On Jun 11, 2009, at 8:20 AM, Chris Zell wrote:
There are a wide number of inventions or independent observations
related to 'free energy' that appear to be derived from a single
phenomena: charge clusters or other anomalous concentrations of
charge.
The fundamental work appears to be from Ken Shoulders (patent
5018180).. His patent suggests an enormous amount of personal
effort. Basically, he created intense bundles of charge using a
sort of traveling wave tube. Because the charge is so
concentrated, nuclear effects arise easily.
There is other similar work:
Nelson - patent 6465965 using a space charge in a vacuum tube.
There is a claim of replication ( Ken Rauen)
JLN Labs "VSG 4.1" which produces excess energy from a spark
Stanislav Adamenko plasma diode with transmutation
The Chernetski plasma arc device
The (very old) French patent 651272 using an arcing relay to
increase power
The underwater transmutation of carbon into iron using arcs
Possible Bedini-like devices that use a spark
Overunity observations in multipaction tubes by Philo Farnsworth
All the Correa patents that use a sudden discharge in a vacuum tube
The Spence device (patent 4772816) which claims overunity from a
space charge
There are also a number of reported anomalous observations of
sudden bursts of extreme energy in various plasma tube experiments
by Russian and US academics
Are Shoulders observations of abnormal transient concentrations of
charge correct? If so, then Cold Fusion may be a secondary
phenomena, a subset of something more fundamental and powerful.
If atttention was shifted in the direction of charge clusters,
could we encounter a revolutionary new power source of electricity
- rather than excess heat?
Is something very profound being overlooked here?
It could be something profound is being overlooked, and I don't think
it is only the feasibility of economic fusion that is being
overlooked. Similar to some of the energetic anomalies listed
above are those observed in the Zmachine.:
http://zpinch.sandia.gov/
Created in part to examine fusion prospects, it was (as far as I can
remember, which is not far) initially tested using helium and
produced an anomalous excess energy, on the order of 30 percent.
One interesting common thread I've noticed in many such experiments
is the importance of a threshold of electron current density below
which excess energy does not occur, all other variables held
constant, and above which it does occur. For example, Kamada et al
determined something on the order of 1.6 A/cm^2 (at 174 keV electron
energy) is the threshold for fusion of D implanted in aluminum (see
my notes on Kamada below).
Of course, like many others, I have ideas which have been posted
here about how electron flux can cause fusion, but also how zero
point energy might be tapped from nuclei provided current density is
high enough to force frequent encounters:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf
Here are some summaries of related Kamada experiments:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1992 Article:
Kamada states the H-H fusion reaction was observed based on beta
disintegration of proton upon high energy electron capture, which
does not need tunneling
1 event per 2x10^14 electrons
200 KeV and 400 keV beam energies were used.
implantation fluence > 1x10^17 H+ or D+/cm^2 using Cockcroft Walton
type acceleration (voltage not mentioned)
1.3 MeV alphas (80%) and >0.4 MeV protons (20%) emitted from *both*
H2 and D2 implanted targets
Beam density must be greater than 3x10^16 electrons/cm/s to get high
energy particles emitted. From this I calculate the minimum flux to
be 4.8 mA/cm^2.
Beam used was 300 to 400 nA with beam size 4x10-5 cm^2.
Flux actually used was 4-6x10^16 electrons/cm^2/s.
Area through which beam was passed was 2x10^-3 cm^2.
Time beam on target was 40 minutes.
Tunnel like structures (between the bubble structures) *must be
formed* to get the high energy particle emissions. They occupy
roughly 60 percent of the sub-surface layer with about 50 nm depth.
Molar volume of hydrogen = 10 cm^3/mol.
Density of hydrogen molecues exposed to beam = 6x10^22/cm^2.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1996 Article:
experiment repeated 30 times
Positive results with D, negative results with H.
No effort was made to count particles.
175 keV electron beam energy was used to avoid radiation damage to
the Al
25 keV implantation at fluence of less than 5x10^17 H+/cm^2 was used.
This is 12.5 keV per H atom implanted.
The maximum retained hydrogen fluence (determined by ERD) after
implantation was 1x10^17 atoms/cm^2, and density 2x10^17 H/cm^3. The
density in the D2 collections was estimated at 1x10^22 D2/cm^3.
Loading fluence 5x10^17 D+/cm^2 was chosen to *avoid forming bubble
structures* and to form as many tunnel structures as possible. At a
lower fluence only bubble structures are formed. When tunnel
structures form between the bubbles, the bubbles empty out into the
tunnel structures. At higher fluences, the bubble structures start to
form again.
Hydrogen bubble pressure estimated at 7 GPa.
Average implantation depth about 60 nm., max depth about 90 nm.
Estimated heat out to beam energy absorbed (per spot) was 6x10^5.
Estimated heat out to beam energy absorbed (total surface) was 1x10^5.
Degree of focusing was 50 nA on 1x10^-6 m diameter.
Flux used was 4x10^19 electrons/cm^2/s. I calculate 6.41 A/cm^2.
Flux must be over 1x10^19 electrons/cm^2/s to get the effect. I
caculate the minimum flux to be 1.6 A/cm^2.
Melting was observed in small transformed regions of about 1x10^-9 cm^2.
Using a depth of 90 nm this gives 6.1x10-12 cal. per melted region,
or 159 MeV per transformed region. The melting occurred in less than
10 seconds and the pools solidified in about one minute into the
polycrystalline form.
The thickness of the aluminum target was 8x10^-5 cm.
The electron stopping power |dE/dt| of Al used is 0.07eV/Angstrom.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
