[Vo]:Cold Fusion article on EDN's site...
FYI: Favorable CF article in EDN (Electronic Design News)... http://www.edn.com/blog/40040/post/1750043575.html?nid=2431&rid=4465865 Comment section overall pretty reasonable, but with a few of the usual ignorant armchair scientists that are still parroting 20 year-old info. They obviously don't read *THIS* list! ;-) -Mark
[Vo]:Status report
V, This is a catch-all message for a couple different things in different threads. 1. John Berry: did finish the HV supply to charge the tube/capacitor. But due to the current consumption of the tube in 'keep alive' mode and the desire to have everything isolated from ground, I am going to have to make a second supply for 'keep alive.' This will be relatively simple and battery powered. The main supply will be powered with a generator, and everything insulated from the ground by styrofoam blocks. Will test first with the same fluorescent tube I used before, both foil coated and 1cm spaced wire grid. If that does nothing, I will move on to other things as time permits. 2. Ball bearing motor: I ended up coming up with a little more money than I thought I had accounted for. So I will get some galinstan, and try 'wetting' the bearings, and see what happens. if this does anything interesting, I might try some of Horace's suggestions. 3. ATTN Bill Beaty: what is this Tesla 'odd receiver/mechanical radio' thing you mentioned a few posts back? I might be interested in building one if it isn't too much trouble. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
I wrote; "As the designs improve magnetically, you can see the power required drops, the current required drops, and the zero load to angular velocity and the initial acceleration both increase dramatically." That should say: "As the designs improve magnetically, you can see the power required drops, the current required drops, and the zero load peak angular velocity and the initial acceleration both increase dramatically." Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Excuse me for jumping in late on this thread, not having followed it closely, but this may be worth a mention from the peanut gallery (unless it has already been covered)... WRT the current squared hypothesis - there should an obvious way to falsify, or to add a level confirmation to this. Unfortunately, if there is more than one thing going on, like the heat hypothesis, then the following may not tell you much. That would be to measure the RPM at DC for your baseline and at various levels of current and the same voltage. Is the rotational response linear or exponential to the current? Even with friction and other losses, it should be exponential, no? ... and alternatively, or in addition to that, compare against the same setup at 50% duty, square wave, but the same voltage and twice the current. In the case of twice the current, over half the time interval, the expected proportionality would be 4/2 or double. Correct? The implication of that is that very low duty, but very high current (cap discharge?) might even make the thing useful... (Unless I am missing something which is likely) i.e. 1% duty with 100x current pulse gives an enticing relative gain The fact the effect is due entirely to hysteresis limits the effective rpm range across which the motor responds with a force (torque) proportional to i^2. There has to be a balance of current to load to optimize the motor efficiency. For a DC test, an appropriate test would simultaneously increase the load in order to sustain a constant rpm, and thus maintain the magnetization timing. There was an inherent assumption on my part, in making the "torque proportional to i^2" assertion, that the motor was operating in an efficient range, and as well not saturating. A sufficient time is required to overcome the magnetization hysteresis in order to have a sufficient M to produce the i L x B torque. Similarly, the M field must last long enough in the material with out the supporting H that it rotates into position such that the current i passes through it. The combined effect is a kind of wave of magnetization to both sides of the contact points. Optimization places the current right in or near the appropriate peak of that wave. If pulsed DC is used, and the pulse of current is too fast, and the time between pulses too long, then the initial magnetization will occur, and possibly even saturate the material, but by the time the magnetized material rotates into the contact point location, there is no current with which to generate the i L x B force, thus the motor will have no torque at all. I would note that, under the thermal scenario, the heat (energy) applied is an i^2 R effect, where R is the resistance. However, to maintain a constant torque for a given current, the same degree of expansion has to be maintained at every rpm. Therefore the power requirements must increase with angular velocity. The energy to support, via thermal expansion, the extreme speeds at which some of the motors now operate should take an extreme amount of power. As the designs improve magnetically, you can see the power required drops, the current required drops, and the zero load to angular velocity and the initial acceleration both increase dramatically. In any case, I maintain that a Marinov ball bearing motor made entirely of non-magnetic material will quickly resolve the thermal vs magnetic explanations. A complex FEA dynamic model would be required to optimize the design, or to verify the theory quantitatively, i.e. perfectly match theory to performance. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:COPY 3 - Energetics Tech. DOES use a flow calorimeter
I sent two previous copies of this message but it did not appear to go through. Apologies if this is a duplicate (triplicate). . . . . . . . Okay, I have now communicated with Tanya Zilov and Mike McKubre, and we have worked out what's what with this and other calorimeters. Let me explain. First, Kirk Shanahan correctly pointed out that the figures seemed to show an Isoperibolic calorimeter. It looked as if the "Cooling water inlet" and outlet was only being used to keep the cooling jacket at a uniform temperature. However, that was not the case. Zilov explained that they do perform flow calorimetry with this cell, as the text says. They measure inlet and outlet temperatures and the flow rate. The cooling water tube comes in, goes around a coil and then goes out. So I revised Fig. 1 to make this clearer, and I uploaded a new version: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf My confusion was compounded by the fact that McKubre replicated an earlier experiment that did use Isoperibolic calorimetry, in both his replication and Energetics Tech. original. This experiment did not incorporate ultrasound stimulation. Another question came up with regard to where they use SuperWaves. At this stage, only the electrolysis power is modulated with the SuperWave pattern, not the ultrasound. They are working on a new ultrasound generator that will produce ultrasound in SuperWaves. - Jed
[Vo]:Test
Test - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Woodpecker Signals via neon discharge to 20 ft tower.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Harvey Norris wrote: > > I was not acquainted with the fact that an elevated neon tube discharge > from a top globe elevated capacity to grounded 20 ft tower would produce a > pulsed EM detectable by a guitar and its connected amplifier. Amazingly the > strings of the guitar act as antennaes from the influence of the tower, and > one can orient the direction of the guitar towards the tower to enhance or > reduce the recieved staccato signals. The four inch neon atop the tower > requires only 45 ma from the 120 VAC househould outlet to ignite in its > blinking pattern thought to be close to the resonant frequency of the earth. > This is only a 20th of a watt input to create the woodpecker signal. What is the woodpecker signal? The Russian woodpecker was turned off 20 years ago. David
[Vo]:Re: Energetics Tech. DOES use a flow calorimeter
I forgot to mention: Tanya also confirmed that in addition to performing flow calorimetry, they also measure cell and jacket temperature. This is the normal thing to do. The original version of Fig. 1 showed only that measurement, which was confusing. Anyway, Tanya and I thank Kirk Shanahan for pointing out this problem with the figure. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:vortex balls!
