Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Hi Jones, Thanks for the interesting story. According to Google the document you quoted from is this DOD report: http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf The link doesn't seem to be working right now, but the text remains available via Google's cache: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:aXtJ7qjancgJ:dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf The conclusion of the report is in fact quite positive about Rossi's TE technology : 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Thermoelectric (TE) power generation results from electricity that is induced in particular materials by a temperature differential. This is known as the “Seebeck Effect.” Historically, the cost of thermoelectric power generation has been high due to limitations in material knowledge and associated processing issues. Recent technology developments, based on advances in material science and advanced manufacturing techniques, have demonstrated a high potential for reduced production costs. Leonardo Technologies Inc. (LTI) has demonstrated their thermoelectric innovation as a cost-effective energy-producing alternative that is efficient and environmentally benign. Initial testing of LTI’s innovations demonstrate an approximate three-fold in-crease in energy conversion and potentially a ten-fold decrease in fabrication cost per kW of electrical generation capacity. It is projected that under mass production, the cost per kW of thermoelectric devices could approach that of combined-cycle gas central power plants, the least expensive power generation alternative, at about $500/kW – with the added economic benefit of no fuel costs. ... The results of this study will assist the development of a demonstration of LTI’s TE technology at a defense facility... ...so it's not clear to me that it affects the credibility of his fusion report that badly. What affects it more in my mind is his statement that he won't demonstrate anything publicly until he has a 1 MW device, why wait if he really has an Earth shattering 10 kW working device? In any case his claim that the DOD and DOE have looked at the technology is supported by the composition of the Board of Advisers of his strange self published online journal: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2 BOARD OF ADVISERS: Prof. Sergio Focardi (INFN – University of Bologna – Italy) ** Prof. Michael Melich (DOD – USA) Richard P. Noceti, Ph. D. , richard.noc...@lt.netl.doe.gov ** Prof. Alberto Carnera (INFM – University of Padova – Italy) Prof. Giuseppe Levi (INFN – University of Bologna – Italy) Prof. Pierluca Rossi (University of Bologna – Italy) Prof. Luciana Malferrari (University of Bologna – Italy) Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire – USA) Prof. Stremmenos Christos (Athen University – Greece) BTW I agree with you that the patent is very poorly written, have you noted isothermal instead of exothermal in claim 1? And it doesn't reveal anything that might be novel, hence the well deserved X rated prior art in the international search report (an Arata patent). What purpose can such a patent application serve? Michel 2010/3/11 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: FWIW: One more comment on Leonardo Technologies, Inc. and the past history of Dr Andrea Rossi. This is important only in that it may affect the credibility of the fusion report. Obviously, if the fusion RD were true in the apparent COP, it would be an earth-shaking discovery. It is far better than any prior NiH system which has been reported, but apparently there is a history here which cannot be ignored. LTI was incorporated as a response to the thermoelectric power generation research (and patent) by Dr. Rossi. Dr. Rossi indicated that his devices would produce 20 percent efficiencies, a vast increase from the current science of 4 percent conversion of waste heat to electrical power. Dr. Rossi believed that he could increase the physical size of the TE Devices and maintain superior power generation. In furtherance of his research, in early 2000, LTI had tests conducted at the University of New Hampshire (UNH), Durham, NH, using a small scale LTI TEG Device. Over a period of 7 days, the UNH power plant staff recorded voltage and amperage readings every 1/2 hr. The TE Device produced approximately 100 volts and 1 ampere of current, providing 100 watts of power. After this initial success, and a fire that destroyed his Manchester, NH location, Dr. Rossi returned to Italy to continue the manufacture of the TE Devices. In Italy, Dr. Rossi believed that LTI could manufacture more cost-effective TE generating devices with lower labor and assembly costs. Accordingly, Dr. Rossi engaged a subcontractor to fulfill the requirements of manufacturing and assembly. Unfortunately, the Italian subcontractor was unable to provide second-generation TE Devices with satisfactory power generation. Nineteen of 27 TE Devices shipped to CTC, Johnstown, PA, were incapable of generating
RE: [Vo]:AlumiFuel Power Inc.
