Developing the ...water into wine... theme, I had recourse to one
of Beene's old posts and was impressed by how prescient it was.
Bits like, for instance.
=====================================================
Now, consider the implications of "Dry Ice Blasting."
Dry ice blasting is similar to sand blasting, but
solid carbon dioxide (CO2) is accelerated in a
pressurized air stream to impact a surface. One
unique aspect of using dry ice particles is that
the particles sublimate (vaporize) upon impact with
the surface. The gas expands to eight hundred times
the volume of the solid in a few milliseconds in what
is effectively a "micro-explosion" at the point of
impact. This is not evidence of OU or ZPE coherence.
It is mentioned only because
it points towards the proven methodology of
converting small amounts of heat into larger amounts
of usable energy - even at extremely low overall
temperatures. And when you substitute *water-ice*
micro-spheres for dry ice, you get an expansion
ratio that is 25% greater (i.e. 1000:1 rather than
800:1, PLUS a much higher critical pressure - over
3 times higher)
=====================================================
I think the problem is probably easier than it looks once one
has changed the concepts one is using.
I believe that in years to come people will be amazed that it
took so long to use the power of ice. I suppose is an analogous
situation to the use of steam as a motive power. All very
obvious to us know because we have the appropriate concepts to
understand what is going on - but in the early days the whole
thing must have been very mysterious, even to the inventors.
The power of ice is so obvious and so universal - it splits rocks
heaves roads, breaks plumbing, sinks Titanics, heaps up glacial
moraines, carries erratic blocks [not to be confused with erotic
blacks as our geology lecturer would remind us ;-) ] far across
the countryside. And yet, no one has yet put it to good use, with
the commendable exception of that farmer (I must try and re find
the URL).
The conceptual changes needed are:-
[1]. The inversion of the concept of temperature and the
recognition that we are dealing with a external pressure.
[2]. The recognition that (as the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia
of Physics first showed me) two different gasses at
temperature T, say, are not at the same temperature,
but at equilibrium temperatures.
[3]. The corollary of [2] that the gasses are not at the
same Beta-atmosphere pressure but at equilibrium
pressures (stresses).
[4]. That we are dealing with strain energies under the
alias of "pressure" and that, most importantly, we
are dealing with balancing
TENSION & COMPRESSION STRAIN ENERGIES.
Because I am an engineer I am very conscious of the fact
the epsilon^2 has both a positive and a negative root,
i.e. it can be tensile strain energy or compressive
strain energy.
Now this doesn't, as far as I know, arise in the case of
Kinetic Energy say. Nobody ever suggested to me that one
could have negative velocity.
You can see how this lacuna has come about.
When the idea of moving bodies first arose, the bodies
were presumed to move in empty space. The idea of a
negative velocity in such a space doesn't arise. For a
negative velocity to make sense (or a negative anything
else for that matter) there has to be an ambient
velocity for the objects velocity to fall below.
Now with water, the two B-A pressures must be something
like the ionic H-O bond pressure, which I imagine might
be the compressive strain, and the hydrogen bond the
tensile strain as the first approximation. However, as
Chaplin's site shows us, we have a lot more to play
with. For example, consider these juicy facts:-
============================================
The equilibrium ratio is all para at zero
Kelvin shifting to 3:1 ortho:para at less
cold temperatures (>50 K);c the equilibrium
taking months to establish itself in ice and
nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. Many
materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due
to its non-rotation ground state [410].
============================================
Also, if we think of the bond as being a strut or tie,
then quite apart from the axial strain energy we have
the differential strain energy arising from the fact
that the strut/tie is bent out of its "free" position
by Compreture loading.
I think the key will turn out to be the rate at which
manipulation of the water/ice system takes place -
very fast one way - very slow the other - something
like that.
We can think of 4 degree water as analogous to a
prestressed concrete beam just prior to the point of
collapse.
Now anybody who has had any connection with dismantling
pre-stressed concrete structures will know its not a job
you can leave in the hands of Paddy Murphy. ;-)
There is an enormous amount of tensile and compressive
strain energy involved in prestressed units. Careless
demolition can release that strain energy with catastrophic
consequences. Anybody who has seen someone disembowelled
by a whipping pretensioning wire from a long prestressing
bed will know exactly what I am talking about.
Cheers
Frank
