Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
On Aug 25, 2007, at 9:39 PM, thomas malloy wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Horace Too bad there is no way to get that kind of 'official-sounding' crap from Vassilatos off the internet (or reclassified as fiction). And here is the most important message of the thread - with what Richard Hull says about Vassilatos - basically that he is just wrong... Richard personally interviewed the witnesses to the event. I'm wondering when the writers say 15.5 g neutrons, is that g 10^9? It would seem to me that The 10^9 is right, but it is capital G, not g. if they thought this system would work the hot fusioneers would have used it, correct me if you think I'm wrong. Used it for what? The COP is incredibly bad. Here's the calculation again assuming 10 MeV per neutron: Gn/s Watts_in Watts_out COP 1.0 20 0.01608x10^-4 2.6 47500.04179x10^-6 15.5 10500 0.24832x10^-5 That means for each kilo-watt in you get at most 1 extra kilowatt out. BTW, I made a mistake in the table above. It should look like: Gn/s Watts_in NeutronWatts_out COP 1.0 20 0.01601+8x10^-4 2.6 47500.04171+9x10^-6 15.5 10500 0.24831+2x10^-5 assuming 100% efficiency in everything else. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
On Aug 25, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: If they claimed the rate of gas evolution was higher than the input _power_ could account for that would also be interesting. But they don't -- they claim it's higher than the Faradic rate, which is based on the CURRENT ALONE. With voltage something like five times higher than the minimum needed to make the reaction go it's no violation of anything to get out more gas than the Faradic rate -- it just requires that a different mechanism be at work, such as, say, pyrolysis in tiny hot spots on the electrodes (just to pull one possibility out of the air). Until the evolved gas volume is too large to be accounted for by the input POWER (rather than the input CURRENT), it's not exciting news. Note that the claim of cold fusion is very different: Power out is larger than electrical power in. That's the big news; the occasional violation of the Faradic gas evolution rate is rarely mentioned as more than a footnote in most CF papers. Violation of the Faradaic gas evolution rate happens all the time in modern electrolysers, which work on the combined effects of electrolysis and heat. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:The large voids in the universe
Here is an interpretation of the large voids in the universe from the perspective of Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System: http://library.rstheory.com/articles/KVK/CosmicBubbles.html
RE: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
Horace has it right, but I would like to add a few coins to it if I may? There are two sides to the issue of what goes on in a cell (two sides that I care about anyway) one is the side that says that every entering (e-) becomes involved in a electrochemical reaction in order to reach its exit point (ionic movement or simple Redox) and be reconverted back to its original (e-) form. The second side says there is a conventional Ohmic component within the cell and that under the correct conditions electrons will flow as if the medium were a simple resistance. If indeed one believed both to be true, then the number of Coulombs 'IN' does not dictate gas production. When a person states that voltage has nothing to do with gas production I wonder how they rationalize the disconnection between P=V*I in calculating input, (V) of course has something to do with it. Does not (V) increase (I)? Of course, so the increased (I) is ignored in the gas calculation then? Granted if you keep (V) at the thermal neutral point and increase (I) that is great, but few have obtained this in a large volume cell. (T) or temperature can to an extent aid production (desired to come from 3.6kJ environmental) first then added either from cell internal or other means, this is clearly shown in the Faraday equation, yet as I have stated on vortex in the past as (T) goes up so does the vapor content. Where this is going is that I firmly believe that Faraday will be modified or expanded upon in the near future. There are indeed some duplicatable anomalies reactions that can take place in a common cell when both ionic and electronic or resistive processes are used and engineered to increase the effects in the proper ratio. These resistive effects are seen as -R and only happen in properly pulsed systems and properly designed electrode configurations. Negative resistance can be experienced at a third electrode by what I currently believe is some type of electron tunneling that I do not at this point fully understand. This tunneling current does NOT produce gas of any type at the third electrode, yet it results in some very interesting observation in production. -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 1:03 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? On Aug 25, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: If they claimed the rate of gas evolution was higher than the input _power_ could account for that would also be interesting. But they don't -- they claim it's higher than the Faradic rate, which is based on the CURRENT ALONE. With voltage something like five times higher than the minimum needed to make the reaction go it's no violation of anything to get out more gas than the Faradic rate -- it just requires that a different mechanism be at work, such as, say, pyrolysis in tiny hot spots on the electrodes (just to pull one possibility out of the air). Until the evolved gas volume is too large to be accounted for by the input POWER (rather than the input CURRENT), it's not exciting news. Note that the claim of cold fusion is very different: Power out is larger than electrical power in. That's the big news; the occasional violation of the Faradic gas evolution rate is rarely mentioned as more than a footnote in most CF papers. Violation of the Faradaic gas evolution rate happens all the time in modern electrolysers, which work on the combined effects of electrolysis and heat. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
Stiffler wrote.. These resistive effects are seen as -R and only happen in properly pulsed systems and properly designed electrode configurations. Negative resistance can be experienced at a third electrode by what I currently believe is some type of electron tunneling that I do not at this point fully understand. This tunneling current does NOT produce gas of any type at the third electrode, yet it results in some very interesting observation in production. Howdy Dr. Now , this is beginning to get interesting. Jones recognized it while studying the 3 battery hookup shown on Utube. I still didn't get it until now. Hmm.. thinking about imposing a vacuum and/or a separate sonic transponder adjustable for resonance frequency studies give me a giddy feeling. Richard
