Re: Accident Report from Mizuno
At 9:22 AM 1/26/5, Jed Rothwell wrote: [I will upload an Acrobat version of this report that includes photographs.] Accident Report Tadahiko Mizuno Division of Quantum Energy Engineering, Research group of Nuclear System Engineering Hokkaido University [snip] The cell was placed inside a constant temperature air-cooled incubator (Yamato 1L-6) with the outer door open, and the inner Plexiglas safety door closed. [snip] Please excuse my comments if this has already been discussed. I have been sick lately, and have no web access at the moment. Since the safety door was closed the likely confining compartment of the exploding gas would seem to be the incubator itself. Do you know the dimensions of the incubator? It may be capable of confining enough gas to make such an explosion, i.e. to force open the plexiglass door, and spray the glass outward, unless the Yamato 1L-6 is highly ventillated, which seems unlikely since it is temperature controlled. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Entry to Phenomena Reports
Hi Colin, That sounds very interesting. Thanks. I'll look into all that. Cheers Frank At 08:20 pm 28-01-05 -0500, you wrote: Hi Frank, To review background Beta Aether I joined your group. B-A sounds similar to subquantum gas (liquids, particles, etc) proposed by several authors, but please feel free to educate me, thanks.. An author comes to mind being Robert Neil Boyd who talks about radiant light, electric light,[light having charge] and makes reference to aether density. ref. below. In reference to Hutchison, I recently came across this link http://www.hutchisoneffect.com on the USA Tesla list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usa-tesla/ where they are presently discussing the Hutchison Effect. So, I looked in on the Hutchison Effect FORUM, topic, Hutchison Effect, and from there to the sub-topic, MATH MODEL OF HUTCHISON EFFECT , and synchronistically I came across some interesting reading.. I read Dave Thomson here http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=162 , suggesting a physics model to explain the Hutchison effect. What was most interestingly was that David said, (Actually, the photons do not take on mass. They build up strong charge.) which sounded similar to Robert Neil Boyd's charged light. David's formula: Pulse * Cd * Freq --- = kg (coul^2/m^3) * G (More on David Thomson) Tesla propulsion: http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/Tesla_Propulsion.htm Book: http://www.16pi2.com/ (More on Robert Neil Boyd) Physics: http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/physics.htm Antigravity: http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/antigrav.htm (More on Hutchison Effect) Research: http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/research.htm JH home page: http://www.jbcr-virtualsolutions.com/heffect/accomplish.html The following Hutchison Effect forum post is beyond belief, but then again after Bill Beaty's wandering stir stick, who knows? : http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79 QUOTE: Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:13 pmPost subject: Equipment used - HDR Tesla Coil The equipment I used was three Hyper Dimensional Resonators, two Tesla Coiil, two plasma balls, and one CB Radio to generate RF. The effect was that the copper pipes in my home twisted and broke. I ended up with a $1600 water bill. I have seen many strange spooky events happen after I turn off the Tesla Coils. Typically within 15 minutes of me turning them OFF. The greatest amount of RF generated by the Tesla Coils was at 67 kilocycles as measured by my frequency counter. There was a secondary peak at 120 kilocycles not 134 kilocycles as expected. Other strange effects include scorch marks, objects levitating, and a strange smell. Not the ozone smell of the Tesla coil, more like an ammonia smell. The effect is is sporadic and I have not yet captured it on film. UNQUOTE == Cheers, Colin - Original Message - From: Grimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Colin Quinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:08 PM Subject: Re: Entry to Phenomena Reports At 08:31 pm 27-01-05 -0500, you wrote: Wow. James Bond movie? No way. Sounds more like something seen in a John Hutchison movie. Bill was the microwave oven on during this episode? Hutchison used to have a Tesla coil, a microwave, and a Van de Graph generator all running all at the same time. You have that equipment there. Under those conditions sometimes magic can happen. Stuff would levitate. Did stuff disappear with Hutchison? Wouldn't surprise me. Did you have anything else running in your lab? Like a VDG generator or a Tesla coil? Interesting that at least one careful conservative scientifically minded researcher who once studied Hutchison.. once told me that the effect may as well have been poltergeist phenomena, there were so many variables and it being so weird. Colin I have just been looking at the John Hutchison web site and I must say that I find his results in harmony with the Beta-atmosphere concept. In our case.. === CLAYTON, N and F.J.GRIMER. The di-phase concept with particular reference to concrete. Developments in Concrete Technology, Vol.1, F.D.Lydon, ed, Applied Science Publishers, England pp.283-318. This chapter can be found as page .jpegs in the Photo section of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Beta-atmosphere_group/ === .we were using air pressure, water pressure and even ball-bearing pressure to simulate the Beta-atmosphere but Hutchinson would seem to be playing with a much finer grained pressure level - materon cluster pressure perhaps? 8-) Unfortunately Hutchison's web site doesn't seem to have been updated since June 2002. Perhaps he has been levitated to a higher plane. ;-) Cheers, Grimer !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;
