Re: [Vo]:Re:T. Barnard - ichaphysics.com
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:22:57 -0900: Hi, The message quoted below was not the message to which I was referring. This message had as subject "Re: Fw: The myth of lattice coupling and He ratios", while the message I was referring to had as subject "Another possible helium producing mechanism". However, in that post, I only proposed a mechanism, and didn't explain why the alphas might not be easily detected. I hope to have given some explanation for this in my other posting this morning. > >On Feb 20, 2008, at 6:19 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> See my message to vortex-l posted 28 Mar. 2004 in Bill's archive at >> http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrg/vort403.zip > > > >As far as I can tell you do not provide any reason whatever below >that the 12 MeV alphas predicted by the subject theory as the >principal reaction path to *not* be a major problem with the theory. >On the contrary, this is basically just a repetition or variation of >the Chubb theory, which in effect says you do *not* obtain high >energy (MeV order) alphas because of lattice coupling distributing >the energy. > >Quote follows: >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Mar 28 15:18:11 2004 >Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1]) > by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2SNI6th030135; > Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:18:07 -0800 >Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i2SNI4aX030118; > Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:18:04 -0800 >Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:18:04 -0800 >X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f >From: Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: Fw: The myth of lattice coupling and He ratios >Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:18:00 +1000 >Organization: Improving >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by >ultra5.eskimo.com id i2SNI0th030065 >Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/53785 >X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com >List-Post: <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >subject=unsubscribe> >Precedence: list >Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Status: O >X-Status: > >In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:16:03 -0800: >Hi, >[snip] > >In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:16:03 -0800: >Hi, >[snip] > >Why penalize good experimental results with a lame theory? The only >unambiguous characteristic of fusion reactions is gamma radiation. >Period. > >Yesterday I posted a theoretical mechanism[1] which would result in >energetic alphas (and perhaps energetic electrons) rather than gamma >rays. >1. See thread "Another possible helium producing mechanism"] > > > > >If you have no gammas and want to invoke phonon or lattice >coupling, then first set up an experiment where you can show that >nuclear lattice coupling is high probability and happens most of the >time in similar situations. > > > >Unfortunately, the relevant and obvious experiment has been >performed and it is null. When one loads tritium into a Pd lattice, >the decay gammas are still measurable and correlate well with what >theory says they should be - how could this be true if Pd somehow >promotes nuclear lattice coupling? Conclusion: nuclear lattice >coupling is a myth. > >It could easily happen, if only a small percentage of the decays >couple to the lattice, while the rest are normal, in which case, one >would be measuring the normal component. >Furthermore, the question needs to be asked, whether or not the "CF >effect" occurred at all in the above experiment? If not, then it is >just one of the many null experiments, and hence contributes nothing >to our overall knowledge. >In order for a change in T decay to be useful, one would need to >determine whether or not there was a decrease in gammas from T decay >while excess heat production / transmutation was in progress. >Even this may
Re: [Vo]:A palladium, heavy water, radio frequency experiment was conducted
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:34:05 EST: Hi Frank, [snip] >The intent of the experiment was to form a Bose condensate of deuterons by >increasing the strength of the phonons that bind the condensate. I believe >that my 1.094 megahertz-meter relationship describes the frequency of the >binding phonons. [snip] If your intent is to increase the strength of the phonons, why not use sound for the stimulation, i.e. attach an ultra-sound generator to the wire, and stimulate it at the desired frequency? It may be easier to tailor the length of the wire to the frequency of the generator than the other way around. (start with wire that is a little too long, then you can slowly reduce it to the correct size - perhaps even using an adjustable clamp to change the natural frequency - as with a violin or guitar). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Parksie gets it wrong yet again
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:48:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I haven't been following the list lately (bad Steve) so maybe someone >(Jones?) has already covered this, but the question of *WHY* the U.S. >chose to shoot down that satellite is an interesting one. > > From an "impressive PR" point of view it seems dumb -- the U.S. has had >demonstrated ASAT capabilities for, what, a couple decades, so how will >this impress anyone? (Remember that satellite they knocked down with a >missile fired from an F-15, back around 1986 or so? As I recall it I don't recall that, and I doubt many others do either. OTOH the Chinese shooting down a satellite is still fairly fresh in everyone's mind, so from a PR standpoint it does make sense IMO. Furthermore, their inability to hit the side of barn has been pretty well publicized, so they may have seen it as necessary to prove that they could actually do it. However, what I wonder is, what proof is there that they actually succeeded, apart from their word that they did? [snip] >One theory I've run across is that it wasn't a spy satellite at all, and >it actually contained something a lot more dangerous than hydrazine. 10 >kilograms of plutonium, say, for example. If *THAT* reentered in a >single chunk it might cause major trouble -- but if it could be blasted >to bits at the edge of the atmosphere, it would be dispersed over a >large enough area that nobody would notice (and nobody would get hurt). [snip] > >So then, the question is, why would the military have launched an atomic >bomb into space? We've got lots of them on the ground already, complete >with very effective delivery systems. One possibility is that they >wanted to "stage" an attack on their own forces, as part of the move to >keep the ongoing "war on terror" going on. When a missile is launched from the ground, orbiting satellites pick it up, and provide about 20 min. warning. However if the weapon is already orbiting in space, then there is nothing to alert the spy satellites, and it can be dropped just about anywhere without providing any warning. That's why they would want to have one in space. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:A palladium, heavy water, radio frequency experiment was conducted