RE: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
Richard said: Hmm.. thinking about imposing a vacuum and/or a separate sonic transponder adjustable for resonance frequency studies give me a giddy feeling. Richard don't quite follow the resonance part if you are referring to an EC. I think S. Meyer and his pulsed cell was way to high in frequency and the work was being done by a sub frequency component. The cell that I refer to in my work is operating at 71.43hz of all weird spots to find :-) The frequency is dependant upon distance between electrodes and the control (third electrode) is placed between the anode and cathode of the cell. My gut feeling is that the control electrode is acting on the ions present in the electrolyte between the anode and cathode. A conversion (in some) way takes place by interaction of this control electrode and the ions which allow electrons to flow in the control electrode without gas production. There appears to be what? (an increase of electrons) or some incomplete guess at my tunneling idea. Richard I have a 'stupid' formulation that has proved extremely accurate in the calculation of the added energy obtained from the cell. Yet if I publish it here I will never hear the end of it due to its apparent non-sense nature. But what the heck, maybe at the 'Dime Box' after a few pickled eggs and a few brew, something funny might help 'clear the air'. Eg = (Vs * Is) - (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) Eg - energy gain Vs - source or supply voltage Is - supply current (amps) Na -Avogadro's number ec - Electron charge f - pulse freq. 50% duty cycle This equation falls apart as (f) increases because it requires a closer spacing between the electrodes, which reduces the effect. Like I say I don't have the answers, idea's that could be totaly wrong. At least Jones has his faux-n explained much better than what I have. Tip one for me -Original Message- From: R.C.Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 11:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? Stiffler wrote.. These resistive effects are seen as -R and only happen in properly pulsed systems and properly designed electrode configurations. Negative resistance can be experienced at a third electrode by what I currently believe is some type of electron tunneling that I do not at this point fully understand. This tunneling current does NOT produce gas of any type at the third electrode, yet it results in some very interesting observation in production. Howdy Dr. Now , this is beginning to get interesting. Jones recognized it while studying the 3 battery hookup shown on Utube. I still didn't get it until now. Hmm.. thinking about imposing a vacuum and/or a separate sonic transponder adjustable for resonance frequency studies give me a giddy feeling. Richard
RE: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
I was not clear on this below @@ Eg - energy gain This is not to be considered Power, rather it is -I or negative current that exceeds input and can be used to do a secondary operation. I also should have added that this at this time ranges from 13 - 18% above input. Hope that will make it somewhat clear. -Original Message- From: Stiffler Scientific [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 12:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? Richard said: Hmm.. thinking about imposing a vacuum and/or a separate sonic transponder adjustable for resonance frequency studies give me a giddy feeling. Richard don't quite follow the resonance part if you are referring to an EC. I think S. Meyer and his pulsed cell was way to high in frequency and the work was being done by a sub frequency component. The cell that I refer to in my work is operating at 71.43hz of all weird spots to find :-) The frequency is dependant upon distance between electrodes and the control (third electrode) is placed between the anode and cathode of the cell. My gut feeling is that the control electrode is acting on the ions present in the electrolyte between the anode and cathode. A conversion (in some) way takes place by interaction of this control electrode and the ions which allow electrons to flow in the control electrode without gas production. There appears to be what? (an increase of electrons) or some incomplete guess at my tunneling idea. Richard I have a 'stupid' formulation that has proved extremely accurate in the calculation of the added energy obtained from the cell. Yet if I publish it here I will never hear the end of it due to its apparent non-sense nature. But what the heck, maybe at the 'Dime Box' after a few pickled eggs and a few brew, something funny might help 'clear the air'. Eg = (Vs * Is) - (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) Eg - energy gain Vs - source or supply voltage Is - supply current (amps) Na -Avogadro's number ec - Electron charge f - pulse freq. 50% duty cycle This equation falls apart as (f) increases because it requires a closer spacing between the electrodes, which reduces the effect. Like I say I don't have the answers, idea's that could be totaly wrong. At least Jones has his faux-n explained much better than what I have. Tip one for me -Original Message- From: R.C.Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 11:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? Stiffler wrote.. These resistive effects are seen as -R and only happen in properly pulsed systems and properly designed electrode configurations. Negative resistance can be experienced at a third electrode by what I currently believe is some type of electron tunneling that I do not at this point fully understand. This tunneling current does NOT produce gas of any type at the third electrode, yet it results in some very interesting observation in production. Howdy Dr. Now , this is beginning to get interesting. Jones recognized it while studying the 3 battery hookup shown on Utube. I still didn't get it until now. Hmm.. thinking about imposing a vacuum and/or a separate sonic transponder adjustable for resonance frequency studies give me a giddy feeling. Richard
Re: [Vo]:the Gray Matter
oops. ... rather than correct the faulty and confusing power/energy/work etc. terminology - done in haste ... there will be a more authoritative report with better data coming shortly... (if all goes as planned) At that time, the motor was operated into a 10 HP dynamometer load at 1100 rpm. This power output is 7460 watts. The battery power available from the four batteries would have been 5454 watt-hours, had they been pushing a normal load until total discharge. However, with this kind of arc-discharge load, the total battery power consumed by the motor was less than 30 watt-hours actual. Consequently, the amount of work done was hundreds of time more than it should have been.
