[Vo]: Re: Coconut shell composition?
This also how the petrochemical Activated Carbon Catalysts such as the one Les Case used are activated, Jed. Fred US 7,091,156 August 15 2006 1. An activated carbon suitable for use in electric double layer capacitors, said activated carbon being produced by carbonization of a carbonaceous material consisting essentially of coconut shell, wherein said activated carbon is produced by a process comprising: pulverizing a coconut shell; carbonizing said coconut shell in an inert atmosphere to produce a coconut shell char; and heat-treating said coconut shell char at a temperature ranging from 900.degree. C. to 1,100.degree. C. in a steam gas atmosphere containing an inert gas selected from the group consisting of nitrogen, argon, and a combustion exhaust gas, wherein the content of steam in said steam gas atmosphere ranges from 30% by volume to 100% by volume, wherein said activated carbon has a BET specific surface area of 2000 m.sup.2/g to 2500 m.sup.2/g, and an average pore diameter of 1.95 nm (19.5 .ANG.) to 2.20 nm (22 .ANG.), wherein the pore volume of pores having a pore diameter, as calculated according to a ! Cranston-Inkley method, of 5.0 nm (50 .ANG.) to 30.0 nm (300 .ANG.) is 0.05 cm.sup.3/g to 0.15 cm.sup.3/g, wherein the amount of oxygen contained per g of said activated carbon is 1.8 mg to 8.1 mg, and wherein said activated carbon exhibits a spontaneous potential versus a lithium electrode of 2.85 V to 3.03 V in a non-aqueous electrolytic solution The activated carbon of the invention is obtained by carbonizing coconut shell, then activating the carbonization product. Activating methods are roughly classified into a gas activation method and a chemical agent activation method. The gas activation method, which is also called physical activation in contrast to that the chemical agent activation is chemical activation, is an activation to produce activated carbon by bringing the carbonized raw material into contact with steam, carbonic acid gas, oxygen or other oxidizing gas at a high temperature to conduct reaction. The chemical agent activation method is a method of uniformly impregnating the raw material with an activating chemical agent, heating it in an inert gas atmosphere to cause dehydration and oxidation reaction of the chemical agent to thereby obtain activated carbon. As the chemical agents to be used, there are illustrated zinc chloride, phosphoric acid, sodium phosphate, calcium chloride, potassium sulfide,! potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, potassium carbonate, sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, potassium sulfate and calcium carbonate.
[Vo]: Re: Over-Unity Cigarette Filters?
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm US 6,789,548 Sept 14 2004 Method of making a smoking composition The present invention relates to smoking articles such as cigarettes, and in particular to catalytic systems containing metallic or carbonaceous particles that reduce the content of certain harmful or carcinogenic substances, including polyaromatic hydrocarbons, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, carbazole, phenol, and catechol, in both mainstream cigarette smoke and side stream cigarette smoke. In preferred embodiments, the nitrate or nitrite source includes a nitrate of lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, cesium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, yttrium, lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, erbium, scandium, manganese, iron, rhodium, palladium, copper, zinc, aluminum, gallium, tin, bismuth, hydrates thereof and mixtures thereof. Preferably, the nitrate salt may be an alkali or alkaline earth metal nitrate. One approach to removing undesired components from tobacco smoke is the use of catalysts. Palladium catalyst systems have been proposed for cigarettes. The following patents describe such systems: U.S. Pat. No. 4,257,430 to Collins et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,248,251 to Bryant et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,235,251 to Bryant et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,216,784 to Norman et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,177,822 to Bryant et al.; and U.S. Pat. No. 4,055,191 to Norman et al., each of which is incorporated by reference in its entirety.
