Re: [Vo]: Radiant Energy Patent
and the patent + pictures at http://freepatentsonline.com/7098547.pdfOn 10/9/06, Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:United States Patent7,098,547 Burns August 29, 2006Method and apparatus for converting energy to electricityAbstractA method and apparatus are provided for converting electromagneticradiation directly into electricity. The method aligns a plurality of ferromagnetic nanocrystals to produce an aggregate magnetic field;utilizes an electrical coil in the aggregate magnetic field; andalternately directs and removes radiant energy from the ferromagneticnanocrystals such that the aggregate magnetic field decays and regenerates to produce a current in the electrical coil. The apparatusincludes either a distribution or a stackup of ferro-magneticnanocrystals and an electrical coil, the combination of thenanocrystals and the electrical coil operating with energy derived from the source of radiant energy.Inventors: Burns; Phillip (Wilton Manors, FL)Appl. No.: 10/784,086Filed: February 20, 2004-- Website: http://www.lackluster.org/Webshop: http://www.lackluster.org/shop/ Announcements: http://www.yahoogroups.com/groups/lackluster Last.FM radio: http://last.fm/label/lackluster Beatport Download: http://www.beatport.com/lackluster Bleep Download: http://www.bleep.com/search.php?search=Lackluster Video: http://www.dailymotion.com/search/lackluster/1 Kompaktkiste: http://www.kompaktkiste.de/lackluster.htmDiscogs: http://www.discogs.com/artist/Lackluster Demo-Discography: http://www.scene.org/~esa/
Re: [Vo]: Steve Krivit NO LONGER urges participation in Wikipedia
Steven Krivit wrote: Well, some of you attempted to intervene, and I applaud you, whoever it was, but it seems the like things are a bit out of control there at the moment. I'm appalled that such destruction could occur and that it has been left to stand. Let them have their way. One day they will wake up to a very big surprise. S I gave it a go but had to get a new password and the system may have treated me as "anonymus" as a consequence? Did any one copy the whole site while it was up be for the luddite revision? And can we get a couple of disputed wiki pages loaded to the way back machine? Every action the luddites take dig a very deep grave for them. Some argued that Goddard and Von Braun were bogus or frauds. These scientist argued that Peenemünde need not be bombed. The chance to kill programe early was was missed. The V2 subsequently killed hundreds. After the V2 was confirmed; one of these scientists retired never returning to a University campus. Another found himself facing empty class rooms. Most were simply never consulted by government again. Ironicly a few wound up working under Von Braun in America after the war.
[Vo]: COFE II Report
http://pesn.com/2006/09/26/9500240_COFE_report/ excerpt: Spiral Electromagnet Motor Dr. Ted Loder spoke about various spiral magnet motor designs, including some experimentation he has pursued as well, though an over-unity design yet eludes him. The objective of the spiral design, patterned after the Wankel engine, is to use an electromagnet to provide the kick needed at the end of the spiral to then repeat the cycle again. No known over-unity systems have yet been achieved using such a design. His personal account of magnets jumping out of their glued positions and glomming together was quite humorous. We have a surprise for Dr. Loder. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Steve Krivit urges participation in Wikipedia
OrionWorks wrote: Some thoughts regarding Wikipedia faults. While I can sympathize with Jed's frustration with Wiki's apparent inability to resolve informational disputes concerning CF, particularly when opposing points start battling for dominance I'm not willing to go as far as proclaiming it's a failed experiment. The problem, as I see it, is that Wikipidia is still a growing & evolving repository of information where the collection and dissemination of information is not yet fully understood nor what kinds of mechanisms should be in place in order to help maintain accurate information. I agree that with changes Wikipedia could become a reasonable source of information. But as far as I know the people who run Wikipedia are satisfied and not thinking of implementing changes. What they need is something a bit closer to the traditional academic model of peer review and expertise. Of course this model has often failed in the past, and it has failed drastically for cold fusion, but no set of rules always succeeds in eliminating politics and folly. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Aquaculture for energy
Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Pretty fair credentials, I'd say... and he is right-on about the need to move immediately into energy-aquaculture. Well, if it works, okay -- maybe. But as I said, we should be extremely cautious about large scale schemes that replace existing biota, especially with monocultures. So far that has caused unending havoc in both land and ocean ecosystems, such as the replacement of most fish with jellyfish world-wide. We can easily replace a substantial portion of petroleum use within twenty years, We could easily replace 90% of it one year, starting NOW, using only existing technology. Just do something like what FDR did in January 1942: 1. Tell the auto industry that we are in a state of war (which we sure are), No we're not. Only Congress can declare war and they have not done so. They've given the president a lot of leeway in Iraq but none the less we don't have a full-blown "state of war". Bush can talk all he wants about the "war" on terror but AFAIK the United States is not "in a state of war". and order it to shut down immediately and retool. I mean close it down that instant. FDR ordered told them not to sell a single car for the duration of the war, and he confiscated their entire inventory for military purposes. FDR had extraordinary powers because Congress had declared war. In the present situation they have not done so, and the president cannot rule by edict (AFAIK). The president can push through a lot of things by snowing Congress and/or cheating but simply issuing straightforward edicts without input from Congress isn't something he's generally allowed to do ... except during a declared war. And it's a good thing, too, because you're not President just now; nor are Lincoln and Roosevelt (either one). Bush is president, and if he had the ability to issue any arbitrary edict and have it become law, no questions asked and no congressional approval needed, I don't think he'd necessarily institute a program you would see entirely eye to eye with.
Re: [Vo]: OT: Massive oil field found under Gulf
Harry Veeder wrote: Massive oil field found under Gulf Reserves south of New Orleans could rival North Slope, boosting U.S. supplies by 50% http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51837 Chevron and two oil exploration companies announced the discovery of a giant oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico that could boost the nation's supplies by as much as 50 percent and provide compelling evidence oil is a plentiful deep-earth product made naturally on a continuous basis. The abiotic theory always sounded plausible to me, but there's a problem with it: The oil is still produced very slowly. Note that "fossil fuels" are produced continuously, also. In either case the problem is that the terrestrial production rate is far slower than the current consumption rate. So, biotic or abiotic, there comes a day when there isn't any more, and won't be any again for a long, long time. The interesting conclusion of the abiotic theory is that there may be more large oil fields than expected, because exploration has been guided by the biotic theory and so the oil companies haven't looked everywhere they should. But that still doesn't translate into anything that allows one to conclude oil is inexhaustible at current use rates.
Re: [Vo]: OT: Massive oil field found under Gulf
first off, how does this give evidence of an abiotic source? im missing something. second, even if true, its formed very very slowly. meaning we WILL run out. On 9/12/06, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Massive oil field found under Gulf Reserves south of New Orleans could rival North Slope, boosting U.S. supplies by 50% http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51837 Chevron and two oil exploration companies announced the discovery of a giant oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico that could boost the nation's supplies by as much as 50 percent and provide compelling evidence oil is a plentiful deep-earth product made naturally on a continuous basis. Known as the Jack Field, the reserve – some 270 miles southwest of New Orleans – is estimated to hold as much as 15 billion barrels of oil. Authors Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith say the giant find validates the key thesis of their book, "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil ," that oil did not come from the remains of ancient plant and animal life but is made naturally by the Earth. "We have always rejected the theories that oil and natural gas are biological products," Corsi told WND. "Chevron's find in the Gulf of Mexico validates our argument that the Gulf is a huge resource for finding oil and natural gas." The Wall Street Journal reports today the find could boost the nation's current reserves of 29.3 billion barrels by as much as 50 percent. Chevron discovered the field by drilling the deepest to date in the Gulf of Mexico, down 28,175 feet in waters nearly 7,000 feet deep, some seven miles below the surface of the Earth. The second biggest source of oil in the world is Mexico's giant Cantarell field in the Gulf of Mexico near the Yucatan Peninsula. It was discovered in 1976, supposedly after a fisherman named Cantarell reported an oil seep in Campeche Bay. In March, Mexico