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
On Aug 26, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Stiffler Scientific wrote: A conversion (in some) way takes place by interaction of this control electrode and the ions which allow electrons to flow in the control electrode without gas production. There appears to be what? (an increase of electrons) or some incomplete guess at my tunneling idea. I don't know the nature of your experiments, but it is important to consider that almost no conduction takes place via electrons in water electrolytes - most all the current is via ions, and mostly through proton conduction. An amazing thing is that most conduction in electrolytic cells is, according to Bockris, a venerable electrochemist, due to ordinary ion diffusion. The reason he says this is the potential drops are almost entirely right up next to the electrodes. One interesting thing about inserting a third electrode in there is you are essentially dropping the voltage drops for the primary electrode interfaces, because the third electrode has to support its own interface potential drops as well in order to conduct. Until the third (middle) electrode conducts it is merely increasing the cell DC resistance, though it does conduct capacitively - and the higher the frequency the more so. I have to say, despite my admiration for Bockris, I'm not sure I buy the conduction by diffusion argument, though. I experimented with a 10 m long electrolytic cell and got within an order of magnitude light speed DC conduction rise times (which I consider to be way different from AC conduction, which can be by EM surface wave.) I should redo that very confused and amateurish work now I have better equipment and a better handle on basic physics. Here is a summary of my 1996 experiments: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Ecell10m.pdf I think there has not been nearly enough basic physics done in this arena. Here is a neat group working on Soft Condensed Matter at least: http://softsolids.physics.uq.edu.au/our_research.html It may be of interest that actual proton conduction in water is considered by Bockris to be 100 percent by tunneling followed by H3O+ ion rotation. It may be of possible use to compare ice conductivity to water conductivity to distinguish tunneling conduction from ion diffusion. Richard I have a 'stupid' formulation that has proved extremely accurate in the calculation of the added energy obtained from the cell. Yet if I publish it here I will never hear the end of it due to its apparent non-sense nature. But what the heck, maybe at the 'Dime Box' after a few pickled eggs and a few brew, something funny might help 'clear the air'. Eg = (Vs * Is) - (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) Eg - energy gain Vs - source or supply voltage Is - supply current (amps) Na -Avogadro's number ec - Electron charge f - pulse freq. 50% duty cycle There is something wrong with the above equation. The (Vs * Is) part is in watts. The (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) part is in coulombs^2/mole. When you subtract them you don't get either energy or power. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
Hi Horace, The reason the conduction of water is said to be caused by ions is because pure water is essentially an insulator. In fact, the purity of water is normally measured by measuring its conductivity. As for the speed of ions, an individual ion moves only a very short distance. This is like electron conduction in a metal. When the field is changed, the whole electron collection or, in this case, ion collection moves as a unit all at the same time instantaneously, i.e. with a speed of light reaction time. A third electrode in an electrolytic can be thought of as two cells in series, with one side of the third electrode being the cathode to one cell and the other side being the anode to the other cell. As a result, nothing special is created. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: On Aug 26, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Stiffler Scientific wrote: A conversion (in some) way takes place by interaction of this control electrode and the ions which allow electrons to flow in the control electrode without gas production. There appears to be what? (an increase of electrons) or some incomplete guess at my tunneling idea. I don't know the nature of your experiments, but it is important to consider that almost no conduction takes place via electrons in water electrolytes - most all the current is via ions, and mostly through proton conduction. An amazing thing is that most conduction in electrolytic cells is, according to Bockris, a venerable electrochemist, due to ordinary ion diffusion. The reason he says this is the potential drops are almost entirely right up next to the electrodes. One interesting thing about inserting a third electrode in there is you are essentially dropping the voltage drops for the primary electrode interfaces, because the third electrode has to support its own interface potential drops as well in order to conduct. Until the third (middle) electrode conducts it is merely increasing the cell DC resistance, though it does conduct capacitively - and the higher the frequency the more so. I have to say, despite my admiration for Bockris, I'm not sure I buy the conduction by diffusion argument, though. I experimented with a 10 m long electrolytic cell and got within an order of magnitude light speed DC conduction rise times (which I consider to be way different from AC conduction, which can be by EM surface wave.) I should redo that very confused and amateurish work now I have better equipment and a better handle on basic physics. Here is a summary of my 1996 experiments: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Ecell10m.pdf I think there has not been nearly enough basic physics done in this arena. Here is a neat group working on Soft Condensed Matter at least: http://softsolids.physics.uq.edu.au/our_research.html It may be of interest that actual proton conduction in water is considered by Bockris to be 100 percent by tunneling followed by H3O+ ion rotation. It may be of possible use to compare ice conductivity to water conductivity to distinguish tunneling conduction from ion diffusion. Richard I have a 'stupid' formulation that has proved extremely accurate in the calculation of the added energy obtained from the cell. Yet if I publish it here I will never hear the end of it due to its apparent non-sense nature. But what the heck, maybe at the 'Dime Box' after a few pickled eggs and a few brew, something funny might help 'clear the air'. Eg = (Vs * Is) - (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) Eg - energy gain Vs - source or supply voltage Is - supply current (amps) Na -Avogadro's number ec - Electron charge f - pulse freq. 50% duty cycle There is something wrong with the above equation. The (Vs * Is) part is in watts. The (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) part is in coulombs^2/mole. When you subtract them you don't get either energy or power. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
If either of you wish, I think it would clear up the idea of the 'third electrode'. It is indeed not as its being thought of here. The circuit is www.stifflerscientific.com/images/cre_sc.jpg Horace I sent an amended post saying I was not clear on the Eg result and it applies to current and not energy. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 2:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? Hi Horace, The reason the conduction of water is said to be caused by ions is because pure water is essentially an insulator. In fact, the purity of water is normally measured by measuring its conductivity. As for the speed of ions, an individual ion moves only a very short distance. This is like electron conduction in a metal. When the field is changed, the whole electron collection or, in this case, ion collection moves as a unit all at the same time instantaneously, i.e. with a speed of light reaction time. A third electrode in an electrolytic can be thought of as two cells in series, with one side of the third electrode being the cathode to one cell and the other side being the anode to the other cell. As a result, nothing special is created. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: On Aug 26, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Stiffler Scientific wrote: A conversion (in some) way takes place by interaction of this control electrode and the ions which allow electrons to flow in the control electrode without gas production. There appears to be what? (an increase of electrons) or some incomplete guess at my tunneling idea. I don't know the nature of your experiments, but it is important to consider that almost no conduction takes place via electrons in water electrolytes - most all the current is via ions, and mostly through proton conduction. An amazing thing is that most conduction in electrolytic cells is, according to Bockris, a venerable electrochemist, due to ordinary ion diffusion. The reason he says this is the potential drops are almost entirely right up next to the electrodes. One interesting thing about inserting a third electrode in there is you are essentially dropping the voltage drops for the primary electrode interfaces, because the third electrode has to support its own interface potential drops as well in order to conduct. Until the third (middle) electrode conducts it is merely increasing the cell DC resistance, though it does conduct capacitively - and the higher the frequency the more so. I have to say, despite my admiration for Bockris, I'm not sure I buy the conduction by diffusion argument, though. I experimented with a 10 m long electrolytic cell and got within an order of magnitude light speed DC conduction rise times (which I consider to be way different from AC conduction, which can be by EM surface wave.) I should redo that very confused and amateurish work now I have better equipment and a better handle on basic physics. Here is a summary of my 1996 experiments: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Ecell10m.pdf I think there has not been nearly enough basic physics done in this arena. Here is a neat group working on Soft Condensed Matter at least: http://softsolids.physics.uq.edu.au/our_research.html It may be of interest that actual proton conduction in water is considered by Bockris to be 100 percent by tunneling followed by H3O+ ion rotation. It may be of possible use to compare ice conductivity to water conductivity to distinguish tunneling conduction from ion diffusion. Richard I have a 'stupid' formulation that has proved extremely accurate in the calculation of the added energy obtained from the cell. Yet if I publish it here I will never hear the end of it due to its apparent non-sense nature. But what the heck, maybe at the 'Dime Box' after a few pickled eggs and a few brew, something funny might help 'clear the air'. Eg = (Vs * Is) - (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) Eg - energy gain Vs - source or supply voltage Is - supply current (amps) Na -Avogadro's number ec - Electron charge f - pulse freq. 50% duty cycle There is something wrong with the above equation. The (Vs * Is) part is in watts. The (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) part is in coulombs^2/mole. When you subtract them you don't get either energy or power. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Life on Mars
Terry Blanton wrote: Scientists found life on Mars back in the 70s That's what Richard Hoagland has been saying for years. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
In reply to Stiffler Scientific's message of Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:30:53 -0500: Hi, [snip] I was not clear on this below @@ Eg - energy gain This is not to be considered Power, rather it is -I or negative current that exceeds input and can be used to do a secondary operation. I also should have added that this at this time ranges from 13 - 18% above input. Hope that will make it somewhat clear. [snip] Just to muddy the waters a little, consider the following. In any cell there are capacitances and inductances present, such that the cell can be considered to be a tank circuit. When feeding a tank circuit with AC (or pulsed DC), it is possible to get a current flowing in the tank that considerably exceeds the input current, particularly when the frequency of the driving source lies near the resonance point of the tank circuit. Since the tank current also passes through the electrolyte, the Faraday efficiency may appear to be much higher than one would calculate based upon the power supply current. However for this to function, the power has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the voltage, as the resonant cell appears to have a high impedance resulting in the power supply needing to use a high voltage just to drive a small power supply current through the cell. This phenomenon may be what is taking place in the Meyer cells. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:the Gray Matter
