[Vo]:FW: Latest Ball Lightning model (fwd)
-Original Message- From: Tesla list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: Latest Ball Lightning model (fwd) -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:35:28 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tesla List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: Latest Ball Lightning model http://www.springerlink.com/content/501k0653122j172u/fulltext.pdf Actually looks very plausible, and might be the explanation. Interesting theory, and might be useful in determining how Tesla did it at CS. Regards Dave Sharpe TCBOR/HEAS Chesterfield, VA. USA No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.0/980 - Release Date: 8/30/2007 6:05 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.0/980 - Release Date: 8/30/2007 6:05 PM ---BeginMessage--- http://www.springerlink.com/content/501k0653122j172u/fulltext.pdf Actually looks very plausible, and might be the explanation. Interesting theory. Dave E. Sharpe Staff Engineer Philip Morris USA REFM, Facilities Engineering Telephone: (804) 274-1535 FAX: (804) 274-2936 Pager: (804) 215-5630 E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---End Message---
Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
Dual triode design: -HF AC || || --O-LL-O | | xxxxxx = = I ooo-O V2 I I ooo-O V2 I I bbb-O V1 I I bbb-O V1 I I electrolyte I I electrolyte I = = Key: O|- - Wire xx - External conductive plate bb - Metal anode plate in electrolyte oo - Metal screen cathode plate in electrolyte I= - Thin glass surround LL - Inductor, center tap grounded GG - Ground HF AC - High frequency AC power, floating V1 - ground - connected between cells V2 - DC at about -1.4 V, connected between cells Figure 1 - Partial overhead diagram of DC biased AC driven Interconnected dual triode cells A low current DC supply biases the screens oo with about -1.4 V relative to the metal anode plates bb, which are maintained at close distance to the screens, with an insulating mesh or membrane separator. This approximately 1.4 V bias just barely causes conduction because the zenier effect of the electrolyte interface prevents it. The DC bias is just enough to overcome the electrolyte interface energy requirement. The purpose of the holes in the screens is to allow ion flow to and from the back side anode plates through the screens. The points V2 are connected by wire between the cells, as are the points V1. The inductor LL and external plates xx form a resonant tank circuit driven in resonance by the HF AC power supply. The inductor LL could be the secondary of a transformer, with the AC being supplied by a primary. The AC applied is enough to raise a 2.8 V pk-pk signal on the screen, i.e. not enough for the glass side of the screen to ever go positive. In practice it can actually exceed this voltage, though, and still produce electrolysis. The electrolyte ion conduction distances and capacitive linkage distances are essentially minimized. The screen is clearly driven to a potential (-2.8 V) that should allow hydrogen to evolve. The principle current inside the cell is through the screens, and through the connection between points V2, driven by the AC plate fields, and it is capacitively conducted through the electrolyte. The energy to charge the glass side of the electrolyte is returned on each cycle, so that half of the electrolysis interface is fairly efficient. The interface potential drop is thus fully overcome on one side and at least partially overcome by bias on the other. Further, if the AC is driven fast enough, and at an AC pk-pk potential above 2.8 V the electrolyte interface will be disrupted and won't even get a chance to fully form. Achieving that would require very very small cell sizes and extreme frequencies. An interesting variation of this design is to put everything into tubular form. In that way the tubular metal anode plate b can be fully encased in what amounts to the tubular Faraday cage created by the metal screen cathode oo, which is surrounded by the tubular dielectric ==, with the tubular electrodes xx at either end of the tube. It is noteworthy, though, that this screen Faraday cage, is conductive with respect to electrolyte ion current. This dual triode design is essentially equivalent to the tetrode design posted earlier. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:interesting developments
Yup, and don't forget the digital amp meter. :-) Why break from tradition use the YouTube tired and true scientific method 'Subjective' analysis of bubble clouds. If that is not adequate you might try collecting the single duct gas in 5 or 6, 2 liter plastic soda bottles connected together with real rubber tubing. *Just kidding, the above is my latest rant. -Original Message- From: thomas malloy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 12:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:interesting developments Stiffler Scientific wrote: Awaiting your replication and gas burning in calorimeter to determine actual output/input. That is the method I think you decided upon? Yup, and don't forget the digital amp meter. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
Figure 3 is a simplified circuit diagram of both the tetrode and the dual triode electrolysis cells. The elements Xi are electrolyte- electrode interfaces, exploded in Figure 4. Z1 and 2 are zenier diodes with approximately a 0.7 V breakdown potential. The elements Ei are electrolyte conduction paths, exploded in Figure 5. C1 and C2 are the capacitances due to the external conductive plate interfaces to the electrolyte. The electrolyte paths E1 and E3 are through the metal screen cathode plate(s). The paths E5 and E6 are high resistance low capacitance paths through the electrolyte are not present in the dual triode cells. The arrows indicate the direction of positive ion flow in the electrolyte, showing electrolysis is consistently driven by the AC. The positive ions diffuse through the screen before being driven through the screen interface by the AC on the external plate side of the screen. It is also notable the AC signal is partially shunted through the DC power supply. --HF AC-- | | ---O---LL--O-- || C1 C2 || -O - - - - E5 - - - - O- |||| E1 X1 X3 E3 || V2 V2 V2 || |O-O--O| || | (-) || |X2DC X4 | || | (+) || ^^ | ^^ || | || -O---E2---O---E4O- | V1 | || -- - - - E6 - - - - -- Fig. 3 - Simplified circuit diagram of Tetrode or dual triode cells Z1 O---||O | | |Z2| O---||O | | O---O OO | | O-CO | | | | OR-O Fig. 4 - Simplified circuit diagram of electrolysis interface Xi OR-O | | O---O OO | | OC-O Fig. 5 - Simplified circuit diagram of electrolyte conduction path Ei Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:interesting developments
Stiffler Scientific wrote: gas burning in calorimeter to determine actual output/input. Speaking of burning a common manifold potentially explosive gas (BG or equivalent), does anyone have, or care to expound-on, an accurate protocol for such a setup? Obviously, one must use care to avoid pre-ignition. A bubbler is often used. But, assuming a safe steady flame is obtainable, what is the most accurate method from there on? Is there a method that skeptics cannot reasonably fault? The obvious reason that an accurate protocol needs to be in place is that there are literally dozens of aqua-fuel generators, Brown's Gas welders, and hydrogen-booster devices, vocal proponents and add-on kits, and so forth on the internet. Many of these will produce lots of gas in the form of super-saturated steam (75% water vapor) which will not even ignite. ERGO - there needs to be a totally accurate (bullet-proof) gas burning calorimetry protocol out there to use as a yardstick, correct ? Jones
RE: [Vo]:Laddermill Demo Success