announced the discovery of a field that could be larger than Cantarell, the Noxal field in the Gulf of Mexico off Veracruz. In "Black Gold Stranglehold," Corsi and Smith argued the theory developed in the Soviet Union in the 1950s by Prof. Nikolai Kudryavtsev that oil is a deep-earth, abiotic product. The theory, the authors wrote, "rejected the contention that oil was formed from the remains of ancient plant and animal life that died millions of years ago. According to Kudryavtsev, oil had nothing to do with the unproved concept of a boggy primeval forest rotting into petroleum. The Soviet scientist ridiculed the idea that an ancient primeval morass of plant and animal remains was covered by sedimentary deposits over millions of years, compressed by millions of more years of heat and pressure." Instead, the abiotic theory argued "oil should be seen as a primordial material that the earth forms and exudes on a continual basis." Corsi and Smith directly challenge the "peak oil" theory advanced in 1956 by Shell Oil's M. King Hubbert. In an interview with WND, Smith posed the following question: "If U.S. proven oil reserves can be increased by 50 percent with one deep-earth oil find in the Gulf of Mexico, who knows how much oil might be found as the technology of deep-water drilling advances and becomes even more economically feasible?" In "Black Gold Stranglehold," Corsi and Smith note the importance of the abiotic theory: The thought that oil might be naturally produced on a regular basis, that oil itself might be a renewable resource, is very threatening to those who have invested their minds into believing that oil is fossil fuel. The logical consequence of the fossil fuel theory of oil has always been that we will run out of oil. After all, there could only be a finite number of ancient forests available to rot into oil. Ancient forests, even if once plentiful, are a finite resource that by definition will become exhausted after they are fully explored and their oil harvested. The logic of the fossil fuel theory is that inevitably we will run out of oil. Corsi and Smith note the power of the abiotic theory: "Could it be that oil is abundant, nearly an inexhaustible resource, if only we drill deep enough?" Prior to the Jack Field discovery, the largest U.S. oil find in the Gulf of Mexico has been the Thunder Horse , about 125 miles southeast of New Orleans. British Petroleum holds a 75-percent interest with ExxonMobil to develop the Thunder Horse. This field, too, is deep-earth oil, with BP and ExxonMobil finding oil under one mile of water and five miles below the seabed. Scientists believe Mexico's richest oil field complex was created when the prehistoric, massive Chicxulub meteor impacted the Earth. "Could it be that the Chicxulub meteor deeply fractured the entire bedrock under the Gulf of Mexico?" Corsi asked in a WND interview. "If so, we might find abundant oil wherever we look as we begin to explore the deeper waters of the Gulf." Earlier this year, Cuba announced plans to hire the communist Chinese to
Re: [Vo]: Aquaculture for energy
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: And it's a good thing, too, because you're not President just now . . . Nor will I ever be under any conceivable circumstances. But if I were, hypothetically, it would because the nation faced a severe energy crisis and recognized the need for drastic action to replace oil and fossil fuel with cold fusion or some other alternative. In other words, they would elect me (or someone like me) for that purpose, and that would be my only platform. I know little about other policy problems such as health care. In that kind of situation, the Congress and the people would give the president enormous temporary power, just as they did in the first 100 days of the first Roosevelt administration. Roosevelt closed down the banks for a few days, and I would close down the automobile companies for a few months. As FDR put it: "It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war . . . I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe." ; nor are Lincoln and Roosevelt (either one). Bush is president, and if he had the ability to issue any arbitrary edict and have it become law, no questions asked and no congressional approval needed, I don't think he'd necessarily institute a program you would see entirely eye to eye with. No president can implement a program, either drastic or pedestrian, without the support of the Congress and the people. As soon as the economy began to recover in 1932 Congress took back its prerogatives and much of the "broad executive power" it ceded in the first 100 days. That was the proper thing to do. One thing for sure if I were president, even for 10 minutes: cold fusion research would be inundated with funding. Probably with too much for its own good. Theodore Roosevelt paid for the first US military test of the Wright brothers airplane with the president's discretionary funds, which was $10 million back in 1908, or about $150 million in today's money. If they still have this level of discretionary funds for the president, I would send $100 million to the cold fusion researchers in the first 10 minutes of my administration. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MCE energy could be the smoking gun
--- Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In reply to Paul's message of Sun, 8 Oct 2006 > 21:20:20 -0700 > (PDT): > Hi Paul, > [snip] > >> I have a few questions. > >> > >> 1) At the frequencies you envisage using, > wouldn't > >> the heat have > >> difficulty entering/leaving the material? IOW > >> wouldn't you just > >> end up recycling the same heat over and over > again > >> internally? > >> (A thermal "short circuit" as it were?) > >> > >> 2) If the temperature difference is just a couple > of > >> degrees, > >> doesn't the Carnot limit severely restrict the > >> potential > >> efficiency of any conversion device? > >> > >> 3) I thought that magnetic cooling was already > >> widely used, and am > >> not aware of any OU associated with it. > >> Regards, > >> > >> Robin van Spaandonk > [snip] > >Hi Robin, > > > >This is solid-state technology and would generate > >direct electricity. > > How? I apologize. In a nutshell the design collects MCE (Magnetocaloric effect) energy. When the intrinsic electron spins flip the entire atom precesses as it rotates. This rotation/flip gives off radiation, typically in the hundreds of MHz. Unless using specific techniques, the magnetic material absorbs nearly all of this internal radiation. The problem in most magnetic materials including ferrites is the amount of energy released is on the order of thousands to hundreds of thousands times less than amorphous & nanocrystalline material. It's the domain size at no applied field and saturation level that basically determines the amount of radiation. The MCE energy radiated by a 1 cubic inch of ferrite at 100 KHz can be a few hundred watts, but again most of this power is absorbed by the core. For a similar amount of amorphous & nanocrystalline core it can be higher than 15 megawatts. This is an energy exchange process. At 100 KHz there are 400 thousand energy exchanges. That is, 125 joules is exchanged during each phase. So the material heats up by 1 C, then cools down 1 C, etc. The goal is to prevent the magnetic material from absorbing the radiation. One idea is to use material with appreciably low electrical conductivity. In such material there are micro eddy current loops around the avalanches within the magnetic material. So part of the potential magnetic energy is being converted to eddy currents. At the appropriate time the circuit will extract as much of this eddy current as possible. In the previously provided link you may see further details regarding this MCE radiation, where is comes from, what's the cause, and the advisable methods of preventing the core from absorbing the MCE energy. For those wanting a design, here's a quote from the intro of my wiki "I began designing the MEMM over a month ago and took a look at the design and basically said, 'Hey, this is the MEG!' I began to notice the extreme similarities with other devices. They used PM's (permanent magnets) to nearly saturate magnetic material, electrical current in a coil to oppose the PM's field, high di/dt in the correct cycle. Since that time the design has evolved into another form that will hopefully be more effective than the MEG." I would be more than happy to release MEMM designs that have evolved beyond the MEG when everything is 1000% verified. My intentions are to freely publish everything in extreme detail. --- Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In reply to Paul's message of Sun, 8 Oct 2006 > I have a few questions. > > 1) At the frequencies you envisage using, wouldn't > the heat have > difficulty entering/leaving the material? IOW > wouldn't you just > end up recycling the same heat over and over again > internally? > (A thermal "short circuit" as it were?) Well, if you have heat then the device did not work. The idea is to prevent the core from absorbing the MCE energy. > 2) If the temperature difference is just a couple of > degrees, > doesn't the Carnot limit severely restrict the > potential > efficiency of any conversion device? This design has nothing to do with converting temperature differences into another form of energy. > 3) I thought that magnetic cooling was already > widely used, and am > not aware of any OU associated with it. > Regards, Yes, there are machines that use MCE for deep freezing. I am not sure what COP some of these recent machines are achieving. I received an email from a guy from France said there's a local company that achieved abnormally high efficiencies. Even so, nearly all companies are focusing on Gd alloys, which rely on achieving MCE by means of room temperature Curie point materials, such as Gd. The permeability of Gd at Curie temperature is extremely small, meaning that the most of the MCE energy would come from the battery by means of the coil and not the magnetic material. In such a case COP will always be less than 1.0. My theory predicted that domain size and saturation equate to potential MCE energy. So there are two methods of