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: I should read further before shooting from the lip. However if this pertains to the setup in the previous paragraph, why didn't you put all the info in the one paragraph? Haste. And trying to figure out what the story is with Mallory and the original device, and whether there was some active conspiracy or just corporate malaise (which is most likely). And trying to find the original news stories, which are only on microfilm it seems. Mallory was apparently acquired by Dart Industires (formerly United Drug, which became Rexall, and ultimately the conglomerate, Dart Industries (Duracell, etc)... which merged with Kraft Foods in 1980. The companies were demerged in 1986, spinning off Premark International in the process, with Kraft retaining Duracell, which it spun off in 1988. With all of that going on, it is not hard to imagine that a promising but undeveloped energy invention could get lost in the Boardroom shuffle. If Mallory had acquired a license to the EV Gray Technology in '73 when oil was at its lowest level since before WWII (in constant dollars) and then got caught up in all of this merger-madness, it would not be surprising that they abandoned it... and sitting somewhere in a corporate warehouse is a working EV Gray machine. Remember the ending of that Indiana Jones movie where the Ark of the Covenant is being haplessly stored-into-oblivion in some huge Army warehouse? You might argue that free energy is always preferable to even cheap oil, but the practical problem with the Gray device is low battery life. The longest mentioned run was 200 hours. How many man-hours of engineering would it take to increase that by an order of magnitude? Jones
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
Hi Richard, The diagram you give is similar to how a vacuum tube would be configured. Unfortunately, no relationship exists between the behavior of an electrolytic cell and a vacuum triode. For example, unlike the grid in a triode, the grid in the electrolytic cell does not act as a high impedance controlling element. Instead, it acts alternately as a cathode and anode with respect to the other electrodes, depending on the direction of current flow. Because of C1, the current flow is limited by the charge that can accumulate before the voltage across C1 is equal to applied voltage. As a result, you have created two electrolytic cells in series that have a fixed charge that can flow. Depending on what kind of ions that are in the cell, some of this charge will decompose water and some will initiate other chemical reactions, most of which are reversible when current changes direction. It seems to me, the major problem involves measuring just how much energy is being delivered to the entire cell because the current and voltage will be out of phase and divided between several inputs. How have you solved this problem? Ed Stiffler Scientific wrote: If either of you wish, I think it would clear up the idea of the 'third electrode'. It is indeed not as its being thought of here. The circuit is www.stifflerscientific.com/images/cre_sc.jpg Horace I sent an amended post saying I was not clear on the Eg result and it applies to current and not energy. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 2:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? Hi Horace, The reason the conduction of water is said to be caused by ions is because pure water is essentially an insulator. In fact, the purity of water is normally measured by measuring its conductivity. As for the speed of ions, an individual ion moves only a very short distance. This is like electron conduction in a metal. When the field is changed, the whole electron collection or, in this case, ion collection moves as a unit all at the same time instantaneously, i.e. with a speed of light reaction time. A third electrode in an electrolytic can be thought of as two cells in series, with one side of the third electrode being the cathode to one cell and the other side being the anode to the other cell. As a result, nothing special is created. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: On Aug 26, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Stiffler Scientific wrote: A conversion (in some) way takes place by interaction of this control electrode and the ions which allow electrons to flow in the control electrode without gas production. There appears to be what? (an increase of electrons) or some incomplete guess at my tunneling idea. I don't know the nature of your experiments, but it is important to consider that almost no conduction takes place via electrons in water electrolytes - most all the current is via ions, and mostly through proton conduction. An amazing thing is that most conduction in electrolytic cells is, according to Bockris, a venerable electrochemist, due to ordinary ion diffusion. The reason he says this is the potential drops are almost entirely right up next to the electrodes. One interesting thing about inserting a third electrode in there is you are essentially dropping the voltage drops for the primary electrode interfaces, because the third electrode has to support its own interface potential drops as well in order to conduct. Until the third (middle) electrode conducts it is merely increasing the cell DC resistance, though it does conduct capacitively - and the higher the frequency the more so. I have to say, despite my admiration for Bockris, I'm not sure I buy the conduction