Re: Cold Fusion Supernova 1987A]
Maybe the gamma burst was the culprit? OTOH "Cygnons" could be Positronium (coupled electron-positron pairs). Fred http://www.energystorm.us/Transmutation_Of_Radioactive_Nuclear_Waste-r80699.html Studies have shown that all proposed transmutation processes to treat RNW using neutron reactions are deficient or marginal at best from the point of view of energy consumption and/or cost. We suggest an alternative approach that has not been considered to date: the transmutation of RNW elements using high-energy photons or gamma rays. The photo-disintegration of RNW may provide an effective way to treat reprocessed waste; waste that has been chemically separated or the residual waste left over after neutron processing. Photo-disintegration is attractive in that any isotope can be transmuted. This approach is now potentially practical because of the development of micropole undulators (MPUs) that allow us to use small storage rings to economically generate photons with gamma-ray energies and to tune these ''gamma rays'' to the peak of the cross-section resonance for various RNW elements. Because the cross sections for all RNW nuclei hav! e a broad peak with the maximum in the 12-18 MeV range, a single MPU could be used to treat both actinide and fission fragment components of RNW. The goal of this study is to make estimates of the reaction rates and energy efficiency of the transmutation of typical RNW elements using gamma rays to establish whether or not gamma-ray transmutation should be examined as a viable alternative solution to RNW warranting further study.
Re: Cold Fusion Supernova 1987A]
Interesting to associate this photon transmutation study with the D + D He-4 + 24 Mev (photons) and transmutations in CF. - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l Sent: 3/17/2006 7:09:18 AM Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Supernova 1987A] Maybe the gamma burst was the culprit? OTOH "Cygnons" could be Positronium (coupled electron-positron pairs). Fred http://www.energystorm.us/Transmutation_Of_Radioactive_Nuclear_Waste-r80699.html Studies have shown that all proposed transmutation processes to treat RNW using neutron reactions are deficient or marginal at best from the point of view of energy consumption and/or cost. We suggest an alternative approach that has not been considered to date: the transmutation of RNW elements using high-energy photons or gamma rays. The photo-disintegration of RNW may provide an effective way to treat reprocessed waste; waste that has been chemically separated or the residual waste left over after neutron processing. Photo-disintegration is attractive in that any isotope can be transmuted. This approach is now potentially practical because of the development of micropole undulators (MPUs) that allow us to use small storage rings to economically generate photons with gamma-ray energies and to tune these ''gamma rays'' to the peak of the cross-section resonance for various RNW elements. Because the cross sections for all RNW nuclei hav! ! e a broad peak with the maximum in the 12-18 MeV range, a single MPU could be used to treat both actinide and fission fragment components of RNW. The goal of this study is to make estimates of the reaction rates and energy efficiency of the transmutation of typical RNW elements using gamma rays to establish whether or not gamma-ray transmutation should be examined as a viable alternative solution to RNW warranting further study.
RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline
I have feared that, perhaps, we have encountered fundamental problems with trying to squeeze more energy density and low cost efficiency out of an electrochemical process such as batteries depend on. Where can we go beyond lithium? That's why the ultracap approach is so exciting - it's a whole new way to fix the energy storage problem. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:07 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline Zell, Chris wrote: This lack of additional generating capacity need is partly why a Really Good Battery would have such a dramatic effect on society. You create electric cars that run much cheaper per mile without much need for additional fossil fuel generator use. Indeed, I think that such a device would encourage an explosion of alternative development that would quickly challenge utilities fossil fuel use. Don't forget, Chris: it works the other way too. Sometimes superior technology creates the opportunity, and sometimes opportunity gives rise to superior technology. This is what is happening now with batteries. We do not have Really Good Batteries but we do have Considerably Improved Batteries, such as the latest generation that are going into hybrid cars and the upcoming plug-in hybrid cars. Hundreds of thousands of hybrid cars have been manufactured and this has created a large market for improved batteries, and a flood of RD funding. This, in turn, may eventually give rise to radically improved versions and the Holy Grail you speak of: the Really Good Battery. Batteries also improved over the last 20 years thanks to the demand for cell phones and portable computers. Persistent demand and a flood of RD funding will not produce a radical breakthrough such as cold fusion. That sort of thing only comes along once every century or so, and it is the product of genius with no connection to the quotidian world of money and business. (Believe me, CF researchers live in a mental space light years away from what usually passes for reality.) But RD funding will produce incremental improvements, and that may be enough to produce the Really Good Battery. Incremental improvements brought us microprocessors with 100 million components and 20 GB hard disks that fit into your pocket. Such things would have seemed utterly incredible 30 years ago -- to me, anyway. Yet they did not require any fundamental or surprising discoveries, just persistent slogging and one small improvement after another. - Jed
Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline
I agree, progress in this field can't be incremental. The main issue with electrochemical batteries (lithium or whatever they might come up with in the future) is cost in the long run due to limited life (in number of recharges). A dry parallel plate type capacitor such as the EEstor device if it really works would last for ages (millions of recharges vs hundreds). We shouldn't get too excited though, people have been known to make extraordinary claims only intended for investors, I am not saying this is the case for EEstor and I certainly hope it isn't :) Michel - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:34 PM Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline I have feared that, perhaps, we have encountered fundamental problems with trying to squeeze more energy density and low cost efficiency out of an electrochemical process such as batteries depend on. Where can we go beyond lithium? That's why the ultracap approach is so exciting - it's a whole new way to fix the energy storage problem. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:07 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline Zell, Chris wrote: This lack of additional generating capacity need is partly why a Really Good Battery would have such a dramatic effect on society. You create electric cars that run much cheaper per mile without much need for additional fossil fuel generator use. Indeed, I think that such a device would encourage an explosion of alternative development that would quickly challenge utilities fossil fuel use. Don't forget, Chris: it works the other way too. Sometimes superior technology creates the opportunity, and sometimes opportunity gives rise to superior technology. This is what is happening now with batteries. We do not have Really Good Batteries but we do have Considerably Improved Batteries, such as the latest generation that are going into hybrid cars and the upcoming plug-in hybrid cars. Hundreds of thousands of hybrid cars have been manufactured and this has created a large market for improved batteries, and a flood of RD funding. This, in turn, may eventually give rise to radically improved versions and the Holy Grail you speak of: the Really Good Battery. Batteries also improved over the last 20 years thanks to the demand for cell phones and portable computers. Persistent demand and a flood of RD funding will not produce a radical breakthrough such as cold fusion. That sort of thing only comes along once every century or so, and it is the product of genius with no connection to the quotidian world of money and business. (Believe me, CF researchers live in a mental space light years away from what usually passes for reality.) But RD funding will produce incremental improvements, and that may be enough to produce the Really Good Battery. Incremental improvements brought us microprocessors with 100 million components and 20 GB hard disks that fit into your pocket. Such things would have seemed utterly incredible 30 years ago -- to me, anyway. Yet they did not require any fundamental or surprising discoveries, just persistent slogging and one small improvement after another. - Jed
Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline
Michel Jullian wrote: I couldn't agree more about CF, I am all for it, that's why I get so frustrated that CF issues aren't addressed a bit faster and with more efficiency, do we want to see this thing working in our lifetime I wonder? That all depends on politics. If we could persuade the public that CF is real, speed and efficiency of the research would increase by a factor about 100,000. I am not exaggerating; based on the history of airplanes and transistors, that is roughly how many more people and how much more funding would come into the field. If one or two breakthroughs are made, and a practical cell begins to emerge, there will soon be more progress every month than there has been over the last 10 years. - Jed
Re: Efimov state - key to multi-nuclear LENR?