At 07:12 PM 8/30/2007, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: Try this: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Wind:Ladder_Mills This is interesting, but the discussion of a 10 megawatt Laddermill seems unrealistic. 10 MW is roughly twice the power of the largest railway locomotive. I doubt any conventional cable can support that much strain and still be light enough to reach high into the sky. I suppose this calls for carbon filament cables like the ones they want to use for the space elevator. The cables used to hold up large suspension bridges can easily support a load of 10 MW. I recall reading that some of them could hold back something like 100 railway locomotives. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
Horace, What would be the potential advantage of a tetrode for electrolysis? ... overlapping frequency (ala Meyer) ? My understanding of them in radio is that they give better control of frequency, but at the expense of efficiency - and that would seem to contra-indicate a usefullness in electrolysis -- unless of course, Meyer is correct about the frequency itself providing some kind of previously unknown kinetic dissociation - which avoids Faradaic limitations. Jones Horace Heffner wrote: Figure 3 is a simplified circuit diagram of both the tetrode and the dual triode electrolysis cells. The elements Xi are electrolyte-electrode interfaces, exploded in Figure 4. Z1 and 2 are zenier diodes with approximately a 0.7 V breakdown potential. The elements Ei are electrolyte conduction paths, exploded in Figure 5. C1 and C2 are the capacitances due to the external conductive plate interfaces to the electrolyte. The electrolyte paths E1 and E3 are through the metal screen cathode plate(s). The paths E5 and E6 are high resistance low capacitance paths through the electrolyte are not present in the dual triode cells. The arrows indicate the direction of positive ion flow in the electrolyte, showing electrolysis is consistently driven by the AC. The positive ions diffuse through the screen before being driven through the screen interface by the AC on the external plate side of the screen. It is also notable the AC signal is partially shunted through the DC power supply. --HF AC-- | | ---O---LL--O-- || C1 C2 || -O - - - - E5 - - - - O- |||| E1 X1 X3 E3 || V2 V2 V2 || |O-O--O| || | (-) || |X2DC X4 | || | (+) || ^^ | ^^ || | || -O---E2---O---E4O- | V1 | || -- - - - E6 - - - - -- Fig. 3 - Simplified circuit diagram of Tetrode or dual triode cells Z1 O---||O | | |Z2| O---||O | | O---O OO | | O-CO | | | | OR-O Fig. 4 - Simplified circuit diagram of electrolysis interface Xi OR-O | | O---O OO | | OC-O Fig. 5 - Simplified circuit diagram of electrolyte conduction path Ei Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Laddermill Demo Success
I wrote: This is interesting, but the discussion of a 10 megawatt Laddermill seems unrealistic. Unrealistic is the wrong word. No doubt there will be progress in carbon filament cables. I guess I meant that this thing will require the development of new technology, whereas the inventor seems to be claiming that it could be implemented in the near future, even on the megawatt scale. Speaking of progress, IBM announced nanotechnology that might allow memory devices built from single molecules. You don't get any smaller than that! See: http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/22254.wss We have finally approached the limit described by Feynman in 1959 in his lecture there's plenty of room at the bottom. Not any more, there isn't. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:interesting developments
Jones; Yes hope someone will offer a good and acceptable method that can be dome in a small lab, but I have some 'Don't' for those that might not have yet suffered an accident. 1) A bubbler is not sufficient and should be followed by dryers. 2) The flame front of H2 is so fast that flame arrestors are critical (ones certified for H2). 2b) Problem is that you will have to run at a pressure to get the gas through the arrestor. 2c) Some YouTubes claim to use check valves, ;-) 3) The gas should be buffered by an interim (albeit) small (depending of L/min output) storage that is arrestor protected. 4) Small nozzle (orifice) size able to withstand the heat. 5) Care must be taken in the flame is hard to see (if clean gas) is used. 6) Don't mix plumbing metals. I have had the common duct gas catalyzed by stainless screens mounted in brass fittings. 7) Stainless screens are not enough to act as a flame arrestor, many amateurs place random screens at different location within the plumbing system to feel fuzzy. It only bites back. I'm sure you and most vorts know these givens, but I learn quickly through tough love. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 8:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:interesting developments Stiffler Scientific wrote: gas burning in calorimeter to determine actual output/input. Speaking of burning a common manifold potentially explosive gas (BG or equivalent), does anyone have, or care to expound-on, an accurate protocol for such a setup? Obviously, one must use care to avoid pre-ignition. A bubbler is often used. But, assuming a safe steady flame is obtainable, what is the most accurate method from there on? Is there a method that skeptics cannot reasonably fault? The obvious reason that an accurate protocol needs to be in place is that there are literally dozens of aqua-fuel generators, Brown's Gas welders, and hydrogen-booster devices, vocal proponents and add-on kits, and so forth on the internet. Many of these will produce lots of gas in the form of super-saturated steam (75% water vapor) which will not even ignite. ERGO - there needs to be a totally accurate (bullet-proof) gas burning calorimetry protocol out there to use as a yardstick, correct ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
On Aug 31, 2007, at 5:58 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, What would be the potential advantage of a tetrode for electrolysis? Tetrode just means 4 electrodes. It has nothing to do with amplification. ... overlapping frequency (ala Meyer) ? ala just about everybody if you mean overlapping AC with DC. My understanding of them in radio Totally different thing. is that they give better control of frequency, but at the expense of efficiency - and that would seem to contra-indicate a usefullness in electrolysis It may be helpful if you read the posts describing the cells to which the circuit diagrams refer. The cells have nothing at all to do with tetrode amplifiers. -- unless of course, Meyer is correct about the frequency itself providing some kind of previously unknown kinetic dissociation - which avoids Faradaic limitations. The two designs (1)utilize a capacitive interface to the electrolyte for part of the electrolysis current, thus bypassing the resistance of one of the electrode-electrolyte interfaces, and thus also (2) recovering the capacitive energy on each cycle, while (3) utilizing a tank circuit in resonance in order to maximize current flow per AC power applied, and (4) utilizing low power DC bias to overcome the interface breakdown voltage while using the low-overhead-to-get-into- the-cell AC power to actually drive the electrolysis. At least that's the plan. Jones Horace Heffner wrote: Figure 3 is a simplified circuit diagram of both the tetrode and the dual triode electrolysis cells. The elements Xi are electrolyte-electrode interfaces, exploded in Figure 4. Z1 and 2 are zenier diodes with approximately a 0.7 V breakdown potential. The elements Ei are electrolyte conduction paths, exploded in Figure 5. C1 and C2 are the capacitances due to the external conductive plate interfaces to the electrolyte. The electrolyte paths E1 and E3 are through the metal screen cathode plate(s). The paths E5 and E6 are high resistance low capacitance paths through the electrolyte are not present in the dual triode cells. The arrows indicate the direction of positive ion flow in the electrolyte, showing electrolysis is consistently driven by the AC. The positive ions diffuse through the screen before being driven through the screen interface by the AC on the external plate side of the screen. It is also notable the AC signal is partially shunted through the DC power supply. --HF AC-- | | ---O---LL--O-- || C1 C2 || -O - - - - E5 - - - - O- |||| E1 X1 X3 E3 || V2 V2 V2 || |O-O--O| || | (-) || |X2DC X4 | || | (+) || ^^ | ^^ || | || -O---E2---O---E4O- | V1 | || -- - - - E6 - - - - -- Fig. 3 - Simplified circuit diagram of Tetrode or dual triode cells Z1 O---||O | | |Z2| O---||O | | O---O OO | | O-CO | | | | OR-O Fig. 4 - Simplified circuit diagram of electrolysis interface Xi OR-O | | O---O OO | | OC-O Fig. 5 - Simplified circuit diagram of electrolyte conduction path Ei Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