by diffusion argument, though. I experimented with a 10 m long electrolytic cell and got within an order of magnitude light speed DC conduction rise times (which I consider to be way different from AC conduction, which can be by EM surface wave.) I should redo that very confused and amateurish work now I have better equipment and a better handle on basic physics. Here is a summary of my 1996 experiments: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Ecell10m.pdf I think there has not been nearly enough basic physics done in this arena. Here is a neat group working on Soft Condensed Matter at least: http://softsolids.physics.uq.edu.au/our_research.html It may be of interest that actual proton conduction in water is considered by Bockris to be 100 percent by tunneling followed by H3O+ ion rotation. It may be of possible use to compare ice conductivity to water conductivity to distinguish tunneling conduction from ion diffusion. Richard I have a 'stupid' formulation that has proved extremely accurate in the calculation of the added energy obtained from the cell. Yet if I publish it here I will never hear the end of it due to its apparent non-sense nature. But what the heck, maybe
RE: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
Edmund Storms said; the charge that can accumulate before the voltage across C1 is equal to I know a vacuum tube much better than solid states as I was created far before the transistor and do understand there is little parity between the cell and a tube. How have you solved this problem? Look at the scope traces at the bottom of the CRE page on this site and let me know if you still think you overview is valid. Please make note of the battery charging along with the gas production. Please let me know if you still feel your overview remains valid? Thank you for the feed back... -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? Hi Richard, The diagram you give is similar to how a vacuum tube would be configured. Unfortunately, no relationship exists between the behavior of an electrolytic cell and a vacuum triode. For example, unlike the grid in a triode, the grid in the electrolytic cell does not act as a high impedance controlling element. Instead, it acts alternately as a cathode and anode with respect to the other electrodes, depending on the direction of current flow. Because of C1, the current flow is limited by the charge that can accumulate before the voltage across C1 is equal to applied voltage. As a result, you have created two electrolytic cells in series that have a fixed charge that can flow. Depending on what kind of ions that are in the cell, some of this charge will decompose water and some will initiate other chemical reactions, most of which are reversible when current changes direction. It seems to me, the major problem involves measuring just how much energy is being delivered to the entire cell because the current and voltage will be out of phase and divided between several inputs. How have you solved this problem? Ed Stiffler Scientific wrote: If either of you wish, I think it would clear up the idea of the 'third electrode'. It is indeed not as its being thought of here. The circuit is www.stifflerscientific.com/images/cre_sc.jpg Horace I sent an amended post saying I was not clear on the Eg result and it applies to current and not energy. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 2:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? Hi Horace, The reason the conduction of water is said to be caused by ions is because pure water is essentially an insulator. In fact, the purity of water is normally measured by measuring its conductivity. As for the speed of ions, an individual ion moves only a very short distance. This is like electron conduction in a metal. When the field is changed, the whole electron collection or, in this case, ion collection moves as a unit all at the same time instantaneously, i.e. with a speed of light reaction time. A third electrode in an electrolytic can be thought of as two cells in series, with one side of the third electrode being the cathode to one cell and the other side being the anode to the other cell. As a result, nothing special is created. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: On Aug 26, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Stiffler Scientific wrote: A conversion (in some) way takes place by interaction of this control electrode and the ions which allow electrons to flow in the control electrode without gas production. There appears to be what? (an increase of electrons) or some incomplete guess at my tunneling idea. I don't know the nature of your experiments, but it is important to consider that almost no conduction takes place via electrons in water electrolytes - most all the current is via ions, and mostly through proton conduction. An amazing thing is that most conduction in electrolytic cells is, according to Bockris, a venerable electrochemist, due to ordinary ion diffusion. The reason he says this is the potential drops are almost entirely right up next to the electrodes. One interesting thing about inserting a third electrode in there is you are essentially dropping the voltage drops for the primary electrode interfaces, because the third electrode has to support its own interface potential drops as well in order to conduct. Until the third (middle) electrode conducts it is merely increasing the cell DC resistance, though it does conduct capacitively - and the higher the frequency the more so. I have to say, despite my admiration for Bockris, I'm not sure I buy the conduction by diffusion argument, though. I experimented with a 10 m long electrolytic cell and got within an order of magnitude light speed DC conduction rise times (which I consider to be way different from AC conduction, which can be by EM surface wave.) I should redo that very confused and amateurish work now I have better equipment and a better handle on basic physics. Here is a summary of my 1996 experiments:
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