Frank, This structure has the property that no two rings are interlocking, therefore if any one of the rings is removed, then all three separate. That would indicate temporary stability... I was trying to visualize it with three proper rings and I couldn't. I now see why. It's cos they are not proper rings at all. Still, to be fair you did first call them structures. 8-) By proper you must mean identical circular rings ... then no, that won't work wihtout intersection (magician's rings) ... plus, there are many images on the google page which are not true Borromean rings. OTOH do not need to go to the paper clip degree of elongation either. This image is interesting in the context of three-axis spin: http://sro.theory.org/my_rings.glenna.jpg but these rings are elongated. Nor necessary for the nuclear variety. When the ring itself is sinusoidal as it must be if each item is represented as a waveform, then all three of then can *intertsect* and enst in each others pathway - and then of course they are relatively circular, and of the same size. Plus if each ring is composed of 137 full sine waves which - is obviously not divisible by two for perfect stability, then you must have that lissajous offset of 1/137 (at least) in every dynamic revloution. The Borromena wave structure is only stable as a dynamic structure. I suspect that on some level of understanding - that relates to the more basic question of why the alpha constant is not really e'xactly 1/137' but has that small overage - which is of course due to the fact that it cannot be measured on a true plane - and the overage is most likely due to either the dynamic offset itself, or the cuvature of space. It gets curiouser and curiouser Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English). Now I'm opening out like the largest telescope that ever was!... ... which was quite a good-bye feat, Jones
Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline
That's why I think videos of working experiments which would make nice stories for TV should be taken. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 4:00 PM Subject: Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline Michel Jullian wrote: I couldn't agree more about CF, I am all for it, that's why I get so frustrated that CF issues aren't addressed a bit faster and with more efficiency, do we want to see this thing working in our lifetime I wonder? That all depends on politics. If we could persuade the public that CF is real, speed and efficiency of the research would increase by a factor about 100,000. I am not exaggerating; based on the history of airplanes and transistors, that is roughly how many more people and how much more funding would come into the field. If one or two breakthroughs are made, and a practical cell begins to emerge, there will soon be more progress every month than there has been over the last 10 years. - Jed
Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline
From what I've seen on this topic, no one has suggested putting a high efficiency battery (comparable to the one in your vehicle) or other storage device in your garage and charging it with a rooftop solar panel, windmill (this was done down on the farm in the 1930s), waste heat device, then charge your vehicle from it while you are on rest mode. Then there are piped-in-hydrogen fuel cells on the horizon also. The Eiffel Tower could sport a windmill on top, Michel. :-) Fred Michel Jullian wrote. I agree, progress in this field can't be incremental. The main issue with electrochemical batteries (lithium or whatever they might come up with in the future) is cost in the long run due to limited life (in number of recharges). A dry parallel plate type capacitor such as the EEstor device if it really works would last for ages (millions of recharges vs hundreds). We shouldn't get too excited though, people have been known to make extraordinary claims only intended for investors, I am not saying this is the case for EEstor and I certainly hope it isn't :) Michel - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:34 PM Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline I have feared that, perhaps, we have encountered fundamental problems with trying to squeeze more energy density and low cost efficiency out of an electrochemical process such as batteries depend on. Where can we go beyond lithium? That's why the ultracap approach is so exciting - it's a whole new way to fix the energy storage problem. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:07 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline Zell, Chris wrote: This lack of additional generating capacity need is partly why a Really Good Battery would have such a dramatic effect on society. You create electric cars that run much cheaper per mile without much need for additional fossil fuel generator use. Indeed, I think that such a device would encourage an explosion of alternative development that would quickly challenge utilities fossil fuel use. Don't forget, Chris: it works the other way too. Sometimes superior technology creates the opportunity, and sometimes opportunity gives rise to superior technology. This is what is happening now with batteries. We do not have Really Good Batteries but we do have Considerably Improved Batteries, such as the latest generation that are going into hybrid cars and the upcoming plug-in hybrid cars. Hundreds of thousands of hybrid cars have been manufactured and this has created a large market for improved batteries, and a flood of RD funding. This, in turn, may eventually give rise to radically improved versions and the Holy Grail you speak of: the Really Good Battery. Batteries also improved over the last 20 years thanks to the demand for cell phones and portable computers. Persistent demand and a flood of RD funding will not produce a radical breakthrough such as cold fusion. That sort of thing only comes along once every century or so, and it is the product of genius with no connection to the quotidian world of money and business. (Believe me, CF researchers live in a mental space light years away from what usually passes for reality.) But RD funding will produce incremental improvements, and that may be enough to produce the Really Good Battery. Incremental improvements brought us microprocessors with 100 million components and 20 GB hard disks that fit into your pocket. Such things would have seemed utterly incredible 30 years ago -- to me, anyway. Yet they did not require any fundamental or surprising discoveries, just persistent slogging and one small improvement after another. - Jed
Re: Efimov state - key to multi-nuclear LENR?