Figure 4 had a slight error, corrected below Z1 O---||O | | |Z2| O---||O---R---O---O | | O---O-CO Fig. 4 - Simplified circuit diagram of electrolysis interface Xi Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
Horace; You said... The two designs (1)utilize a capacitive interface to the electrolyte for part of the electrolysis current, thus bypassing the resistance of one of the electrode-electrolyte interfaces, and thus also (2) recovering the capacitive energy on each cycle, while (3) utilizing a tank circuit in resonance in order to maximize current flow per AC power applied, and (4) utilizing low power DC bias to overcome the interface breakdown voltage while using the low-overhead-to-get-into- the-cell AC power to actually drive the electrolysis. At least that's the plan. of one of the electrode-electrolyte interfaces, and thus also (2) recovering the capacitive energy on each cycle, while (3) utilizing a Recover the capacitive energy? People have been telling me since 1996 this is of little use, in fact I seem to recall 'in a very nice way of course' you told me the same a couple of days ago in reference to my configuration? I enjoy your last postings and I and the late Dr. Jenkins did something similar which can be seen near the bottom of my electrodes page. We used a moderate frequency excitation external of a simple beaker that contained a small (single) electrode inductor. Produced favorable results. You don't need to respond, I just liked the statement mentioned, even though its only marginally similar to what I have been doing. -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 10:03 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive On Aug 31, 2007, at 5:58 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, What would be the potential advantage of a tetrode for electrolysis? Tetrode just means 4 electrodes. It has nothing to do with amplification. ... overlapping frequency (ala Meyer) ? ala just about everybody if you mean overlapping AC with DC. My understanding of them in radio Totally different thing. is that they give better control of frequency, but at the expense of efficiency - and that would seem to contra-indicate a usefullness in electrolysis It may be helpful if you read the posts describing the cells to which the circuit diagrams refer. The cells have nothing at all to do with tetrode amplifiers. -- unless of course, Meyer is correct about the frequency itself providing some kind of previously unknown kinetic dissociation - which avoids Faradaic limitations. The two designs (1)utilize a capacitive interface to the electrolyte for part of the electrolysis current, thus bypassing the resistance of one of the electrode-electrolyte interfaces, and thus also (2) recovering the capacitive energy on each cycle, while (3) utilizing a tank circuit in resonance in order to maximize current flow per AC power applied, and (4) utilizing low power DC bias to overcome the interface breakdown voltage while using the low-overhead-to-get-into- the-cell AC power to actually drive the electrolysis. At least that's the plan. Jones Horace Heffner wrote: Figure 3 is a simplified circuit diagram of both the tetrode and the dual triode electrolysis cells. The elements Xi are electrolyte-electrode interfaces, exploded in Figure 4. Z1 and 2 are zenier diodes with approximately a 0.7 V breakdown potential. The elements Ei are electrolyte conduction paths, exploded in Figure 5. C1 and C2 are the capacitances due to the external conductive plate interfaces to the electrolyte. The electrolyte paths E1 and E3 are through the metal screen cathode plate(s). The paths E5 and E6 are high resistance low capacitance paths through the electrolyte are not present in the dual triode cells. The arrows indicate the direction of positive ion flow in the electrolyte, showing electrolysis is consistently driven by the AC. The positive ions diffuse through the screen before being driven through the screen interface by the AC on the external plate side of the screen. It is also notable the AC signal is partially shunted through the DC power supply. --HF AC-- | | ---O---LL--O-- || C1 C2 || -O - - - - E5 - - - - O- |||| E1 X1 X3 E3 || V2 V2 V2 || |O-O--O| || | (-) || |X2DC X4 | || | (+) || ^^ | ^^ || | || -O---E2---O---E4O- | V1 | || -- - - - E6 - - - - -- Fig. 3 - Simplified circuit diagram of Tetrode or dual triode cells Z1 O---||O | | |Z2| O---||O | | O---O OO | | O-CO | |
Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
Horace Heffner wrote: It may be helpful if you read the posts describing the cells to which the circuit diagrams refer. The cells have nothing at all to do with tetrode amplifiers. I might even be more helpful if you understood that what you have described below indeed DOES HAVE everything to do with the operation of tetrode amplifiers The two designs (1)utilize a capacitive interface to the electrolyte for part of the electrolysis current, thus bypassing the resistance of one of the electrode-electrolyte interfaces, and thus also (2) recovering the capacitive energy on each cycle, while (3) utilizing a tank circuit in resonance in order to maximize current flow per AC power applied, and (4) utilizing low power DC bias to overcome the interface breakdown voltage while using the low-overhead-to-get-into-the-cell AC power to actually drive the electrolysis. At least that's the plan. Geeze ... are you out to lunch already, or what? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Yet another ignorant attack on cold fusion
i think what hes expecting is.. a fight. and yep, you got one, jed have fun with it! On 31/08/2007, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed, What do you expect from a blog named cocktail_party_physics ? Harry On 30/8/2007 4:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is the comment the Blogger chopped. She cannot even tolerate even this minor level of dissent. No sane, educated person would disagree with what I say here EXCEPT in the context of cold fusion, which transforms educated people into maniacs. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - You wrote: Seeing as how the point of the post was the media coverage of the issue, the focus on media sources was perfectly appropriate. Well, okay. That's a valuable service. But don't you think it would be a good idea to fact-check the media claims? Since you are a science writer, it seems to me you should compare the media claims with the actual science, and tell your readers which accounts are accurate, and which are not. Whether cold fusion is right or wrong, a reporter should not invent nonsensical claims that someone amassed . . . a statistically significant sampling of instances. That never happened. No one would do that with calorimetry. Some reporter dreamed up the notion that cold fusion researchers have their own journal. (Perhaps he or she thought that Infinite Energy magazine is a journal, but it is not, since it never publishes original research.) You can fact-check this easily at a university library or at LENR-CANR. I do not think it is evenhanded or unbiased for you to treat all newspapers as equally credible when some publish blatant errors while others report facts. Most of these errors are without malice, by the way. Many newspaper reporters have difficulty understanding the experiments, and they have not read the papers. Some media errors make cold fusion look better than it is. - Jed Rothwell Librarian, LENR-CANR.org -- ∞