Re: [Vo]: MCE energy could be the smoking gun
In reply to Paul's message of Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:22:13 -0700 (PDT): Hi Paul, [snip] >I apologize. In a nutshell the design collects MCE >(Magnetocaloric effect) energy. When the intrinsic >electron spins flip the entire atom precesses as it >rotates. This rotation/flip gives off radiation, >typically in the hundreds of MHz. Unless using >specific techniques, the magnetic material absorbs >nearly all of this internal radiation. [snip] Ah, the penny drops! :) So essentially you are converting random thermal energy into coherent microwave energy by forcing all the atoms to release their energy at one time. Then they absorb more thermal energy, and you convert it to microwaves again. I like the concept. You mention small domains as being advantageous. Could this be attained by reducing the density of the active atoms? IOW could you simply use a compound that is essentially an insulator, with say only one active atom among ten "insulator atoms"? That would appear to result in domains comprising single atoms. The disadvantage is that it would be a bit bulkier, but perhaps lots more efficient, and the insulator is hardly going to bother the microwaves, which should easily pass through and can be collected externally. Apparently Metglas makes a whole variety of products (http://metglas.com/products/page5_1_2.htm), did you have any particular one in mind? (And do any of them meet the description I just gave)? BTW you may find this interesting too. It's an email I posted to Vortex back in 1998:- >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 12 23:18:24 1998 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA06237; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 23:10:34 -0700 Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 23:10:34 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Entropy? Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 06:10:46 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zPITC.0.IX1.QJQgr"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/20552 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 11:05:30 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >The loss is because you will only have coupled some of the low grade energy >back into high grade. The balance is lost to "heat", ie background thermal >energy. The point I was trying to make, was based on the concept of *only* producing radio waves, without any background thermal energy. The concept being that in theory at least, I can do work while converting heat into radio waves, because radio waves are longer than heat waves. Practically, this could perhaps be done out in deep space (or the dark side of the moon etc.) where a heat engine could attain close to 100% efficiency, by radiating energy away at the temperature of the microwave background (i.e. 2.7 K). However because the radiated energy is in the form of microwaves, almost all of it can be recaptured and reused. IOW almost all of the energy can be used twice, iso once, and then most of that can be used again, etc. If you add up all the partial re-uses of the same energy, before you finally lose everything, you have done much more work with the initial amount of energy than is normally taken into account when calculating the increase in entropy (which basically assumes that you lose the energy after one pass - see Carnot efficiency). (This is also a concept that Tom Bearden pushes). So if I have a microwave capture and conversion efficiency of 80% (is this a reasonable number?), then in total, I can do 1/1-.8 = 5 joules of work with only one joule of energy. The reason this is currently seen as so outlandish, is that we are used to thinking in terms of energy dissipation and loss. We think in these terms, because we usually "give up" on recovering energy when it reaches the thermal stage. We see "low grade" thermal energy as useless and throw it away. But looked at from the point of wavelength, it is actually "higher grade" than radio waves. Yet we are able to gather and "upgrade" radio waves, into energy of almost any grade, by means of electric conversion. The *only* reason that heat is seen as low grade, is that we don't have a "heat diode". (Well actually we do, they're called solar cells, but these are only about 25% efficient at best). What we really need, is a substance that is a strong radio-emitter when heated (or even just warmed :). Something that might serve the purpose, would be a gas with long molecules, that has ions stuck at the ends. If the molecules are long enough, and able to move freely, then when the plastic is immersed in a magnetic field, thermal motion will agitate the end ions, causing them to accelerate in the magnetic field, and radiate r
