficult way of creating the same conditions that Arata presents. The well-known period of cathode loading in the CF electrolysis cells has been shown to require the formation of micro-fissures in the palladium before excess heat is produced. This makes a lot of sense because those who are familiar with the history of catalysis know that platinum and palladium are considered to be poisoned catalysts if they have been in contact with water. In other words, no hydrogen adsorption would take place if the catalyst had been poisoned with water, among other substances. So how could the deuterium adsorption take place in a palladium cathode under water? Short answer: It couldn't. Um ... Perhaps I've misunderstood this but I didn't think *adsorption* was all that relevant to CF. In CF the hydrogen/deuterium actually enters the Pd lattice. In adsorption, OTOH, it sticks to the surface. Quoting from Wikipedia, * *Adsorption* is a process that occurs when a gas or liquid solute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solute accumulates on the surface of a solid or a liquid (adsorbent), forming a film of molecules or atoms (the adsorbate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsorbate). * In catalysis, adsorption is very important, because the reactions actually take place on the surface of the catalyst. But in CF they take place within the mass of the Pd and whether anything is sticking to the surface or not would seem somewhat irrelevant. The nuclei which fuse in CF are actually inside the lattice, as I understand it. The H and O which react when Pt (or Pd) catalyzes a reaction, OTOH, are stuck to the surface. Water on the surface poisons the latter but it's not clear it would have any effect on the former. Boosting surface area of the catalyst by using fine particles makes an enormous difference to catalysis, because there's that much more surface area present; OTOH, though it speeds loading of D into the Pd, it's not a ticket to instant success in CF because it's not the surface area, per se, which matters.
RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?
Remember PonsFleishmann deliberately poisoned their electrolyte with carbon disulfide ( which unfortunately disables any platinum recombiner you may be using if allowed to splash up there (from experience) ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry? Michael Foster wrote: Since I haven't read all the papers on LENR-CANR, I'm not sure if this subject has already been covered. The recent Arata demonstration confirms what I've thought for some time concerning the CF phenomenon. That is, the electrolytic version of CF has been difficult to reproduce because electrolysis is not the actual mechanism at work in producing fusion and heat. Maybe it is merely another but more difficult way of creating the same conditions that Arata presents. The well-known period of cathode loading in the CF electrolysis cells has been shown to require the formation of micro-fissures in the palladium before excess heat is produced. This makes a lot of sense because those who are familiar with the history of catalysis know that platinum and palladium are considered to be poisoned catalysts if they have been in contact with water. In other words, no hydrogen adsorption would take place if the catalyst had been poisoned with water, among other substances. So how could the deuterium adsorption take place in a palladium cathode under water? Short answer: It couldn't. Um ... Perhaps I've misunderstood this but I didn't think *adsorption* was all that relevant to CF. In CF the hydrogen/deuterium actually enters the Pd lattice. In adsorption, OTOH, it sticks to the surface. Quoting from Wikipedia, * *Adsorption* is a process that occurs when a gas or liquid solute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solute accumulates on the surface of a solid or a liquid (adsorbent), forming a film of molecules or atoms (the adsorbate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsorbate). * In catalysis, adsorption is very important, because the reactions actually take place on the surface of the catalyst. But in CF they take place within the mass of the Pd and whether anything is sticking to the surface or not would seem somewhat irrelevant. The nuclei which fuse in CF are actually inside the lattice, as I understand it. The H and O which react when Pt (or Pd) catalyzes a reaction, OTOH, are stuck to the surface. Water on the surface poisons the latter but it's not clear it would have any effect on the former. Boosting surface area of the catalyst by using fine particles makes an enormous difference to catalysis, because there's that much more surface area present; OTOH, though it speeds loading of D into the Pd, it's not a ticket to instant success in CF because it's not the surface area, per se, which matters.
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?
Ed is quite right Michael, as a matter of fact the electrolytic method is so effective at pushing D into Pd that the pressure inside a hollow Pd cathode rises towards astronomical values during electrolysis, until the bottle eventually explodes, however thick its walls may be. Pressures of tens of thousands of atmospheres have been reached this way, and much higher values could be reached theoretically, as discussed in the original FP paper (they calculated 10^26 atmospheres IIRC) An analogy for this interesting phenomenon of electrolytic compression would be myriads of tiny syringes, one for each pore of the cathode surface, each pushing astronomically high pressure D into its pore. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 9:05 PM Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?] Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry? Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:04:24 -0600 From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Energy K. Systems To: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before you get carried away with this idea, consider that electrolytic action, under water, supplies deuterium ions to the surface at a very high activity (pressure). As a result, loading of Pd with D is much easier using this method than is any other method. ...