Re: [Vo]:Yet another ignorant attack on cold fusion
Esa Ruoho wrote: i think what hes expecting is.. a fight. and yep, you got one, jed have fun with it! It would be a lot more fun if the Blogger would play by the rules of academic discourse, and stop deleting my messages whenever I make a decisive point. I really should stop adding messages, because she will only delete my work. It is good practice I suppose, but I guess I have enough practice by now. Chris Tinsley as I used to moan about how shallow people's education is these days. They learn facts, facts, facts but nothing about the fundamentals of logic, clear thinking, how to conduct a fair debate. This blogger supposedly writes books about science yet she is constantly coming up with strawman arguments, ad hominem, and other logical errors, and apparently she never learned that you are supposed to read original sources rather than second and third-hand newspaper reports. Even if the authors of the original sources are mistaken, you will learn what they actually said, rather than what some reporter heard from some other reporter. - Jed
[Vo]:Tetrodes and heterodyning
A short lesson in radio history... Heterodyning is the generation of frequencies by mixing two or more signals in a nonlinear device such as a vacuum tube. The effect is not limited to any particular device, however. The mixing of two frequencies results in the creation of at least two new frequencies, one at the sum of the two frequencies mixed, and the other at their difference, as well as harmonics. The harmonics are a function of the geometry of the enclosure operating on the four basic frequencies. The tetrode is an electronic device having four active electrodes, two of which are usually grids. The device is not limited to radio, but that was the first use. The grids can be powered externally or self-powered by a feedback loops - of which heterodyning is one variety. The predecessor device, in the history of radio - the triode vacuum tube develops a space charge between the cathode and control grid, which reduces its gain, especially at low plate voltages. An extra screen grid can neutralize space-charge and increases the tube's gain. An extra grid can also facilitate heterodyning. The four electrode was a major advance for some uses over a triode. Early on, it was discovered that tetrodes (and pentrodes) were very good for heterodyning - although a pair of triodes in flip-flop will suffice. Under certain operating conditions, the tetrode exhibits negative resistance due to secondary emission of electrons from the anode. The shape of the characteristic curve of a tetrode operated in this region led to the term tetrode kink. The negative resistance is exploited in the certain oscillators - AND it might be particularly useful when there is a need to maximize the number of electrons, such as in electrolysis. Now -- I suppose that one, who is the inventor of a new twist on this tetrode functionality, could honestly opine that because a radio tube operates in a vacuum, and an electrolysis cell operates with a liquid electrolyte, that the electrolysis cells have nothing at all to do with tetrode amplifiers... ... but that would only be the case if they failed to realize how similar the circuit suggested was to heterodyning, and how others (who BTW *do* view and study their circuit - may end up understanding that circuit better than they do ;-) ... and how identical features which produce identical results (mixed wave output), are functionally identical, even if a vacuum medium and and an eletrolyte medium are vastly different for wave transmission, and even if the results are intended for markedly different uses. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Yet another ignorant attack on cold fusion
Jed, I was tempted to wade in to this fight, but I think you not only made the necessary points but showed that this person is not worth the trouble. She is a good writer, but her style is very common these days because it gets uneducated people's attention. She and Robert Park have a lot in common. For this reason, the fight can not be won by direct assault. As she says, it is her blog and she will say what she wants. We have LENR.org, which has much more influence on the thinking of responsible people than her little effort. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Esa Ruoho wrote: i think what hes expecting is.. a fight. and yep, you got one, jed have fun with it! It would be a lot more fun if the Blogger would play by the rules of academic discourse, and stop deleting my messages whenever I make a decisive point. I really should stop adding messages, because she will only delete my work. It is good practice I suppose, but I guess I have enough practice by now. Chris Tinsley as I used to moan about how shallow people's education is these days. They learn facts, facts, facts but nothing about the fundamentals of logic, clear thinking, how to conduct a fair debate. This blogger supposedly writes books about science yet she is constantly coming up with strawman arguments, ad hominem, and other logical errors, and apparently she never learned that you are supposed to read original sources rather than second and third-hand newspaper reports. Even if the authors of the original sources are mistaken, you will learn what they actually said, rather than what some reporter heard from some other reporter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Laddermill Demo Success
This is not an unreasonable objection but I've got to pick some nits with the way it's presented. Jed Rothwell wrote: At 07:12 PM 8/30/2007, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: Try this: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Wind:Ladder_Mills This is interesting, but the discussion of a 10 megawatt Laddermill seems unrealistic. 10 MW is roughly twice the power of the largest railway locomotive. I doubt any conventional cable can support that much strain and still be light enough to reach high into the sky. 10 MW is a measure of power. Strain is, technically, a measure of deflection due to an applied force IIRC, but the way you've used it it's a measure of tension on a cable, which is just force. Either way, strain and power are completely different. The relationship between power and strain on a cable is complex, and depends strongly on what is generating or consuming the power and how the cable is being used. I suppose this calls for carbon filament cables like the ones they want to use for the space elevator. The cables used to hold up large suspension bridges can easily support a load of 10 MW. Megawatts are a measure of power. Load on a cable is a measure of force. The two are completely different; the phrase ... a load of 10 MW is meaningless. The power transfered by a cable is the PRODUCT of the tension in the cable and the velocity at which the cable is being pulled along. If the cable is stationary, power is zero. The faster it moves, the more power it transfers. Power generated by a laddermill would depend on cable tension and on how fast the mill turned, and without knowing (or guessing at) the latter you can't say anything about requirements on the former. I recall reading that some of them could hold back something like 100 railway locomotives. You have carried the simile too far and it fell over a cliff. You're no longer talking about power from the engines, you're now talking about power applied to the wheels. Power applied to the wheels is the product of torque and rotational velocity. When the