Horace Sez: ... What they don't tell you is what it takes to recharge. Aluminum metal requires vast amounts of energy to create. Convenient of them to leave that little detail out, isn't it. I wonder how this particular technology would stack up if it were considered just an efficient battery, albeit an expensive battery. Could it still be considered an practical/economical choice in certain niche markets. Regards, Steven VincentJohnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Fleischmann's old bicycle analogy
I have often heard Fleischmann refer to cold fusion as something like an old bicycle, meaning that after you become used to its quirks it does not seem so odd. I am cleaning up the 1989 Congressional testimony, and there he said it again: Mr. ROHRABACHER. But contrary to public opinion or perception, isn't it true that most new, major scientific breakthroughs have not been.I shouldn't say most, but many major scientific breakthroughs in human history have not been greeted by the professionals of the day with open arms and. Dr. FLEISCHMANN. How can you expect it? I think that a strange piece of research will strike people as being strange. You have to get used to it. You have to live with it. It's like an old bicycle. You have to grow old with it. Mr. ROHRABACHER. And perhaps the fact that so many people in the scientific community are now dependent on Government grants, that perhaps are heading in totally the opposite direction to achieve the same results, might actually make this problem even worse. Dr. FLEISCHMANN. I hope not. I think that in the end all the people working in this area will come to see this as just another arm of the research, one they will wish to be involved in, rather than one they wish to stand aside from. I think if we are correct, if we are opening up this gray area between physics and chemistry, where there is this strong overlap, then the people who have got the big experience in the high energy physics end will have an absolutely vital contribution to make. I think they will come to see that very shortly. Mr. ROHRABACHER. I hope you're right. I would like to note that Jonas Salk in my own time was not greeted with open arms, and was vilified for a certain period of time in his life, and there was a lot of confusion about that. I think he probably saved a lot of young people's lives. One last question. We've heard some qualifiers from you today, and they're justifiable. But are you still absolutely confident that you have discovered a new fusion process? Dr. PONS. Well, for five-and-a-half years I think we were our most severe critics, and we are still as sure as sure can be. We produce our data and we believe what we are seeing. So I'm sure. Dr. FLEISCHMANN. I do not know how to interpret our results in any other way than that we have observed a fusion phenomenon. So I'm still totally convinced about our own work. But naturally, we shall have to look at everybody else's work as well, including all the unsuccessful experiments, and only time will show whether we are correct or not. . . . Rep. Rohrabacher is no fool. That is the unedited OCR output, by the way. Pretty good. I will upload a clean version of this soon: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CSSThearingbef.pdf - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Michel, The conclusion of the report is in fact quite positive about Rossi's TE ... Yes, but was that ten-year old experiment at UNH ever replicated? Not that I can see, so ask yourself - why not? In the current milieu, the TEG is way more valuable than the LENR work, in terms of getting it to market rapidly and immediate financial impact, such as by retrofit to autos. Any LENR product is a decade away from market due to lack of required engineering and complexity. Another caveat: the TEG may not scale-up (apparently). Is it simply a QM effect only ? I would say the most important thing in 2010 is what is not said. It appears that the TEG technology was dropped, or at least not actively pursued when it is the prime corporate asset. That does not make sense, even if an advance was found in Ni Hydride. I have been scanning through the ARPA-E recipients and have not found LTI although there are a number of similar projects being funded in TEG - one almost next door to them. Did they change their name to get funding? They do mention DoE and not DARPA. Plus, wrt the LENR results. I don't think competent scientists will actively try to hide or avoid the significant (if not overwhelming) contribution of prior art. In this case that comes from Arata and Mills for sure. Focardi may be sore that he never got recognized adequately back in the mid-nineties, but essentially Mills came first, and has both precedence and more credibility than Focardi. That's the way it works, and he may feel snubbed. Did you ever find Arata's name mentioned by Rossi or Focardi? How could any good researcher remain blithely ignorant of Arata and his emphasis on nanoparticles? The nano-technology or A-Z is probably