RE: [Vo]: Re: Are we there yet?
> [Original Message] > From: Are we (all) there yet? Jones Beene. > > > Speaking of the subcategory of H2 generators which use > an intermediary (but recyclable) REACTIVE element to > reduce water, there is another such possibility in the > news this week ... > What is recyclable about using a pound of coal or 1/2 pound of natural gas per KW-HR of electrical power to process some wild scheme "fuel" to react with water for "rapid" H2 production? > > This boron--> boron oxide scheme was developed by > Tareq Abu-Hamed, University of Minnesota and > colleagues at the Weizmann Institute, Israel. > Sounds like they should try more practical academic pursuits. B2O3 requires Magnesium metal to reduce it to metallic Boron. Hess's Law applies no matter how elaborate the reduction process. You would be better off buying granulated Wyoming coal-derived Coke, or Biomass Charcoal from Wal-Mart and putting an exhaust gas and water coolant heat exchanger on your ICE to get the reaction C (12 lbs) + H2O (18 lbs) ---> CO (28 lbs) + H2 (2 lbs). And you don't have lug an off-peak power re-cycler up to your 13th floor apartment. Fred > > > Jones > >
Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
Mike, As you said, you did not study the Correa patent yet insisted in commenting anyway - which was completely your mistake. To begin with - they are without any doubt using the Alexeff "Plasma Discharge Tube." Look at this was - the wheel is invented and someone eventually uses that wheel on a cart. They are still USING the wheel which was not their discovery. Second, the Correa's are calling it an Orgone Motor, however Reich never used electricity to either create or use Orgone - therefore the Correa's are lying about it's connection to Reich. Others have clearly stated that the Correa's are extremely rude, arrogant and down right nasty people that care only about themselves - and I have provided a post from them that proves this is true. Forget about their theft of my discoveries - they are lying about Orgone operating their device, because it is operated by electricity as clearly stated in the patent - NOT ORGONE. Lastly - I never said that these clowns did not duplicate Reich's discovery of heat rise within the orgone box, in fact I have also duplicated this and it proves Reich was onto something big, but the Correa's are just goofy. I told them I could rebuild the Orgone motor and they assumed that I was talking about my device - however these clowns are completely mistaken because what I proposed to them was not powered by electricity at all, but after their slanderous post calling ME a liar, I decided it was best to forget about further dealings with crazies like the Correa's. The application date of the Correa's new patent is AFTER I first called them to explain how my device works, and I guess they liked it enough to steal my Plasma Drive and couple it with their copy of the Alexeff Plasma Discharge Tube. Mike - since you still think the Correa's PAGD motor of the past was OU, exactly how much did you invest in this Seminole, Earth saving technology? ChrisMike Carrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: MC: I'm reluctant to get involved in this area again, but some things need persepctive. I have seen the text of, but not studied, the new Correa patent.-- - Original Message - From: Christopher ArnoldTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 9:45 AMSubject: Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent IssuedTerry,Igor Alexeff invented the Plasma Discharge Tube that the Correas Borrowed and say they discovered it. please see this for yourself http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%%2FPTO%%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F4291255MC: I looked at the claims and description of the Alexeff device on the referenced link. There is no resemblance to the Correa PAGD, which is apparent if one studies the PAGD patentes, which I have done. Their thread of discovery as descrtibed to me by Paulo is utterly different from Alexeff.The Correas use of my Pulsed Plasma Drive to power their motor is the infringement.MC: The original PAGD patents and claims include driving a motor, which is also illustrated in a early video shown at a conference decades ago,The Pulsed Plasma Drive can never directly produce an abnormal glow discharge which is known of as a weak plasma, compared to the Dense Plasma Focus of my Pulsed Plasma Drive - which is an extremely powerful and energetic Plasma, capable of of D+D, D+T and even aneutronic