locomotives are stationary, they are applying ZERO power to the wheels. So, your analogy has some issues to start with. But let's look a little closer. To hold back a locomotive (which is presumably stationary), you care about how hard the loco can pull. There are a number of factors at work in determining its zero-velocity pulling ability beyond the power of its engine, and again the relationship between its motive power and its pulling ability is not simple. Perhaps you are not aware of this detail: The pulling ability of a locomotive depends intensely on its WEIGHT as well as its power, because the thing that tends to fail when a locomotive is held back is the frictional bond between the wheels and the track: it skids. Slick metal wheels on a slick metal track don't get much purchase; to maximize the friction between the wheels and track, the things are intentionally built to be absurdly heavy. More to the point, though, the torque curve of a locomotive depends on the engines it uses. Steam produces maximum torque at zero velocity, diesel/electric has a relatively flat curve IIRC, and pure diesel is crummy at producing torque at zero velocity (curve rises fast but starts at zero). But all share one thing in common, which is that the /power/ curve starts at /zero/ at zero velocity, and the nameplate power of the locomotive is only vaguely related to its pulling power from a standing start. Now with all that said, here's another tidbit which makes it clearer just how poor the intuitive link between force and power is. I have been told (long ago, by a train buff I once knew) that if you wedge a 50 cent piece between the wheel and the track of a commuter train (electric locomotive), it won't be able to start -- it won't be able to climb the tiny hill you've created. This sounds ludicrous until you realize that the slope it needs to get over in this case represents about a 20 or 30 % grade which is a steeper grade than anything short of a cog railway can climb. This is also the principle on which chocks on airplane wheels work, of course; the chock in this case is just very small. But upon first hearing this claim, again, it sounds just plain silly to claim that such a powerful machine could be held back by such an insignificant barrier. So the point of all this is that while comparisons with locomotive power plants sound impressive, they don't mean much of anything unless you put some effort into relating the forces involved to the actual motive (or generated) power. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Laddermill Demo Success
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: 10 MW is a measure of power. Strain is, technically, a measure of deflection due to an applied force IIRC, but the way you've used it it's a measure of tension on a cable, which is just force. Yes, I am well aware of these differences, but I was writing informally. (Meaning: in a sloppy manner.) I know a lot about railroad locomotives. Megawatts are a measure of power. Load on a cable is a measure of force. The two are completely different; the phrase ... a load of 10 MW is meaningless. I know, but I meant the load that operating a 10 MW generator on the ground would put on the cable. Power generated by a laddermill would depend on cable tension and on how fast the mill turned, and without knowing (or guessing at) the latter you can't say anything about requirements on the former. The mill would have to have gears. It is easy to guess at how quickly the cable would move. For one thing, it would have to move a huge unwieldy string of kites which can only rise and fall at a certain speed. Second, the cables would not move much faster than the fastest cables used in excavation equipment, elevators, cable cars, ski lifts and the like. People have been using cables for a long time. If they could make them move much faster, I expect they would. There are enormous cables on excavation equipment that are actuated with megawatt motors, but these cables are extremely heavy and I do not think any excavator motor is as large as 10 MW. I think the largest in history was Big Muskie which had a 2000 hp dragline motor (1.5 MW). I recall reading that some of them could hold back something like 100 railway locomotives. You have carried the simile too far and it fell over a cliff. You're no longer talking about power from the engines, you're now talking about power applied to the wheels. Power applied to the wheels is the product of torque and rotational velocity. When the locomotives are stationary, they are applying ZERO power to the wheels. Obviously I meant that 100 locomotives from a standing start could not pull hard enough to break the cable. If it moves fast enough even 1 locomotive can break any cable. For example, if you drop the locomotive from the Oort cloud to Earth. - Jed
[Vo]:Pendulum with a spinning bob
Steven VJ and others Two pendulums compared: http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/spin_bob_pendulum.html Does the 'spin-bob' pendulum make more energy than was used to lift it in order to start it swinging? I would say so. What do you think? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Laddermill Demo Success
I wrote: Second, the cables would not move much faster than the fastest cables used in excavation equipment, elevators, cable cars, ski lifts and the like. People have been using cables for a long time. If they could make them move much faster, I expect they would. I believe elevators are the fastest moving cable driven equipment. Hitachi has developed monster high-speed elevators that will travel at 480 m per minute (28 kph). They are driven by 240 kW motors. See: www.hitachi.com/ICSFiles/afieldfile/2007/08/07/r2007_technology_lf.pdf My guess is that we have reached the limits of cable driven elevators and models faster bigger than this will have to be electromagnetic, like vertical maglev trains. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pendulum with a spinning bob
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by make more energy than was used to lift it. Even a simple pendulum is a little messy to model -- only the small-angle behavior is actually /simple/. However, classically, without doing any heavy math, we can still say a few things about what this thing should do. The simplest way to analyze a problem like this is probably via total energy. By locking the bob to the shaft during the initial fall, you've essentially stolen some energy from the system in order to spin up the bob. So, at the bottom of the swing, the pendulum won't be going as fast as it would be if the bob were a point mass (which is how pendulums are generally analyzed in first year physics class -- as I said, their /exact/ behavior is hard to model, so we usually just look at approximations). If you then release the brake at the bottom of the arc, and the bearing is frictionless, then you've essentially removed the energy used to spin up the bob from the system -- the bob will keep spinning, independent of anything else which is going on, and its spin energy is essentially out of the game. Consequently, the pendulum won't come up as far on the upswing as it went down on the initial downswing. To the extent that the picture shows the pendulum rising as high at the end of the stroke as it it started at the beginning, and the extent that it's shown following the same path the continuously braked pendulum followed, the diagram is (presumably) incorrect. In simple terms, the need to spin the bob as the pendulum moves results in it accelerating less rapidly as it falls down one side of the arc, and the energy it gains back as the bob spins down on the upswing will result in it also /decelerating/ more slowly as it rises up the the other side of the arc. When you release the brake at the bottom of the arc, you lose this retarding effect, and the pendulum will now accelerate /and/ decelerate more rapidly as it travels the arc. The more rapid deceleration is what results in it stopping sooner and hence not making it as far up the arc before falling back. As long as the brake is on, the bob is acting as a small flywheel, storing energy as it falls, and giving it back as it rises. To do a full analysis, we'd just set up the Lagrangian for the system with the brake on, and a second Lagrangian with the brake off, find the equations of motion for both cases, and glue the solutions together by matching conditions at the point where the brake is released. For the small-angle case, both solutions should be simple harmonic oscillators, and the whole thing should be straightforward, if somewhat messy. But if you want an exact answer for large deflection angles it's something else again, and the simplest approach would probably be numerical simulation. Harry Veeder wrote: Steven VJ and others Two pendulums compared: http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/spin_bob_pendulum.html Does the 'spin-bob' pendulum make more energy than was used to lift it in order to start it swinging? I would say so. What do you think? Harry