Jones. You picked up on the 137 contact points of (Crotalus cerastes Particlaes) didn't you? :-) Particle Wavelength Lambda = hc/E = circumference of frictionless jar. containing said snake Frequency f = c/lambda = 1.23e20 Hz for electron or positron. Displacement current I = q*f =19.68 amperes q = C*V = (eo*lambda = 2.155e-23 farad) * V = 1.6e-19 coulombs V= (E/0.5*2.155e-23)^1/2 = 8.7e4 Volts But I = V/Zo (Zo = 377 ohms) = 230.7 amperes and 230.7/19.68 = 11.726 = (137.03)^1/2. ??? Fred http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~brm2286/locomotn.htm Sidewinding is used by many snakes crawling on smooth or slippery surfaces, but is best known in the sidewinder rattlesnake (Crotalus cerastes) and a few desert vipers of Africa and Asia. Sidewinding is similar to lateral undulation in the pattern of bending, but differs in three critical ways: First, each point along the body is sequentially placed in static (rather than sliding) friction with the substrate. Second, segments of the body are lifted off the ground between the regions in static contact with the ground. Thus, the body sort of rolls along the ground from neck to tail, forming a characteristic track (that is proportional to body length) in sand; after being lifted off the ground and set down again a short distance away, the front part of the body begins a new track while the rear part of the body completes the old track. Third, because of the static contact and lifting of the body, the snake travels roughly diagonally relative to the tracks it forms on the ground. Muscle activity during sidewinding is similar to that in lateral undulation except that some muscles are also active bilaterally in the regions of trunk lifting. Jones Sidewinder Beene wrote. Frank, This structure has the property that no two rings are interlocking, therefore if any one of the rings is removed, then all three separate. That would indicate temporary stability... I was trying to visualize it with three proper rings and I couldn't. I now see why. It's cos they are not proper rings at all. Still, to be fair you did first call them structures. 8-) By proper you must mean identical circular rings ... then no, that won't work wihtout intersection (magician's rings) ... plus, there are many images on the google page which are not true Borromean rings. OTOH do not need to go to the paper clip degree of elongation either. This image is interesting in the context of three-axis spin: http://sro.theory.org/my_rings.glenna.jpg but these rings are elongated. Nor necessary for the nuclear variety. When the ring itself is sinusoidal as it must be if each item is represented as a waveform, then all three of then can *intertsect* and enst in each others pathway - and then of course they are relatively circular, and of the same size. Plus if each ring is composed of 137 full sine waves which - is obviously not divisible by two for perfect stability, then you must have that lissajous offset of 1/137 (at least) in every dynamic revloution. The Borromena wave structure is only stable as a dynamic structure. I suspect that on some level of understanding - that relates to the more basic question of why the alpha constant is not really e'xactly 1/137' but has that small overage - which is of course due to the fact that it cannot be measured on a true plane - and the overage is most likely due to either the dynamic offset itself, or the cuvature of space. It gets curiouser and curiouser Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English). Now I'm opening out like the largest telescope that ever was!... ... which was quite a good-bye feat, Jones
Papp Variant Noble Gas Engine
The Sabori Inert Gas Vacuum Engine According to the video, a forerunner to this engine was brought to U.S. by Hungarian, Joseph Papp. Sabori joined him in 1985, investing a large sum of money in a joint venture. Mr. Papp refused to share, per contract agreement. The case ended in court in Tulsa OK in 1988. In a settlement, the judge instructed Papp to share with Sabori and to share ownership: Papp 51%, Sabori 49%. Joseph Papp died the next year of colon cancer, taking the technology to the grave with him, having destroyed all ..., formulas, equations; leaving Sabori with nothing. During last five years (per the time of the video footage), Mr. Sabori has developed 1- and 2-cylinder engines. The one-cylinder engine includes a Plexiglas sleeve for viewing the reaction. Sabori is said to have subsequently developed a technology superior to Papp, using small amounts of Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, Xenon, within a sealed vacuum. The engine produces no exhaust, no combustion, and requires no cooling system. The two cylinder engine, which is being perfected and which is fully functional, puts out as high as 350 horsepower at low rpm, and 500 at higher rpms, such as 700 rpm. According to mainstream science, it is not possible for inert gasses in a vacuum to produce substantial force. The Sabori video shows otherwise. more http://peswiki.com/index.php/Academy:Video_of_Jimmy_Sabori's_Papp_Engine_ Variants http://tinyurl.com/sxzfr ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Flywheels to be used in N.Y. and Calif. to store electricity
Vorts, A recent comment I read several weeks ago from my subscription to Kiplinger Forecasts caught my attention. The newsletter claimed that there would be a [new] form of energy storage technology that would debut sometime in 2007 in both New York and California. The technology would allow utilities to make electricity overnight and store it, presumably more efficiently. I asked Kiplinger if they could be more specific about what kind of technology was involved. Here's what I found out: Check out Beacon Power, http://www.beaconpower.com, specifically the topic on Energy Storage Systems. Apparently, flywheel technology will be used. Here's additional info on the project from the government Office of Electricity Delivery Energy Reliability. http://www.electricity.doe.gov/program/electric_rd_estorage.cfm?section=programlevel2=estorage or http://tinyurl.com/nlva3 And here's another link to Sandia National Laboratories, where they also discuss the Beacon Flywheel System. See: http://www.sandia.gov/ess/ Beacon Flywheel System Installed at DUIT Facility As part of the CEC / DOE energy storage collaboration, Beacon Power has completed assembly of a flywheel system to provide grid frequency regulation. The 100 kW / 15 min system consists of seven 500 lb, 22,000 rpm, magnetically levitated rotors. After completion of factory testing, the system was trucked across the U.S. for further testing at the PGE DUIT facility in San Ramon, CA. The system was inaugurated Dec. 6, 2005 at an event attended by representatives of CEC, DOE, Cal ISO and PGE (Beacon Press Release). Some related additional resources listed are: Electricity Storage Association http://www.energystorage.org/ Another interesting resource to check out is: The Energy Blog - Energy Storage section http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/energy_storage/index.html or http://tinyurl.com/rnwhl BTW, I noticed they discuss the merits of switchgrass at this blog site. ...and finally the following publication is available at Amazon Books. Energy Storage: A Nontechnical Guide (PennWell Publishing, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159370027X/sr=1-1/qid=1139408741/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9696362-2352136?%5Fencoding=UTF8 or http://tinyurl.com/lbqq4 Enjoy your weekend! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline
Any way you slice it, Michel battery storage of electricity off the Grid is the most practical way to store Pipeline Hydrogen for Vehicle use. Fred Michel Jullian wrote: Well no the Eiffel Tower couldn't support a windmill on top as it already supports TV emitters, and your scheme would make TV emissions stroboscopic at a frequency depending on wind speed :) A storage device in the garage will be recommended indeed, but it's not practical with electrochemistry because of the lifetime issues I mentioned. Ultracaps would be fine though, and would allow recharging in a matter of minutes i.e. as fast as refilling your gas tank. That's how EEstor envisions refill stations BTW, lots of ultracaps. BTW Fred (and other distinguished vorts) I would be interested in your opinion on the EEStor patent I discovered a few days ago http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html (copy-paste app number 0040071944, I haven't found how to link directly to the patent) Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 4:37 PM Subject: Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline From what I've seen on this topic, no one has suggested putting a high efficiency battery (comparable to the one in your vehicle) or other storage device in your garage and charging it with a rooftop solar panel, windmill (this was done down on the farm in the 1930s), waste heat device, then charge your vehicle from it while you are on rest mode. Then there are piped-in-hydrogen fuel cells on the horizon also. The Eiffel Tower could sport a windmill on top, Michel. :-) Fred Michel Jullian wrote. I agree, progress in this field can't be incremental. The main issue with electrochemical batteries (lithium or whatever they might come up with in the future) is cost in the long run due to limited life (in number of recharges). A dry parallel plate type capacitor such as the EEstor device if it really works would last for ages (millions of recharges vs hundreds). We shouldn't get too excited though, people have been known to make extraordinary claims only intended for investors, I am not saying this is the case for EEstor and I certainly hope it isn't :) Michel - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:34 PM Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline I have feared that, perhaps, we have encountered fundamental problems with trying to squeeze more energy density and low cost efficiency out of an electrochemical process such as batteries depend on. Where can we go beyond lithium? That's why the ultracap approach is so exciting - it's a whole new way to fix the energy storage problem. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:07 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline Zell, Chris wrote: This lack of additional generating capacity need is partly why a Really Good Battery would have such a dramatic effect on society. You create electric cars that run much cheaper per mile without much need for additional fossil fuel generator use. Indeed, I think that such a device would encourage an explosion of alternative development that would quickly challenge utilities fossil fuel use. Don't forget, Chris: it works the other way too. Sometimes superior technology creates the opportunity, and sometimes opportunity gives rise to superior technology. This is what is happening now with batteries. We do not have Really Good Batteries but we do have Considerably Improved Batteries, such as the latest generation that are going into hybrid cars and the upcoming plug-in hybrid cars. Hundreds of thousands of hybrid cars have been manufactured and this has created a large market for improved batteries, and a flood of RD funding. This, in turn, may eventually give rise to radically improved versions and the Holy Grail you speak of: the Really Good Battery. Batteries also improved over the last 20 years thanks to the demand for cell phones and portable computers. Persistent demand and a flood of RD funding will not produce a radical breakthrough such as cold fusion. That sort of thing only comes along once every century or so, and it is the product of genius with no connection to the quotidian world of money and business. (Believe me, CF researchers live in a mental space light years away from what usually passes for reality.) But RD funding will produce incremental improvements, and that may be enough to produce the Really Good Battery. Incremental improvements brought us microprocessors with 100 million components and 20 GB hard
Flywheel in homes. Could it be economical?
Vorts, The recent flywheel Beacon Power technology that was brought to my attention made me wonder if there might be an economic advantage in manufacturing smaller scale versions of this technology that perhaps could be installed in a typical homeowner's basement to store "surplus" electricity, presumably during cheaper non-peak times of the day. I presume if there is any chance of this kind of technology being scaled down in order to accommodate the needs of single homes it would have to be mass-produced in sufficient quantities to drive unit costs down to a price considered economically attractive. I really don't know if that's possible. Also, I don't know what percentage of homes in the U.S. pay for electricity where costs vary depending on what time of the day it is. Here in Madison, Wisconsin (Madison Gas & Electric), I believe I'm charged a flat rate no matter what time of the day I'm using their services, so flywheel storage technology wouldn't seem to buy me any advantage at all - except perhaps for an emergency when we lose power. Fortunately, that doesn't happen very often. What do the engineers and experts on this group have to say about whether it is economically feasible, or not. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline
(reply pb not gone Fred) Ok if by battery you mean ultracaps :) Wait, what do you mean by Pipeline Hydrogen? Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 6:52 PM Subject: Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline Any way you slice it, Michel battery storage of electricity off the Grid is the most practical way to store Pipeline Hydrogen for Vehicle use. Fred Michel Jullian wrote: Well no the Eiffel Tower couldn't support a windmill on top as it already supports TV emitters, and your scheme would make TV emissions stroboscopic at a frequency depending on wind speed :) A storage device in the garage will be recommended indeed, but it's not practical with electrochemistry because of the lifetime issues I mentioned. Ultracaps would be fine though, and would allow recharging in a matter of minutes i.e. as fast as refilling your gas tank. That's how EEstor envisions refill stations BTW, lots of ultracaps. BTW Fred (and other distinguished vorts) I would be interested in your opinion on the EEStor patent I discovered a few days ago http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html (copy-paste app number 0040071944, I haven't found how to link directly to the patent) Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 4:37 PM Subject: Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline From what I've seen on this topic, no one has suggested putting a high efficiency battery (comparable to the one in your vehicle) or other storage device in your garage and charging it with a rooftop solar panel, windmill (this was done down on the farm in the 1930s), waste heat device, then charge your vehicle from it while you are on rest mode. Then there are piped-in-hydrogen fuel cells on the horizon also. The Eiffel Tower could sport a windmill on top, Michel. :-) Fred Michel Jullian wrote. I agree, progress in this field can't be incremental. The main issue with electrochemical batteries (lithium or whatever they might come up with in the future) is cost in the long run due to limited life (in number of recharges). A dry parallel plate type capacitor such as the EEstor device if it really works would last for ages (millions of recharges vs hundreds). We shouldn't get too excited though, people have been known to make extraordinary claims only intended for investors, I am not saying this is the case for EEstor and I certainly hope it isn't :) Michel - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:34 PM Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline I have feared that, perhaps, we have encountered fundamental problems with trying to squeeze more energy density and low cost efficiency out of an electrochemical process such as batteries depend on. Where can we go beyond lithium? That's why the ultracap approach is so exciting - it's a whole new way to fix the energy storage problem. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:07 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline Zell, Chris wrote: This lack of additional generating capacity need is partly why a Really Good Battery would have such a dramatic effect on society. You create electric cars that run much cheaper per mile without much need for additional fossil fuel generator use. Indeed, I think that such a device would encourage an explosion of alternative development that would quickly challenge utilities fossil fuel use. Don't forget, Chris: it works the other way too. Sometimes superior technology creates the opportunity, and sometimes opportunity gives rise to superior technology. This is what is happening now with batteries. We do not have Really Good Batteries but we do have Considerably Improved Batteries, such as the latest generation that are going into hybrid cars and the upcoming plug-in hybrid cars. Hundreds of thousands of hybrid cars have been manufactured and this has created a large market for improved batteries, and a flood of RD funding. This, in turn, may eventually give rise to radically improved versions and the Holy Grail you speak of: the Really Good Battery. Batteries also improved over the last 20 years thanks to the demand for cell phones and portable computers. Persistent demand and a flood of RD funding will not produce a radical breakthrough such as cold fusion. That sort of thing only comes along once every century or so, and it is the product of genius with no connection to the quotidian world of money and business. (Believe me, CF researchers live in a mental space light years away
Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline
Michel Jullian wrote. Ok if by battery you mean ultracaps :) Wait, what do you mean by Pipeline Hydrogen? Hydrogen produced on a large scale by electrolysis or coal and biomass gasifican etc, delivered to the user by pipeline. Production based on demand eliminates the economically elusive cheap/safe storage solution. Fred Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 6:52 PM Subject: Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline Any way you slice it, Michel battery storage of electricity off the Grid is the most practical way to store Pipeline Hydrogen for Vehicle use. Fred Michel Jullian wrote: Well no the Eiffel Tower couldn't support a windmill on top as it already supports TV emitters, and your scheme would make TV emissions stroboscopic at a frequency depending on wind speed :) A storage device in the garage will be recommended indeed, but it's not practical with electrochemistry because of the lifetime issues I mentioned. Ultracaps would be fine though, and would allow recharging in a matter of minutes i.e. as fast as refilling your gas tank. That's how EEstor envisions refill stations BTW, lots of ultracaps. BTW Fred (and other distinguished vorts) I would be interested in your opinion on the EEStor patent I discovered a few days ago http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html (copy-paste app number 0040071944, I haven't found how to link directly to the patent) Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 4:37 PM Subject: Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline From what I've seen on this topic, no one has suggested putting a high efficiency battery (comparable to the one in your vehicle) or other storage device in your garage and charging it with a rooftop solar panel, windmill (this was done down on the farm in the 1930s), waste heat device, then charge your vehicle from it while you are on rest mode. Then there are piped-in-hydrogen fuel cells on the horizon also. The Eiffel Tower could sport a windmill on top, Michel. :-) Fred Michel Jullian wrote. I agree, progress in this field can't be incremental. The main issue with electrochemical batteries (lithium or whatever they might come up with in the future) is cost in the long run due to limited life (in number of recharges). A dry parallel plate type capacitor such as the EEstor device if it really works would last for ages (millions of recharges vs hundreds). We shouldn't get too excited though, people have been known to make extraordinary claims only intended for investors, I am not saying this is the case for EEstor and I certainly hope it isn't :) Michel - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:34 PM Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline I have feared that, perhaps, we have encountered fundamental problems with trying to squeeze more energy density and low cost efficiency out of an electrochemical process such as batteries depend on. Where can we go beyond lithium? That's why the ultracap approach is so exciting - it's a whole new way to fix the energy storage problem. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:07 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline Zell, Chris wrote: This lack of additional generating capacity need is partly why a Really Good Battery would have such a dramatic effect on society. You create electric cars that run much cheaper per mile without much need for additional fossil fuel generator use. Indeed, I think that such a device would encourage an explosion of alternative development that would quickly challenge utilities fossil fuel use. Don't forget, Chris: it works the other way too. Sometimes superior technology creates the opportunity, and sometimes opportunity gives rise to superior technology. This is what is happening now with batteries. We do not have Really Good Batteries but we do have Considerably Improved Batteries, such as the latest generation that are going into hybrid cars and the upcoming plug-in hybrid cars. Hundreds of thousands of hybrid cars have been manufactured and this has created a large market for improved batteries, and a flood of RD funding. This, in turn, may eventually give rise to radically improved versions and the Holy Grail you speak of: the Really Good Battery. Batteries also improved
EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline)
-Original Message- From: Michel Jullian BTW Fred (and other distinguished vorts) I would be interested in your opinion on the EEStor patent I discovered a few days ago http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html (copy-paste app number 0040071944, I haven't found how to link directly to the patent) http://tinyurl.com/fmwkv Keith should love the patent app. It has lots of chemistry. T ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
RE: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline)