[Vo]: Re: Going Van de Graaff
Michael Foster wrote: Hello Fred, Unless I'm missing something, the setup you describe is a self-charging assymetrical capacitor, an electric dipole. The end of the dipole closest to the earth will be more strongly attracted to it, resulting in an apparent weight gain. The long separation between the Van de Graaff electrode and foil at the base would make the effect most pronounced. Yes. What I really want is a Sphere within a Sphere or Cylinder within a Cylinder (or combinations thereof) using the VDG to transfer electrons from the inner sphere or cylinder (where I can work safely in a field-free region) to the outer sphere or cylinder, to ascertain a force against the Earth's Megacoulomb Charge without building up an attracting image charge: http://www.nofc.forestry.ca/fire/faq_lightning_e.php#one The Earth is electrically charged and acts as a spherical capacitor. The Earth has a net negative charge of about a million coulombs, while an equal and positive charge resides in the atmosphere. Buehler experiments: http://www.space-mixing-theory.com/article2.pdf invariably got an upward force on capacitors in air, regardless of sign of single plates or parallel plate capacitors, but, got null results in a Faraday cage, others also got null results in a vacuum, which begs the question, was there a heretofore unmeasured force between the cage or vacuum system and the earth? Spending big bucks on wild theories helps the economy, Michael. :-) Fred
Re: [Vo]: China's Neodymium monopoly is being felt
Uh, that too but also the freezing of its foreign assets, trade embargoes, and most importantly, stopping of all petroleum products sales by allied nations, among others. How would we react (U.S,) when faced with similar actions? -ak- -Original Message- From: Standing Bear [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Dec 11, 2006 7:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: China's Neodymium monopoly is being felt On Friday 01 December 2006 17:51, OrionWorks wrote: FYI, It's my understanding that the Chinese government has recently increased the price of raw materials to all magnet manufacturers by 60%. This presumably includes the rare-earth material, NEODYMIUM. As previously mentioned on this discussion group the Chinese government quietly and methodically went about the business of purchasing all the mining operations for these kinds of rare-earth elements everywhere on the planet. They now own the whole shebang - everything. They maintain a total monopoly on these kinds of rare-earth supplies. And whadaya know! Suddenly they've decided to increase prices by 60 percent. I maintain a suspicion that rare earth materials, particularly Neodymium, are going to start playing an ever increasing vital role in the development of this planet's AE resources. China stands to make a tidy profit from their shrewd and complete takeover of this market. And the rest of us will be paying, literally, for our lack of foresight. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com Wars have been fought over that kind of monopolistic activity. The Japanese allegedly hit us at Pearl in the last century after we denied them sale of scrap iron needed by them; and the Germans were forced to use flammable hydrogen for the dirigible 'Hindenburg' with disastrous results simply because we had refused to sell them helium gas whose supply we then controlled. Stsnding Bear
[Vo]:
Subject: Neglected Power Law The power output from an electrical generator (or ICE) can vary significantly - with smaller change in rotational speed - RPM. This is a generally overlooked criterion in present day ICE design: the cubic power-to-RPM (rule-of- thumb) except in race cars. Prior to the current emphasis on using a smaller ICE to recharge batteries, rather than operating solely through a mechanical transmission, there was little reason to optimize the electrical output of such an engine. And high RPM can be higher wear and tear with a piston engine - because of all the friction. This is not a problem with a turbine. IOW - a rotational speed increase can in theory give nearly a *cubic power law* change in motor/generator output current (at the same potential for instance). It is actually 'roughly' a cube law since there are other factors involved, but for the sake of argument - let's call it a cube-law. This does not imply overunity, as the power required to spin the device in question also increases in sync with output - but it does imply increased efficiency and *much smaller size and weight for the same output.* Adding 20% more RPM to an alternator will produce roughly (1.2 x 1.2 x 1.2 = 1.73) 73% more current for instance (in a perfect world). So what happens when you raise the RPM twenty-fold ? Well, needless to say - both the electrical power output and the required power input scale somewhat as a cubic power law 20 x 20 x 20 = 8000... Meaning among other thing that the device can be made much smaller, lighter and so forth for the same power. File that one away - but keep in mind Fred Sparber's previous posting on the simple scroll compressor (although other types of compressors can be used in this proposal). And - also keeping in mind that today's auto turbocharger spins at twenty or more times the normal engine speed. Turbochargers can spin at 80-100,000 RPM but are arguably misused in ALL present-day ICE design, because they only supply an air-boost which can be done in a simpler way. There are said to be efficient only because they use waste heat. But, and this cannot be denied, they also use that waste heat very inefficiently ! but since it is waste to begin with, nobody seems to care muc. ... so what happens when - instead of an air boost - the 'optimum use' for all of those available high RPMs is implemented : i.e. the former turbocharger becomes no longer anxilliary but the prime mover itself ? By redesign the boosted turbine part is spinning a magnet [inside a coil] at very high speed, instead of a compressor. It can potentially work out to an extraordinary gain, since maximizing the temperature of hot exhaust can be trivial, in engineering terms. Also in that perfect world of auto engine re-design - keep in mind that ALL (as in 100%) of combustion ICE engines have a torque curve and a differing RPM curve but will operate most efficiently if and when these two can be closely aligned. And most of all - if and when the RPM can be HELD CONSTANT, then overall engine efficiency improves significantly. A diesel which is maxed at 38% theoretical efficiency at 2,200 RPM might well be only 32% efficient at either 1,800 or 2,400 RPM, and even less if the RPM varies up and down instead of staying constant - big difference. One of the reasons a diesel is efficient is that the peaks of these two curves - torque and power - are relatively close together anyway, compared with other engine