Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:57:31 -0800: Hi, [snip] >"It is currently thought that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 >billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water >on the surface. The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by >the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the >levels of other greenhouse gases.[7]" > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus Quote:- "The temperature and pressure at the surface are 740 K (467°C) and 93 bar, respectively.[1]" Note that if all the Earth's oceans existed as water vapour in the atmosphere, the pressure at the surface would be about 250 bar. > >http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/1988Icar...74..472K [snip] Quote from the abstract: "Finally, the results of the model are used to speculate about when an Earth-like planet might lose its water and how much closer to the Sun Earth could have formed without ending up like Venus." ...I take it from this that they concluded that it couldn't have ended up like Venus at it's current location. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Nano-thermite aka Superthermite
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:21:46 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >This then is the very reason that ballotechnics are said to be MORE energetic, >not less. IOW you want the particle to burn away the surface area of atoms of >small particles very rapidly but ONLY the surface area - so the interior >volume of the particle reaches maximum compression (about 300,000-1,000,000 >psi equivalent has been reported). This is not unlike the situation with >nuclear weapons but the modality is non-nuclear and can be called >suprachemical. [snip] This sounds a lot like the http://www.proton21.com.ua/index_en.html work. They talk about a severely compressed shell of charge passing through the material, and suggest that it catalyzes LENR reactions of the severe fusion-fission variety. I also have a vague recollection of about a 10:1 energy ratio being bandied about. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Vo]:New Storms paper
See: Storms, E. and B. Scanlan. Detection of Radiation Emitted from LENR. in ICCF-14 International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008. Washington, DC. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEdetectiono.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nano-thermite aka Superthermite
- Original Message From: leaking pen > Hunh, doesnt seem that way to me. High dispersal and insane surface to area ratio is known for doing just that in chemical reactions and explosions. Look at fuel air explosives. Yes!- of course this ratio is important. But NOT for the reason you are thinking. In ffact almost the opposite. Thanks for the segue, nevertheless. Since you mentioned the surface area ratio - of fuel air explosives, as being key: let's look at that closely, as it is the defining comparison between the two very different types of reactions. The effective surface area with fuel-air explosives is much higher, incredibly higher than with superthemite. In fact, that is the only way superthemite works at all ! i.e. with less than full oxidation on the *first phase* of implosion. In fact the effective surface area ratio could be about 10^9 times higher with a complete dispersal of say LPG (gasoline or any hydrocarbon) - in air-- than when compared to 100 nm diameter iron oxide and aluminum. A lesser diameter is probably ideal but more dificult to manufacture. Therefore, as mentioned- surface area is important BUT not for the reasons you or the' official' sources were suggesting. [however, this does make for a good "red herring" if you are playing spy-vs-spy] This aboslute requirement in ballotechnics is for planned but INCOMPLETE combustion, on the first and initial phase of the reaction. This is so that the nano-particle will still have tens of thousands of atoms which are NOT on the surface of the nanopoarticle but which are going to be highly compressed for a few nanoseconds. The secondary reaction is where the real "fireworks" takes place. This then is the very reason that ballotechnics are said to be MORE energetic, not less. IOW you want the particle to burn away the surface area of atoms of small particles very rapidly but ONLY the surface area - so the interior volume of the particle reaches maximum compression (about 300,000-1,000,000 psi equivalent has been reported). This is not unlike the situation with nuclear weapons but the modality is non-nuclear and can be called suprachemical. Why? Dunno precisely - but that high compression is the intrinsic feature of a ballotechnic explosive that makes it far more energetic than a complete burn in a chemical reaction. At least this lack of understanding proves that making a project "black" does work to some degree. Actually, that underlying modality of ballotechnics is what I was trying to explain (hypothesize) in the previous post by introducing the "hydrino-less" paired-electron as *possibly* being the active unit for the greater explosiveness. This hypothesis could be accurate or not: for now, it only my" take" on it, and you will find it nowhere else, so please don't ask for an authoritative citation. These electrons will have around 54+ eV of mass-energy each to contribute - versus about 5 eV for the complete combustion of a fuel-air bomb of