On Jul 19, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
BTW - I was planning a separate post on a few 'anecdotal' Candu
trade secrets which I have recorded from an old fried, now
departed. My notes are riddled with inconsistencies, however.
Say, that old friend was not "darklord" was it? He wasn't very good
at secrets I suspect. He offered to try to get me some heavy water
cheap, but wanted to know what for. Not long after I sent him the
following correspondence I noticed CaO being discussed quite a bit
with regard to CF.
To : darklord
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I think it is important that everything be done above board and by
the book, even if that means not doing anything.
[snip]
I assume Ontario Hydro will know of any import/export
restrictions. I am sure the volume is trivial with respect to such
limitations so don't expect we would have a problem there.
My main interest for the D2O is to use it in electrospark
experiments which appear to be overunity. Much similar work has
been done by others in the past, and low energy nuclear reactions
have characteristically produced low neutron counts or no neutron
counts. I am interested in verifying this is true for various
experiments I have done which produce a blue white Chernkov looking
glow in the electrolyte, and that the same holds for heavy water.
[snip]
I have conducted many underwater spark experiments. The following,
which I consider confidential, is a report of one of the more
interesting ones:
CaO Experiment #3 - 12/2-3/1997
In an attempt to eliminate calcium contamination as a source of the
blue glow in prior experiments (#1 and #2) with miscellaneous
electrolytes in cells with AL electrodes run at medium to high
voltages (100 V - 2000 V), an attempt was made to prepare 0.2 g/l
CaO solution by putting 0.09 g of CaO into 450 ml deionized water,
and letting it stand overnight. Not all the CaO dissolved, so it
is assumed the electrolyte was saturated.
The source of the CaO is Ball 100% Natural Pickling Lime (Hydrated
lime, 35% Ca) distributed by Alltrista Corp., P.O. Box 2729,
Muncie, IN 47307-0729. Price was $1.17 per lb. at Wal-Mart.
The electrolyte was then used in two experiments, one with foil
electrodes (#1) and one with wire electrodes (#2), so it is
anticipated that the electrolyte contains Al ions. In addition it
is known the electrolyte was contaminated with Na2SiO3 from the
electrodes used in the prior experiment (#2). The experiments #1
and #2 appeared to have episodes of over unity energy production,
so this experiment was done to confirm that the electrolyte was
still capable of the effect using new foil electrodes. Of the 450
ml it is estimated that 44 ml was discarded or lost to evaporation.
For this experiment 44 ml deionized water was added to the
electrolyte and then 421 ml of the electrolyte was used in the
cell. It would be advantageous in the future to measure ph before
and after a run.
A new 16 oz Ball Mason Jar and new foil electrodes were used to
make the cell, in order to avoid contamination. The electrodes
were made from Reynolds Wrap.
For protection from high voltage and from the electrolyte, the
thermistor probe was inserted into a 26 cm long 8 mm OD closed end
glass tube laying on a diagonal in the cell, and the probe
positioned to be 2/3 of the depth away from the bottom of the cell,
1/3 away from the electrolyte surface. The same glass probe cover
was used in the prior experiment, but was cleaned with a damp Kleenex.
In the initial experiment (#1) with this specific electrolyte, an x-
y plot of current as a function of voltage quickly produced an
"eye" shape, indicating the electrodes were coated with an
insulating film which produced a capacitance, and thus a phase
difference between current and voltage, with current leading
voltage. The experiment presently described (#3) did not produce
such a phase angle for some reason. Both foil electrode
experiments with this electrolyte (#1 and #3), when viewed in the
dark about 2 minutes into the experiments, produced a blue-green
glow about the electrodes. The electrodes were not identical in
size, and the smaller electrode of the pair produced the brightest
glow in both experiments. Experiment #2 was enclosed in a dewar and
thus the glow, if present, was not observed.
A corrosion effect on the electrodes appears to occur at a rate
proportional to current density. The glow brightness also appears
proportional to current density. There were no sparks observed in
this or the prior CaO experiments, only glow.
Note that the experiments with CaO thus far have incorporated a
powerful magnet near the electrodes. The magnet is comprised of
four 35 MgO magnets placed together to make a 1"x1"x2" magnet. The
top of the magnet, a pole, is placed about 1" below one foil
electrode and just outside the cell. The longer electrode was
nearest the magnet in all cases. The shorter electrode always
experienced much more corrosion with CaO electrolytes, as would be
expected from the higher current density. The short electrode in
all cases has been eaten through in at least a 0.3 cm dia hole
located in the center of the portion of the electrode in the
electrolyte. This seems unusual, as one would expect the greatest
field gradients and currents at the edges of the foil.
The temperature was allowed to decay at the end of the experiment
in order to get some calorimetric parameters on the configuration.
Note also how temperature dropped rapidly when input power was
dropped to about 10 W at about 160 V rms. The "P out" drop at the
25, 28 and 30 minute marks may be due to foil disintegration, but
also due to heat loss from the hot jar due to convection,
evaporation, and IR radiation. The time numbers are time of day,
excluding hour. Time 18 is the zero moment. At times 29 - 89, the
changing values of W/(deg. C) with temperature for the cell is
interpreted to mean more mechanisms affect heat loss at higher
temperatures, e.g. evaporation and IR radiation are more significant.
Gas production appeared to be very good but needs to be measured -
it may have been mostly steam, and appeared to be more than
expected for the current involved.
Note that "P in" is calculated here as the average of the prior V*I
and current V*I.