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?
Hoyt, where did you get this information? In all my reading, I have never seen where F-P added CS2 to their cell. Ed Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: Remember PonsFleishmann deliberately poisoned their electrolyte with carbon disulfide ( which unfortunately disables any platinum recombiner you may be using if allowed to splash up there (from experience) ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry? Michael Foster wrote: Since I haven't read all the papers on LENR-CANR, I'm not sure if this subject has already been covered. The recent Arata demonstration confirms what I've thought for some time concerning the CF phenomenon. That is, the electrolytic version of CF has been difficult to reproduce because electrolysis is not the actual mechanism at work in producing fusion and heat. Maybe it is merely another but more difficult way of creating the same conditions that Arata presents. The well-known period of cathode loading in the CF electrolysis cells has been shown to require the formation of micro-fissures in the palladium before excess heat is produced. This makes a lot of sense because those who are familiar with the history of catalysis know that platinum and palladium are considered to be poisoned catalysts if they have been in contact with water. In other words, no hydrogen adsorption would take place if the catalyst had been poisoned with water, among other substances. So how could the deuterium adsorption take place in a palladium cathode under water? Short answer: It couldn't. Um ... Perhaps I've misunderstood this but I didn't think *adsorption* was all that relevant to CF. In CF the hydrogen/deuterium actually enters the Pd lattice. In adsorption, OTOH, it sticks to the surface. Quoting from Wikipedia, * *Adsorption* is a process that occurs when a gas or liquid solute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solute accumulates on the surface of a solid or a liquid (adsorbent), forming a film of molecules or atoms (the adsorbate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsorbate). * In catalysis, adsorption is very important, because the reactions actually take place on the surface of the catalyst. But in CF they take place within the mass of the Pd and whether anything is sticking to the surface or not would seem somewhat irrelevant. The nuclei which fuse in CF are actually inside the lattice, as I understand it. The H and O which react when Pt (or Pd) catalyzes a reaction, OTOH, are stuck to the surface. Water on the surface poisons the latter but it's not clear it would have any effect on the former. Boosting surface area of the catalyst by using fine particles makes an enormous difference to catalysis, because there's that much more surface area present; OTOH, though it speeds loading of D into the Pd, it's not a ticket to instant success in CF because it's not the surface area, per se, which matters.
[Vo]:Strange object in soil on Mars
There is a shiny coil like object protruding from the soil that looks like a piece of shielded cable or shielded tubing. It is immediately to the right of the pad. If the coil were attached to the pad it should have been blown away from the pad by the landing rockets which uncovered the ice or rock to the right and above the coil. http://jpl.nasa.gov/news/phoenix/images.php?fileID=11004 Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?
Hi Ed, That's a tough one, I tried to duplicate their results just after they announced them, and read all I could find about their experiments. It probably came from usenet newsgroup sci.physics.fusion. If I remember the source, I'll let you know. Hoyt -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 4:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry? Hoyt, where did you get this information? In all my reading, I have never seen where F-P added CS2 to their cell. Ed Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: Remember PonsFleishmann deliberately poisoned their electrolyte with carbon disulfide ( which unfortunately disables any platinum recombiner you may be using if allowed to splash up there (from experience) ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry? Michael Foster wrote: Since I haven't read all the papers on LENR-CANR, I'm not sure if this subject has already been covered. The recent Arata demonstration confirms what I've thought for some time concerning the CF phenomenon. That is, the electrolytic version of CF has been difficult to reproduce because electrolysis is not the actual mechanism at work in producing fusion and heat. Maybe it is merely another but more difficult way of creating the same conditions that Arata presents. The well-known period of cathode loading in the CF electrolysis cells has been shown to require the formation of micro-fissures in the palladium before excess heat is produced. This makes a lot of sense because those who are familiar with the history of catalysis know that platinum and palladium are considered to be poisoned catalysts if they have been in contact with water. In other words, no hydrogen adsorption would take place if the catalyst had been poisoned with water, among other substances. So how could the deuterium adsorption take place in a palladium cathode under water? Short answer: It couldn't. Um ... Perhaps I've misunderstood this but I didn't think *adsorption* was all that relevant to CF. In CF the hydrogen/deuterium actually enters the Pd lattice. In adsorption, OTOH, it sticks to the surface. Quoting from Wikipedia, * *Adsorption* is a process that occurs when a gas or liquid solute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solute accumulates on the surface of a solid or a liquid (adsorbent), forming a film of molecules or atoms (the adsorbate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsorbate). * In catalysis, adsorption is very important, because the reactions actually take place on the surface of the catalyst. But in CF they take place within the mass of the Pd and whether anything is sticking to the surface or not would seem somewhat irrelevant. The nuclei which fuse in CF are actually inside the lattice, as I understand it. The H and O which react when Pt (or Pd) catalyzes a reaction, OTOH, are stuck to the surface. Water on the surface poisons the latter but it's not clear it would have any effect on the former. Boosting surface area of the catalyst by using fine particles makes an enormous difference to catalysis, because there's that much more surface area present; OTOH, though it speeds loading of D into the Pd, it's not a ticket to instant success in CF because it's not the surface area, per se, which matters.