On Aug 26, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Hi Horace, The reason the conduction of water is said to be caused by ions is because pure water is essentially an insulator. In fact, the purity of water is normally measured by measuring its conductivity. As for the speed of ions, an individual ion moves only a very short distance. This is like electron conduction in a metal. When the field is changed, the whole electron collection or, in this case, ion collection moves as a unit all at the same time instantaneously, i.e. with a speed of light reaction time. Yes, that's the conventional electrochemistry pablum that starts with the idealized field between parallel plates and culminates in the Nernst equation. It all works out just fine at a gross level, even though the underpinning assumptions are blatantly false, at least in many circumstances. In my experiments I used small platinum electrodes, which are not plate like, but rather point like. At an electrode separation of 1 m, or 5 m or 10 m the E field from those points nearly vanishes - especially considering the potential drop is almost all across the 2 cell interfaces. No problem - the results are the ions all start their motion in harmony at near light speed. This of course can't happen if the ions were point charges as in the above model. The ions are in 1/r^2 fields, so if you compute the force from the 10 V source I used you'll see the accelerating force should (a) be practically non-existent, and (b) drop off as the square of the cell length, which is does not. If there actually were a chain of ions magically suspended in space (like ball bearings hanging on strings with spring lateral connections) between the electrodes the force would have to be transmitted from one to the next in a chain reaction wave like scenario which is dependent or particle mass. This doesn't happen, at least not to a large extent - though I did actually see to a small extent the momentum related kinds of traces I originally expected, so it may actually be possible to do some kind of ion spectroscopy using this method. So, in any event, the E-field from parallel plates idealization is completely bogus. I think Bockris must have realized all this when he said cell conduction in the electrolyte away from the plates is principally due to diffusion and not the E field. Here's yet another reason the E-field between electrodes explanation is bogus: the 10 m cell, consisting of Tygon tubing filled with Li2SO4 solution, could be bent in all kinds of configurations, without changing cell currents. Included in those configurations is the case where the electrodes are back-to-back, facing opposed directions, i.e. with the Tygon tubes making a big circle, but initially departing in directions opposed to the bulk of the direct E-field between the electrodes. At this point one is tempted to give the electrolyte dielectric field explanation - as I did. It was a wrong hypothesis too. In order for the dielectric field explanation to match the results the E field has to decline linearly with distance between points, not as the square of the distance or some other nonlinear declining function. So this explanation doesn't fit the 1 m, 5 m, 10 m cell situation at all. Further, here again, is the problem of the chain reaction of neighboring nuclei effect causing inertial delays proportional to the nucleus or ion mass, and related resonance effects - i.e. sonic effects, which clearly did not happen. I eventually solved this problem, I think. The E field within the electrolyte is transmitted by a purely quantum effect - transmission by direct electron orbital-to-orbital pressure. It is a kind of orbital electron sound, and it travels at about 1/10 c. It is the *electron shells* that move initially, and jointly, not the nuclei. The shells have less than 1/1000th the mass of the nuclei. They move in unison by a quantum wave form carried pressure. Electron fugacity is thus highly related to, intrinsic to, electrolyte conduction. As charge is added to either end of the lattice, or even a pseudo lattice consisting of electron shells in a liquid, the electron lattice adjusts, and the nuclei are later eventually brought along for the ride if the compression wave is one way in the nuclei's locality. Now, you might ask how does this form of wave transmission differ from sound? Why does the nucleus momentum not come into play? The answer I think is one of degree. The electron orbital compression wave is readily carried at high speed provided the dislocation distance applies no significant force on the nucleus. The nucleus is located in the center of a cloud of charge. In the absence of an external E field, when integrating the force from that symmetric cloud of charge, the force on the nucleus comes out to zero. The
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
On Aug 26, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Stiffler Scientific wrote: If either of you wish, I think it would clear up the idea of the 'third electrode'. It is indeed not as its being thought of here. The circuit is www.stifflerscientific.com/images/cre_sc.jpg I think it is in my case. Here is a circuit diagram of the cell internals. (a) | --- | | Z1| | | R1C1 | | --- | o-- | | --- --- | | | | | | Z3| | | | | R2C2 R4C4 | | | | --- --- | | | o--(b) | | | --- | | | | Z4| | | | | R5C5 | | | | --- | | o-- | --- | | Z1| | | R3C3 | | --- | ==(c) Fig.1 - Conceptual circuit diagram of triode screen R1 and C1 are due to the interface characteristics at electrode (a) and through electrolyte to the electrode (b). R3 and C3 are due to the interface characteristics at electrode (c) and through electrolyte to the electrode (b). Note, it might be appropriate to add a diode or two to the above depending on the electrode surface conditions, but let's not go into that much detail for any of the 3 electrodes. R4 and C4 describe the electrode (b) electrolyte interface surfaces facing electrode (a). R5 and C5 describe the electrode (b) electrolyte interface surfaces facing electrode (c). R2 and C2 describe any path through the electrolyte that bypasses the electrode (b). The zenier diodes Zi represent the inability of the interfaces to tunnel electrons through until a critical voltage is reached. For that reason electrolysis can't occur below a given potential, and thus energy level. There