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:34:12 EST: Hi Frank, [snip] >Bose Condensate? , AFAIK, they form just above absolute zero. Why were you >expecting one to form? > >Good comment. A Bose condensate of electrons only forms at low >temperatures. I was attempting to form a Bose condensate of protons (also >known as an >inverse condensate). The thermal velocity of protons is much less that the >thermal velocity of electrons at room temperature. This lower velocity is a >result of the increased mass of the protons. The distribution of the kinetic >energy of particles with differing masses is the same. I even tried helium >in >a past experiments in an attempt to obtain an even lower thermal velocity. I >believe that protons in a proton conductor may be forced to condense through >external stimulation. The required stimulation depends on the coherence >length. The product of the length of coherence and frequency is 1.094 >meghertz-meters. Assuming your coherence length is at least proportional to the De Broglie wavelength (L_DB) and L_DB = h/p and p = sqrt(2*m*E) where E = kinetic energy, we get L_DB = h/(sqrt(2*m*E)) . Since, as you state above, the energy is "the same" irrespective of type of particle, we see that L_DB is in fact shorter for heavy particles than it is for light ones (the mass is in the denominator). IOW I would expect the coherence length of electrons to be sqrt(1836) ~= 43 times greater than that of protons. IOW I think your quest for heavier particles may be misguided. >If your intent is to increase the strength of the phonons, why not use sound >for >the stimulation, i.e. attach an ultra-sound generator to the wire, and >stimulate >it at the desired frequency? It may be easier to tailor the length of the >wire >to the frequency of the generator than the other way around. (start with wire >that is a little too long, then you can slowly reduce it to the correct size >- >perhaps even using an adjustable clamp to change the natural frequency - as >with >a violin or guitar). > >Another good comment: > >I like this idea. In general, applying shock to a Bose condensate of >protons is what I want to do. The required frequencies for the lengths of >wire I >am working with are in the 10 megahertz range. I have no way to mechanically >stimulate a proton conductor at 10 megahertz. Piezo-electric crystals have been used in the past, to achieve sonic frequencies in a solid on the order of 10 GHz (in the most extreme case of which I am aware), so I think 10 MHz should be well within the realm of possibility. >I would like to do this. It >would take one tight guitar string. In my previous post I suggested that the natural resonant frequency was significant, which isn't necessarily so. It would be difficult to achieve, since this is determined by the speed of sound in the material in question, whereas the frequency you are striving for is determined by your 1 MHz-m product, which as I have pointed out before, is actually a velocity (about 1E6 m/s). The speed of sound in most metals is on the order of 4000 m/s, so there is an implicit mismatch here. If you really want to resonate the wire at a natural resonant frequency of the wire, then perhaps you can find a metal-temperature combination where 1E6 m/s is a whole multiple of the speed of sound in the metal. This may be a matter of slowly heating the wire (passing a current through it?), until the right sound velocity in the wire is reached. (Assuming that there is some temperature dependence of sound velocity in a metal.) [snip] BTW, while researching this response, I came across a reference to the "Fermi velocity of electrons" (see http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/FermiVelocity.html), which I note is very close to your 1 MHz-m product. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:A palladium, heavy water, radio frequency experiment was conducted
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:16:41 EST: Hi Frank, [snip] >Assuming your coherence length is at least proportional to the De Broglie >wavelength (L_DB) and > >L_DB = h/p and > >p = sqrt(2*m*E) where E = kinetic energy, we get > >L_DB = h/(sqrt(2*m*E)) . > >Since, as you state above, the energy is "the same" irrespective of type of >particle, we see that L_DB is in fact shorter for heavy particles than it is >for >light ones (the mass is in the denominator). IOW I would expect the coherence >length of electrons to be sqrt(1836) ~= 43 times greater than that of >protons. > >IOW I think your quest for heavier particles may be misguided. > > >I believe that you are way off using the deBroglie wavelength as the >coherence length. >In superconductors the state of the electron can equal the length of the >superconductor. Do you have a reference for this? All those, that I could find, mentioned the coherence length in superconductors as exceeding the distance between the electrons in a pair (not difficult). >This is much longer than the deBroglie waveleigth. The De Broglie wavelength at 4 K is about 66 nm, which seems about right, if the inter electron pair distance is to be less than this. >I believe that the coherence length is equal to the downshifted Compton >wavelength. Do you have a formula for this, and how does it differ from the definition of the De Broglie wavelength? BTW, did you notice the "Fermi velocity"? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Interesting stuff in Future Energy eNews
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:07:31 -0500: Hi, [snip] >See Tom Valone's latest newsletter: > >http://users.erols.com/iri/EnewsFeb25,2008.htm > >Headlines: > >1) Pentagon Space-Based Solar Power - Leading future energy solution >for only $10 billion Quote: "Space-based solar power may become an important energy source as fossil-fuel supplies dwindle in midcentury: A single 1-kilometer-wide solar array could collect enough power in a year to rival the entire worlds oil reserves." This is wrong. It would in fact only produce enough to cover the oil usage of the US alone for about a day. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:GM VP reveals his true feelings
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:00:47 -0500: Hi, [snip] >OrionWorks wrote: > >>Mr. Lutz appears to say in his blog that GM is going full steam >>ahead in their work on environmental issues like E85, hybrids, >>hydrogen and fuel cells, the electrification of the car (the >>Chevrolet Volt), which hopefully will be out on showrooms in a >>couple of years. ...all because it's the "...right thing to do." >> >>If so, I wouldn't put much stock in his personal opinions, like >>global warming being a crock of kaka. > >The problem is, that is a contradictory set of opinions, and his >statements are unconvincing. If global warming is not real, then the >only reason anyone would work on things like fuel cells and electric >cars would be for the PR value. He also mentioned energy independence, which for many in the US is more important than global warming, particularly in GOP circles. >As far as I can tell that is in fact >the only reason GM is spending any money on these things: it is all a >public relations stunt, and they have no intention of manufacturing >anything. Ten years after Toyota introduced the Prius, GM does not >sell a single hybrid car as far as I know. They can't be serious. >They are NOT going full steam ahead! That's absurd. > >The thing is, apart from global warming there is no perilous >environmental threat from cars. Air pollution, which I think we would all rather do without. > The amount of pollution they cause in >the first world is declining. But not by much. >Of course oil is running out, but this >will happen gradually. ...yes, but as it does so, the price of gas will rise rapidly, because while supply is decreasing, demand will increase, so that the difference between the two grows even faster. >If oil did not cause global warming and >terrorism there would be no reason to transition away from it >abruptly. It would make sense to make the transition gradual, over 30 >to 50 years. We might as well use it up as long as it remains >reasonably cheap. That is just what the oil companies and GM want us >to do. They would only want us to do that if they themselves did not >believe oil, coal and other fossil fuel is causing catastrophic and >irreversible climate change. They want us to do that because the oil still in the ground is worth far more than the oil already extracted (precisely because the price of a barrel is going up). They know that it's running out, and don't really care. They're making hay while the sun shines. >Lutz says he does not believe that and >I take him at his word. That explains his decisions and actions. I agree. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Interesting stuff in Future Energy eNews
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:13:43 +0100:
Hi,
>You guys all missed one tiny detail: in that article they (misleadingly)
>specify the width ("1-kilometer-wide" but not the _length_ of the array :) The
>hypothetical array would be quite long in fact as it would form a continuous
>band at geostationary orbit (cf the actual study group report further down the
>page), which seems a little overambitious if that calculation is not just
>meant to strike imagination.
>
>Michel
[snip]
That does indeed work out to about half a trillion boe over a 1 year period
(thermal only). However the thermal power is 1E14 W, resulting in about 1E13 W
electric if one assumes 10% conversion efficiency. Even if the cost is only $1 /
watt electric, the cost of the whole is still a 10 trillion, not ten billion.
Actually, since it is wrapped around in a circle, the real cost would be Pi
times that, so nearer 30 trillion.
Not to mention, where is one going to get all the mass from - Earth? Unlikely.