[Vo]:Re: Strange object in soil on Mars
Well spotted Horace, strange indeed, here is a blown up view of the object attached. Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:35 AM Subject: [Vo]:Strange object in soil on Mars There is a shiny coil like object protruding from the soil that looks like a piece of shielded cable or shielded tubing. It is immediately to the right of the pad. If the coil were attached to the pad it should have been blown away from the pad by the landing rockets which uncovered the ice or rock to the right and above the coil. http://jpl.nasa.gov/news/phoenix/images.php?fileID=11004 attachment: MarsCoil.JPG
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?
On May 31, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: Hi Ed, That's a tough one, I tried to duplicate their results just after they announced them, and read all I could find about their experiments. It probably came from usenet newsgroup sci.physics.fusion. If I remember the source, I'll let you know. Hoyt Any chance you are thinking of pretreating the palladium with paraffin and hydrogen sulfide. This is a process Ed Storms himself seems to have used. See: http://tinyurl.com/3get6w http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.fusion/browse_frm/thread/ ffb4919c5f94090f/bfe21ee8f4e8c4c8?lnk=gstq=pons +sulfide#bfe21ee8f4e8c4c8 Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Strange object in soil on Mars
On May 31, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: Well spotted Horace, strange indeed, here is a blown up view of the object attached. Michel Thanks for the blow up. It appears to show small pattern striations that look like cat paw prints. I don't know if those are artifacts of the photography, but they look similar to patterns that develop in frozen mud here in the arctic. They are the result of sublimation of ice from frozen soil originally having a high water content. The rocket blast may have expedited that kind of sublimation. The two small round white things to the lower right look like they might be Martian blueberries, said by NASA to be hematite. All just speculation, but who could resist? inline: MarsCoil.JPG Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Strange object in soil on Mars
The caption says the images has been sharpened. Those rectilinear wormy features all over everything come from the processing. Probably just a small patch of high contrast from a rock and its shadow that got overprocessed. See if you can find the raw image for comparison with the processed one. Either that or it's one of those polar crinoids. Hey, we got 'em under the polar ice on this planet, right? - Rick
Re: [Vo]:Re: Strange object in soil on Mars
--- Horace Heffner wrote: It appears to show small pattern striations that look like cat paw prints. Yes, here is the culprit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Z4pUaJo4w
Re: [Vo]:Re: Strange object in soil on Mars
On May 31, 2008, at 7:43 PM, Jones Beene wrote: --- Horace Heffner wrote: It appears to show small pattern striations that look like cat paw prints. Yes, here is the culprit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Z4pUaJo4w Wow, that Steve really gets around! Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?
Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: Hi Ed, Michael Foster wrote: same conditions that Arata presents. The well-known period of cathode loading in the CF electrolysis cells has been shown to require the formation of micro-fissures in the palladium before excess heat is produced. This makes a lot of sense because those Getting back to the discussion that Robin and I were having about proving the existence of hydrinos and dydrinos. You run the gas through a Mills Cell and then load it into a cell like the one mentioned above. You do the same thing with unprocessed gas, and observe the difference. Now I have a second question, instead of regular electricity, you use the output of a Bedini Motor. Another idea, take the aforementioned energy and discharge it through an aqueous suspension of carbonaceous material. I think you would be well advised to try that in a blast proof hood. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