the key to the effect, but it was discovered by them years ago - and not by Rossi. Plus - there seems to be a *significant* conflict of interest with Leonardo's (LTI) corporate mission with DoE now, as an administrator, and the apparent lack of an actual grant for funding any fusion work of Rossi. That could jeopardize the $95 million contract which is in place if he has been shifting funds inappropriately. Also - where is their actual lab ? It's not at the address where the Press release says it is. Why is there no staff at the NH facility when Rossi claims this is where the work is being performed ? Many red flags, but when all is said and done - the one scenario that makes the most sense is that Focardi and Rossi were able (apparently) to take the Arata nanopowder finding to a higher and more robust energy level - only to find that they cannot patent that breakthrough due to either Mills or Arata or both. Jones
[Vo]:simulation of fractional hydrogen ashless
SIM 1.0 fractional hydrogen ash less chemistryhttp://www.byzipp.com/sun31.swf The diatoms formed inside cavity emit a blue photon and are soon disassociated by motion relative to the Casimir geometry. Regards fran
RE: [Vo]:simulation of fractional hydrogen ashless
Fran, The large spheres are diatomic hydrogen when outside the cavity, but become monatomic after apparent shrinkage from our perspective, due to time dilation, then releasing the photon, is that correct? To cover more actual experimental results, one might also suggest that on occasion, nuclear reactions can occur with the walls of the cavity, even if that is not the main source of excess energy. In fact, this type of reaction might only be a QM balancing act . One never knows, do one? From: Roarty, Francis X SIM http://www.byzipp.com/sun31.swf 1.0 fractional hydrogen ash less chemistry The diatoms formed inside cavity emit a blue photon and are soon disassociated by motion relative to the Casimir geometry. Regards fran
RE: [Vo]:simulation of fractional hydrogen ashless
Jones, The large spheres outside the cavity are monatomic hydrogen which occasionally collides to form h2 and give off a red photon, the h2 either gets repelled away from the entrance to the cavity or disassociates due to change in Casimir force which wants to change the atoms to a fractional state in opposition to the bond. Once inside the atoms shrink to fractional states - if they form a fractional h2 molecule they give off what appears to be a blue photon from our perspective outside the cavity. The new fractional molecule can no longer be simply repelled away from the change in Casimir force because it is already at an intermediate fractional value which is going to change no matter which direction gas law drives the molecule (assuming the geometry is dynamic and not smooth like inside a nanotube that only has cat action at openings and defects). As the molecule moves Casimir force accumulates trying to change the fractional orbit until it finally breaks the diatomic bond allowing the translation to occur. I am not saying that hydrogen isn't stored as hydrides but this sim only focuses on the ash less chemistry that I believe occurs when the stage is properly set with atomic gas and a rigid catalyst with vigorous geometry (confinement). The fractional orbits inside the cavity react differently to Casimir effect depending on their bond state. diatoms outside the cavity resist the change in isotropy and get repelled or disassociated by proximity to the mouth of the cavity while atoms can translate freely into the cavity. Regards Fran SIM 1.0 fractional hydrogen ash less chemistryhttp://www.byzipp.com/sun31.swf Thanks for the feedback -this is just Sim 1.0 and is less presentable than it will be in time.
RE: [Vo]:simulation of fractional hydrogen ashless
Sorry - just realized I gave the URL for the SIM only -the page it is on = http://www.byzipp.com/animaTime.htm
RE: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Jones Beene wrote: Plus, wrt the LENR results. I don't think competent scientists will actively try to hide or avoid the significant (if not overwhelming) contribution of prior art. In this case that comes from Arata and Mills for sure. Well . . . some folks do this kind of thing. The best example is Arata himself. He is an extremely competent scientist -- a brilliant, world-class genius scientist -- but he claims that he is the only one who has ever succeeded in producing a cold fusion reaction. All of the others, starting with Fleischmann and Pons, have made inept and obvious mistakes and their results are garbage, he says. He claims that discovered cold fusion in the late 1940s but kept quiet about it until Fleischmann and Pons came along with their obvious mistake. In order to clear up the confusion, Arata decided to reveal real cold fusion. It is unclear why he kept it secret so long. I vaguely recall it was because the world wasn't ready for it yet but that's what they all say, isn't it? Maybe I have him mixed up with the Correas or the Methernitha cult. The point is, you cannot judge a scientist's claims by looking at his or her personality, personal behavior, or academic ethics. Arata would drastically fail by these standards. But they simply do not matter. His contributions stand on their own merits. They are not degraded or less important because of his outrageous behavior. They are also not degraded by what I consider his sloppy experiments and poorly written papers. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf It is tough, but you have to look at a claim in isolation. As much as humanly possible, you have exclude from your evaluation all of your feelings regarding researcher's personality, behavior, or previous criminal convictions (if any) or the fact that he is in jail, which was where Joe Champion -- one of our friends in the lead-to-gold alchemy business -- periodically resides. These rouge researchers don't make it any easier to trust them, do they? Regarding Arata, I hesitate to mention this but . . . of Arata's supporters has published a cartoon about his discoveries. Toshiro Sengaku brought this to my attention. The cartoon is sorta cute and sorta horrifying. The deuterons fusing on p. 5 and producing love-hearts of helium are cute. The politics on p. 9 are putrid. I am kind of glad it is in Japanese and no, I will not translate it. You can probably get the gist of it. See: http://dokuritsutou.heteml.jp/newversion2/image2/kakuyugo/solidfusion-newtitle.pdfhttp://dokuritsutou.heteml.jp/newversion2/image2/kakuyugo/solidfusion-newtitle.pdf Page 9 shows Arata upset when he realizes that Fleischmann and Pons (shown in the thought bubble) are making a bogus claim. The little cloud of steam coming from his head is Japanese comic-book iconography indicating being upset, I would say. He is steamed as we say in English. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Jed, Thanks for the background on Arata. It is easy to miss that kind of information when only looking at the published papers. Steamed indeed . Ha! What an egotist. It is tempting to slide into a little politically incorrectness, and opine that his temperament may be more typically Italian than the Italians . . but let's don't go there. Jones . shows Arata upset when he realizes that Fleischmann and Pons (shown in the thought bubble) are making a bogus claim. The little cloud of steam coming from his head is Japanese comic-book iconography indicating being upset, I would say. He is steamed as we say in English.
Re: [Vo]:simulation of fractional hydrogen ashless
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:47:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] Jones, The large spheres outside the cavity are monatomic hydrogen which occasionally collides to form h2 and give off a red photon, I thought it was a well recognized fact that monatomic Hydrogen only combines to molecular Hydrogen in three body collisions? (I.e. not through emission of a photon). That's why the Langmuir atomic Hydrogen torch works. If recombination by emission of a photon were possible, then the atomic Hydrogen formed in the arc would recombine long before it reached the work piece, and the whole concept would be useless (i.e. one might just as well use an arc welder). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:AlumiFuel Power Inc.
On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:26 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Horace Sez: ... What they don't tell you is what it takes to recharge. Aluminum metal requires vast amounts of energy to create. Convenient of them to leave that little detail out, isn't it. I wonder how this particular technology would stack up if it were considered just an efficient battery, albeit an expensive battery. Could it still be considered an practical/economical choice in certain niche markets. I haven't seen where the concept is stated to be an actual battery concept, or even that the aluminum oxide is converted back to aluminum on board. I only saw the energy density compared to that of a battery. Did I miss something? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Really poorly reported. The patent implies that it's just nickel and hydrogen, under pressure and heat. However, it also specifies Nickel 62, which is under 3% natural abundance. But that's for reasons of avoiding radiation. The paper says The system on which we operate consists of Ni, in H atmosphere and in the presence of additives placed in a sealed container and heated by a current passing through a resistor. Additives? What additives? It's tempting to say magic pixie dust. But I don't believe that they are necessarily making this up, I'm just noticing that, like a long line before them, they aren't disclosing what are quite likely critical details. It's not like nobody tried pressurizing and heating nickel and hydrogen before! I'll get excited when someone completely independent replicates this. Until then, well, we've been burned too many times. Or not-burned, as the case was. Not even hot enough to burn.