Re: Assistance For Posting Mitchell Swartz's Papers On LENR-CANR.ORG
At 06:02 PM 1/27/2005, you wrote: Dear Dr. Swartz, In answer to my private e-mail inquiry about this matter, Jed Rothwell said that he'd be happy to make your research papers available on lenr-canr.org, but that he was unable to find the files on your website, and that his CD drive could not read the CD-R disk you sent him. Mark: Thank you. Your comment is a naive, although very well-intentioned. First, despite Rothwell's nonsense, the files were handed to Rothwell in my car in front of a witness. The files were also e-mailed and they were received and discussed. The files were also sent by regular mail to Storms and Rothwell. Second, the files discussed here are not the papers, but the NAMES of the papers and the names which were removed. They still are if you go to http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/ICCF10.htm , entitled PROCEEDINGS - Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-10). Do you think one needs a CD-ROM to do that when you list the titles in your next line? Now give me one reason why someone would do that? even after Dr. Hagelstein who conducted ICCF10 explicitly told Storms and Rothwell to stop. If you want an issue of the current COLD FUSION TIMES, send us an address. Best wishes. In previous messages, you referred to these two papers: Swartz. M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003), Swartz. M., Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated Electrically-Polarized Palladium Cathodes in D2O, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). . Sincerely, Mark Bilk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Entry to Phenomena Reports
At 08:20 pm 28-01-05 -0500, Colin Quinney wrote: The following Hutchison Effect forum post is beyond belief, but then again after Bill Beaty's wandering stir stick, who knows? : http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79 QUOTE: Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:13 pmPost subject: Equipment used - HDR Tesla Coil The equipment I used was three Hyper Dimensional Resonators, two Tesla Coiil, two plasma balls, and one CB Radio to generate RF. The effect was that the copper pipes in my home twisted and broke. I ended up with a $1600 water bill. I have seen many strange spooky events happen after I turn off the Tesla Coils. Typically within 15 minutes of me turning them OFF. The greatest amount of RF generated by the Tesla Coils was at 67 kilocycles as measured by my frequency counter. There was a secondary peak at 120 kilocycles not 134 kilocycles as expected. Other strange effects include scorch marks, objects levitating, and a strange smell. Not the ozone smell of the Tesla coil, more like an ammonia smell. The effect is is sporadic and I have not yet captured it on film. I find the above account entirely believable. After all we know that effects such as magnetostriction, etc., can alter the physical dimensions of metal objects so one would expect that playing around with very high magnetic and electric atmosphere pressures (for pressures is the easiest concept to use for understanding these phenomena) will have a dramatic effect on materials. One of the most fascinating and persuasive examples of such pressures is that given by coin shrinking. Googling will give plenty of examples but here is a Google cache example which I have found at random. http://tinyurl.com/45ywr One needs to look at Voltage and Charge in the same way as we look at Temperature - or rather the inverse of Temperature (Compreture, say) As Compreture increases, materials, with few exceptions, are squeezed to smaller and smaller dimensions. Cheers, and thanks again, Colin, for those very interesting references which I am in the process of following up. Frank
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Ed Storms wrote: I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when proposing the hydrino explanation. 1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not when accumulated hydrinos are returned to normal. Correct. 2. Hydrino production can only be produced rather slowly, only as rapidly as normal H diffuses to the active site and the resulting hydrino diffuses away. No. Hydrino production can proceed at any speed, including instantly. There is one essential condition, the proximity of an H atom (not H2) and a catalyst. Relevant catalysts in the Mizuno case are 2K+ and O++. My comment was that these can be produced in a plasma hydrolysis cell. The reaction rates depend on many complex factors which are not well controlled, even in Mills' experiments. My conjecture was that electrolysis liberates both K+ and H in the proximity of the cathode, which is supported by Mills' early experiments with Thermacore and other later experiments. The 2K+/H reaction is a three-body one. The probability is enhanced by the high density in the liquid/plasma interface, but so are competing reactions -- this is a problem with the Mills cells. O++ can be produced in a plasma -- some mills experiments start with water vaporizing at low pressure and then being ionized by a microwave field. I don't know of any reason why O++ can't be produced in a hard-driven electrolytic cell. I have no clue about the dynamics here. If it could be reproduced at will, it would be a great leap forward toward solving the world's energy problems. One is reminded of other effects, such as attributed to Stanley Meyer. Mills has shown the presence of these reactions; putting them to work is something else. It's as daunting as making reliable CF cathodes. 