Mining the Moon or the asteroids might be cheaper.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:GM VP reveals his true feelings
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:53:36 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Two problems: > >1) Dealer automobile service centers are also independent profit >centers. Electric cars need brake shoes ...in fact less of these too, because of regenerative braking. >and tires. . . that's about >it. > >2) The entire highway structure is maintained (financed) on state and >federal gasoline taxes. No gas . . . no taxes. ...no problem. Simply increase income tax to compensate. It won't make any difference to the people, they pay the same amount either way. > >Recently, Georgia proposed maintaining highways with a sales tax. >Interesting. That would work too. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:A palladium, heavy water, radio frequency experiment was conducted
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:39:41 EST: Hi Frank, [snip] >>BTW, did you notice the "Fermi velocity"? [snip] >The Fermi velocities are quite high. I was struck by how close the Fermi velocity is to your MHz-m, and wondered if there might be a connection? [snip] >I not sure of the >velocity distribution in a superconductive band. > >As far as the coherience lenght goes, there are may ways of looking at this. > We can look at the individual >pairs of electrons, as you do. I tend to look at the entire condensed >state. In this state the electrons are >Indistinguishable. They are part of the whole collective state. It the >ground frequency of this collective state is what I am interested in. I suspect that the velocities will be different depending on your point of view. If one looks at individual electrons, then one is looking at the speed of that electron, however when looking at the collective state, one is perhaps looking at the speed of signal transmission within the collective. > >I would also like to know the velocity distribution of the protons in a >proton conductor. I believe that they travel at low thermal velocities. >These >could also act as a plasma with the velocity proportionate to >The density of the state. There is another velocity possible in these systems too, and that is the average velocity when tunneling is the means of transport, or is this the signal velocity? > >The velocity of the state should not affect the strength of the phonons that >bind the state. This binding >force is not a function of the deBroglie wavelength. It is a function of >spin pairing. I'm not sure of all of the parameters involved with spin >pairing. > Cooling lowers the momentum MV of the electrons. I think some of the confusion arises from a lack of clarity in exactly what is cohering. [snip] >I need to know much more about these things. [snip] Me too. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Toroidal inductors
Hi, If one has two separate toroidally wound inductors, and one passes a DC current through each coil, do they experience any force from one another, particularly when sharing a common major axis? I'm interested in both theoretical and experimental responses. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: "Tooo" obvious for Detroit?
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Sat, 8 Mar 2008 11:58:06 -0600: Hi, [snip] >Yep, Philip, > > >We have unit 3 & 4 nuke plant starting construction soon at Bay City Texas.. >part of the South Texas project. They are having their share of the problems >using a Jap design .. plus the environmental problems to overcome. > >The problem with Nukes are... >They can operate some 40-50 years and reach a point when the metal >crystallizes and become unsafe. There can be no repairs because nobody can >work to make piping and equipment replacements under such high radiation >conditions so >They encase the whole plant in a concrete coffin like Chernobyl for 250,000 >years.. > > That fact never gets mentioned > >Richard you'd think they would start off building the thing underground so that burying it would be a simple matter....or better yet build it in Yucca mountain. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 7 Mar 2008 23:48:10 -0900: Thanks Horace, [snip] >If both tori have an >odd number of winding layers, or even if multiple winding layers are >used but all or most proceed in the same major axis direction, or >some combination of the above resulting in a net major axis current >hoop, then they both carry a significant external magnetic field >equivalent to hoop coils about their major axes. A pair of tori with >such equivalent hoop coils will exhibit significant mutual forces and/ >or torques depending on location and orientation. Note that such >forces can be larger than just the force between the major axis hoop >currents, because flux from one hoop coil can enter the "cake of the >doughnut" volume of the adjacent torus, and thus interact with the >flux there (or be viewed as interacting with the small radius >windings) to produce much larger forces than might otherwise be >anticipated. This also means unexpected force interactions can arise >between a major axis hoop current carrying torus and a torus not >having such a hoop equivalent current, including a permanent magnet >torus in which all flux is internal. Flux repels (or attracts) >parallel flux via magnetic pressure. This is along the lines of what I am trying to get at, though I was thinking more of interactions between the individual minor axis loops of one torus with individual minor axis loops of the other (however I could easily be wrong about that). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:52:54 +1100: Hi, BTW, both tori would only have a single layer. [snip] >This is along the lines of what I am trying to get at, though I was thinking >more of interactions between the individual minor axis loops of one torus with >individual minor axis loops of the other (however I could easily be wrong about >that). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:15:02 -0900: Hi Horace, [snip] >Since you are talking about single layer tori, they >both have major axis hoop currents, and thus the confined fields of >both tori are shared with, overlap, the hoop fields of the opposed >tori, and thus there is a much stronger interaction than one would >obtain from the major hoop currents alone. I hope this is making >sense and is not just a lot of word salad. [snip] It makes sense to me, though if the major axis is common to both tori, then the extending field of the "first" torus would be largely perpendicular to the enclosed field of the other torus. In such a situation, would you still expect a strong interaction, and could you quantify it? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: "Tooo" obvious for Detroit?
In reply to Lawrence de Bivort's message of Sun, 9 Mar 2008 08:52:34 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Partly it is a matter of Reverting to the Mean, and partly a matter of there >being only so many genuinely brilliant leaders and with size their net >impact is diluted by the inevitable bulk of mediocre people in a large >corporation. > >Partly it is a matter of administrative systems becoming so bulky and >unwieldy that taking action and decision-making are themselves compromised >by bureaucratic values and ponderous processes. There is another very subtle factor which plays a role in large organizations. Management naturally sees it as their role to make choices. A small organization has few people, and consequently few people proffering ideas. This makes it relatively easy for good ideas to be selected and tried (there aren't that many of them). However as an organization grows decisions are frequently shuffled up the hierarchy until they reach top management, which is then in the position of having to "choose" between many ideas, some of which would be good and some not. Furthermore, because the depth of the hierarchy tends to increase with the size of the company, so does the distance between the originator of an idea, and the person ultimately responsible for deciding whether or not to implement it. This hierarchical distance means that the decision makers frequently lack an intimate understanding of the pros and cons of the various ideas. All of which usually leads to a "safe" decision of "business as usual". IOW few new ideas get tried. The solution to this problem, is of course to try *all* new ideas on a small scale, and let each of them succeed or fail on their own merits, then those that succeed can be implemented on a larger scale. This effectively converts a large company into a sort of conglomerate of small departments, each succeeding or failing. Small parts of the organization that fail are immediately "killed off", and those that succeed are further stimulated. In short the hierarchy itself is dynamic rather than static. Killing off a department doesn't necessarily mean that people are fired, just that they are moved into departments that are growing rather than those that are failing. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Gravitophonon maser ?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 9 Mar 2008 08:24:53 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >http://www.borisvolfson.com/GravityTheoryPaper.html Quote: "According to Simhony, a cubic millimeter of vacuum lattice contains 6x1033 electron-positron pairs with a combined binding energy of 27 x 10^15 kW." There are at least two problems here: 1) The density specified implies a cell size of 5.5 fm on a side, which is on the order of the size of an atomic nucleus. It seems improbable to me that individual nucleons would be smaller than the structural elements of the substrate of which they are composed. 2) kW is not a measure of energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Moon bases