LPG or gasoline. By mass, the contribution is even higher by a multiple of ~2000 since the electron is of such low mass. Moreover, we know the heat energy available from those kinds of complete dispersion processes- such as we see in the fuel-air situation - is on the order of 20,000 BTU per pound of hydrocarbon (not counting the air). Now "explosiveness" is NOT heat energy per se - but it is related to a large degree. Explosiveness really gets down to acceleration (jerk, and jounce) and shock waves - rather than net energy released, but there is a direct relationship. OK - the reactants, gasoline and oxygen have a density when liquid of about one gram per cubic cm and produce 20.000 BTU per pound of gasoline -- and this is about 7000 per pound of ash (CO2). That can serve as a baseline for comparison with superthermite, which may produce up to 70,000 BTUs for the same volume (not weight) of reactant... or not. This has not been published authoritatively. Only problem is - with any black-project - the only way to compare any old weapon against superthermite is to look at specifications from countries which are trying to sell those weapons on the open market. Israel is one such country. Our military has turned this into a secret technology, despite the civilian interest, and except for that data which was published 10-20 years ago and can still be found in engineering libraries, which is where I ran across most of it - in addition to the internet. Personally, I do not have access to any current information - but those that claim to - have stated that the conventional high explosve bombs which are now replaced with superthermite are at least two times less energetic per given weight. So where does the "order of magnitude" more energetic claim fit in with only a 50% reduction in weight? after all a doubling of the power is far from a ten-fold increase. Well - There are several other factors which limit the gain in per
Re: [Vo]:Nano-thermite aka Superthermite
Hunh, doesnt seem that way to me. High dispersal and insane surface to area ratio is known for doing just that in chemical reactions and explosions. Look at fuel air explosives. On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 5:08 AM, R C Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howdy Jones, > There's folks on Vo, and there's folks looking over the shoulder's of folks > on Vo. This group's attraction is passed on to many others and be assured " > they get it". I suppose your mention of "red mercury" did make a few ears > become "pointed". The Dime Box Saloon's Large Hadron tequila bottle toss > research project recently gained additional funding to study why thermite > can take years off one's life among spectators not wearing hard hats while > strolling past bldg 7. > Please continue to expound as only a Jones Beene "moment" can > stimulate. Lewis Carroll must be :) > Richard > > Jones wrote, >>Furthermore, few on Vo seems to be "getting" the potential importance of >> superthermite to LENR- that being that the energy output (as evidence in >> the explosiveness) has been reported to be an order of magnitude higher than >> chemical. > > Sure these reports are mostly anecdotal - after all the military does not > publish its most guarded secrets - even if there could be a valid civilian > use for the technology behind those secrets -- and consequently it is easy > for any skeptic to write this off ballotechnic stuff as SciFi ... and > totally unconnected to LENR. >
Re: [Vo]:Nano-thermite aka Superthermite
Howdy Jones, There's folks on Vo, and there's folks looking over the shoulder's of folks on Vo. This group's attraction is passed on to many others and be assured " they get it". I suppose your mention of "red mercury" did make a few ears become "pointed". The Dime Box Saloon's Large Hadron tequila bottle toss research project recently gained additional funding to study why thermite can take years off one's life among spectators not wearing hard hats while strolling past bldg 7. Please continue to expound as only a Jones Beene "moment" can stimulate. Lewis Carroll must be :) Richard Jones wrote, >Furthermore, few on Vo seems to be "getting" the potential importance of >superthermite to LENR- that being that the energy output (as evidence in the >explosiveness) has been reported to be an order of magnitude higher than >chemical. Sure these reports are mostly anecdotal - after all the military does not publish its most guarded secrets - even if there could be a valid civilian use for the technology behind those secrets -- and consequently it is easy for any skeptic to write this off ballotechnic stuff as SciFi ... and totally unconnected to LENR.
Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
On Sep 9, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:49:11 -0800: Hi, [snip] On Sep 8, 2008, at 11:23 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: If the oceans were to boil off, where would all the water to go? Same place it went on venus, into building a higher altitude more dense atmosphere. [snip] I doubt there was ever much water on Venus. See http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Venusatmos.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "It is currently thought that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases.[7]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/1988Icar...74..472K Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