RE: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
Horace said; I don't have any recollection of that. Do you have a quote? Your Re:[VO]Re: Splitting the positive of 8/29/2007 @ 10:18PM talent and that would not be a good thing to waste. I assumed (how does that assumed saying go again) that you were talking about one of my current electrolyzers. Do you have a URL for that? The electrodes page is at www.drstiffler.com/electrodes.asp near the bottom of the page, not a lot of description or intelligent data, but a picture is there of one working. Can you elaborate on what favorable means? Well. Maybe the best way to answer that would be that it would be at the right time, a commercially profitable item. I should say I don't know if anything I've suggested actually works Maybe not as you have presented it, but similar systems which most likely work under the same principle have been explored. There is a lot of work on both of my sites, I am not sure if some may still be locked for group use, but I did instruct that some be opened back up. If you have some time and so inclined look around. In total frankness, none of the work is complete enough for duplication by reading the pages, I reserve that for direct communications with other than the general pop bottle experimenter. Your idea's are very enlightening... -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive On Aug 31, 2007, at 7:14 AM, Stiffler Scientific wrote: Horace; You said... The two designs (1)utilize a capacitive interface to the electrolyte for part of the electrolysis current, thus bypassing the resistance of one of the electrode-electrolyte interfaces, and thus also (2) recovering the capacitive energy on each cycle, while (3) utilizing a tank circuit in resonance in order to maximize current flow per AC power applied, and (4) utilizing low power DC bias to overcome the interface breakdown voltage while using the low-overhead-to-get- into- the-cell AC power to actually drive the electrolysis. At least that's the plan. of one of the electrode-electrolyte interfaces, and thus also (2) recovering the capacitive energy on each cycle, while (3) utilizing a Recover the capacitive energy? Yes, the energy built up in the cell wall and electrolyte between the external conductive electrode and the metal screen electrode. People have been telling me since 1996 this is of little use, I didn't know you were using a capacitive interface to the electrolyte. in fact I seem to recall 'in a very nice way of course' you told me the same a couple of days ago in reference to my configuration? I don't have any recollection of that. Do you have a quote? I can't find anything. I am getting a bit senile so anything is possible. 8^) I did find this: 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. I know I have some supporting material (economic studies) for the above in an old stack of papers, but obtaining efficiency at a high plate current is still a big thing today. For example, see: http://www.qsinano.com/white_papers/2006_09_15.pdf Efficiencies over 80% have been achieved, but that drops off when current density goes up to 1 A/cm^2. I enjoy your last postings and I and the late Dr. Jenkins did something similar which can be seen near the bottom of my electrodes page. Do you have a URL for that? We used a moderate frequency excitation external of a simple beaker that contained a small (single) electrode inductor. Produced favorable results. Can you elaborate on what favorable means? I should say I don't know if anything I've suggested actually works well. It's merely a demonstration of a specific set of design strategies and mental models for the cell internals. There certainly isn't any new source of energy suggested here by me. The best that could happen I think is some improvement in electrolysis efficiency. CF cells, OTOH, I think can be an actual source of energy. You never know though. It may be possible to stumble onto something by experimentation. BTW, I forgot to mention that a high conductivity electrolyte can be made by making a saturated lye solution and then diluting it by adding about two parts of water to one part saturated lye. I found that out by measuring conductivity and diluting until conductivity stopped increasing with further dilution. KOH is better but harder to come by. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Laddermill Demo Success
Thanks for the additional information. As I said to start with, I didn't find your objection unreasonable, but as it was phrased it was hard to see how firm the conclusion was. [SAL:] Megawatts are a measure of power. Load on a cable is a measure of force. The two are completely different; the phrase ... a load of 10 MW is meaningless. [ ... ] Power generated by a laddermill would depend on cable tension and on how fast the mill turned, and without knowing (or guessing at) the latter you can't say anything about requirements on the former. [Jed:] The mill would have to have gears. It is easy to guess at how quickly the cable would move. For one thing, it would have to move a huge unwieldy string of kites which can only rise and fall at a certain speed. Second, the cables would not move much faster than the fastest cables used in excavation equipment, elevators, cable cars, ski lifts and the like. People have been using cables for a long time. If they could make them move much faster, I expect they would. There are enormous cables on excavation equipment that are actuated with megawatt motors, but these cables are extremely heavy and I do not think any excavator motor is as large as 10 MW. I think the largest in history was Big Muskie which had a 2000 hp dragline motor (1.5 MW). [ ... ] I believe elevators are the fastest moving cable driven equipment. Hitachi has developed monster high-speed elevators that will travel at 480 m per minute (28 kph). They are driven by 240 kW motors. Ah -- now we have something we can apply. 28 kph, with 10 MW of power being transfered, implies a major pull on the cable. (I'm going to wimp out and skip the calculation, in which I'd undoubtedly mess up the units...) This is going to be in the vicinity of what several of those monster 5 MW locomotives you mentioned, pulling in series, would be able to do to the freight train hooked on behind them. I don't know what kind of power they can actually apply to the wheels but I'd guess that, at intermediate speeds, it's a good fraction of the nameplate power. This is one seriously heavy duty piece of kite string they're talking about here! Railroad car couplers can take that kind of stress, of course, but as you point out it's hard to see how a cable that strong could be made light enough. [Jed:] I recall reading that some of them could hold back something like 100 railway locomotives. [SAL:] You have carried the simile too far and it fell over a cliff. You're no longer talking about power from the engines, you're now talking about power applied to the wheels. Power applied to the wheels is the product of torque and rotational velocity. When the locomotives are stationary, they are applying ZERO power to the wheels. [Jed:] Obviously I meant that 100 locomotives from a standing start could not pull hard enough to break the cable. If it moves fast enough even 1 locomotive can break any cable. For example, if you drop the locomotive from the Oort cloud to Earth. Yes, of course. But charming as the analogy is, the question would really be, how strong must the cable be to _brake_ the locomotive, given that it's traveling as fast as it would be if it fell from the Oort cloud? And the answer to that is that most likely just about any cable would do, because the engine's torque curve will long since have crossed zero and gone negative at that speed ;-)