Hi, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23346198-30417,00.html quote: "Scientists hope to put a manned station on the moon before the end of the century." Hmmm - giving themselves about 100 years to do it in, now that what I call ambitious! ;^) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Moon bases
In reply to Lawrence de Bivort's message of Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:37:46 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Bah! > >Free-floating space stations and asteroid mining will free us from the >tyranny of gravity and the competition for territory > >Lawrence The competition for territory is not about where to put ones bed, it's about where to put ones farm. That doesn't work so well in space. That particular issue will be resolved when fusion energy supplies enough power to desalinate water allowing for the irrigation of arid and other less productive lands, combined with a stabilization in the growth of the human population. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Moon bases
In reply to Lawrence de Bivort's message of Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:16:05 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Robin, you are talking about planet-based society, right? I was thinking >about space, and how to go there. Free floating space colonies should be >able to grow their own food. All they have to do is park close enough to a >star for photosynthesis and energy, and mine low-gravity asteroids for >materials and those things that can't be fully recycled. > >What do you think? > >Lawrence [snip] I think that there is little point in being in space just for it's own sake. The only real reason to go into space is to go to other planets. If one doesn't have the technology to do that, then there isn't much point. That means first the Moon, then Mars and the rest of the Solar system, then perhaps much later, the stars (however that will require FTL travel, which in turn will probably be preceded by FTL communications, and that in turn may make interstellar travel unnecessary). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:43:54 -0800: Hi Horace, [snip] >It sounds like you are assuming the two tori major axis planes are >parallel as well, both normal to the axis. Correct. >If the radii are small in >comparison to the distance between the tori, and the major axes >planes are parallel and normal to the axis, and there is no high mu >material involved, then the force just boils down to the force >between hoop coils at that distance. If mu1 and mu2 are the hoop >coil magnetic moments, and d the separation between axis centers, >then the force is: > >F = =3*mu0*mu1*mu2/(2*Pi*d^4) > >If there is no magnetic core material, i1 and i1 the currents, r1 and >r2 the major radii, then > >mu1 = pi*i1*(r1)^2 > >mu2 = pi*i2*(r2)^2 > >Torque depends on angle to the axis and is proportional to the 1/d^3 >dipole field strength of the hoop current. > >Again, this all assumes d is large in relation to r1 and r2. As >things get closer they change significantly, and the best way to >handle force and torque calculations is probably finite element >analysis. > >What is your application? What are the dimensions involved? Are you >dealing with actual toroid coils, or merely using them as mental >models for orbitals or other physical realities? How very astute of you. :) I'm looking for an additional force significantly stronger than that between two hoop coils, in order to correct my Helium model. If I haven't made a mistake, then the normal hoop coil force would be orders of magnitude too small, which is why I was initially considering possible interaction forces between individual minor loops. I'm guessing (without yet having made the effort to work it out correctly), that there would be about 1/fine_structure_constant minor loops in each "coil". There is also the consideration that when wire is used in a real coil, there is a positively charged lattice through which the electrons move (i.e. the metal ions in the wire), whereas when considering a single electron as a coil, there is no such lattice, so perhaps our laws of magnetism (which were derived from real wires), don't apply in exactly the same way. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Moon bases
In reply to OrionWorks's message of Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:10:40 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Robin sez: > >... > >> I think that there is little point in being in space just for it's own sake. >> The >> only real reason to go into space is to go to other planets. If one doesn't >> have >> the technology to do that, then there isn't much point. > >... > >I've run across this opinion many times in my life. When I was a tad >younger the opinion used to incense me to no end. [snip] I think we have different definitions of space. You mean everything outside the Earth. I mean literally the space between things. IMO there is plenty of reason to got out into your space - those reasons are called stars and planets. That's also where I would like to go (curiosity). What I meant was that if you really look at your own motivations, I think that's also the only reason you would want to go. Ask your self this question: "If space were totally devoid of anything else other than the Earth and the Sun, would I still want to go?" Well maybe some would, to get a better look at the Sun, but I doubt many would want to live there. IOW I see living in space itself (rather than on a planet or moon) more as a possible necessity than as something desirable...and I think that necessity will eventually be avoidable, though perhaps not in the near future. It depends on just how fast those black ops UFOs are. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toroidal inductors
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:56:09 -0800: Hi Horace, [snip] >Well then you will be happy to consider that indeed the laws of >magnetism, even though unchanged, don't apply in the same way, can >involve orders of magnitude differences, because the current velocity >is relativistic. This is an interesting point. The current through individual loops would indeed appear to be not just relativistic, but exactly at light speed, while the current through the "hoop" is only at the speed of the electron, e.g. alpha x c, which is not relativistic (this term is actually a bit vague because in reality any motion at all is relativistic, though for slow motion this is already taken into account in the normal laws of mechanics). The implications of having a current traveling at light speed is a bit beyond me for the moment. >Also, I think there is necessarily torque involved >because the angle of the torus to the axis is statistical in nature, >and since torque is involved, precession is involved, so the motion >is complicated, more orbitsphere like. In the model I am looking at, the relative relationship of the rings to one another is constant, though their common axis can rotate freely in space. (They are tightly locked together). I think this may simply things to some extent, if they are examined in the frame of the "hoops". > >At high velocities the de Broglie wavelength changes (keep in mind >that the particles involved, when interacting, have de Broglie >wavelengths from their partner's reference frames that differ from >their lab frame de Broglie wavelengths), permitting a large d/r ratio >to remain even as d shrinks to a small value due to increased >magnetic effects. Actually, the magnetic effect would need to increase the distance between the rings rather then reduce it as the actual first ionization energy of Helium is less than that predicted by a model with no magnetic force. >The force, energy, and mass of the particles >changes dramatically with shrinking de Broglie wavelength due to the >1/d^4 nature of the magnetic force. The electrostatic field from two >opposed charge particles essentially has infinite energy available >provided the distance between them can approach zero. The only thing >that limits this distance, or at least duration of this kind of >interaction at a given distance, and thus bonding energy >availability, is uncertainty of position. In this model, the electrons are each attracted by the nucleus, but repelled by one another. This push-pull combination locks them into a rigid structure, which however is free to rotate in its entirety. Without a magnetic force between the electrons it predicts a first ionization energy for Helium of 27.2 eV. (Also assuming no contribution by the rotational energy of the structure as a whole). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Move Over FSM
In reply to OrionWorks's message of Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:16:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] > >Have faith in Gogle, and all will be retrieved. Have faith in Gargoyle? ;^) > >Regards >Steven Vincent Johnson >www.OrionWorks.com >www.zazzle.com/orionworks Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Kanzius - Roy publication
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:48:13 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >This radiation can even be made semi-coherent by using some forms of carbon >(graphite) as the sink (target) since forms of graphite (despite its blackness >;-) is not a blackbody radiator, and emits mostly in a single preferred >spectrum. [snip] This made me think of something else: Preferential absorbers have been made that have a fairly sharp transition point, e.g. above which they radiate/absorb strongly, and below which they radiate/absorb only very weakly. Now suppose one also had a substance in which the absorption profile was reversed. Two thin layers, one of each would overlap in a sharp peak. Just what you are looking for, although even at a single frequency the radiation still wouldn't be coherent (i.e. all in phase). For that you need a resonant structure that superimposes a phase relationship on the emissions. (Akin to electron bunching in a magnetron). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar efficiency 9-10%, installed cost $3/W