Re: [Vo]: MCE energy could be the smoking gun
Hi Robin, --- Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In reply to Paul's message of Mon, 9 Oct 2006 > 14:22:13 -0700 > (PDT): > Hi Paul, > [snip] > >I apologize. In a nutshell the design collects MCE > >(Magnetocaloric effect) energy. When the intrinsic > >electron spins flip the entire atom precesses as it > >rotates. This rotation/flip gives off radiation, > >typically in the hundreds of MHz. Unless using > >specific techniques, the magnetic material absorbs > >nearly all of this internal radiation. > [snip] > Ah, the penny drops! :) > So essentially you are converting random thermal > energy into > coherent microwave energy by forcing all the atoms > to release > their energy at one time. Then they absorb more > thermal energy, > and you convert it to microwaves again. > I like the concept. That's basically the idea. The broadband UHF radiation varies from material to material. The peak wavelength of such radiation is considerably lower for electrically conductive materials such as iron for obvious reasons. Under normal core usages the radiation is incoherent, but if you magnetically flip all the spins at relatively the same time you then have a coherent pulse; i.e., tons of potential energy. Note that in such a case a great deal of the energy is not absorbed by the material because it's in a state of flipping to saturation. > You mention small domains as being > advantageous. Could this be attained by reducing the > density of > the active atoms? IOW could you simply use a > compound that is > essentially an insulator, with say only one active > atom among ten > "insulator atoms"? That would appear to result in > domains > comprising single atoms. That's an interesting idea. It should work. It would probably decrease the materials saturation and permeability. Your idea is somewhat similar to nanocrystalline material. One of your ferromagnetic atoms surround by insulation could be single crystal. A single nanocrystalline material is one large ferromagnetic crystal. Well, large as in a dozen or more atoms in diameter. > The disadvantage is that it would be a bit bulkier, > but perhaps > lots more efficient, and the insulator is hardly > going to bother > the microwaves, which should easily pass through and > can be > collected externally. Apparently Metglas makes a > whole variety of > products > (http://metglas.com/products/page5_1_2.htm), did you > have > any particular one in mind? (And do any of them meet > the > description I just gave)? I like 2714A with permeability of 1 million except it has low saturation. I tried to get a 2714A sample, but they referred me to similar material that had permeability of just 72,000. My second pick would be 2605SA1, which is the material Naudin used. Also 2705M and 2605CO look promising. Has anyone ever succeeded in receiving a sample from metglass? > > BTW you may find this interesting too. It's an email > I posted to > Vortex back in 1998:- > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 12 > 23:18:24 1998 > Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA06237; > Sun, 12 Jul 1998 23:10:34 -0700 > Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 23:10:34 -0700 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robin van > Spaandonk) > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Entropy? > Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 06:10:46 GMT > Organization: Improving > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Resent-Message-ID: <"zPITC.0.IX1.QJQgr"@mx1> > Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > X-Mailing-List: > archive/latest/20552 > X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Precedence: list > Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Status: O > X-Status: > > On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 11:05:30 -0700, Ross Tessien > wrote: > [snip] > >The loss is because you will only have coupled some > of the low grade energy > >back into high grade. The balance is lost to > "heat", ie background thermal > >energy. > > The point I was trying to make, was based on the > concept of *only* > producing radio waves, without any background > thermal energy. The > concept being that in theory at least, I can do work > while > converting > heat into radio waves, because radio waves are > longer than heat > waves. > Practically, this could perhaps be done out in deep > space (or the > dark > side of the moon etc.) where a heat engine could > attain close to > 100% > efficiency, by radiating energy away at the > temperature of the > microwave background (i.e. 2.7 K). However because > the radiated > energy > is in the form of microwaves, almost all of it can > be recaptured > and > reused. IOW almost all of the energy can be used > twice, iso once, > and > then most of that can be used again, etc. If you add > up all the > partial re-uses of the same energy, before you > finally lose > every
[Vo]: Fake nuclear test?