3. According to Mills, hydrinos do not react with oxygen to produce hydrino water. Hydrinos can form hydrides, which can form chemical compounds. I don't recall any comment about water specifically; it would not be water. O++ is a BLP catalyst, and one can conjecture that both H and O++ will exist in the plasma in the Mizuno and Cirilli cells. These facts would seem to make the hydrino explanation unlikely. 2 out of 3. It is indeed unlikely but the ingredients are there. Nevertheless, I agree that too much energy seems to have been released to be accounted for by a normal H2+O2 reaction. Remember FP? Also unlikely. Mike Carrell
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
ED Storms wrote: Mike Carrell wrote: Ed Storms wrote: snip 2. Hydrino production can only be produced rather slowly, only as rapidly as normal H diffuses to the active site and the resulting hydrino diffuses away. No. Hydrino production can proceed at any speed, including instantly. I don't understand how instantly is possible. Two entities must get together. This takes time. Once energy is released from this collision, the local process stops. If additional energy is to be released, two more entities must find each other. This is not like explosive decomposition where all of the ingredients are already together. Even in a natural gas explosion, which would be similar to the H + O++ condition, a near stoichiometric mixture is required to have significant shockwave production. Otherwise, one justs get a moving flame. Also, extra volume is not produced in the hydrino reaction so that the shock wave can not grow. What I meant was that any particular rection event is instant. Ed is correct that the formation of reaction events may not be instant and he is correct. My conjecture included the possibility that a singular event is very energetic and may initiate dissociation in nearby water. There is possibility for a chain reaction, as the BLP event releases intense UV energy which may couple into other molecules. Another catalyst is K+++, which is a two body reaction with H. There is evidence from Mills' gas phase experiments that reaction rates are complex functions of process parameters. I doubt that Mills has explored that parameter space of plasma electrolysis. It's just something to keep in mind while exploring these phenomena. Mike Carrell
Vortex Web Site
If this dude isn't a subscriber here, he should be: http://www.vortexpluswater.com/free_thinking_and_free_energy.htm __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
UFO Propulsion
Different from Fred's flying fluorescent: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/ufoplasmaengine.htm __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Electron Shotgun Electrogravity Field?
Hey Fred. Although it will surely be the case that you will generate the E field in question ( at least the time changing part ) what I fail to see is why this should relate to gravity. It's the weak point of Hoopers argument; he does nothing other than assert the connection. Observing that ordinary E field shielding techniques don't work neglects the nature of the source of the field; that kind of evidence won't even get you arrested much less convicted (grin). You mentioned in an earlier post null results by Marc G. Millis from you suggested experiment. Was the attempt to measure E field, or just weight change? I'm a lot more interested in the former than the latter. K. -Original Message- From: Frederick Sparber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 12:04 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: Electron Shotgun Electrogravity Field? Fundamental Tenets of Physics: 1, A moving Bunch of Charges creates a Bunch of Magnetic Field/s. 2, A Time-Varying Bunch of Magnetic Field/s creates a Bunch of Electric Field/s.. Hence, a pulsed high current (6 to 27.2 volts DC) diode should create a Bunch of Electrons with Drift Velocities of 1.45 to 3.1 million meters per second. I wonder if the Tungar Charger had a weight change while in operation. :-) Note that you can get 12 or 24 Amperes worth of electrons that drift at a velocity from 1.5 million to possibly 3.0 million meters per second (in spurts) shotgun effect. :-) Produced for 6 volt batteries only? G.E. Tungar Rectifier ( I have one of these somewhere). Westinghouse Rectigon Rectifiers . Fred http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/sound/rca05-05.htm Referring to Figure 43, it will be noticed that an alternating current will flow in the primary of the transformer when the line switch is closed. A voltage will be generated in the secondary winding by transformer action. The secondary winding is tapped a few turns from each end to provide a voltage for lighting the filaments of the Tungar bulbs. These filaments are lighted in the same manner as an ordinary electric light except that it uses a very low voltage. (Two and one-half volts are used for lighting the Tungar filament.) The purpose of lighting the filament is to cause it to emit a large number of electrons. The secondary of the transformer is also tapped at its mid-point, and a connection is made from this tap to the positive side of the storage battery being charged. The plates of the two Tungar bulbs are wired together, and are connected, through the ammeter, to the negative side of the storage battery