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:29:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Michel Jullian wrote: > >>9 to 10% efficiency for Nanosolar's current production (they target >>15% ultimately). Installed cost of 1MW German plant panels $3/W. > >If they really can achieve $3/W, perhaps despite the problems >described by Jones Beene, than this would be a remarkable >breakthrough. This is $3000 / kW which is cheaper than wind >turbines, nuclear or hydroelectricity. I think only gas and coal have >cheaper installation costs, and of course they require fuel over the >life of the plant. [snip] Note that like wind turbines, installed capacity doesn't mean that it's available 24 hours a day (whereas for e.g. coal that is (almost) the case). You have to divide by 2 to get real maximum capacity, and this assumes both that the array tracks the Sun, and that there are never any clouds. Actually it's a little more than 2, because the atmosphere is thicker at dawn and dusk, which filters out more light. If it doesn't track the Sun, then you have to divide by Pi (approx.) in the tropics, or by 4 if you average over the whole surface of the planet. This is what the manufacturers are not advertising. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Capital and operating costs for different generator types
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:15:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Coal: > >Capital cost: $1,200 / kW >Capacity factor: 95% >Fuel cost: 2.14 cents per kWh >Health costs: ~5.36 cents per kWh >Total cost including maintenance etc.: 10.29 cents per kWh > >Gas: > >Capital cost: $700 / kW >Capacity factor: 95% >Fuel cost: 4.90 cents per kWh >Health costs: ~2 cents per kWh >Total cost including maintenance etc.: 8.09 cents per kWh I suspect that neither of these take the eventual costs associated with global warming into account. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Why Nam?? was]:Goofy photo of Clarke
In reply to OrionWorks's message of Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:42:54 -0500: Hi, [snip] >> The one thing which stands out as an anomaly is the disproportionately >> large number of hits from Viet Nam. >> >> More than from the UK, Canada, and others - >> >> Yet - there is not much reported R&D coming from there. What gives? > >Perhaps CF had been mistaken as a new form of cheap air conditioning >technology. > >...it's a stretch. ;-) More likely Vietnam is the source of a hacking attempt. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [VO]: Call for new Ozone process
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:12:44 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Howdy Vorts, >As some are aware, one of our companies build water treating and wastewater >disinfection chem feed inductors. We have depended on our industry to produce >the remainder of the systems including the chemicals for this purpose. We are >not chemists or physicists. We need systems that can produce quantities of "in >situ"ozone gas at a lower cost and safer methods. >There are new "exotics" entering the nation's water supply that we believe can >be destroyed via ozone treatment but the existing processes for making ozone >are both expensive and troubling. [snip] I'm not sure how efficient it would be, but I would consider a two stage process. 1) Use pressure swing absorption technology to produce nearly pure O2 from air. 2) Pass an electric arc through the pure O2 to create ozone. The first step (nearly) eliminates the problem of nitrogen oxides, the second step avoids the losses inherent in using UV as an intermediary. However you may have a problem finding electrodes that don't deteriorate too rapidly. If the remaining nitrogen oxides are a problem, then a third, chemical, step may need to be added to remove them. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:[OT]American Power
Hi, This contains some mind boggling numbers: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2008/180308_b_Collapse.htm Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Call for new Ozone process
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:49:58 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >Forgot to add - we also require some extra O2 to be bubbled through the >barrel, otherwise the end product is all steam. Not sure the pressure-swing >device enrichment device is efficient enough for very cheap O2. > >Maybe Robin knows? > Unfortunately I don't, however I'm guessing that the energies involved are small compared to electrolysis, so I would expect it to be cheaper than that, and I suspect that electrolysis would be cheaper than buying bottled oxygen (based on anecdotal reports of Wiseman technology Brown's gas generators). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Environmental space
In reply to Nick Palmer's message of Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:17:33 -: Hi, [snip] >I was trying to find out what people thought of these figures - were they >surprisingly small/big/about what you expected etc? [snip] IMO they are completely meaningless, because they imply that we actually have compete freedom within that space. However that's not how the real world works. We all share the *same* space, and consequently what we do affects everyone else. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Emergency Electric Curtailment event in Texas / more bull from Lutz
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:48:25 -0400: Hi, [snip] >What is fundamentally different is that in the conventional system, the AC >rotating machines are locked in synchronism with the 60 Hz grid, and if any >one falls out of synch, destruction will follow. With wind turbines this >need not happen. [snip] If the national grid were DC iso AC, then synchronization problems would be inherently non-existent. Any form of power source could contribute, with conversion from AC to DC taking place locally on the supply end, and conversion from DC to AC taking place at substations on the receiving end. It would also have the advantage of more efficient long distance transport. Of course, it would no longer provide 60 Hz synchronization of clocks, but this is easily overcome by allowing the substations to use crystal controlled oscillators, synchronized via the Internet. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Emergency Electric Curtailment event in Texas / more bull from Lutz
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:26:32 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Current practice is thanve local feeds down the street at a few kilovolts >with pole transformers every block or so to convert to house uasge. >Curiously, this system uses an earth return on the high voltage side of the >transformer. With a good grounding rod, the earth resistance is about 50 >ohms, I think. Although somwhat lossy, it is cheaper than running more >copper to the transformers. [snip] I didn't suggest replacing this portion of the grid. Just that portion between the generators and the substations. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Environmental space
In reply to Nick Palmer's message of Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:30:59 -: Hi Nick, [snip] >The purpose of my >calculations was simply to blast these people out of their complacency with >simple maths that is easily checkable. [snip] In that case, might I suggest a table of numbers indicating exactly what effect we *are* having on the planet (e.g. measures of pollution) and the consequences thereof, rather than dividing the planet up into hypothetical spaces. Global warming is one such. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Earth Hour...yeah....
In reply to Kyle Mcallister's message of Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:53:36 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >I'm opposed to more taxes on gasoline, >because I know it will not be used to solve the >problem. [snip] The point of the extra taxes isn't to raise money to solve the problem, it's to raise the price so people buy less. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:The Kanzius - Chlorine connection
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:29:02 -0500: Hi, [snip] > Howdy Jones, >In my files under chlorine and salt water anomalies, I keep your posts on >this subject. > For some years we have puzzled over some of the (return for repair) >chlorine gas vacuum induction feeder mixers installed at Los Angeles and >certain other US locations always adjacent to oceans. Some salt water can be >present in the effluent. The units show severe "cavitation pitting" on >certain areas of the high speed rotating member. This member is made of UHMW >ultrahigh molecular weight poly and under NO circumstances should it "pit". >Of interest is that the pitting does not show as a typical cavition type >erosion as seen on centrifugal pump impellers which "rots" the bronze. The >pits on the UHMW appear to be " spike shaped" formed from a hot needle shot >into the plastic. Hmmm >Richard It sounds as if the plastic is acting as a CR-39 replacement energetic particle detector. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:They're back!