fusion as I told Puthoff in 2000.MC: And Arnold is now making a clear distinction between his device and PAGD? The PAGD discharge releases much more energy than it takes to maintain the conditions for the effect to occur.If the Correa's PAGD Tube is so marvelous, why didn't it impress Eugene Mallove, considering Mallove flatly told me he did "not" believe my Spark Gap Drive (Pulsed Plasma Drive) would work at all. Jim from Sarasota attempted to get an interview with me published by Mallove, who still thought Dense Plasma Focus would never allow atomic Fusion - but it was all too much for Mallove to understand or believe.MC: Arnold is quite confused here. Mallove *was* impressed by PAGD, which as Arnold says is clearly different from his Dense Plasma Focus device.The Correa's new patent was applied after I first contacted them to explain how my device was different from the PADG tube, and did not even require containment or working gasses - which they did not believe. You can clearly see they believe me now.As for their work with Orgone boxes - please remember it is from the published works of Wilhelm Reich and the Correas only duplicated it, they did NOT discover anything new in that case, or in the case of my Plasma Drive. And yes - I believe that Reich's Orgone box works - but he had many other more obscure contraptions that worked just as well. Reich never mentioned using either AC or DC Electrical Pulses in his devices - and the Orgone device was not my machine, but a contraption that was based on Reich's Orgone theories (not electrical) - and quite strange l
Re: [Vo]: Re: Magnetic Vortices & Charged Water
In reply to Willis Jenkin's message of Sat, 5 Aug 2006 14:55:44 -0700: Hi Willis, [snip] >Robin! > >On your response to my posting on some in the field using pulsed DC and >still obtaining gas production (H2, O2), below 1.2V, please be assured that >it was not measured with a DC volt meter, more like a $25K US Tek Scope and >followed with a standard formula of Vrms=Sqrt(y/x)* Vp, where Vp is the >pulse max V, y is the pulse width and x is leading edge to leading edge. Does this mean that the 1.2 V you were referring to was Vrms or peak? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
[Vo]: Re: Are we there yet?
Speaking of the subcategory of H2 generators which use an intermediary (but recyclable) REACTIVE element to reduce water, there is another such possibility in the news this week ... This boron--> boron oxide scheme was developed by Tareq Abu-Hamed, University of Minnesota and colleagues at the Weizmann Institute, Israel. By reacting water with the element boron, the system produces on-demand hydrogen that can be burnt in an internal combustion engine or feed a fuel cell to generate electricity, folowing which the boron is itself recycled in an external device and reduced to elemental, in an efficient but complicated system. The hydrogen-on-demand approach is based on basic chemistry, but unlike elements: aluminum, sodium and potassium which are well-known for their violent reactions with water - boron does the same but at a more manageable pace. The by-product, boron oxide, can be removed from the car, turned back into boron, and used again, hopefully in a night-time system using off-peak power using an automatic system. The water has to be supplied as vapor heated to several hundred degrees, so the car will still require start-up heat, possibly from a hybrid design with biodiesel. Once the engine is running, the heat generated by the exothermic oxidation reaction between boron and water is enough. The Weizmann team calculates that a car would have to carry 18 kg of boron and 45 liters of water to produce 5 kg of hydrogen, which has the same energy content as a 40-liters (11 gallon) of gasoline. The cost of the gasoline can be figured at least $35.00, while the electrical energy is convert boron oxide back to boron would be about $10 or less @ a nighttime rate of 10 cents/kWh. Lead acid batteries to do the same mileage would weigh about a ton and lithium about 500 pounds - and cost about more than a normal Prius, just for the batteries. There is something to these two stories - the AirGen colloidal story and this one, which overlap in an important way - and it makes even the "Bettery-advocate" believe that there are other acceptable "solutions" [PI] for transportation power. Now if this could only be combined with LENR/hydrino ?? BTW - the De Geus alternative hydrino theory mentioned here some time ago claims that boron is an effective hydrio catalyst. Jones
[Vo]: Re: Are we there yet?