Hi Ham, Yes, I did like the app, and had a few thoughts about it. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline) -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian BTW Fred (and other distinguished vorts) I would be interested in your opinion on the EEStor patent I discovered a few days ago http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html (copy-paste app number 0040071944, I haven't found how to link directly to the patent) http://tinyurl.com/fmwkv Keith should love the patent app. It has lots of chemistry. T ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline)
Hi K, do you think it can work? (you seem to have a reply-to problem just like Fred BTW) Michel - Original Message - From: Keith Nagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:55 PM Subject: RE: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline) Hi Ham, Yes, I did like the app, and had a few thoughts about it. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline) -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian BTW Fred (and other distinguished vorts) I would be interested in your opinion on the EEStor patent I discovered a few days ago http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html (copy-paste app number 0040071944, I haven't found how to link directly to the patent) http://tinyurl.com/fmwkv Keith should love the patent app. It has lots of chemistry. T ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline)
-Original Message- From: Keith Nagel Hi Ham, Yes, I did like the app, and had a few thoughts about it. At 0.5 kWh per mile that's 104 miles for the 52 kWh, 336 lb battery assuming linear discharge and total depletion. Is the battery heavier when charged? g Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
O.T. Speaking of St. Patrick's Day
Mike and his wife drove into town to celebrate the occasion. On the drive home, Mike was pulled over by a policeman who informed him that his wife "had fallen out of the car when he turned the corner a few miles back, but she was unhurt". "Thank the Lord!." Mike exclaimed, "I though I was going deaf". Fred
Re: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline)
104 miles range isn't much! Are you sure about the 0.5 kWh per mile for an electric car? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:27 PM Subject: Re: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline) -Original Message- From: Keith Nagel Hi Ham, Yes, I did like the app, and had a few thoughts about it. At 0.5 kWh per mile that's 104 miles for the 52 kWh, 336 lb battery assuming linear discharge and total depletion. Is the battery heavier when charged? g Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline)
-Original Message- From: Michel Jullian 104 miles range isn't much! Are you sure about the 0.5 kWh per mile for an electric car? Uh, the first message in this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg12220.html ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
RE: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline)
Wow, hey Fred, we have something in common. BTW, how's the house coming? You get any bites yet? K. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline) Hi K, do you think it can work? (you seem to have a reply-to problem just like Fred BTW) Michel - Original Message - From: Keith Nagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:55 PM Subject: RE: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline) Hi Ham, Yes, I did like the app, and had a few thoughts about it. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline) -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian BTW Fred (and other distinguished vorts) I would be interested in your opinion on the EEStor patent I discovered a few days ago http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html (copy-paste app number 0040071944, I haven't found how to link directly to the patent) http://tinyurl.com/fmwkv Keith should love the patent app. It has lots of chemistry. T ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Gorlov turbine looks like a winner
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002383.html The Gorlov turbine looks like a winner. It has been around a while. Too bad it is so slow to progress. Maybe the new energy prices will change that.
Re: EEStor Patent
-Original Message- From: Michel Jullian 104 miles range isn't much! Are you sure about the 0.5 kWh per mile for an electric car? While 0.5 kWh was quoted previously, paragraph [0073] of the patent app says: It is estimeated that is (sic) takes 14 hp, 746 watts per hp, to power an electric vehicle running at 60 mph with the lights, radio, and airconditioning on. The energy-storage unit must supply 52,220 Wh or 10,444 W for 5 hours to sustain this speed and energy usage and during this period the EV will have traveled 300 miles. So, you have a right to question the figures. BTW, the stereo music alone from some cars here in Atlanta will limit the range to well below 100 miles. They sound like the Aurora rumble that Jones heard last week. g Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline)
Thanks, sorry I have caught the thread en route, I should have looked it up myself. Jed/Wikipedia said 0.3 to 0.5 kWh in fact, 52 kWh would be nearly acceptable for say 0.3 kWh/mile on the road (170miles=300km range), and 0.5 kWh in town, 104miles in town as you said. The thing is with this battery you can fill up at a filling station in a few mn, with a lithium battery you would be stranded half way of where you're going for hours, so this really would be an enabling technology for the all-electric car. Michel - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 10:44 PM Subject: Re: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline) -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian 104 miles range isn't much! Are you sure about the 0.5 kWh per mile for an electric car? Uh, the first message in this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg12220.html ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: EEStor Patent
BTW, the stereo music alone from some cars here in Atlanta will limit the range to well below 100 miles. LOL :) Yes there is a problem with the figures, it may be that EEStor talks about european cars, and Jed/Wikipedia about US cars ;) Michel - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 11:15 PM Subject: Re: EEStor Patent -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian 104 miles range isn't much! Are you sure about the 0.5 kWh per mile for an electric car? While 0.5 kWh was quoted previously, paragraph [0073] of the patent app says: It is estimeated that is (sic) takes 14 hp, 746 watts per hp, to power an electric vehicle running at 60 mph with the lights, radio, and airconditioning on. The energy-storage unit must supply 52,220 Wh or 10,444 W for 5 hours to sustain this speed and energy usage and during this period the EV will have traveled 300 miles. So, you have a right to question the figures. BTW, the stereo music alone from some cars here in Atlanta will limit the range to well below 100 miles. They sound like the Aurora rumble that Jones heard last week. g Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Oops! No Mars Water?
Hi,
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 I wrote:-
--
In reply to Mitchell Jones's message of Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:18:54
-0500:
[snip]
***{How can pressure rise from 8 to 5200 mbar after all of the CO2 in the
atmosphere--i.e., 90% by weight--has precipitated out? I repeat: this dog
won't hunt, Horace. --MJ}***
, due to the CO2
snow pack, then it can liquify when it warms up.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
How about a river of very fine dust?
