[Vo]:What do you think about the SPARC?
https://news.mit.edu/2021/MIT-CFS-major-advance-toward-fusion-energy-0908
Re: [Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?
Ron Kita wrote: > Electrets my specialty. Hey Ron, Let me throw this idea out for you. Have you considered the implications of dense hydrogen as it might apply to being integrated into the structure of an electret ? IOW - if and when someone invents the process to make dense hydrogen very cheaply (and why not?) then imagine this species being impregnated into say a polymer film in such a way that many of the electrons presented in a far more compact state than normal and yet stable,,, such a material would most likely make a very special electret. This assumes (using theory via either Mills or Holmlid et al) the charge properties of the dense state are modified or enhanced by inverse square and so on - well, such am electret film should have amazing electrical and magnetic properties. This idea may have been tossed around before ...?
Re: [Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?
Electrets my specialty. I was a friend of the late Boyd Bushman , dec...ex-Senior Scientist at LockMart DFW. His Energy Source patent was an electret. I used to phone Boyd until he moved to Arizona...where he died a few years later. I asked Boyd did you ever weigh your electrets...his reply..NO! and we laughed. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex, Doylestown PA http://www.chiralex.com On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 8:32 PM JonesBeene wrote: > *From: *Vibrator ! > > > JG = James Glimm? Sorry lost me there.. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Goodenough > > > > looks like it will be his birthday next week. Think about that – 98 and > still on the cutting edge of battery technology. > > > > Maybe another big prize … who knows?. > > >
RE: [Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Goodenough Doh! Miles away.. (besides, could've had Josiah Gibbs)..
RE: [Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?
From: Vibrator ! JG = James Glimm? Sorry lost me there.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Goodenough looks like it will be his birthday next week. Think about that – 98 and still on the cutting edge of battery technology. Maybe another big prize … who knows?.
RE: [Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?
'Electret' - that was the word - but yep, something a bit different here.. albeit still amenable to calorimetry i should think. "Quote: A subthreshold swing is demonstrated below the thermal limit in an electrochemical cell that mimics a gate-to-channel circuit cell in a FeFET, surpassing the limit imposed by dissipation energy, often designated as “Boltzmann tyranny.”" ..implying that the energy distribution of the source electrons is somewhat passive, lacking the high-energy tail / hot electron leakage limiting FET efficiency, ie. more circumvention than violation.. JG = James Glimm? Sorry lost me there..
Re: [Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?
Personally, I don't think it's good enough. Really, I think it's a long way from producibility. > >
RE: [Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?
If the charge is drained off does the system recharge? I could mot see that clearly stated. It seemed as if there was a swapping of potential energy between two phases of the system. The entropy of the two phases would have the same minimum value in their respective charged phases, if the 2nd Law of TH held. To make up any lost potential energy in the phase changes, the system may have gained energy from the earth’s magnetic field during realignment of magnetic dipoles that change direction during the phase change, releasing electrons to change their quasi-stable locations in the system’s respective materials. As Vibrator notes, there must be a undefined source of energy—maybe ZPE or the Earth’s magnetic field. Bob Cook From: Frank Znidarsic<mailto:fznidar...@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2020 9:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: [Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY? https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5132841
RE: [Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?
Ah … another almost useless violation - it appears… but maybe not completely useless. There does appear to be a nominal violation – somewhat reminiscent of an electret. I’m surprised they do not go there. Because the self-cycling takes place at extremely low frequencies and does not produce any effect when discharges are fast, as would be needed in a working capacitor or transistor - the actual applications for it seem to be small – other than there is the implication of very high efficiency - but not a real demonstration of it. There could be a useful temperature drop with the self-oscillation as well, which may explain the net energy balance. Quote: A subthreshold swing is demonstrated below the thermal limit in an electrochemical cell that mimics a gate-to-channel circuit cell in a FeFET, surpassing the limit imposed by dissipation energy, often designated as “Boltzmann tyranny.” Poor Boltzmann … he gets no respect … Amazing that JG is approaching 100 years. In fact he is the anomaly if there is one. From: Vibrator ! If self-oscillation is phonon-driven - and also forms the source gradient - then it's an effective 2LoT violation. Doesn't rule out an EM / ZPE source of course, but Occam would suggest that's redundant.. So, unlike Steorn's ferro-electric caps or whatever it was they were doing (foggy now)..
[Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?
If self-oscillation is phonon-driven - and also forms the source gradient - then it's an effective 2LoT violation. Doesn't rule out an EM / ZPE source of course, but Occam would suggest that's redundant.. So, unlike Steorn's ferro-electric caps or whatever it was they were doing (foggy now)..
[Vo]:what do you think of Goodenouh's self charging batterY?
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5132841
[Vo]:what do you think of this
http://pro.moneymappress.com/EADSLR3979/PEADS110/?iris=451746=true
Re: [Vo]:what do you think of this
Do not open! This looks like another spam virus.
[Vo]:What do . . .
BLP and Tesla Motors have in common?
RE: [Vo]:What do . . .
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton BLP and Tesla Motors have in common? Hmmm... I was looking for a Board member in common. Does not seem to be the case. What I found was that three of BLP's prestigious former Board members, including Michael Jordan, former CEO of Westinghouse, seem to have jumped ship... haven't checked to see if their departure was of a more permanent nature, so to speak...
Re: [Vo]:What do . . .
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Hmmm... I was looking for a Board member in common. A Tesla has a great grid leveling device on board. A power source, constant or transient, could make for a autonomous vehicle. Of course, it's a fruity idea, eh?
Re: [Vo]:What do . . .
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Hmmm... I was looking for a Board member in common. A Tesla has a great grid leveling device on board. A power source, constant or transient, could make for a autonomous vehicle. Of course, it's a fruity idea, eh? Don't need no driver, don't need no plugs, jes get in an go.
Re: [Vo]:what do ypu think of this within the latest wave of UFO and the History Channel show
I have a low regard for the History Channel. I have seen documentaries there occasionally. When they are about a subject I know well, even one that is well documented such as the Battle of Midway, I have seen that they are filled with mistakes. They are written by people who know nothing about the subject. The production values are sloppy. In the Midway documentary, the voice-over announcers had no idea how to pronounce Japanese words, and they don't bother asking anyone. They resemble Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia is the source of recent ones, come to think of it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:what do ypu think of this within the latest wave of UFO and the History Channel show
You are once again correct Jed. I looked at the recent wave of UFO's, some look like clouds, some look like reflections off of a window, some are flairs, reentering space junk, or gas off of reentering space junk. The one I linked to appears to be fake as stated in the comments. I saw a UFO many years ago in PA. It was called the Kecksburg Incident. It looked like burring up piece of reentering space junk. I saw another about 15 years ago during a lunar eclipse. It proved to be a reentering booster from a Japan space launch. It gave off gas and looked much bigger than it was. Others have made much more of these incidents. They don''t care that they are wrong. There stories just keep getting bigger. I will watch the History Channel special for the fun of it. NASA recently said the global CO2 may attracted aliens. Perhaps someone knows something that I don't. One thing I have noted about UFO sightings is that they are firmly rooted in the technology past. All of the craft have a pilot as would a WW2 plane. Our most advanced probes are robotic. We are now planning for carrier launched robot planes. The little UFO craft with creatures controlling it is firmly rooted in the technology of the past. Organic creatures, if they ever go intersteller, are going one way to a place fully explored by robots. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2011 9:10 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:what do ypu think of this within the latest wave of UFO and the History Channel show I have a low regard for the History Channel. I have seen documentaries there occasionally. When they are about a subject I know well, even one that is well documented such as the Battle of Midway, I have seen that they are filled with mistakes. They are written by people who know nothing about the subject. The production values are sloppy. In the Midway documentary, the voice-over announcers had no idea how to pronounce Japanese words, and they don't bother asking anyone. They resemble Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia is the source of recent ones, come to think of it. - Jed
[Vo]:What do the Eartchtech CR-39 results show?