Data follows:
Time V rms I rms Temp. P in P out Tare Ambient
Volume Delta t
18 355 0.1300 41.78 0.00 0.00 24.30
421 0
19 351 0.1410 43.77 47.82 58.37 24.30
421 1
20 348 0.1510 45.93 51.02 63.35 24.30
421 1
21 349 0.1590 48.02 54.02 61.30 24.30
421 1
23 339 0.1720 52.23 56.90 61.74 24.30
421 2
25 336 0.1810 55.96 59.56 54.70 24.30
421 2
27 333 0.1930 59.49 62.54 51.77 24.30
421 2
28 334 0.1910 61.07 64.03 46.34 24.30
421 1
30 161 0.0792 62.89 38.27 26.69 24.30
421 2
31 163 0.0741 62.15 12.41 -21.70 24.30
421 1
35 168 0.0618 58.70 11.23 -25.30 24.30
421 4
36 168 0.0596 57.91 10.20 -23.17 24.30
421 1
37 169 0.0571 57.22 9.83 -20.24 24.30
421 1
39 55.34 -27.57 24.30
421 2
41 53.22 -31.09 24.30
421 2
42 52.19 -30.21 24.30
421 1
49 46.33 -24.55 24.30
421 7
68 37.26 -14.00 24.30
421 19
89 32.60 -6.51 24.30
421 21
The following is an attempt to compensate for heat lost from the 16
oz Ball Mason jar and to calculate total energy produced by foil
consumption. Note that a conservative (conservative given the
temperature range in which the cell was operating) value of 0.8 W/
(deg. F) was used to calculate the Tare value, which is then added
to P out to get the corrected "Cor P out".
P in P out Tare t Cor COP E in E out
P out joules joules
0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0
47.82 58.37 34.22 1 92.59 1.94 2869 5555
51.02 63.35 35.88 1 99.23 1.94 5930 11509
54.02 61.30 37.58 1 98.88 1.83 9172 17442
56.90 61.74 40.10 2 101.84 1.79 16000 29663
59.56 54.70 43.28 2 97.98 1.64 23147 41420
62.54 51.77 46.18 2 97.95 1.57 30652 53173
64.03 46.34 48.22 1 94.56 1.48 34494 58847
38.27 26.69 49.58 2 76.27 1.99 39087 68000
12.41 -21.70 50.02 1 28.31 2.28 39832 69699
11.23 -25.30 48.34 4 23.04 2.05 42527 75229
10.20 -23.17 46.64 1 23.47 2.30 43139 76637
9.83 -20.24 46.05 1 25.81 2.63 43729 78186
W/(deg. F)
-27.57 2 -0.86
-31.09 2 -1.04
-30.21 1 -1.06
-24.55 7 -0.98
-14.00 19 -0.80
-6.51 21 -0.61
The total excess energy was 78186 J - 43729 J = 34457 J.
The electrodes were measure at 2.2 cm x 0.8 cm, and 3.5 cm x 0.8
cm, for a total area of 4.4 cm^2 or (4.10x10^-2 g/cm^2)(4.4 cm^2) =
0.18 g of Al, of which only at most 0.09 g was consumed, mostly
from the smaller electrode , which was furthest from the magnet.
This gives (0.09 g)(14,800 cal/g) = 1332 cal = 5567 J from Al
oxidation max.
Therefore the excess heat is estimated at 34457 - 5567 = 28890 J.
This gives a total COP = 78186/(43729 + 5567) = 1.59.
This is dramatic, but the calorimetry was far from ideal. An
attempt to use Al wire electrodes with a similar surface area, but
enclosed in a dewar flask to improve calorimetry, produced far less
exciting results. The electrolyte is roughly the same, so several
possible explanations come to mind:
(1) As the calorimetry improves the effect vanishes (not a new
phenomenon)
(2) The wire electrodes may be a different composition from the
Reynolds Wrap foil.
(3) The fact the wire electrodes were scraped with sandpaper to
remove a coating and increase conductivity may have significantly
increased their surface area and thus reduced current density, thus
eliminating the effect.
(4) The prior use of the wire electrodes with a 0.1 g/l Na2SiO3
electrolyte may have corrupted them.
One possibility for further investigation is the use of a new pair
of wire electrodes with the same Mason Jar cell and the same
electrolyte to determine if the wire is not effective. Also of
importance is stirring the electrolyte to avoid delays in
registering thermal changes. The efficacy of pulsed DC should be
checked early on, because if it works then cells can be made much
safer by venting pure O2 and H2 instead of the potentially
explosive mixture. Cells seem to work better at higher
temperatures, so the boiling regime should be studied, and may
provide improved calorimetry. At minimum, the electrolyte should
be preheated to about 50 C.
Also of future interest is the amount of steam generated, and
evaporation. There was a clear drop in electrolyte volume. As the
heat of vaporization of water is 540 cal/g, that's (4.18 J/cal)(540
cal/g) = 2257 J/g of water. In adjusting the concentration of the
electrolyte prior to this run, by adding water, it was very roughly
estimated that a minimum of 5 ml was lost to boiloff (the cell was
enclosed) in Exp. #2, or about 11,300 J, which is a significant
contribution to the output energy. The total estimated input vs
output joules was 87188 vs 84800, which is changed by the boiloff
to 87188 in vs 96100 out.
One problem with not using foil electrodes is the fact that it is
not possible to determine aluminum consumption. This is due to the
crusting that develops, thus preventing weighing the electrodes.
Possibly very long runs can resolve this issue.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
end quote
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