Speaking of that demo, from the original reference, with the H2 generator --> driving the fuel cell, powering the fan etc; which is admittedly meaningless even if it works for 300-400 hours at a time - OK...but to the "Futurist" in all of us - imagine that kind of thing with heavy water and with a colloid which is active for LENR - ... that is the kind of thing which many of us have been hoping for with regard to an advance in CF - IOW not just a "hot water heater" but a system which can produce H2 on demand for a very long time. Now to return to AirGen for a moment- ...obviously, this is no more than speculaation BUT given the resistence to CF in the scinetific community - even if they suspected that LENR (or hydrinos) was the effective modality at work - do you really think they would be foolisih enough to mention it? Jones
[Vo]: Re: Are we there yet?
--- Terry Blanton wrote: > I'm not so sure what is so great about it other than you can get hydrogen on demand. The process is either endothermic and/or consumptive of resources. There are not efficiency figures that I can find. Best I can tell, the inventor was supplying (or inventing) EDM fluids for some years, and has patents in that field. He probably discovered that more hydrogen was being evolved in certain situations than desireable for EDM, and then decided to try to exploit that situation for generating hydrogen, as the enegy crisis has evolved. I am not surprised that the efficiency numbers are not included in the patent (since there is no good reason to do so), but certainly this efficiency figure would be most important to the manufacturer who makes fertilizer and needs hydrogen by the ton... That demo, from the original reference, with the H2 generator --> FC driving the fan was cute - but essentially meaningless even if it works for 300-400 hours at a time- and since there was no apparent vent for O2, then the iron colloid must be consumed in the process... which would stongly limit the ultimate usefulness, if the oxide could not be recycled in a secondary system... (and - for what would amount to a combined Faradaic efficiency which was significantly better than elctrolysis alone) ... which ... that efficiency being "doable" is the gist of the rumor which is circulating... But speaking of Texas rumor, what happened to the 'Bettery' startup company EEStor ? http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1141599010468&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist971715454851 IOW the AirGen system - as a battery substitute- if it could be "recharged at night" then that is an advantage over Lithium-ion, since it is 2-8 times lighter per kilowatt, even with the required fuelcell. But the cost of the fuel cell, and the need for platinum/palladium is still the looming problem. October platinum is $1,258 while palladium is $322 an ounce. But when Pd demand increases slightly (as it has done on occassion) it can easily top $1000. A long-lived one kW fuel cell requires about a tenth-ounce of either but the problem is that : increased-demand --> exponentially higher metal prices. Try pricing a one kW fuelcell. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Re: Are we there yet?
Terry Blanton wrote: > > On 8/9/06, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is the site to Griffin's (AirGen) main patent > > application: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/jdpco > > Here is the patent in .pdf format: > > http://www.geocities.com/terry1094/Colloidal_HoD.pdf > > I'm not so sure what is so great about it other than you can get > hydrogen on demand. The process is either endothermic and/or > consumptive of resources. There are not efficiency figures that I can > find. Me neither, you can dissolve Zinc, or Aluminum beer cans in a warm aqueous NaOH or KOH (lye) solution in a steel vessel and generate H2 like gangbusters . This forms a water soluble Zincate or Aluminate "Catalyst". Fred > > Terry >
Re: [Vo]: Re: Are we there yet?
On 8/9/06, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here is the site to Griffin's (AirGen) main patent application: http://tinyurl.com/jdpco Here is the patent in .pdf format: http://www.geocities.com/terry1094/Colloidal_HoD.pdf I'm not so sure what is so great about it other than you can get hydrogen on demand. The process is either endothermic and/or consumptive of resources. There are not efficiency figures that I can find. Terry
[Vo]: Re: Are we there yet?
Here is the site to Griffin's (AirGen) main patent application: http://tinyurl.com/jdpco or http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Linnard.IN.&s2=Griffin.IN.&OS=IN/Linnard+AND+IN/Griffin&RS=IN/Linnard+AND+IN/Griffin Claims 1. An apparatus for the production of hydrogen, comprising: a solution with a pH less than 7; a first colloidal metal suspended in the solution; and a non-colloidal metal. 2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first colloidal metal is less reactive than the non-colloidal metal. 3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first colloidal metal is more reactive than the non-colloidal metal.