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:57:50 -0500: Hi, [snip] > >Aren't alien craft more symmetrical than that? >;-) > >Harry > >On 30/3/2008 11:28 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > >> The dragonfly ufo drones are back in the new along with a leaked 1986 >> research document on reverse engineering: >> >> http://www.ufo-blog.com/ufo-blog/labels/california.html >> If you look closely at the photo, the bottom set of wires (twisted cables), which I'm guessing belong to a cable company, appear to intersect the object rather than crossing it as the other wires do. This implies to me that its a fake. In the video, the statement is made that the symbols match those from the Kecksburg(?) crash. This would of course be no surprise if it were faked, and the symbols taken from the Kecksburg doco. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:The Kanzius - Chlorine connection
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:41:38 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >Richard, > >> OK, when you get through chuckling over it, expand on the thought. Aussies >love to tease Texas boys but behind the comment lies something I haven't >thought of before. > > >Robin can speak for himself- but there is no tease here IMHO. Correct. The smiley was just because I thought it was an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how serious to take myself in this case. [snip > >I think that what he is suggesting is that just like the plastic film in CR-39 >leaves evidence of a nuclear reaction, the same kind of thing could be >happening with HMWPE- in the sense that the reason you see the needle-like >pitting with sea-water and not with manufactured chlorine is that the chlorine >has become photoactivated. When an energetic charged particle rips through solid matter, it ionizes the atoms. If that solid is a good insulator then the electron and ion pairs formed will tend to remain in the solid, because the electrons can't migrate through insulating material to find their way back to ions to neutralize them. That leaves a suspension of ions along the path that the charged particle took. If the substance is normally resistant to ionic chemical attack (as are most plastics), then the suspended ions form a weakness where such an ionic attack can take place. Hence etching the plastic in a strong alkali hollows out the tracks taken by the charged particles. Well, that's my guess as to how it works. > >Actually there are three or four possibilities and perhaps at least three are >required to cause the marking you see: > >1) The chlorine in the sea water must become photoactivated, and a percentage >of it must remain in a metastable state by long exposure to UV light. This >wold imply that the water used is surface sea water and not from the depths > >2) All sea water will contain deuterium, but perhaps the HDO content has been >enriched by natural processes in the particular situation > >3) During processing, on occasion, the QM reaction mentioned in the previous >post occurs, where the deuterium atom tunnels into the k-shell of the >photoactivated chlorine resulting in a neutron stripping reaction. The neutron >is absorbed leading eventually to a beta decay. Beta decays don't leave tracks in CR-39 though, AFAIK, so perhaps my little "yarn" here above is not quite correct. It may also require that individual nuclei get completely knocked out of place - which would require the momentum of a heavy particle (e.g. proton or alpha). > >Alternatively: > >4) Solar hydrinos are created in the sun's corona and if they arrive in the >solar wind, they will likely accumulate in the oceans of earth, and have an >affinity for alkali metal ions. Unlike potassium, sodium is not a catalyst so >it would only attract and not further shrink the hydrino - which is then >poised to react with photoactivated chlorine. There are theoretically lots of nuclear reactions which might have been involved, and many ways in which they might have come about. However I'm a little cautious about this whole approach, because I thought that the tracks in CR-39 were microscopic in size, and get the impression in this case that they are quite large. Now, this may be due to use of a different plastic, different exposure and "etching" times, and different "etching" chemical(s). > >BTW - it would be extremely interesting to remove some of this pitted material >and have it tested with a sensitive GM monitor to see if there is any residual >radiation present. Agreed. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:15:57 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >Wow - this guy Glen Kertz - who has an operating system (pictured) so his >claims are based on actual results - sez he can produce about 100,000 gallons >of algae oil peracre per year, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from >corn; 50 gallons fromsoybeans. That appears to be the highest of the figures >which have been claimed in the various published reports. [snip] I suspect strongly, that the number quoted is a projection based upon his calculations, rather than an actual measurement. In order for it to be an actual measurement the algae would have to be *extremely* efficient at converting sunlight into chemical energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: OT: Numbers and cucumbers
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:05:44 -0700 (PDT): Hi, Whenever the people start to make actual headway, the currency is devalued to the point that they are put back in their place. ;^) Most of the "support" being provided by the Fed. is created out of "whole cloth" if I'm not mistaken. IOW, they just print more money. This is the very definition of inflation if I'm not mistaken. In this case, not only is the populace being made poorer through devaluation of the currency, but the printed money is being handed openly to the wealthy elite responsible for making a fast buck and causing the "problem" in the first place. It's all so very "Ferengi" (one from you, two for me, one from you, two for me...), you almost have to admire the audacity of it. Of course if people really caught on, there would be an old fashioned lynching (...of the scapegoat of course ;). [snip] >Indeed it is ! > >Prior to reading this, I had this kind of vague and >uncomfortable feeling that something "funny" was going >on- but could not put a finger on it. Now I want to >know more! > >I mean there have been so few actual foreclosures >relative tho the "claimed" losses and an actual >foreclosure often results in minimal real losses to >the lender after resale. > >This is truly one of the most suspicious things to >happen lately at high levels - on a par with "WMD"... >and it is indicative of a system that is rotten to the >core... not just a banking system either. Goldman is >almost a second government, no? Look at the musical >chairs arrangement of personnel with Treasury. > >Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >Oops ... My Bad > > >... For the record the insight about the Oil Industry >getting into the Algoil act ... came from Michael >Foster > > >... but we have several openings in "CA" (Cynics >Anonymous) for anyone "who resembles god" ;-) How do you know whether or not someone resembles God? :) > > >I will let one of the resemblers finish that thought... Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Stupid Academic stunt
In reply to Dr Josef Karthauser's message of Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:12:51 +0100: Hi Joe, [snip] >I'm a little out of touch, I've not been reading my vortex mail. What's the >current situation with Randall Mills' work? Is he still in business? > >Joe > You can find his website at www.blacklightpower.com Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Stupid Academic stunt
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:05:57 -0400: Hi, [snip] >MC: My understanding of the Rowan work was that they had $75,000 for a phase >1 project and worked their tails off trying to set up the necessary >experiment, including buying laboratory vacuum gear off of eBay. They were >looking for critical spectral lines in the glare of the lines from hot >hydrogen when they ran out of money. They wanted to measure thrust directly, >but did not have the funds and NASA declined to fund a Phase 2 project. The >useful force can be small for a deep space probe: what counts is very high >velocity gas output applied continually over extended periods, as in an ion >thruster. Standing Bear is rilght, somesthing as energetic as the BLP >reaction *should* be valuable for a deep space thruster, but that particular >experiment did not make the grade. > >When Mills' work becomes more accepted, perhaps this application can be >revisited. > >Mike Carrell [snip] From their report, I got the impression that their results were minimal at best. This doesn't surprise me, as they used neon as the catalyst. They could hardly have made a worse choice, and I told them so. In reply they said that they did this in consultation with BLP. Reading between the lines, I got the impression that Mills had just discovered that neon could work as a catalyst, and was happy to have someone else pay the expense of an experiment to see how well it worked. The ionization energy of Ne+ is 40.962 eV. At the time Mills tried to cobble together an explanation where this matched the total energy lost by H in dropping to the H[n=1/2] (which it does - almost), however that contradicts his own theory where the energy hole has to be a multiple of 27.2 eV. It makes much more sense that neon only works as a catalyst in a three body reaction:- Ne+ + Ne+ + H => Ne++ + Ne++ + H[n=1/4] (2 * 40.962 = 81.924, which is close to the m=3 catalyst value - 81.6 eV). However this reaction is a poor choice for several reasons:- 1) The first ionization energy of Ne is 21.5645 eV, which is higher than that of Hydrogen, so Ne+ is continually being reduced to Ne by the Hydrogen, which makes Ne+ (the catalyst ion) scarce in the plasma. 2) It's a three body reaction, which means that you need two of those scarce Ne+ ions concurrently to make it work. 3) When you do get two Ne+ ions together with an H atom, one of them is more likely to steal an electron from the H atom, than the pair is to trigger shrinkage. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]:Stupid Academic stunt
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Fri, 4 Apr 2008 23:04:45 -0400: Hi, [snip] >MC: As I dig into the new material on the BLP website, it looks as Mills is >finally positioned for commercial development. His 'solid' fuel when heated >releases H and K3+, apprently in mutual proximity. The rt catalysis yields >H(1/4) with a potential of 435 eV instead of 27.2 eV. This gives an energy >surplus to regenerate the catalyst, electrolyze water, and run a steam >turbine. > >Mike Carrell [snip] In that case, the solid fuel is probably KH (Potassium Hydride), as I suggested he try years ago (see below). The reaction is:- KH ===> K + H ===> K+++ + H[n=1/4] (the ionization energy of K to K+++ is 81.686 eV) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: KH From: Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:13:32 +1100 Dear Dr. Mills, Have you considered using potassium hydride as a starting material? It seems to me that if heated in a vacuum to the point where it decomposes, it may decompose into a vapour of potassium and hydrogen atoms, making an ideal fuel/catalyst mix. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk A Future For Humanity see: http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:02:25 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Jones, you are a clever and sophisticated observer and can do better than >that if you want to be objective. The voluminous journal papers and >experimental reports are hardly 'vaporware'. They require study. The new >reactor configuration embodies solutions to vexing problems with the earlier >exploratory lab work. Producing H and catalyst [presumptively K3+] in a K3+ is not a catalyst AFAIK. It is the consequence of the catalytic reaction, the product if you will. Only after it has captured free electrons does it once again become a catalyst. Mills would however mention this product as important, because he sees it as an indication that Hydrino catalysis reactions are taking place. The only reasonable alternative would be the presence of ionizing radiation. This is of course always present to some extent in K due to the decay of K-40. OTOH, such ionizing radiation should also yield a few more highly ionized atoms of K, e.g. K4+, K5+ and their spectral lines should also show up. If these lines are absent, or extremely weak, while those of K3+ are strong, then the catalysis reaction is strongly indicated. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:57:10 -0500: Hi, [snip] >in awhile.. BUT.. 19 years ? I thought Mills started in 1986 - that would mean 22 years, not 19. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Which are the new results at BLP?