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:28:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] I don't understand how instantly is possible. Two entities must get together. This takes time. Once energy is released from this collision, the local process stops. If additional energy is to be released, two more entities must find each other. This is not like explosive decomposition where all of the ingredients are already together. Even in a natural gas explosion, which would be similar to the H + O++ condition, a near stoichiometric mixture is required to have significant shockwave production. Otherwise, one justs get a moving flame. Also, extra volume is not produced in the hydrino reaction so that the shock wave can not grow. What I meant was that any particular rection event is instant. Ed is correct that the formation of reaction events may not be instant and he is correct. My conjecture included the possibility that a singular event is very energetic and may initiate dissociation in nearby water. There is possibility for a chain reaction, as the BLP event releases intense UV energy which may couple into other molecules. True, but actual experiments show that this is insufficient. Otherwise some hydrino forming event in an aqueous environment (including the ocean), would result in a chain reaction. The oceans still exist. IOW The formation of O++ in the oceans during hydrino creation events doesn't lead to a chain reaction. Clearly the losses out weigh the gains. This may be different in a potassium rich environment, though 0.2 M is clearly also not enough, or the cell would have exploded much earlier. It is also why I suggested that an adequate supply of pre-existing severely shrunken hydrinos which are candidates for fusion, may be a necessary prerequisite to a chain reaction. Another catalyst is K+++, which is a two body reaction with H. I believe you are referring to the reaction: K + H - H* + K+++ however in this case K (not K+++) is the catalyst. K is readily formed in a plasma, where free electrons are ubiquitous, and easily captured by K+. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Vortex Web Site
Terry Blanton writes, ... not that there's anything wrong with that... Ah-hah! 'Fess up, Jonesie. It's yours, innit? g Nah... You don't really think I could write something like, There is no hope for this world with academic egghead physics, which amounts to intellectual masturbation, self gratification, and peer ego stroking Only endless wars, pollution, environmental destruction and great expense for energy, which could be produced practically without cost! Pretty extreme, I'd say. After all, there is always a practical cost, and what about ... Religious hypocrites, like Bush, Rice and Ashcroft have hijacked our country. They claim they own the values and morality of our country. These fools are an abomination to the memory of Paine, who... created a Republic, which protected the rights of each and every individual. A democracy protects only the rights of the members of the dominant mob. [Give me a break, what did Condie do wrong... except maybe tow-the-company-line a little too intelligently for her critics (and get her 'do' at Donald Trump's hair-dresser)? ...and, just out of curiosity, why leave out the mastermind of the whole thing ABC axis-of-evil thing, anyway?] The dominant mob right now is a lot of weirdo religious dopes, who believe in fairytale mythologies as if they were real historical truths. They support the president because he claims he has been born again... etc, etc, ad nauseum. Whew... way too extreme for this born again (can anyone ever reach noetic maturity without the equivalent experience ?), testifying to the fact that Buddha, Allah, Torah and Jesus can get along just fine without either Dem/wits or Repugs running the show... At least cynics like myself will try to give equal-opportunity criticism to both sides of every political issue, and I heard no mention of specially-flavored cigars, etc... Plus, there are not nearly enough spelling errors for me to have been involved. Not to mention, all former mythologies which pass the test of time ARE historical truths, but do we really want to get into epistemology today ... Jones