--
Now, 5 years later we see:-
http://www.physorg.com/news11858.html
Re: Cold Fusion Supernova 1987A]
Yes, they will follow the field lines; but there's not much large-scale order to the galactic magnetic field, so it's more a diffusion process, once the particles leave the supernova's immediate area. There's no significant recombination- not enough electrons moving close to the same speed, and even those that did combine would be broken apart again by collisions with atoms in the interstellar medium. Last I heard, cosmic rays were believed to have an average age in the galaxy of a few million years- based on ratios of Li/Be/B isotopes produced in transit. Since the LMC is actually outside our galaxy, I think it would be safe to add a few million more. Horace Heffner wrote: On Mar 16, 2006, at 6:49 PM, Bob Fickle wrote: You miss the point. Right you are - I missed that point. They're not coming here- they're spiralling in circles about the size of the solar system, 150,000 light-years from here. They will eventually drift throughout the galaxy, but on a timescale thousands of times larger than a direct path would take. They should in part tend to follow the field lines. However, the initial EMP gradient should serve to reunite a significant amount of the nuclei with their electrons. The neutral H atoms should still carry roughly the kinetic energy of the protons, and not be deflected. This gives: (1-0.99)*15y = 0.0015 year = 55 days for the neutrals to start showing up. Horace Heffner
Re: Oops! No Mars Water?
-Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk Now, 5 years later we see:- http://www.physorg.com/news11858.html At the same time we also see: http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8857-big-new-reservoir-of-wate r-ice-suspected-under-mars.html http://tinyurl.com/heqdz The antenna was deployed in June 2005 and quickly detected what appeared to be water ice stretching 1.8 kilometres below the surface of the northern polar ice cap. Now, it has found what looks like water ice extending as deep as 3.5 kilometres below the southern polar cap. What the bleep do we know? g Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Spoof articles about cold fusion
Truth be told.Ferrar (is his last name) sent it to me somewhat hacked up. I enjoyed his delightful creativity so much that I edited his draft it into standard AP-style news copy and sent it back to him. Gotta hand it to this guy..he really has a great sense of humor and also has his ear to the ground. s At 11:53 AM 3/13/2006, you wrote: The writer, Ferrer, looks vaguely similar to a local politician: http://www.thespoof.com/profile.cfm?uID=3258 Hmm ... and if memory serves, and not being a name dropper, didn't SK post something rather similar to this with an Olympics twist ? ... perhaps he just forgot the attribution...g or is being set-up by Putterman's grad student brigade.
Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:45:30 -0500: Hi, [snip] States with significant wind resources are thousands of miles away, and you cannot transmit electricity that far. Georgia has no significant renewable energy resources. It is a shame you cannot transmit electricity 2000 miles because if you could, we could establish a massive solar thermal plant in a 100 square mile area of the Southwest desert, and generate all the electricity we now consume. Or we could do the same trick with wind farms in North Dakota. Alas, it is impossible. Someday high temperature superconducting wires or hydrogen pipelines may allow electricity to be transmitted across the continent. [snip] Georgia also has it's own renewable resource just off the coast, in the form of the Gulf Stream. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
FW: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday March 17, 2006
forward from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Akira Kawasaki) [Original Message] From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/18/2006 12:58:12 AM Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday March 17, 2006 WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 17 Mar 06 Washington, DC 1. THE BIGGER PRIZE: IS THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE INFECTIOUS? Sir John Templeton had stipulated in 1972 that his prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities, now at $1.4 million, was to always be bigger than the Nobel. British cosmologist John Barrow has been awarded the Templeton Prize for 2006. Barrow is best known for The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, written with Frank Tipler in 1986. The anthropic principle states that the laws of nature were fine-tuned by the Great Designer to allow the existence of beings so intelligent that they could discover the anthropic principle. This is so incredibly deep that something happens to scientists who dwell on it too long. In Tipler's case, it led him in 1996 to write, The Physics of Immortality, in which he derives, the existence of God and the resurrection of the dead http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN94/wn100794.html . In Barrow's case it led to the 2006 Templeton Prize. 2. BELOW THE GROUND STATE: BEFORE SPRING THERE IS MARCH MADNESS. On March 23, 1989 in Salt Lake City, the University of Utah held a press conference to announce the discovery of cold fusion, but the story had already been leaked to the world's most influential financial dailies, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. Both papers continued to print unfailingly optimistic reports for weeks. Among those lured into the swamp was Randell Mills, a 1986 graduate of Harvard Medical School. Two years later Mills held a press conference of his own to announce that it wasn't fusion. It was better! Hydrogen atoms can shrink into hydrinos, releasing energy. With the 17th anniversary of cold fusion approaching, both papers are now running credulous stories about Mills and his company, BlackLight Power. BLP, which has never produced anything, is rumored to be preparing an IPO. 3. PERPETUAL FRAUD: NOTORIOUS HUCKSTER IS UP TO HIS OLD TRICKS. Dennis Lee doesn't sell perpetual motion machines. He sells dealerships for perpetual motion machines. He's done hard time, but he wears it as a badge of honor, proof that the establishment is trying to suppress his inventions. He has never delivered a free-energy machines to a dealer, but he still sells dealerships. Can he be stopped? In 2002 the state of Washington, with the help of an obscure professor of physics, barred Lee's company, Better World Technologies, from doing business. Six months later, with the help of the same physics professor, it was Maine. It was slow, but at that rate he'd be out of business by my 100th birthday. It was not to be. Last week, Eric Krieg, a long-time nemesis of Lee and the head of an active group of skeptics in Philadelphia, pointed out that Lee is on tour again. One stop on the tour is Seattle. Seattle, WA? How could this be? It's not Better World Technologies that doing the tour, it's Better World Alternatives, a separate marketing company set up by Lee. In the age of the internet, education is the only weapon against scams. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University of Maryland, but they should be. --- Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org What's New is moving to a different listserver and our subscription process has changed. To change your subscription status please visit this link: http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=bobparks-whatsnewA=1
Re: A meteorogolist speaks on climate change
In reply to RC Macaulay's message of Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:54:43 -0600: Hi, [snip] People being creatures of habit, will choose the least painful method.. which is .. do nothing. Richard They will however choose something if it is perceived to result in an immediate benefit. I.e. if you give them a car that runs on water, they'll buy it. It's up to us (ao) to ensure that it also benefits the environment. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: Polar CO2
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:03:49 -0900: Hi, [snip] Polar carbon dioxide increasing at surprising rate. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1729255,00.html In 1990 this key cause of global warming was rising at a rate of 1 part per million (ppm). Recently, that rate reached 2 ppm per year. Now, scientists at the Mount Zeppelin monitoring station have discovered it is rising at between 2.5 and 3 ppm. Horace Heffner This is actually catastrophic. An exponential model doesn't rise steeply enough to cover the change in the rate of increase (i.e. the acceleration). Or more accurately if one uses the formula:- N = N0 x exp(t/T) then the first derivative is (N0/T) x exp(t/T) and the second derivative is (N0/T^2) x exp(t/T). One can determine T either by dividing the base formula by the first derivative, or by dividing the first derivative by the second derivative. If the current level is 380 ppm, and the current growth rate (i.e. the first derivative) is 2.7 ppm/yr, and this was 1 ppm/yr in 1990, then the second derivative ~= (2.7-1)/(2006-1990) = 0.106 ppm/yr^2. (Since this is a linear calculation based on a 16 year time difference, the actual current value is likely to be higher). The first method of determining T yields T = 380 ppm /(2.7 ppm/yr) = 140 y. The second method yields T = (2.7 ppm/yr)/ (0.106 ppm/yr^2) = 25.5 yr. Basically this means that the curve has recently been getting steeper more rapidly than the first method would indicate (the first method would yield a second derivative of 380/140^2 = 0.02 ppm/yr^2). The second method yields an acceleration that is 5 times larger. The implication is that even the second method yields a T that is too large. Yet even if we assume this second T (25.5 yr) is correct, it means we would hit the 500 ppm tipping point in 7 years time. We should therefore expect to hit it sooner. Horace please correct any egregious errors. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: Electronium (*e-) Enrichment in Biological Transmutations?