What they demonstrate, IMHO, is that the SPAWAR pits occur: 1/ when the deposit is dendritic, not when it is spongy, and 2/ when the CR-39 chip is in direct contact with the cathode wire, not when a 6 micron mylar is interposed Result 2/ does NOT prove conclusively IMHO that any alpha particles produced are less energetic than the ~1MeV needed to go through 6µm of mylar as they suggest, another possibility that occurs to me is that the material in direct contact with the cathode wire matters, i.e. that CR-39 induces a nuclear effect and mylar doesn't. Has this possibility been considered? Michel 2009/10/27 Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com ... http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html I don't know if he has read them but I pointed Abd to the Earthtech results too, very early on. Not because they disprove the nuclear origin of the SPAWAR pits, which they don't ...
Re: [Vo]:What do the Eartchtech CR-39 results show?
On Oct 27, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: What they demonstrate, IMHO, is that the SPAWAR pits occur: 1/ when the deposit is dendritic, not when it is spongy, and Which, in view of large etching effects from minor scratching, places into serious question any results in the presences of dendritic growth adjacent to the CR39. 2/ when the CR-39 chip is in direct contact with the cathode wire, not when a 6 micron mylar is interposed Both the large and small SPAWAR pits (possibly due to alphas and protons) *do* (in other SPAWAR experiments) occur when 6 micron mylar is present, just not in the same quantities or proportions, and obviously not using the same protocol. Result 2/ does NOT prove conclusively IMHO that any alpha particles produced are less energetic than the ~1MeV needed to go through 6µm of mylar as they suggest, Their conclusion is: Our results do not provide a positive identification of the origin of SPAWAR pits. However, they do show that chemical origin is a distinct possibility and therefore that nuclear origin is not a certainty. The accelerated etching rate observed for CR-39 that has soaked in TGP electrolyte for several weeks proves that there is a chemical interaction. The observation that SPAWAR pits are visible before etching shows that they are unlike the tracks made by ionizing particles. The observation that SPAWAR pits are stopped by a 6 micron Mylar film is consistent with a chemical origin but only proves that they cannot be due to nuclear particles which would penetrate such a barrier (e.g. alpha particles of energy 1 MeV). The rest of our observations, such as the invariance of the result when the electrolyte is changed from heavy water to light water, are less conclusive but are still consistent with chemical origin of SPAWAR pits. It has been suggested that SPAWAR pits are a mixture of chemical and nuclear pits. This is a difficult hypothesis to evaluate. Frankly, the idea of trying to identify pits which look nuclear is not very appealing from an objectivity standpoint. This conclusion is clearly valid for the *Earthtech experiment*, and possibly for the Galileo protocol, but obviously not valid for the range of all such experiments, since there is a wide range of results depending on conditions. It would have of course been better if the conclusions were more highly qualified, especially in view of later results, but it doesn't take a lot of interpretation to understand them. What the Earthech results do show beyond any reasonable doubt is is the Galileo protocol is highly flawed and the results are far from convincing. They also show it is nonsensical to expose the CR-39 to the electrolyte, because the results are then not reliable. As I'm sure you know, determination of the nature of particles from CR-39 tracks is a difficult, and one that can depend on computer simulations of track shapes over different etching periods. It depends on a reliable etching rate, and knowing etching rates as a function of temperature. another possibility that occurs to me is that the material in direct contact with the cathode wire matters, i.e. that CR-39 induces a nuclear effect and mylar doesn't. Has this possibility been considered? Michel Could be examined by placing a 6 mil mylar cover over the mylar chip for a control. It would indeed be strange if a difference were found, because they are both composed of only H, C, and O. Mylar is PET (C10H8O4). See http://tinyurl.com/yp6ld5 for chemical structure of CR-39. The primary effect would be one due to density I would think, and thus possibly related to neutron moderation or thermalization, knock on proton creation, carbon reactions, etc. 2009/10/27 Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com ... http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html I don't know if he has read them but I pointed Abd to the Earthtech results too, very early on. Not because they disprove the nuclear origin of the SPAWAR pits, which they don't ... I don't think anyone said the Earthtech results disprove the nuclear origin of the SPAWAR pits. This is a strawman argument. What they did prove is that placing CR39 in the electrolyte dramatically changes the etching rate, and thus presumably the track making characteristics, with depth, and the effect by depth varies with time of exposure. They also demonstrated chemically produced tracks. Here are some prior comments that relate to some of the above discussion: On Jun 18, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: It may be possible to gain some discriminatory information of particle type by depositing very thin layers of materials on a CR-39 detector, and then removing them prior to NaOH etching. This would tell something about the ballistic collision cross section of the particles with the thin layer chosen, and, if recoil interaction with the layer is
Re: [Vo]:What do the Eartchtech CR-39 results show?
