At 10:14 AM 2/28/5, Edmund Storms wrote: >Horace, I would like to inject a little chemistry here, because if the >energy claimed is real, the claims are amazing. > >First, when SbCl3 reacts with water, it forms SbO+, H+ and Cl-. Upon >electrolysis, the SbO+ deposits on the cathode where it is reduced to Sb >metal by reacting with the hydrogen activity generated there. No Cl- is >expected to be present in this deposit. Even if some SbCl2+ were to >deposit, it would be quickly reduced to Sb metal by reaction with >hydrogen. So, where does the claimed SbCl3 come from? > >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.
Unfortunately this appears to be true. The 19600 cal/g may be a bit high. See other post I just made in response to Robin van Spaandonk (second response to his post.) > >So we have two anomalies, the presence of Cl and too much energy. Does >anyone care to speculate that the Cl results from fission of Sb? > >Regards, >Ed No need to speculate. Check the article: <http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/Fluorine/Sb.html> which indicates that 4 to 12 percent of the allotropic deposit is in chloride form. It further seems to indicate that this small percent is the only source of the trihallide upon explosion. Apparently not all the SbO+ is reduced when the allotrope is deposited. The importance of this to the authors of the above ref. and: <http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/Fluorine/exant.html> seems to be in regards to the toxicity of the small percent of halides released by the explosion and not their signifcance in the energy production. Regards, Horace Heffner