In reply to Frederick Sparber's message of Wed, 15 Mar 2006 01:05:11 -0700: Hi, [snip] http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2002ApPhL..81.1098Kamp;db_key=PHYamp;data_type=HTMLamp;format= Abstract~ We have investigated effects of electric fields on the yield of secondary electron emission (SEE) from the primary electron bombardment on magnesium oxide (MgO) covering vertically grown multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). We observe that the yield of SEE increases up to at least 22 000 at a special condition. The strong local field generated by the sharp tip of vertically grown MWCNTs accelerates secondary electrons generated by primary electrons. This eventually gives rise to so called Townsend avalanche effect, generating huge number of secondary electrons in a MgO film. Emission mechanism for such a high SEE will be further discussed with energy spectrum analysis. Carbon nano tubes may make a good platform for launching EVs. An EV accelerated by a chemical differential voltage of up to 3 volts could accelerate a deuteron up to an energy of 3 * 2 * 1836 = 11 keV. Enough to bring about a fusion reaction. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: Polar CO2
On Mar 17, 2006, at 8:30 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:03:49 -0900: Hi, [snip] Polar carbon dioxide increasing at surprising rate. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1729255,00.html In 1990 this key cause of global warming was rising at a rate of 1 part per million (ppm). Recently, that rate reached 2 ppm per year. Now, scientists at the Mount Zeppelin monitoring station have discovered it is rising at between 2.5 and 3 ppm. Horace Heffner This is actually catastrophic. If it is indeed true then I could not agree more that it is catastrophic. I think independent confirmation is badly needed, not just at Mount Zeppelin but all over the polar regions. Too bad NASA has been canceling earth science missions. An exponential model doesn't rise steeply enough to cover the change in the rate of increase (i.e. the acceleration). If the data is correct then I think that implies that a stepwise increase is occurring. An exponential model does not apply to a stepwise increase. Assuming the numbers are correct, that means some threshold has been crossed and there is an entirely new source of CO2. Maybe methane oxidizes much faster than the rate implied by a 12 year half-life. Maybe the ocean warming is somehow releasing CO2 - or failing to sequester it due to massive krill death, etc. The numbers are very hard to believe, but making the effort at verification is obviously of great importance. I see the article says: The increase is also seen at other stations, but our Zeppelin data show the strongest increase. This leaves the possibility it is a fairly localized phenomenon, though if a stepwise regime change can occur there it possibly can occur everywhere in the arctic. Horace please correct any egregious errors. Not my job mann! I just work here. That's a management function. 8^) Horace Heffner
Re: Efimov state - key to multi-nuclear LENR?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:10:01 -0800: Hi, [snip] This ring means that three objects are entangled. If you pick up any one of them, the other two will follow. However, if you cut one of them off, the other two will fall apart, Chin said. There is something magic about this number of three. [snip] There's nothing magic about it, it's a direct consequence of living in a 3 dimensional universe. Point objects have 3 degrees of freedom. The rings demonstrate that beautifully. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: Polar CO2
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:15:08 -0900: Hi, [snip] If it is indeed true then I could not agree more that it is catastrophic. I think independent confirmation is badly needed, not just at Mount Zeppelin but all over the polar regions. Too bad NASA has been canceling earth science missions. Indeed. An exponential model doesn't rise steeply enough to cover the change in the rate of increase (i.e. the acceleration). If the data is correct then I think that implies that a stepwise increase is occurring. An exponential model does not apply to a stepwise increase. Assuming the numbers are correct, that means some threshold has been crossed and there is an entirely new source of CO2. I agree. Maybe methane oxidizes much faster than the rate implied by a 12 year half-life. Maybe the ocean warming is somehow releasing CO2 CO2 dissolves better in cold water than in warm water. - or failing to sequester it due to massive krill death, etc. The numbers are very hard to believe, but making the effort at verification is obviously of great importance. Another possibility is that a slow down in the conveyor may be leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere (because CO2 would saturate surface water, then not be removed), so that our contribution accumulates faster. (BTW krill are crustaceans, so they should be creating CO2, not consuming it). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: Polar CO2
On Mar 17, 2006, at 9:33 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: (BTW krill are crustaceans, so they should be creating CO2, not consuming it). Check out: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060206230630.htm I mentioned krill because I think I read about an unexplained krill population drop somewhere. If the krill's food, phytoplankton, are dying off, then we are in deep kim chee. Horace Heffner
