I really did not want to get trolled into this red herring issue, but here's a brief response anyway.
At 5:38 PM 2/16/5, Jones Beene wrote: >It is the same discussion, and COE can (or nor) apply IF all >the relevant variables are known in advance. What I am >saying is that a *full energy accounting* is seldom included >in the case of certain brittle materials, where structural >strain is a "hidden" feature of the material. Ice and >clathrates are such materials. This is not wild conjecture. Of course it is. Your arguments lack either meaningful quantification or experimental proof of a useful method or device. > >I have quoted this reference a number of times. So? Your whimsical interpretation is what is in question. >For me, it >demosnatrates that Ice becomes explosive enough to create >soft x-rays when triggered by external pressure, and can be >considered many times more explosive than gasoline, pound >for pound, in certain very narrow circumstances. Producing x-rays does not mean a *subtance* is more explosive than gasoline. The problem is producing a high density of high energy events and there is no indication that can be achieved. Similar events occur when metal crystals fracture. It does not mean that metals are any more explosive than their chemical potential energy permits. >The >question is NOT is this proven by experiment, it is proven - No, no method of producing free energy is proven at all. In fact, nothing of practical use is shown that I can see. Energy concentration or focusing is not energy production. >the only question remaining is: is it engineerable for use >in energy applications. Can it happen repeatedly in a >maximized situation using a particulate of ice in an >internal combustion engine, instead of at the focus of >enormous pressures in ice floes - that is the real question. Like I said, if you feel that is true go for it. I have other things I would much rather discuss. I will soon return to ignoring highly speculative posts on this issue. > >I know of no circumstance where gasoline combustion creates >x-rays. So what? You need to figure out or experimetnally determine what energy has to go into the process, what energy is lost to inefficiencies, and what energy is delivered. I don't see any sign you are even close todoing so. This is all just wild speculation, and utterly irrelevant to the material I posted. I really do not want to discuss this because it is so whimsical and I would like prefer to spend time doing something productive. I don't have a lot of time right now. >The threshold regime for ice explosiveness is known, >and is within the range of mechanical implementation in an >internal combustion engine, but it would probably require >much more high pressure containment than ususal. See >"Explosive Ice Instability," E. G. Fateev. His interest in >this is cosmological and he does not consider terrestrial >applications. >http://www.udman.ru/sotrud/fat/Stat/432.pdf > >Abstract: "Explosive Ice Instability" E. G. Fateev >Institute of Applied Mechanics, Russian Academy of Sciences, >Received January 25, 2001; > >Explosive ice instability under strong uniaxial compression >at high pressures is observed over a wide temperature range >from 244 K down to 100 K. The corresponding dependence of >the instability critical pressure on temperature is found to >display features with minima in the regions of ice phase >transitions. It is assumed that this dependence correlates >with the corresponding temperature dependence of hydrogen >bond strength in ice. The phase transitions in ice may >result in an additional (by ~50-70%) decrease in the >mechanical stability of ice. So what? > >Regards, > >Jones > >BTW this explosive instability of another candidate material >N2O is what could already be happening when nitrous oxide is >used in race cars, as I suggested in another post. Again so what? Do you have any theoretical (quantitative) evidence or experimental evidence that N2O provides an over unity reaction? None of this strikes me as relevant to the fact that neither liquified air nor LN2 have an energy density useful for long range transport or long term storage. Sure you might be able to power some locally supplied vehicles, but the approach is relatively useless if the meaningful world supply problems are solved. Why not focus on the big problems? CF can cure that, as might hot fusion, but when? Thise things are very interesting and worthwhile (some folks think) but not expected to accomplish anthing world shaking in the near future. There is a good possibility wind, solar, and other renewable approaches can be used together to eliminate global warming, pollution and possibly even water shortages and wars, even in the next 20 years. If CF pans out, all the better, but delivery of quads of energy will undoubtedly take a while. Regards, Horace Heffner