[Vo]: OT: [VO]:Re: Are we there yet?
> You're lucky you didn't get any feedback like the time I wet an> electric cattle fence.> > TerryAnd then there's the account I recall where a guy hotwired the leg of his grand piano, the favorite stop-by post for his pet Fido. Thirty minutes, and one brief yelp later, problem solved.Grand piano and Fido are doing well, in their separate corners.Regards,Steven Vincent Johnsonwww.OrionWorks.comwww.Zazzle.com/orionworks Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]: Re: Are we there yet?
--- OrionWorks wrote: [listing of related stories] > http://tinyurl.com/md4ly This one is interesting, Steven: "Hydrogen is the primary feedstock material for ammonia production and ammonia is the feedstock for LSB's Chemical Business' nitrogen based chemical products, such as nitric acid and nitrogen based blasting products and fertilizers. The technology is in the early, developmental stage and has not been proven by LSB to have commercial value. " LSB and other makers of ammonia products get hydrogen now by stipping natural gas - by far the cheapest way. They are protected from the recent run-up in natural gas prices by long term contracts, which are not being offered by the gas producers any longer due to changes in the supply/demand situation. LSB discloses that the new process of water separation has not been proven economical, and it would be surprising if it were already competetive, but the fact that they licensed it at all is probably significant in itself - as no one has more incentive to seek the lowest price then the few large consumers of hydrogen who make fertilizer. It is a small indicator that AirGen may be onto something and is approaching this in a direct way which only a potentially competetive process can do, and which normal electrolysis is an order of magnitude too expensive to do, by comparison (with normal methane stripping).
Re: [VO]:Re: Are we there yet?
On 8/9/06, RC Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now if you want to discuss colloid.. well.. once when we were kids and the strip down 34 model chev we used to hunt ducks in the rice fields wouldn't start, we found the battery was dry. Shazzaam ! A little squirt of pi*s in the battery did wonders. Colloids in actions. Howdy Richard, You're lucky you didn't get any feedback like the time I wet an electric cattle fence. Terry
[VO]:Re: Are we there yet?
Howdy Vorts, Reduced to application, the Coleman Powermate AirGen idea is a 1000 watt non-portable electric generator. Praxair will package the device with a botttle of hydrogen gas( under high pressure) and market it nationwide. A high pressure cylinder of hydrogen gas? For standby power source for a computer ? When I sit down to my "puter" I do not wish to have a hydrogen cylinder between my legs .. or anywhere close.. these things leak and go "boom in the night". Some of us kids in Texas ain't got a lick of sense but we ain't crazy. Now if you want to discuss colloid.. well.. once when we were kids and the strip down 34 model chev we used to hunt ducks in the rice fields wouldn't start, we found the battery was dry. Shazzaam ! A little squirt of pi*s in the battery did wonders. Colloids in actions. Richard
[Vo]: Re: [Vo]: Are we there yet?
Jones Beene wrote: > > Colloidal electrolysis was invented in Japan and> England simultaneously in 1968. It attempts to employ> the enormous surface area and near fields of dispersed> particles (acres per gram) catalytically to improve> efficiency.> A dissolved gas is considered to be a Colloid, Jones CO2 + H2O <> H2O:CO2 or H2CO3 aq ( Ki 4.3E-7) NH3 + H2O <> H2O:NH3 or NH4OH aq (Ki 1.8E-5) SO2 + H2O <> H2O:SO2 or H2SO3 aq Ki (1.2E-2) Water Solubility Data: http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/encyclopedia.asp The Ionization Constants for these are quite small compared to the mineral acids. OTOH: 2 H2O <> H2O:H2O Dimer (Ki 1.0E-14) allows formation of H3O+:OH- ion species. Might you burn a pre-conditioned Carbonated Water Mix in an ICE? Fred