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:53:23 -0700: Hi, [snip] I don't understand how instantly is possible. Two entities must get together. This takes time. Of course it does, however that time is very short on human scales, provided that the density of catalyst and fuel particles is high. Even in a normal gas at room temperature, each molecule undergoes about 500 million collisions every second. Even if only 1 in a hundred thousand results in a shrinkage reaction, that still means that the average shrinkage reaction only takes a fraction of a millisecond. In short, when a chain reaction occurs, it could easily all be over in less than a millisecond. IMO that qualifies as instantly. Once energy is released from this collision, the local process stops. If additional energy is to be released, two more entities must find each other. True, but the reactions don't wait on one another. I.e. the reactions are not all consecutive, many of them happen in parallel. In fact, in a chain reaction scenario, the number of parallel reactions is constantly increasing. This is not like explosive decomposition where all of the ingredients are already together. Actually it is. It is akin to the chain reaction which takes place in a fission bomb, except that neutron production rate is replaced by catalyst ion production rate. Though in this case together means in the same container, rather than in the same molecule. Even in a natural gas explosion, which would be similar to the H + O++ condition, a near stoichiometric mixture is required to have significant shockwave production. Otherwise, one justs get a moving flame. This may explain why there are so few hydrino explosions. The conditions need to meet strict minimum requirements. A chain reaction using O++ can occur when the rate of formation of both catalyst and H atoms exceeds the consumption rate. O++ is formed through collisions with energetic particles (or UV photons or gamma rays). O++ can be formed when a hydrino of at least level 3 is formed, however most level 3 reactions will not result in O++ formation, because the energy will end up elsewhere. Consequently either reactions of on average much higher level must take place, or fusion reactions must take place. The latter lifts the average O++ production rate, because each fusion reaction can produce hundreds to thousands of O++ ions, while it may only take one O++ ion to finally trigger a fusion reaction, among a population of previously existing severely shrunken hydrinos. Also, extra volume is not produced in the hydrino reaction so that the shock wave can not grow. Extra volume is produced in hydrino reactions, because plasma growth results in the production of free electrons, each of which counts as a separate particle. Hence the particle count is commensurate with the average ionisation level. A hot plasma formed from an electrolyte (which contains many multi-electron atoms), could therefore easily result in a doubling of the number of particles per reaction, and possibly more, as the temperature increases. Not to mention normal thermal expansion. [snip] MC: ionized by a microwave field. I don't know of any reason why O++ can't be produced in a hard-driven electrolytic cell. Only indirectly, by either UV photons resulting from hydrino formation, energetic hydrinos, or ionising radiation. Interestingly, the explosion in Mizuno's cell happened when the voltage was increased to 20 V. This is high enough to produce O+ (at the anode), providing a supply of ions ready to be ionised to O++ by other means. Let's assume that K+ and/or O++ are produced. The reaction with H to produce H* can proceed no faster than the rate of K+ or O++ formation. K+ doesn't need to be produced, it's already in the electrolyte in large quantities. Both of these formation rates have to be slow and the products will not accumulate to any great extent because they are so unstable. This might allow extra energy to be produced while electrolysis was ongoing, but I do not understand how an explosion can result. Despite Mills' statements, I don't believe that K+ is an effective catalyst, because it requires a 3 body reaction. K (atom) on the other hand is an effective catalyst, because only a two body reaction is required. In an electrolytic cell, both K atoms and H atoms are constantly being formed concurrently at the cathode, and hence are frequently in close proximity to one another. Nevertheless, the reaction rate is constrained by the fact that this is a surface reaction, and the amount of surface area is limited. (In an eventual plasma formed from such an electrolyte however no such constraint exists, though the mean free path between particles in a plasma is greater). [snip] If hydrides form, the issue is how does an electron in a special, unique orbit associated with H interact with normal electrons in the combining atom? Such
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
In reply to Vince Cockeram's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:56:58 -0800: Hi, [snip] Indeed! When I was running a glow discharge in H2 + K, I had an 'event' that I can not explain. I had run this experiment probably a hundred times and had never seen what occurred. A run on March 18, 2000 at a 30 watt tube current was proceeding steady and normal when suddenly the wattage dropped to ~5 watts input and the temperature increased by over 400 C. in the next few minutes. Without going back and searching my lab notes I recall the voltage remained at about 300 dc and the current dropped way down. I guess this indicates that the tube impedance suddenly increased, but as to why, I don't have a clue. [snip] If one turns these two observations around, it may make more sense. A rapid increase in temperature, may imply either a rapid increase in hydrino formation, or an increase in severely shrunken hydrinohydride formation on at least one electrode. Since severely shrunken hydrinohydride can be expected to form a strong bond (not unlike an oxide), one might expect the resultant surface layer to act as an insulator, restricting the current flow through the tube. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Mitchell Swartz wrote: Mr. Rothwell: You are an absolute untruthful person. Witnesses watched me hand you the papers and the CD-ROM containing them at Gene's funeral Yes. As I said -- about a dozen times -- I could not read that CD-ROM. Please upload the papers to your own web page and I will copy them. - Jed