Seismologists estimate the size of the North Korean explosion at between 1 and 15 kilotons. My bet: 1 kt. I mean literally, 1000 tons of explosive. I just spoke with Mizuno about unrelated stuff, and he mentioned that his department at U. Hokkaido, Nuclear Engineering, has superb monitoring equipment, but they have not seen a thing. He said that even with an underground test "something comes out of the ground; we would seen some signature after 24 hours." I suppose the material migrates up the instrument lead-wires. It would be laugh and a half if this turns out to be a fake nuclear test intended to make Kim look like a bad boy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MCE energy could be the smoking gun
In reply to Paul's message of Mon, 9 Oct 2006 18:23:27 -0700 (PDT): Hi Paul, [snip] >That's basically the idea. The broadband UHF radiation >varies from material to material. The peak wavelength >of such radiation is considerably lower for >electrically conductive materials such as iron for >obvious reasons. Under normal core usages the >radiation is incoherent, but if you magnetically flip >all the spins at relatively the same time you then >have a coherent pulse; i.e., tons of potential energy. I suspect that if you place the entire device in a cavity designed to resonate at the emitted frequency, then the resultant standing waves in the cavity will help cohere the microwave emission. This is analogous to he electron bunching effect in magnetrons. Essentially, you have a "forced" oscillation, where the forcing energy is supplied by the device rather than from an external source. BTW, I think that if you have "single atom domains", you will find that all the domains are effectively the same size, and consequently that should all emit at a single frequency (provided that the magnetic field is uniform across the device), or have I misunderstood? > Note that in such a case a great deal of the energy >is not absorbed by the material because it's in a >state of flipping to saturation. Furthermore, by tapping the microwave radiation and rectifying it, you are "sucking" it out as it were. Not exactly true, but what you normally have is an equilibrium where energy is being both emitted and absorbed. By attaching a "one way valve" to the energy flow, you ensure that the equilibrium constantly shifts in the direction of outflow. It's also what you are trying to do by operating near saturation. In fact before the invention of diodes magnetic saturation was widely used as a crude means of rectification. > > > >> You mention small domains as being >> advantageous. Could this be attained by reducing the >> density of >> the active atoms? IOW could you simply use a >> compound that is >> essentially an insulator, with say only one active >> atom among ten >> "insulator atoms"? That would appear to result in >> domains >> comprising single atoms. > > >That's an interesting idea. It should work. It would >probably decrease the materials saturation and >permeability. Your idea is somewhat similar to >nanocrystalline material. One of your ferromagnetic >atoms surround by insulation could be single crystal. >A single nanocrystalline material is one large >ferromagnetic crystal. Well, large as in a dozen or >more atoms in diameter. > Use of a diode may mean that saturation is no longer so important, and as to permeability, a loss in this regard, would just result in a smaller power output, if have understood correctly. However I don't see much use (yet), for 50 MW in the average home, so a drop in power output to say 10 kW shouldn't really be a major problem. What you really need to look at is power density, i.e. power/kg of mass, then compare that to other power sources such as e.g. an internal combustion engine. Since you are going to be processing considerable power, your device will either get very cold very quickly, or you need to ensure rapid transport of heat to it. The latter is relatively easily done by making the active component of your device a flat plate, and binding it to a thin metal plate which forms one side of a water pipe. Then water flowing through the pipe can carry heat to the device. (This has the advantage of also providing chilled water for air conditioning in the summer). The pipe needs to constructed from a metal that won't interfere with the operation of the device (copper?). However the device itself also would ideally be a good thermal conductor, while at the same time being a good electrical insulator. The only substance I know, that comes close is BeO. (highly toxic BTW). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Fake nuclear test?
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:43:36 -0400 (GMT-04:00): Hi, [snip] >Seismologists estimate the size of the North Korean explosion at between 1 and >15 kilotons. My bet: 1 kt. I mean literally, 1000 tons of explosive. Then they obviously registered something, and clearly not natural. Explosions have a different seismic signature to natural Earth tremors. > >I just spoke with Mizuno about unrelated stuff, and he mentioned that his >department at U. Hokkaido, Nuclear Engineering, has superb monitoring >equipment, but they have not seen a thing. He said that even with an >underground test "something comes out of the ground; we would seen some >signature after 24 hours." I suppose the material migrates up the instrument >lead-wires. They would need to have something in orbit wouldn't they? I thought that they would detect gammas from a real explosion (though this was deep underground), and I thought the USA had satellites in orbit specifically for this purpose (that picked up the gammas from thunderstorms?). I doubt that they would be able to pick up gammas in Hokkaido, because the curvature of the Earth would put hundreds of km's of rock between them and the explosion. So what exactly were they looking for, neutrinos? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