Excuse me for jumping in late on this thread, not having followed it closely, but this may be worth a mention from the peanut gallery (unless it has already been covered)... WRT the current squared hypothesis - there should an obvious way to falsify, or to add a level confirmation to this. Unfortunately, if there is more than one thing going on, like the heat hypothesis, then the following may not tell you much. That would be to measure the RPM at DC for your baseline and at various levels of current and the same voltage. Is the rotational response linear or exponential to the current? Even with friction and other losses, it should be exponential, no? ... and alternatively, or in addition to that, compare against the same setup at 50% duty, square wave, but the same voltage and twice the current. In the case of twice the current, over half the time interval, the expected proportionality would be 4/2 or double. Correct? The implication of that is that very low duty, but very high current (cap discharge?) might even make the thing useful... (Unless I am missing something which is likely) i.e. 1% duty with 100x current pulse gives an enticing relative gain -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] One obvious conclusion from the hypothesis that the torque of the ball bearing motor is primarily due to hysteresis in the balls and races, and thus is proportional to i^2, is that the most efficient motor will, all other things being equal, have a shaft with the least possible resistance. This implies the following conclusions regarding the shaft: 1. copper is better than iron or steel 2. silver is even better 3. shorter is better 4. solid bar is better than pipe 5. good electrical contact between the shaft and the inner race is important Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:More about the Russian superbomb
>From Jed: > Regarding the Russian superbomb: > > http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html > > It produced 50 MT which works out to be . . . > > 209,000,000 MJ (I think -- 210 PJ) > > Equivalent to 5 billion kg of gasoline or 1.6 billion gallons. > > The U.S. consumes 390 million gallons of gasoline per day, so this bomb > would supply us with the equivalent of 4 days worth. Not so impressive. Or > appalling, depending on how you look at it. Imagine what we are doing to the > landscape releasing that much energy! > > As I said before though, the size of this bomb illustrates the immense > energy density of fusion compared to other sources of energy. It is 8 m x > 2.1 m. (See the photos of the bomb at that website.) Watched all four You-Tube installments. The second video clockwise, upper right hand corner, was absolutely inspirational in it's use of rousing patriotic music. It ends with a view of a huge crater, a fitting legacy. The motherland loves you. The motherland will protect you and lay waste to all sworn enemies like a squashed bug. I bet Kim Jong II took notes when he fantasized being a movie director. No comment from "Vince" Dinglelilnt. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
One obvious conclusion from the hypothesis that the torque of the ball bearing motor is primarily due to hysteresis in the balls and races, and thus is proportional to i^2, is that the most efficient motor will, all other things being equal, have a shaft with the least possible resistance. This implies the following conclusions regarding the shaft: 1. copper is better than iron or steel 2. silver is even better 3. shorter is better 4. solid bar is better than pipe 5. good electrical contact between the shaft and the inner race is important Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Woodpecker Signals via neon discharge to 20 ft tower.
In reply to Harvey Norris's message of Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:51:19 -0700 (PDT): Hi Harvey, Your posts would benefit greatly from a few diagrams here and there. Particularly circuit diagrams. > >I was not acquainted with the fact that an elevated neon tube discharge from a >top globe elevated capacity to grounded 20 ft tower would produce a pulsed EM >detectable by a guitar and its connected amplifier. Amazingly the strings of >the guitar act as antennaes from the influence of the tower, and one can >orient the direction of the guitar towards the tower to enhance or reduce the >recieved staccato signals. The four inch neon atop the tower requires only 45 >ma from the 120 VAC househould outlet to ignite in its blinking pattern >thought to be close to the resonant frequency of the earth. This is only a >20th of a watt input to create the woodpecker signal. When the input is >switched off via utility strip off position, the signal on the amplifier can >still be heard, but now it repeats itself sporiadically in a pattern, where >then the power input from the off switch is reduced 100 fold. On the utility >strip off position, this must indicate that only one > line of two wires of delivery is made open circuit, and the remaining > currents that are observed are due to one ended circulations of currents on > the wires enabled by polar capacity interfaced with alternative return ground > pathways. The signals can also be heard over a wireless phone placed near the > tower source. >HDN >Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances >http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Woodpecker Signals via neon discharge to 20 ft tower.
yes, but did you try it unstrung? Applying copper foil with a capacitor inline, to the inside of the body cavity, generally fixes 60 hz hum. its the internals and coils of the pickups being the antenae usually. On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Harvey Norris wrote: > > > >> Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 11:59 PM >> are you sure its the strings? >> an unshielded electric guitar will pick >> up the 60 hz em field from the walls of a house, and hum >> with it. >> with or without strings. > The ending input cable normally connected to amplifier was instead connected > to scope, showing an identical oscillation with the blinking neon. > HDN > >