Physics website
I came upon this website which seems to be capable of answering any obscure question about those areas you're not sure about... http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/
Re: A question for the electrochemists
I hate to suggest this in an era of hyperhysteria about toxic substances, but a mercury cathode would likely do the trick here. You just have a shallow layer of Hg at the bottom of your cell and make sure the wire that passes through the electrolyte to the the Hg is insulated. If you are careful, you can stir the electrolyte without disturbing the surface of the Hg cathode. M. === --- On Fri 01/28, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:45:30 +1100 Subject: Re: A question for the electrochemists In reply to Michael Foster's message of Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:36:39 -0500:brHi Michael,br[snip]br Hi Robin,brbrI assume you mean potassium carbonate in an aqueous solution. If that is the case, you won't get any potassium metal at all. You need a molten non-aqueous potassium compound in order to do this, such as potassium chloride.brbrYes, I do mean in an aqueous solution, though I don't mean a permanent layer of potassium. I realise full well that any potassium formed will react almost immediately with the surrounding water. However H+, or perhaps even water molecules will also be reduced at the cathode. What I am looking for is that combination of parameters that results in a maximal turn over of potassium ions, as opposed to the other reactions competing for the free electrons supplied by the cathode.brbrbrRegards,brbrbrRobin van SpaandonkbrbrAll SPAM goes in the trash unread.brbr ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Mitchell Swartz wrote: Thereafter, you also received copies of then entire three papers by email and we discussed them, No, I never did. I doubt the papers can be e-mailed, because you told me they are large, and e-mail can only handle a few megabytes. so your credibility is ZERO with us . . . If you really believe that, you should upload the papers to your own website. You will prove to everyone that I am lying. On the other hand, if I do copy them and upload them as I have promised to do, *your* credibility will suffer. I suggest you stop whining, kvetching and carrying on like a two-year-old, and prove your point by uploading the papers. - Jed
Swartz papers added to Collections/ICCF10.htm
Okay, I added two of M. Swartz's ICCF10 papers to: http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/ICCF10.htm (You may need to reload the page to see them.) Swartz mentioned there are three papers, but I cannot find the other one. I left a blank slot for it. If I remember what the third paper is (or if he tells me), I will add it. Swartz was upset because these papers were not listed. I hope he feels better now. It is strange to list papers in our Special Collection which are not actually part of our collection at all, but it is no big deal. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, after all. - Jed
Re: Accident Report from Mizuno
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:39:20 -0600: Hi, And, Robin Von Spaandonk replied; In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:53:19 -0800: Hi, --- Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Possibly. In an old cell, hydrinos, or their compounds may have been accumulating for a long time. You mean in the pores? I meant on the solid surfaces, where hydrinohydride can bond with other atoms. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:53:23 -0700: Hi, [snip] I don't understand how instantly is possible. Two entities must get together. This takes time. Of course it does, however that time is very short on human scales, provided that the density of catalyst and fuel particles is high. High-which is the operational word. I suggest the concentration can never be sufficiently high. Even in a normal gas at room temperature, each molecule undergoes about 500 million collisions every second. Even if only 1 in a hundred thousand results in a shrinkage reaction, that still means that the average shrinkage reaction only takes a fraction of a millisecond. In short, when a chain reaction occurs, it could easily all be over in less than a millisecond. IMO that qualifies as instantly. For an explosion to occur, a shock wave must be produced. Simply having energy suddenly produced in a volume would only cause the temperature go up, and ionization to occur with a flash of radiation. The sudden heating would expand the gas to a higher pressure, say from 1 atm to 10 atm. This would not be enough to shatter a heavy glass vessel - blow the lid off, maybe. Once energy is released from this collision, the local process stops. If additional energy is to be released, two more entities must find each other. True, but the reactions don't wait on one another. I.e. the reactions are not all consecutive, many of them happen in parallel. In fact, in a chain reaction scenario, the number of parallel reactions is constantly increasing. My point here was that each event adds its contribution