[Vo]:[Humor] Total Perspective Vortex
Waaay too serious for a holiday weekend. For fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Perspective_Vortex The Total Perspective Vortex, in the fictional world of Douglas Adams's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, is the most horrible torture device to which a sentient being can be subjected. Located on Frogstar World B, it shows its victim the entire unimaginable infinity of the universe with a very tiny marker that says You Are Here which points to a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot. much more
Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
On Aug 31, 2007, at 7:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: It may be helpful if you read the posts describing the cells to which the circuit diagrams refer. The cells have nothing at all to do with tetrode amplifiers. I might even be more helpful if you understood that what you have described below indeed DOES HAVE everything to do with the operation of tetrode amplifiers The two designs (1)utilize a capacitive interface to the electrolyte for part of the electrolysis current, thus bypassing the resistance of one of the electrode-electrolyte interfaces, and thus also (2) recovering the capacitive energy on each cycle, while (3) utilizing a tank circuit in resonance in order to maximize current flow per AC power applied, and (4) utilizing low power DC bias to overcome the interface breakdown voltage while using the low-overhead-to-get-into-the-cell AC power to actually drive the electrolysis. At least that's the plan. Geeze ... are you out to lunch already, or what? Jones Good grief Jones, are you just now figuring that out? 8^) Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Pendulum with a spinning bob
On 31/8/2007 3:26 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by make more energy than was used to lift it. Even a simple pendulum is a little messy to model -- only the small-angle behavior is actually /simple/. However, classically, without doing any heavy math, we can still say a few things about what this thing should do. The simplest way to analyze a problem like this is probably via total energy. By locking the bob to the shaft during the initial fall, you've essentially stolen some energy from the system in order to spin up the bob. Stolen it from where? If you are assuming the brake was on before the bob was lifted this is not necessary. So, at the bottom of the swing, the pendulum won't be going as fast as it would be if the bob were a point mass (which is how pendulums are generally analyzed in first year physics class -- as I said, their /exact/ behavior is hard to model, so we usually just look at approximations). It is sufficient to know that the centre of mass is at the centre of the bob. If you then release the brake at the bottom of the arc, and the bearing is frictionless, then you've essentially removed the energy used to spin up the bob from the system -- the bob will keep spinning, independent of anything else which is going on, and its spin energy is essentially out of the game. Consequently, the pendulum won't come up as far on the upswing as it went down on the initial downswing. I disagree. To the extent that the picture shows the pendulum rising as high at the end of the stroke as it it started at the beginning, and the extent that it's shown following the same path the continuously braked pendulum followed, the diagram is (presumably) incorrect. No, I don't think so. In simple terms, the need to spin the bob as the pendulum moves results in it accelerating less rapidly as it falls down one side of the arc, and the energy it gains back as the bob spins down on the upswing will result in it also /decelerating/ more slowly as it rises up the the other side of the arc. Once the bob starts spinning it should continue to spin at the same rate through the entire swing. And since the hub ( or bearings or whatever) is frictionless it should not impede the swing of the pendulum. When you release the brake at the bottom of the arc, you lose this retarding effect, and the pendulum will now accelerate /and/ decelerate more rapidly as it travels the arc. The more rapid deceleration is what results in it stopping sooner and hence not making it as far up the arc before falling back. As long as the brake is on, the bob is acting as a small flywheel, storing energy as it falls, and giving it back as it rises. To do a full analysis, we'd just set up the Lagrangian for the system with the brake on, and a second Lagrangian with the brake off, find the equations of motion for both cases, and glue the solutions together by matching conditions at the point where the brake is released. For the small-angle case, both solutions should be simple harmonic oscillators, and the whole thing should be straightforward, if somewhat messy. But if you want an exact answer for large deflection angles it's something else again, and the simplest approach would probably be numerical simulation. Make a mountain out of a mole hill. ;-) Harry Harry Veeder wrote: Steven VJ and others Two pendulums compared: http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/spin_bob_pendulum.html Does the 'spin-bob' pendulum make more energy than was used to lift it in order to start it swinging? I would say so. What do you think? Harry
[Vo]:PESN+PDF+Video: Ravi's Water Fuel Cell Suppressed in India
all 11 ravi videos archived (well, one isnt by him, but was posted by him) at http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/lawton/raviyoutube31aug.zip he has not added anything else after being threatened also someone dredged up further, older, information about the Dave Lawton replication (which ravi raju replicated and which got him into trouble) so here they are: http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/lawton/Daves_Cell.pdf http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/lawton/Daves_WFC_Setup.pdf http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/lawton/Stanley_Meyer_Theories_and_Circuits.pdf http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/lawton/Secrets_of_the_Water_Cell_Explained.pdf http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/lawton/Bedini_SG_-_THE_Key_to_Meyers_circuit.pdf also i have it on good authority that the D14.pdf which http://panaceauniversity.org/ is putting around (which is a good compilation of data on the dave lawton replication), is going to be updated within the next few weeks, with further information about, well, cold current. if anyone has the time to check out them, do let us know your analysis. and here is the PESN article on ravi suppression http://pesn.com/2007/08/31/9500496_Ravi_waterfuelcell_suppression/ On 31/08/2007, Esa Ruoho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ravi raju has been threatened,.. but heres some more stuff from another person - connecting Meyer/Lawton to Nikola Tesla.