Re: [Vo]:simulation of fractional hydrogen ashless
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:12:16 [snip]I thought it was a well recognized fact that monatomic Hydrogen only combines to molecular Hydrogen in three body collisions? (I.e. not through emission of a photon). That's why the Langmuir atomic Hydrogen torch works. If recombination by emission of a photon were possible, then the atomic Hydrogen formed in the arc would recombine long before it reached the work piece, and the whole concept would be useless (i.e. one might just as well use an arc welder). [/snip] Robin you may be right but I didn't run into this in my first and only 2 years of engineering physics - I have a big gap where missing 3rd and 4th year topics I try to pick up on as I need them but this may be a case where I didn't even know I was lacking. I was under the impression from chemistry that h1 will almost instantly reform to h2 if not heated into disassociation -this 3 body collision stuff is news to me and not having too much luck with google search on molecular hydrogen 3 body collisions - I keep getting stuff on stellar hydrogen. Are you saying I should show a 3rd body in the animation to justify the recombination? Regards Fran
[Vo]:Higgs Will Have to Wait
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8556621.stm The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) must close at the end of 2011 for up to a year to address design issues, according to an LHC director. Dr Steve Myers told BBC News the faults will delay the machine reaching its full potential for two years. The atom smasher will reach world record collision energies later this month at 7 trillion electron volts. But joints between the machine's magnets must be strengthened before higher-energy collisions can commence. more What's the point after 12-21-2012? T
[Vo]:Transporter Malfunction
http://www.ghosttheory.com/2010/03/09/paris-car-crash-occupants-dissappeared-momentarily This is just bizarre. I really would not think much of news like this one, but the fact that multiple witnesses were saying that they witnessed passengers in a car “…‘disappear’ momentarily at one stage” A car crash on Paris’ M6 motorway has been shrouded in secrecy lately. What appears to be a typical, unfortunate crash, turned into something from the X-Files. Cue in music… more
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Really poorly reported. The patent implies that it's just nickel and hydrogen, under pressure and heat. However, it also specifies Nickel 62, which is under 3% natural abundance. But that's for reasons of avoiding radiation. The paper says The system on which we operate consists of Ni, in H atmosphere and in the presence of additives placed in a sealed container and heated by a current passing through a resistor. Additives? What additives? It's tempting to say magic pixie dust. But I don't believe that they are necessarily making this up, I'm just noticing that, like a long line before them, they aren't disclosing what are quite likely critical details. It's not like nobody tried pressurizing and heating nickel and hydrogen before! I'll get excited when someone completely independent replicates this. Until then, well, we've been burned too many times. Or not- burned, as the case was. Not even hot enough to burn. If there is a failure to fully disclose the invention, especially additives that are essential to the operation of the device, then the patent is not enforceable. Further, if someone discovers what additional essential ingredients are required then they are free to obtain a patent that includes those ingredients. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Higgs Will Have to Wait
Terry sez: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8556621.stm The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) must close at the end of 2011 for up to a year to address design issues, according to an LHC director. Dr Steve Myers told BBC News the faults will delay the machine reaching its full potential for two years. The atom smasher will reach world record collision energies later this month at 7 trillion electron volts. But joints between the machine's magnets must be strengthened before higher-energy collisions can commence. more What's the point after 12-21-2012? One must persevere in spite of daunting odds! ;-) I suspect Fermilab is not terribly broken up about the latest LHC development. It's my understanding Fermilab has made significant progress in hunting down the expected locations of where Mr. Higgs should be hanging out. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
I wrote -- and I mean typed, not dictated: These rouge researchers don't make it any easier to trust them, do they? Also the rogue ones. A rouge researcher would be one who wears lipstick I suppose, like Sara Palin, who imagines herself going rogue. There is not much benefit to the complex orthography of English or Japanese, but it does make for hilarious mistakes! - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Reply to Rich Murray on the Electric Field error, and Earthtech results: Abd uh-Rahman Lomax: Rich Murray 2010.03.11