is no DC conductivity in an electrolytic cell until a critical voltage is reached. Depending on how much the electrolyte bypass of electrode (b) is suppressed, (i.e. the bigger R2 gets) the conductivity of the cell may be suppressed entirely depending on the potentials used for (a), (b), and (c). Note that when AC is used also, it may swing potentials into an electrolysis producing range at times. The closer a cell operates to the minimum electrolysis voltage (coming down from a high voltage), the more efficient it is, and the more it uses ambient heat to effect electrolysis, but the less gas it evolves in total. The economics of most commercial electrolysers is not based on energy but rather gas evolved per plate area. Capital expense is the main thing. Now, if an energy free electrolyser is possible, that is a whole different thing. Note that electrolysis can be produced at differing times on differing plates depending on the discharge cycles of the various capacitors - complex resonant waveforms can be produced within the cell itself. Horace I sent an amended post saying I was not clear on the Eg result and it applies to current and not energy. There is still something wrong with the units. Eg is in A^2 kg m^2/ mol-sec, which is not current, or current density, energy, power, or anything recognizable. I would suggest reviewing how you came up with the formula. There is some mistake and correcting it might reveal something. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
Horace wrote.. the force would have to be transmitted from one to the next in a chain reaction wave like scenario which is dependent or particle mass. This doesn't happen, at least not to a large extent - though I did actually see to a small extent the momentum related kinds of traces I originally expected, so it may actually be possible to do some kind of ion spectroscopy using this method. Howdy Horace, You you describe how and what you saw (as expected) and a suggestion on how you would measure with a Spectrometer? Richard
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
On Aug 26, 2007, at 5:46 PM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Horace wrote.. the force would have to be transmitted from one to the next in a chain reaction wave like scenario which is dependent or particle mass. This doesn't happen, at least not to a large extent - though I did actually see to a small extent the momentum related kinds of traces I originally expected, so it may actually be possible to do some kind of ion spectroscopy using this method. Howdy Horace, You you describe how and what you saw (as expected) and a suggestion on how you would measure with a Spectrometer? The idea here is not to use a spectrometer, but to invent an entirely new kind of mass spectrometer, or at least *some* kind of spectrometer. The idea is to apply a very sharp square wave to a long thin tube of liquid material and measure the waveform that comes out the other end. It is then just a matter of building a database using samples of known materials. It might be useful as a cheap preliminary screening method for some kinds of water pollution. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
Horace wrote, The idea is to apply a very sharp square wave to a long thin tube of liquid material and measure the waveform that comes out the other end. It is then just a matter of building a database using samples of known materials. It might be useful as a cheap preliminary screening method for some kinds of water pollution. Howdy Horace, Interesting idea you have for a receptive spectrometer. Suggest some parameters and I will get one on our instrument guys to build one. We would use the guts of something we have laying around and see where it leads . We have some 5/8 od x .035 grade 2 titanium tubing that could work, You are correct about water pollution applications. The industry will transition to radical new water treating technologies within 5 years and we don't have the instruments for the technology..One of the tasks involve transmutaton of certain nitrogen compounds that otherwise present troublesome obstacles to destruction. Richard
[Vo]:energy machine letter
Vortexians; I sent this letter to the U S Public Research Group. If you have any suggestions about organizations who should receive it let me know. For the past 30+ years I have followed the reports of attempts to cohere the zero point energy. If it could be cohered, it promises an unlimited supply of low cost, pollution free energy. I recently acquired a file which details how to build a resonant frequency electrolyzer. The author says that this circuit will transform water into hydroxy gas. This gas can then be burned in an engine which turns a generator, yielding a net surplus of energy. I can show you the physics which explains why this should be possible. I can't build this circuit at this time however, because of suppression from the Powers That Be, whom ever that is. Last month there was a conference on Tesla technology. This link http://www.green-salon.com/presetations.htm , links to a page with the web sites of some of the speakers. The link at the bottom of the page is a paper written by Gary Vesperman about harassment of inventors who are working in alternative energy. Unless we can be guaranteed governmental support this technology will continue to be unavailable. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
the updated instructions on the Dave Lawton replication that Ravi Raju has created. http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf do enjoy
Re: [Vo]:the Gray Matter
Jones Beene wrote: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: You might argue that free energy is always preferable to even cheap oil, but the practical problem with the Gray device is low battery life. The longest mentioned run was 200 hours. How many man-hours of engineering would it take to increase that by an order of magnitude? Not only that, AFAIK, Gray was under a cloud. The D A in L A (?) indicted him on fraud. There is the matter of feasibility too, I talked to two of the academics who assisted him, one believed that it would work, the other didn't. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