designs. And one of the reasons the Prius hybrid gets better gas mileage is that the setup permits the gasoline engine to operate longer at the BEST RPM (in terms of the two curves above). A Prius diesel would be even more efficient. BTW, this variable of matching curves is correspondingly one of the reasons why the Wankel design is relatively less efficient - i.e. its power curve maxes out at around triple the speed of its torque curve. Not good for auto power. Now revive all three of these previously unconnected variables in ICE redesign - into one ultra-high efficiency scheme [and overlooking the potential drawbacks for a moment]. What will it look like ? Well very cool and small! You would be able to easily lift such an engine for instance. And it is absolutely stunning to me [under the subject of overlooked potential improvements to the auto engine] that Detroit has not seen this before now. So obvious (to the armchair pundit at least). The best possible design, IMHO, based on these variables, for ultimate fuel efficiency in any ICE powering any vehicle, is going to be something like this: 1) A very small [single speed] diesel engine of maximum simplicity. The engine operates either on or off - no variation in RPM is possible - not even an 'idle'. This drastically simplifies the fuel injector. There is only a single speed which is exactly where the torque and power curves are best fitted. This would convert (most
Re: [Vo]:
On 12/12/06, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this redesign a match made in heaven or what ?- perhaps the continued ravings of a single minded perfectionist who knows just-enough to overlook larger drawbacks? You mean like traffic lights or the 405 at 5pm? Whatcha gonna do when the battcap's full? Like all turbines, windup and winddown are time consuming. On our trains we dump it into a BFR (resistor). Terry
Re: [Vo]: Neglected Power Law
- Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is this redesign a match made in heaven or what ?- perhaps the continued ravings of a single minded perfectionist who knows just-enough to overlook larger drawbacks? You mean like traffic lights or the 405 at 5pm? Whatcha gonna do when the battcap's full? Like all turbines, windup and winddown are time consuming. Well windup delay is true with large turbines, megawatt and up. The smaller turbines used as turbochargers minimize this problem, but I suspect you are correct that enough batteries need to be there to get you through 30 minutes or so - of creeping along in rush hour traffic without the need for constant short interval powerups and downs. The Prius seems to have almost enough juice for this now; and it is likely to be just another desing consideration rather than a major problem (like the NIH-syndrome) and that acronym is not healthy is it? On our trains we dump it into a BFR (resistor). Speaking of acronyms, I bet I can guess what the BF stands for g
Re: [Vo]: Neglected Power Law
--- Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: As you pointed out, the diesel develops quite a bit of torque at low RPMs, which is useful in a conventional engine/transmission arrangement. It's irrelevant, however, if you're using a motor/generator/wheel-motor arrangement. Not really. You absolutely need to compress air to a high ratio, and turbines are terribly inefficient for that, especially in the smaller sizes. In contrast, the torque of a diesel can drive an efficient scroll or Roots compressor to supply pressurized air for fully double the efficiency of a small turbine (like the Allison) and one tenth the cost of all those investment-cast blades. This is a major consideration ! as pressurized-air is the #1 major loss-item for small turbine design. And if you want maximum power per pound from your motor... What's the diesel doing for you? It cools and pressure-reduces the exhaust a lot in the course of spinning itself. What's the point? The diesel-turbine-hybrid, which I am describing has two gigantic advantages over the pure turbine for smaller output engines. And remember this general point - pressure - and only pressure drives any turbine and high heat is needed ONLY for complete combustion - although admittedly the relationship with between heat and pressure is linear in THAT engine design only (pure turbine). The cooler exhaust of the diesel-hybrid, as mentioned, can be reheated using some air-bleed from the supercharger and some very small amount of added fuel, so that lower heat is a really a non-issue anyway ... BUT ... in the hybrid you will not need superalloys, as with a pure turbine, nor will you need the 2400 degree F. heat, in order to get a complete burn. Because the diesel operates at high compression ratios which are **unobtainable** with any practical turbine, you get complete fuel combustion but at far lower effective temperature and *complete burn* is what it is this (maximum efficiency) is all about. Plus -- pure turbines are not *scalable* downward without major losses in efficiency. And even if this hybrid is not as light in weight as a pure turbine, it is still a third the weight of a normal ICE like the Prius, when producing the same power. Thus the title of the post (referring to the power law) - which title, once again got lost in cyberspace. ...even Toyota acknowledges that they would use a smaller engine except for marketing concerns (the consumer thinks that they need to have reserve power available, even if it is seldom used. go figure.) Jones
[VO]:Re: Neglected Power Law
BlankHowdy Jones, Interesting series of posts regarding a diesel-turbine-hybrid unit. We have been studying a work of Schauberger, a design he proposed for a implosion type compressor. Our interest is in using it for vacuum induction against pressure above 30 PSI, hopefully up to 150 PSI. Yuor idea of using a Roots style blower fits. Even more interesting would be an implosion type blower if anyone makes a version of the Schauberger design. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif Description: GIF image
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:14:46 -0500: Hi Harry, [snip] However, I also make distinction between gravitational mass and inertial mass. The sun would still have plenty of inertial mass, and it is this inertial mass that attracts (accelerates) the planets. You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract? This answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference to having its gravitational acceleration impeded by another body. [snip] I'm sorry, but I can make no sense whatever out of this. Perhaps you could put it in other words? Mechanics is _a_ science of motion. However it has become an ideology of motion over the last 250 hundred years. I will put together a cut and paste history of the science of motion from Aristotle to Newton with selections I have gathered from the internet over the years. Harry