At 12:10 AM 3/12/2010, Rich Murray wrote: 1. Perhaps Earthtech and others like Ludwik Kowalski would like to join Lomax in developing a simple, low-cost standard version of the SPAWAR co-deposition cell. Common in the history of CF is lack of exact replication of these always surprisingly complex devices, confounding any resolution of the fundamental issue of clearly confirming nuclear reactions. I announced the kit concept here at the end of August last year, and, September 3, started a yahoogroup to help develop ideas, http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coldfusionproject/messages. Most of the discussion has, however been here and in private correspondence that led me to come up with specific details of experimental design. I was advised by Steve Krivit to avoid design by committee, and, since I'm putting my own time and funds into what I personally do, I've been making decisions on my own responsibility. However, the kit company, which is just continued operation of Lomax Design Associates, will attempt to assist anyone who wants to work on similar concepts, that is, standardized experimental kits, the basis of which is clear and highly specific design, where every detail is covered. The basis of the kits I'm preparing is the Galileo protocol, using a gold cathode wire, and with quantities reduced proportionally to wire length, which will be roughly half that of what was used (and not precisely characterized, unfortunately) in the Galileo project. It looks like I'll be starting with LR_115 detectors, for practical reasons. 2. [ LR-115 is a simpler material for this purpose; the active layer is 6 microns of cellulose acetate, red in color. Radiation damage to the LR-115 causes, then, after etch, a hole to appear completely through the red layer, which is carried on 100 microns of polyester, the hole appears as a bright dot. It's much easier to read, and it will read higher track density than CR-39, allegedly. ] Video imaging chips are cheap, with megapixel resolutions at above 30 fps. Sure. However, I bought a Celstron microscope, and I'll be modifying the stage to hold a cell (with the microscope laid down, so the microscope is looking at an upright cell -- or the contents would spill! -- through the side, to where the cathode wire will be. It now looks like, for the first runs, the cathode wire will be against the edge of the cell, with the SSNTD being on the outside. I will have some of the cathode wire visible, extending beyond the edge of the SSNTD. It is possible that bright spots would be visible through the SSNTD (it would definitely be possible with CR-39, that's one reason why I want to move to CR-39 when I can, it will be enough for a first pass to see if I can see anything at all on the active cathode, particularly in the dark. I do not know if the response time of the digital camera that is in the Celstron microscope will be fast enough. I'd be happer, probably, with a regular film camera accumulating light the way that the SSNTD accumulates tracks. But maybe the digital camera will be fast enough. For me, *simple* is very important. If a thin radiation sensitive phospher screen is put on a horizontal video chip, then a LR-115 SSNTD film on top of that, and a 1 micron gold cathode film, [ or a gold screen cathode with a mylar layer below it to shield the LR-115 film ] with a clear box on all four sides, then a 1 cc cell could be cheaply made, allowing the device to record the cumulative spatial location of pits on the LR-115, and real time recording of visible light and IR (from hot spots), to give both high time resolution of both hot spot and radiation events -- which could be shared real-time with the world on the Net. LR-115 doesn't show radiation evidence until developed by etching, same as CR-39. However, if the spots are bright enough, yes, they would show through the red cellulose acetate. CR-39, in the end, will be better, if the right material is obtained. Landauer isn't easy to buy from, and they seem to have only 1/16 in dosimeter chips, which are way too thick, I'd say. There is a project for someone to work on: obtaining good CR-39 that is thin and characterizing it as to background radiation and response. The kind of detector sandwich described is certainly of interest, but is more complex than what I can take on at this time. Note that, as described, the active surface of the gold would be away from the phosphor screen. Horace Heffner, here, suggested another approach, which would have a photofabricated cathode with holes in it too small for the liquid to escape through at the pressures involved. The active surface would be viewed edge-on, light, including EUV that some theorize may be present, could pass through the holes. Again, great ideas and some might even be attempted later, but too complex. The Galileo protocol was very simple, and I'm adding to it very cheap and very simple monitoring. Besides
Re: [Vo]: Reply to Rich Murray on the Electric Field error, and Earthtech results: Abd uh-Rahman Lomax: Rich Murray 2010.03.11
On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The kind of detector sandwich described is certainly of interest, but is more complex than what I can take on at this time. Note that, as described, the active surface of the gold would be away from the phosphor screen. Horace Heffner, here, suggested another approach, which would have a photofabricated cathode with holes in it too small for the liquid to escape through at the pressures involved. The active surface would be viewed edge-on, light, including EUV that some theorize may be present, could pass through the holes. Again, great ideas and some might even be attempted later, but too complex. The Galileo protocol was very simple, and I'm adding to it very cheap and very simple monitoring. The above is not quite an accurate summary of my Edge-on Grid Codeposition Method. Here again is my edge-on grid method URL: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EdgeOnGrid.pdf The use of photo resist etching - similar to printed circuit board manufacturing was only one suggestion. The other is to simply drill or punch holes into the coated grid plate. Further, the grid plate could consist of single large hole (e.g. 1/4). A co-deposition surface prepared in this way I think would be far superior to the difficulties of pressing a wire up against the Mylar protective sheet or CR-39. It is the location of the plate and Mylar on the *outside* of the electrolyte container that makes things work easily and cheaply. Note also that making the holes small has not all that much to do with the liquid pressure. The holes are covered over with Mylar film backed by the CR-39 (see Fig. 1) which holds it in place. If leakage is a problem the Mylar can be applied as a bag around the electrolyte container. It may be useful to glue the Mylar to the surface of the cathode plate at the time the CR-39 is pushed up against it. I think this arrangement is far more precise, and also easier and maybe cheaper than using wire cathodes, and cheap and easy to mass produce as well. It is cheaper if plating the plate hole surfaces is cheaper than buying the wire of the kind desired. I think the overall cell size can be made very small using this design too, provided thin plastic tubing and automatic feed (even if just siphon based) is used to maintain water level. It may be possible to locate a trophy shop or engraver to do any required laser etching cheaply. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Lomax ideas for cheap SPAWAR type cell: Murray 2010.03.12
Lomax ideas for cheap SPAWAR type cell: Murray 2010.03.12 My chemical hot spot calculation considers a microregion of surface paladium that has absorbed hydrogen 1 to 1, in which case, if an equal volume size O2 bubble (hemisphere) happens to become attached to the highly catalytic H saturated metal, especially at rough or extra impurity spots, then the rapid recombination would deliver enough heat quickly enough for a wave of combustion to sweep through the metal, melting it and forming an instant foam from the expanding steam product. By doing the calculations on the basis of amounts of H2 per volume of metal = volume of adjacent microbubble of O2 at standard pressure and temperature, then it is easy to show that the energy density (heat) is more than enough to melt and foam even a refractory metal. So, large pits can be seen to be equivalent in terms of calculation to a simple sum of smaller pits -- making the calculation very convenient. The chemical energy released in many reactions is used to melt all metals. The probably explosive (detonation shock wave) quality of the burning means that the event would be so brief, that the amount of heat lost by convection, conduction, and radiation would be minor, as the shock front would move into the metal, melting and foaming the the metal, which very soon would solidify into complex surface foam form farms. There may be additional chemical energy from oxidation of the metal. Impurity spots on the paladium would tend to lower the melting point, and provide more elements to oxidize. Attempts to produce and replicate chemical reaction hot spots would be interesting, and of course necessary to evaluate their role as a factor causing unexpected results. As a skeptic re nuclear reaction claims, I find it easy to imagine O2 microbubbles forming and moving complexly in the electrolyte to end up in enough quantities on the cathode to be be a proximate cause of dramatic hot spots. So I'm taking a shave with Occam's razor... Have previous tests finding micropits in the cathode searched inside them for oxides of paladium and its impurities? Rich - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 8:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Reply to Rich Murray on the Electric Field error, and Earthtech results: Abd uh-Rahman Lomax: Rich Murray 2010.03.11 At 12:10 AM 3/12/2010, Rich Murray wrote: 1. Perhaps Earthtech and others like Ludwik Kowalski would like to join Lomax in developing a simple, low-cost standard version of the SPAWAR co-deposition cell. Common in the history of CF is lack of exact replication of these always surprisingly complex devices, confounding any resolution of the fundamental issue of clearly confirming nuclear reactions. I announced the kit concept here at the end of August last year, and, September 3, started a yahoogroup to help develop ideas, http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coldfusionproject/messages. Most of the discussion has, however been here and in private correspondence that led me to come up with specific details of experimental design. I was advised by Steve Krivit to avoid design by committee, and, since I'm putting my own time and funds into what I personally do, I've been making decisions on my own responsibility. However, the kit company, which is just continued operation of Lomax Design Associates, will attempt to assist anyone who wants to work on similar concepts, that is, standardized experimental kits, the basis of which is clear and highly specific design, where every detail is covered. The basis of the kits I'm preparing is the Galileo protocol, using a gold cathode wire, and with quantities reduced proportionally to wire length, which will be roughly half that of what was used (and not precisely characterized, unfortunately) in the Galileo project. It looks like I'll be starting with LR_115 detectors, for practical reasons. 2. [ LR-115 is a simpler material for this purpose; the active layer is 6 microns of cellulose acetate, red in color. Radiation damage to the LR-115 causes, then, after etch, a hole to appear completely through the red layer, which is carried on 100 microns of polyester, the hole appears as a bright dot. It's much easier to read, and it will read higher track density than CR-39, allegedly. ] Video imaging chips are cheap, with megapixel resolutions at above 30 fps. Sure. However, I bought a Celstron microscope, and I'll be modifying the stage to hold a cell (with the microscope laid down, so the microscope is looking at an upright cell -- or the contents would spill! -- through the side, to where the cathode wire will be. It now looks like, for the first runs, the cathode wire will be against the edge of the cell, with the SSNTD being on the outside. I will have some of the cathode wire visible, extending beyond the edge of the SSNTD. It is possible that bright spots would