and then is spent. The O++ catalyst is not reused. It is not clear that the reaction its self is even capable of producing more O++. Such a replacement is only an assumption needed for your explanation. This is not like explosive decomposition where all of the ingredients are already together. Actually it is. It is akin to the chain reaction which takes place in a fission bomb, except that neutron production rate is replaced by catalyst ion production rate. Though in this case together means in the same container, rather than in the same molecule. I don't see how you get a chain reaction. A very dilute mixture of H2 and O++ is present, both of which are used up in the process. Even if O++ were replaced, this would not be expected to occur at a significant rate, i.e. in micro seconds. After all, the original concentration of O++ was accumulated only after minutes of previous electrolysis. Even in a natural gas explosion, which would be similar to the H + O++ condition, a near stoichiometric mixture is required to have significant shockwave production. Otherwise, one justs get a moving flame. This may explain why there are so few hydrino explosions. The conditions need to meet strict minimum requirements. A chain reaction using O++ can occur when the rate of formation of both catalyst and H atoms exceeds the consumption rate. O++ is formed through collisions with energetic particles (or UV photons or gamma rays). O++ can be formed when a hydrino of at least level 3 is formed, however most level 3 reactions will not result in O++ formation, because the energy will end up elsewhere. Consequently either reactions of on average much higher level must take place, or fusion reactions must take place. The latter lifts the average O++ production rate, because each fusion reaction can produce hundreds to thousands of O++ ions, while it may only take one O++ ion to finally trigger a fusion reaction, among a population of previously existing severely shrunken hydrinos. I don't understand what kind of fusion reaction you imagine using H2. In any case, such a reaction would release nuclear energies, which would be expected to produce visible particle and X-ray emission, unlike the cold fusion process in a solid. These are apparently not seen, or felt. (Here the dead graduate student effect comes in again.) Also, extra volume is not produced in the hydrino reaction so that the shock wave can not grow. Extra volume is produced in hydrino reactions, because plasma growth results in the production of free electrons, each of which counts as a separate particle. Hence the particle count is commensurate with the average ionisation level. A hot plasma formed from an electrolyte (which contains many multi-electron atoms), could therefore easily result in a doubling of the number of particles per reaction, and possibly more, as the temperature increases. Not to mention normal thermal expansion. [snip] Free electrons are generated by formation of ions. These ions quickly recapture their electrons so that only initially are these extra particles part of the shock wave. I don't think this would be a serious source of expansion. Heating is another matter, but not very effective. Regards, Ed
Re: Accident Report from Mizuno
Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread. Easy way to can spam! In Linux, get into your K-Mail program where you get your mail...sans virii. By the way, of cos' your sniffin the net as an 'ordinary user' and not as the 'root' user. Never sniff the net as the 'super'. Then go to 'Settings' and pick 'Configure Filters' Do radio button 'Match all of the following; Under first criteria line: header item to key on criteria definition Todoes'nt equalyour address Under advanced options, check all boxes except 'to sent messages'. Leave that one clear. Then click 'ok' at the bottom and this filter is set. Next turn HTML off in the K-Mail settings for e-mail Turn cookies and java and javascript off for e-mail make two more filters, one to catch html messages by keying on 'any header' and define it as containing the phrase 'text/html'. The next by defining the last filter by keying again on 'any header' and using the definition to look for as the phrase 'multipart/alternative' Linux' K-Mail has a good filter system that is better and far more flexible than windows. The above method will not work in windows. In windows you are at the mercy of rapacious html code, and have only the most rudimentary control over java and javascript. The above filters work because scamming scum likes to get maximum distribution for thier digital feces. They usually do not know your name, and if they do, it is part of a long list. The list trips them up, and non use of your name alone on the too line trips them up. It is more effective than all the catch playing on the subject line. This is because the too line is more restrictive. Spammers also cannot resist using html and/or attachments. It is both their way of hiding malware and also of delivering it. Disallow its use and detect and divert it automatically on reciept to the appropriate holding cell (just to see the roaches before you step on them)..and the junk will be gone and you will never be bothered by it again. What shows up now in your box will be pretty much your stuff. Unless you are an Earthlink subscriber! Some insider in that national ISP is selling their subscriber list to spammers and international crooks. These suede shoe boys are running phishing rackets posing as Earthlink when they are not posing as Nigerian 'royal heiresses' etc, and may have your specific e-address. Letters to Earthlink about the crooks go unanswered, and somebody there has finally succeeded in making of the common telephone a useless device good only for the amusement of two year olds to ring the tones for the entertainment of the digital robots on the other end. So if you get a lot of that, just send it to the FCC if you feel like it. Do not hold your breath there either. Standing Bear
