At 07:08 am 01-03-05 -0800, you wrote: >Robin van Spaandonk writes, > >>> If the claimed energy is actually 19600 cal/g, this is >equal to 19600*121.76 = 2.38 x 10^6 cal/mole, which is too >much to be real. > >>1) Maybe ballotechnic reactions (chemical reactions that >occur on inner shell electrons). > >> It is about 103 eV / atom of Sb, which is indeed much more >than one would get from any normal chemical reaction, but >lies quite neatly in the "Mills ball park". > > >However, antimony appears to be explosive without the >necessity of hydrogen being present and it does not appear >that Sb hydrides very well. > >Nor does the explosiveness require either an oxidation or >reduction chemical reaction, presumably. If a halide is >required for the polymorphic instability, then the net >result of having it there is not for its oxidation potential >as it is already bound, and even if not, the explosion >release about 58 times energy than burning Antimony in >Chlorine, if those old numbers could be trusted. Are we >assuming that is where the problem lies? Old numbers which >have not been replicated at least not publicly, even though >they should have been? Perhaps something else is going on, >as you will see at the end of this post. > >If the numbers could be trusted and this phase change >(allotrope or polymorph) only works with a halide, then >there are some inferences that can be made from a closer >look at the electron structure. "Web Elements" >http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Sb/econ.html >has really improved their visualization capability with the >addition of the Orbitron, but it requires some applets to be >added to your browser. > >The shell structure (51 electrons) is 2.8.18.18.5 but as you >can see from the visualizations this leaves some outer >orbital electrons with more energy than some inner orbitals, >not that unusual but perhaps that is how you get this >unusual phase change where the density of the element can >change so rapidly between the allotropes (or polymorphs). >Perhaps the density shift in allotropes has the effect of >being exactly resonant with a 4th shell electron being >absent and this one is bound at ~103 eV or whatever. who >knows? It has to be more than just the density change >itself, because in the element tin, Sn, the allotrope change >is much more severe, yet tin is not known to be explosive, >is it? > >The point is, from limited modern data available to us, we >do suspect that Sb is explosive without the necessity of >either an oxidation or reduction chemical reaction. It would >be nice to know if the explosiveness benefits from LN >tempering, and why else would they do it? The explosiveness >is not chemical per se, but it does involve the electron >configuration. Hence we should call it supra-chemical or >ballotechnic. Hasn't most of this research been classified? >Why else would there be little of current interest on the >internet? I suspect that if ballotechnic reactions are real, >then they are classified. See what happens when you try to >get this document about so-called "shock induced chemical >reactions": >http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=437696 > >BTW good evidence does turn up in expense reports, which may >have slipped through the cracks that someone is paying for >R&D in this field, especially to one Yasuyuki Horie, >Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering, NCSU: > >Horie, Y. Modeling of Shock-Induced Chemical Reactions in >Powder Mixtures, US Navy > >Horie, Y. Interactions of Shock Waves with Materials Having >Engineered Reactive Microstructures, US Army Research Office > >Horie, Y. Modeling of Ballotechnic Material Response, Sandia >National Laboratories > >Horie, Y. Modeling of Shock-Induced Inorganic Chemical >Reactions, Georgia Institute of Technology > >Horie, Y. Modeling of Ballotechnic Reactions in Powder >Mixtures, Aluminum Company of America > >Hmm... The DoE and DoD say this class of reaction does not >exist, yet they keep funding the research, and denying LENR >but not funding it .... very strange, and just one more >reason why the lack of high level support for LENR research >may have some of its rationale in cold-war holdover fear, no >called terrorism fear. > >Perhaps they know a lot more about LENR then we think they >do.... > >Jones
Not knowing what "ballotechnic" meant exactly, I googled it and the first thing I came across was this. ================================================================= http://chemistry.about.com/cs/chemicalweapons/f/blredmercury.htm Personally, I find it plausible that mercury antimony oxide, as a low density (nonradioactive?) powder, may be of interest as a ballotechnic material. The high-density material seems unlikely. It would also seem unreasonably dangerous (to the maker) to use a ballotechnic material in a fusion device. One intriguing source mentions a liquid explosive, HgSbO, made by Du Pont laboratories and listed in the international chemical register as number 20720-76-7. Anyone care to look it up? ================================================================= I'm interested to see that Sb is mentioned in this article too. Cheers Frank Grimer I hope the MIB are monitoring all this. I wouldn't like to think that ragheads are discussing these things as freely as we are. ;-)