Re: [Vo]:interesting developments
On Aug 31, 2007, at 5:52 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Stiffler Scientific wrote: gas burning in calorimeter to determine actual output/input. [snip] ERGO - there needs to be a totally accurate (bullet-proof) gas burning calorimetry protocol out there to use as a yardstick, correct ? Recombiners have been used a lot in CF calorimetry. Try googling hydrogen recombiner. There is a neat write-up of experiences with recombiners at: http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/Inc-W/Wreport.html I especially enjoyed: For Run 9 we added a flame arrestor between the recombiner and the cell. This device consisted of a tight roll of fine Cu screen stuffed tightly into a glass tube. The roll was about 8 cm long and was expected to cool the advancing flame front below the ignition temperature thus extinguishing the flame. It didn't work! Run 9 exploded just like Run 8, again shattering the glasswork, breaking the W rod, and generally irritating the investigators. It is also unfortunate that recombiners only work fully when the H and O are in stoichiometric ratio. When CO or CO2 is produced, or other product gasses, then you still have to handle the left over gas, which could be explosive when mixed with oxygen. I've often thought an inert atmosphere, like helium or argon, directly above the electrolyte or water surface, plus a low current HF HV spark, should do a pretty good job of recombining hydrogen and oxygen from electrolysis, and it would not take so much power to do that that calorimetry would be unfeasible. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Fagacity fusor
A Farnsworth fusor like device built using water instead of gas may work. The item driven by the device would be electron shells, not the nuclei. The initiating cycle would be a pulse with the inner spherical screen being negative, the outer containment sphere being positive. The proportion of the radii of the inner and outer shells would be smaller than for a regular fusor. The driving pulse would have to have a very fast rise time. If it works the electron shells in the mutual center of the two spheres should collapse, forming an ideal locus for multi-body deflation fusion. A bright dot should appear (at about 1/9 light speed) in the sphere center. It may not produce a lot of energy, but it would still be a pretty neat fusion device. Sonofusion without the sound. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:the Gray Matter
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:56:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] Is there any evidence such things exist? There are three problems with the small ones. The first is Heisenberg requires the half-lives be very short. I seem to remember you showed this in a previous email (paper on your web site?). Could you provide a URL for it? I think I can argue against it, but need to review it again first. The second is the difficulty obtaining a series of catalytic events to take energy in the right amounts in the right sequence in order to create them. This is only a problem if timing is an issue, such as it may be if your first point here above is correct. However if point one is wrong, then Hydrinos are not short lived, and the difficulties far less. The third is making all this happen in a uranium lattice. That's just a matter of combining the U with the Hydrinos once the latter have been prepared. (Why are we using U again?) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Pendulum with a spinning bob
Hi Harry, and Stephen, Regarding your visual diagram: http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/spin_bob_pendulum.html It took me a spell to comprehend what Stephen was saying since he occasionally used what I assume are mathematical terms I'm not familiar with. To be honest, Harry, I vacillated a couple of times - thinking for a brief spell that there actually might be additional energy being extracted in your setup. I was quite puzzled for a while! ;-) However in the end I have to disagree. Here's a visual experiment I suggest as a way to help explain why I believe one is not making more energy from this arrangement. With your original illustration in mind make the following modifications: Increase the circular radius of the spin-bob wheel so that it's... oh, lets say about three times the radius length of the pendulum arm. Now, with this new arrangement envision in your head two distinct scenarios. First scenario: The swinging of the pendulum arm where the spin-bob wheel is physically attached, where the breaks are applied. Second scenario: The swinging of the pendulum arm where the spin-bob is NOT physically attached, where the breaks are not applied. Due to the significantly increased radius size of the spin-bob wheel it should now be much easier to visualize the speed of the swinging pendulum when the spin-bob wheel is physically attached, as well as when the spin-bob wheel isn't attached. You should be able to more easily visualize the fact that the pendulum arm will swing back-and-forth much more slowly when the spin-bob wheel is attached than when the spin-bob wheel is NOT physically attached (with the breaks applied). This is due to the fact that the physically-attached spin-bob wheel is behaving like a huge flywheel where you have to exert some physical effort at its central core to spin it up, as well as exerting the same amount of effort in reverse to bring the wheel back to a standstill. This is due to the inherent inertia of the mass of the spin-bob. The longer the radius, (bigger diameter) the more inherent inertia will be introduced into the system. OTOH, if the spin-bob is not physically attached (and can spin freely independently), then the pendulum arm is free to swing back and forth much more quickly because it is no longer hampered by the additional torque coming from the spin-bob wheel. If you can visual this, then take the thought experiment to the next logical step and visualize what happens if you have the spin-bob wheel's breaks on during the time the pendulum arm is swinging down to the bottom of the curve. Then, release the breaks on the spin-bob wheel at the bottom of the swing, (which is also where I believe your thought processes may need to be revised!), which is also the maximum speed of the pendulum arm. What happens next is that the pendulum arm will continue swinging forward but it will NOT SWING BACK ANYWHERE NEAR to the same height as where the pendulum arm had originally started when it had been attached to the spin-bob wheel. This is due to the fact that the pendulum arm is not spinning at the required speed to get it back to the same height, specifically the required speed we had previously measured when the spin-bob wheel was never attached. The pendulum arm has to be spinning much faster. Consequently, the pendulum arm no longer has the added stored energy (or inertia assist) from the spin-bob wheel to assist the pendulum arm back up to the same height. Regrettably, there is no additional energy being made here. Praise LoTD! Well... we'll see about that. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]:Laddermill Demo Success
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:33:16 -0400: Hi, [snip] I wrote: This is interesting, but the discussion of a 10 megawatt Laddermill seems unrealistic. Unrealistic is the wrong word. No doubt there will be progress in carbon filament cables. I guess I meant that this thing will require the development of new technology, whereas the inventor seems to be claiming that it could be implemented in the near future, even on the megawatt scale. Even a single kevlar cable traveling at 480 m /min (from your other post) with a cross section of 1 sq. in. and a tensile strength of 3 GPa, would generate almost 15.5 MW. However I suspect the design speed will be slower, and there are likely to be two cables, each of which could be thicker. At 1 sq. in. each and a density of 1.44 gm/mL, two 20 km cables would weigh 36000 kg. (20 km because the cable has to go up and also down in a ladder-mill. Actually they would need to be even longer, because they don't extend vertically, but at an angle. Anyone know how much lift one might expect? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