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:51:49 -0700: Hi, [snip] For an explosion to occur, a shock wave must be produced. Simply having energy suddenly produced in a volume would only cause the temperature go up, and ionization to occur with a flash of radiation. The sudden heating would expand the gas to a higher pressure, say from 1 atm to 10 atm. This would not be enough to shatter a heavy glass vessel - blow the lid off, maybe. Nuclear weapons essentially work on this principle, creating very little in the way of extra atoms compared to the size of the shock wave, which is essentially a result of thermal ionisation of the surrounding air. (The actual amount of material present is only a few kg, while the shock wave can have an extent of many km's). Furthermore, in the case at hand, the surrounding medium is water rather than air, so flash vaporization will also produce a shock wave (which the surrounding water will very effectively transmit to the walls of the container). It really all depends on just how much energy is liberated, and in what time frame. [snip] My point here was that each event adds its contribution and then is spent. The O++ catalyst is not reused. This is actually only partly true. The reaction goes like this: O++ + H - O+++ + H* followed by O+++ + e- - O++ + UV where the e- comes from the plasma, or just about anything else in the neighbourhood that happens to have electrons attached to it. :) So the O++ is reconstituted after use. The only problem is to reuse it before it captures another electron and becomes O+. It is not clear that the reaction its self is even capable of producing more O++. Such a replacement is only an assumption needed for your explanation. When H[n=1/3 (or more)] is formed from H, a total of 108.8 eV is liberated. Of this, 54.4 eV goes to the catalyst, leaving 54.4 eV either in the form of UV, or as kinetic energy of the hydrino. In either case, there is sufficient energy present to ionise O+ to O++ (which requires about 35 eV). The UV from the reaction: O+++ +e- - O++ + 54.9 eV is also sufficient to convert O+ to O++, or there is also the reaction: O+++ + O+ - 2 O++ However as previously mentioned, most of the time this energy won't be spent in this way. That means either that the UV/hydrino needs to have more initial energy so that even after losing some energy to competing processes, enough remains upon encountering O+ to ionise it to O++, or supplementary O++ needs to be formed from fusion reactions. I should point out that by the time n gets to e.g. n=1/10, a drop of 2 levels, such as would be catalyzed by O++, to n=1/12, results in an energy release of 598 eV, which with luck may even produce multiple O++ ions. Given an initial population of severely shrunken hydrinos, it should therefore be possible to reach a self sustaining (chain) reaction. (For n=1/120 - n=1/122 this is 6582 eV according to Mills). What I am trying to make clear here, is that once shrinkage has progressed far enough, the reaction can be self-sustaining, even though the production of O++ is not very efficient, simply because the inefficiency is out weighed by the energy excess from the reaction. It's just a matter of using hydrinos that are at such a level that O++ production rate exceeds consumption rate. (I don't know what that level is, but I hope to have shown that such a level may well exist). [snip] I don't see how you get a chain reaction. A very dilute mixture of H2 and O++ is present, both of which are used up in the process. Even if O++ were replaced, this would not be expected to occur at a significant rate, i.e. in micro seconds. After all, the original concentration of O++ was accumulated only after minutes of previous electrolysis. There was no original concentration of O++. What was accumulating over time is hydrinos of ever high levels of shrinkage. Once the average shrinkage level reaches a certain point, an explosion becomes possible (in water). It then only requires a trigger to set it off. IOW the most important point in the Mizuno experiment is that fact that the cell had been in use for about 5 years. This gave plenty of time to cake the inside wall (and/or electrode(s)) with high level hydrinos. It also means that others using the same container (or electrode(s)) for extended periods should also be prepared for explosions at some point. In a high temperature plasma containing primarily O and H, mixed with high energy hydrinos/UV, O++ formation would no longer be a rare occurrence. We are not looking at a slowly accumulated supply of catalyst here, but rather at a situation where a more than adequate supply is created, on the fly, in situ. As the reaction proceeds, the supply actually increases (because the average hydrino shrinkage level increases, and hence also the average energy released per shrinkage reaction). [snip] I don't understand what kind of fusion reaction