At 07:19 AM 10/27/2009, Michel Jullian wrote: What they demonstrate, IMHO, is that the SPAWAR pits occur: 1/ when the deposit is dendritic, not when it is spongy, and 2/ when the CR-39 chip is in direct contact with the cathode wire, not when a 6 micron mylar is interposed Result 2/ does NOT prove conclusively IMHO that any alpha particles produced are less energetic than the ~1MeV needed to go through 6µm of mylar as they suggest, another possibility that occurs to me is that the material in direct contact with the cathode wire matters, i.e. that CR-39 induces a nuclear effect and mylar doesn't. Has this possibility been considered? While that seems possible, there is a simpler explanation of the Earthtech results. Perhaps because I overlooked these result in my reading, I think I may have noticed the page early on but didn't have enough background to understand the issues, but I did read that today, don't quite know why I missed Horace's mention of it before, but sometimes I don't have time to follow up on something and then it joins the rest of the mountain of stuff that I'd like to do but probably never will. Unless someone brings it up again. Please, folks, if it seems like I should read something so that I stop sticking my foot so clearly into my mouth, let me know! If I've answered with an answer that shows I read it with some reasonable level of understanding, fine. However, it never hurts to have some redundant communication, I will never blame someone for patiently trying to get something through my thick skull. Even if they are wrong, in my opinion. A for effort! Now, as to the simpler explanation. They did not follow the protocol exactly, or if they did, it's a different protocol, which is a bit irritating, for sure, if that's true. The Galileo project was semi-confidential, the protocol originally was not revealed openly, one had to sign a release in case the thing took out the family home or you ended up with hot NaOH in your face, a distinctly unpleasant possibility. No, I don't have a chem-shower, as they recommend, at home, but, strangely enough, there is one in the warehouse for my wife's business that I've taken over, it used to be a microbiology lab. But that's ten minutes drive from my home, and I'll be spending very little time over a hot stove etching chips, I believe, so I can take lesser measures. For whatever reason, they didn't get the nuclear effect, at all. Instead, they got a strong chemical damage effect on the chips. The pits that they report as SPAWAR pits aren't. They are chemical damage plus background radiation -- these were 4-year-old chips. I don't blame them. Early available SPAWAR results showed hamburger and rather breathlessly considered it radiation damage. Maybe it was, by the way, there are still some differences visible. Obviously, though, chemical damage must be considered, from their results. These may actually be nice control experiments, it would be great if the critical variable were identified. Here is another clue: they reported no results with mylar covering the chips, SPAWAR reported reduced results. Reduced results is consistent with alpha radiation, no results is not -- unless the radiation is below a certain energy. Note that most alpha radiation reaching the CR-39 from the cathode will come in at high incidence. If it were lower incidence, it would have a longer path to the surface, and would be less likely to have sufficient energy left to be detected. That would not be true if the CR-39 is very close to the wire, but if that area is subject to the hamburger effect, an elliptical track won't be visible. The real key is the radiation on the back, but, unfortunately, they were using a silver cathode, which apparently has the worst back-side results, perhaps even zero. Why, unknown. But for a gold electrode, SPAWAR reports copious back-side tracks, no hamburger, and only behind the gold electrode, less behind the platinum, and practically none behind the silver. Obviously not background radiation, hard to conceive of that selectivity being chemical damage. I'm also worried that they had damage to the cell, I don't like that at all, because it indicates interaction between the electrolyte and the cell material. Did they use the exact boxes specified by Galileo, or did they think that something else they had already purchased would be good enough. Even if it was acrylic, not all acrylic may be the same. And why did they use half the amount of PdCl2 that the protocol specified?