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:58:32 -0400: Hi, [snip] >This must be what everyone is talking about. The description of the >power plant is rather nebulous. The section gets off on the wrong >foot with this statement: > >"Atomic hydrogen ordinarily has a stable electronic state that is >much higher in energy than allowed by thermodynamic laws." > >Even if you believe that you can violate the laws of thermodynamics, >you shouldn't say so in the first sentence. Actually, it says that the laws of thermodynamics allow one to go below the "ground state". [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic pressure and magnetic temperature
In reply to David Jonsson's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 00:35:22 +0200: Hi, [snip] >Hi > >Magnetic pressure is a well known concept. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_pressure > >It struck me then that other concepts must be applicable to magnetism too >like temperature. Temperature is really a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles, so a "magnetic temperature" may not have a lot of meaning. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic pressure and magnetic temperature
In reply to David Jonsson's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 08:47:15 +0200: Hi, [snip] >> >Magnetic pressure is a well known concept. >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_pressure >> > >> >It struck me then that other concepts must be applicable to magnetism too >> >like temperature. >> >> Temperature is really a measure of the average kinetic energy of >> particles, so a >> "magnetic temperature" may not have a lot of meaning. >> > >Then magnetic pressure wouldn't either. Pressure is just energy density. While temperature is also a global variable, computing it wouldn't be so easy. E.g. For a gas one can use p*V/(nR) to get T (for a perfect gas). By analogy, one could substitute magnetic pressure for p, and the volume of the magnet for V, but what does one substitute for "n", the number of mole of magnetic atoms in the magnet? (not to mention what value to use for R). This is why a precise definition of magnetic temperature is needed. >I have defined what I mean with >magnetic temperature. Where? >Pressure and temperature exist whenever energy is >distributed on smaller components. Any energy form where the components are >interacting have pressure and temperature (or at least heat) and maybe >something more. Strike kinetic in your definition and replace it with >interchangeable. By the way the kinetic and magnetic energy of an electron >are indistinguishable. ...so "n" hereabove would be the number of mole of electrons contributing to the magnetic field? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:05:14 -0400: Hi, [snip] >In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is mentioned as >a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor of 4, releasing 435 >eV in the process. 435 eV is the potential energy of H[n=1/4], not the energy released during formation. The latter is actually 217.7 - 13.6 = 204.1 eV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
In reply to OrionWorks's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:30:55 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I gather it's always been that confounded regenerative step that has >prevented BLP from coming up with an effective path towards commercial >application. [snip] Not really. Most BLP catalysts are ions that become even further ionized during the BLP reaction. E.g. Ar+ -> Ar++. Since this usually takes place in a plasma, there are plenty of free electrons hanging around that the Ar++ can latch on to, to reform Ar+ (or even Ar). IOW in a plasma the catalyst reforms almost instantaneously. In the case of the solid however I believe they are making a fuss because the solid itself is not actually the catalyst. IOW it only creates the catalyst when heated, and hence special steps need to be taken to reconstitute the solid later. I think what's prevented them before is that so few hydrinos usually form (mostly due to competing reactions), that the energy liberated wasn't enough to pay back the energy investment. (As Mike has already explained). e.g. if you have to create 1000 ions just to get one to undergo the requisite reaction, then your process overall will not be OU, even though it is OU as far as the single H atom involved is concerned. This is the main reason that KH -> K + H should work well. The resultant gas (K + H) has no competing reactions, aside from H + H + H -> H2 + H (a rare three body reaction). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Burning our food for fuel
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:14:13 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Quite some time back someone on this list -- Jed, maybe, or maybe it was >actually several people -- opined that "alternative" biofuels which >require arable land to grow could plausibly be viewed as, at least, >fundamentally stupid, or at worst as a crime against humanity. > >Recently I've noticed an interesting trend: In the context of articles >on inflation and world food supplies, alternative fuels are now coming >up time and again as one of the main causes of rising food prices. Just >as one trivial example, here's an excerpt from today's Wall Street >Journal, which happened to have a story on rising inflation: > >> But the fact that inflation is rising almost everywhere suggests some >> of its causes are global. As crops are sold for alternative-energy >> production, food prices have soared: The price of rice, the staple >> for billions of Asians, is up 147% over the past year. This is not all that surprising. In a world where we only just produce enough food to support the population, even slight reductions in the supply result in a gap between demand and supply, and the price rises until it reduces the demand to the point where it matches supply. This need not be in the same sort of food either, since if one sort is in short supply, people will buy something else, thus producing a shortage therein as well. Hence a shortage in corn can easily result in increasing prices for rice. Furthermore, the percentage increase in cost can be exorbitant at times, particularly if there is a large proportion of the population that has a considerable buffer between their income and what they spend on food. They will basically continue to buy what they want, irrespective of the price hike, thus driving the price way up. The reduction in demand comes from those countries that have no discretionary spending to sacrifice. They just go hungry and die. In short, while we burn food for fuel, and continue to buy food to eat, the third world starves to death. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:44:10 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >The very shallow open-pond is preferable in areas >where there is plenty of water, so that evaporation is >not a problem. If you have every seen a sliding-form >curbing machine in action, then you can realize how >simple and cheap a 3 inch deep pond can be... [snip] If you feed the pond with salt water and cover it with transparent plastic sheet, then inflate it with a slight overpressure, you have a simple but very cheap solar fresh water generator too. The water vapor condenses on the plastic sheet, and runs down the inside surface where it is collected in guttering. Two birds with one stone. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:44:10 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >"fed" with the cheapest possible carbon source, which >is NOT going to be airborne CO2, unfortunately, but >could be powdered lignite, or other subgrade of >coal+minerals ($30 ton + shipping) You have just found another way of mining fossil fuels. You might be better off burning the lignite first, then feeding the CO2 to the algae. BTW they need the carbon to be in the form of CO2. Solids are useless to them. Besides, if they don't take the CO2 from the air, then the whole is no longer carbon neutral, and consequently useless as a means of mitigating global warming. > >The limiting variable for algoil will always be free >carbon, and CO2 from air is too diffuse to be the only >source, plus it raises water acidity too high. Acidity shouldn't be a problem, because by converting the CO2 into algoil, the algae lower the CO2 concentration, and hence the acidity. BTW, as you have previously pointed out, they do better when fed with *additional* CO2, which proves that acidity is not a problem. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:08:33 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >--- Nick Palmer wrote: > >> getting the CO2 from existing coal/oil/gas fired >plants would be FAR better... > >I agree 100%. The situation is not either/or. > >CO2 should definitely be removed from the exhaust of >all existing fossil fired plants, and fed to algae- >there is no question about that. > >However, that will not be enough to end the US >dependence on Middle Eastern Oil. [snip] If I'm not mistaken (and I could well be), then the US actually consumes more fossil fuel to generate electricity than it does for transportation, so capturing all the CO2 from fossil power plants and converting it into algoil, might even make the US into a net exporter again. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]: Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:05:25 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] > >--- Robin > >> If I'm not mistaken (and I could well be), then the >US actually consumes more fossil fuel to generate >electricity than it does for transportation, > >Yes but much of that consumption for electricity is >provided by nuclear, hydro, wind, solar or in sites >which cannot easily adapt to capturing CO2 for use in >adjoining ponds. See Jed's post, and add all the C related power generation sources. > >Plus night-time CO2 emission would be difficult to >store. Not necessarily. New technologies for scrubbing CO2 from the smokestack currently being developed with sequestration in mind, all employ some form of chemical that binds the CO2, and later releases it with some gentle "prodding". Such a chemical method could readily be adapted to storing the CO2 sequestered at night for use during the day. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:02:43 +0200: Hi, [snip] I have a vague recollection of the Sargasso see being a protected marine environment. That may restrict what you can do. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Sargassum for ethanol experimented in Taiwan
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:22:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] > Howdy Jones, >The nation is absolutely overloaded with technology but getting the bits and >pieces fitted together takes teamwork which is an absentee to the equation. >The wine, vinegar and beer brewers alone have some adanced tech tricks they >could add.. plus the petro refiners have a whole slice of the puzzle already >solved.. >Speaking of brew.. ever wonder when a glass jar of preserved home made corn >explodes.. there may be more than fermentation involved. If one goes off.. >the whole shelf follows in sequence... hmm.. strange. >Richard ...not really. All made from the same batch, therefore all fermenting, just not all at quite the same rate. Nevertheless, all building pressure internally. When the first one goes it creates a shock wave that hits the nearest jar, distorting it so that it also explodes and triggers the next in sequence etc. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:V'Ger must evolve
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:46:08 -0500: Hi, [snip] Possible effects: 1) Tidal. 2) Friction with space dust. 3) Interaction with the Solar wind. 4) Uneven solar heating. 5) Gravitational interaction with the Oort cloud &/or Kuiper belt (only mentioned because no one knows their mass or distribution, hence they can't possibly have been properly taken into consideration.) 6) Electric charge on the craft, either residual or built up through interaction with the solar wind &/or friction. 7) Magnetic field of the space craft interacting with the magnetic field of the Earth &/or Sun. (Magnetic field generated through rotation of the craft, causing the residual electrostatic charge to rotate.) 8) All of the above. I write this list just to show that any such calculations are probably based upon simplified models which most likely ignore most is not all of the above. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:"Best of the best" near-term horizon
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:23:43 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >Nick, > >Yes, this low efficiency is undoubtedly true for now. > >But here is the (possible) paradigm shift, and I should have tried to explain >my enthusiasm as involving a paradigm shift rather than as a step-wise >improvement. > >Even if the efficiency remains far less than for a dedicated solar panel, with >this kind of shift in economics, that lower efficiency is not the real issue. >When any nearly-transparent film can be applied so thinly and cheaply to >glass, not needing to be crystalline like silicon - then even if the result is >modest efficiency- that is not so big an issue since you are *going to install >a window anyway.* > >IOW - most of the cost is already covered by the main use - and we could be >facing the situation in the next few years when the glass industry says- we >can convert all of the window glass we make into low efficiency electrical >converters for only a little extra cost, in mass production. The graphene >required for this is 'de minimis' due to the thinness, and carbon is cheap. > >"Ditto" for the roofing and ditto for siding industry, not to mention exterior >surface of every automobile, etc. Even painting contractors might get into the >act somehow. At an energy production of only 1 W/m^2 it won't make much difference. IMO the technology most likely to make the biggest impact in the shortest time is the PHEV. Of course this assumes that concurrently coal fired power stations are replaced by cleaner power sources. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: "Best of the best" near-term horizon
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:36:24 +0200: Hi, [snip] >Seriously though Jones, have a look at Nanosolar's latest declarations (last >few days) and tell me if they still don't make sense to you: >http://blog.nanosolar.com/ [snip] Quote: "There is a reason why one of the worlds largest power producers invested in Nanosolar." ...and that reason is that they want to continue selling power to people forever, rather than have the people harvest it themselves for nothing. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: "Best of the best" near-term horizon
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:22:26 +0200: Hi, [snip] >Good point ;-) But their argument that city scale utility plants cost less per >watt than rooftop residential installations makes sense, so it might be a >win-win case. > >Michel Well it does provide a ready market for panel manufacturers. That means that they can continue to develop their product, and hopefully at some point produce "power shingles" which can substitute for ordinary shingles in new construction, at little or no extra installation cost. If the resultant power is used as an adjunct to grid supply (& fed back into the grid when in excess), then battery costs can also be avoided, keeping the overall cost to a minimum. Granted this requires an "intelligent" inverter, but the cost of that should soon be recouped from the savings on the power bill, and as the market for them grows they will get cheaper anyway. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:58:17 +0200: Hi, [snip] >Good point Richard, neither would I, nor would any robotic platform... Maybe >we could envisage sufficient flexibility in the mooring scheme (maybe some >kind of semi-dynamic mooring, static most of the time, dynamic=motorized when >needed) to move out of the way of the hurricane? [snip] It just needs to be submerged enough to get it out of the way. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:The (possible) oil peak rolls on
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:59:08 -0600: Hi, [snip] >Yes Jones, the market has dropped from its recent record high near >14000, but presently it has gone up from slightly below 12000 to now >near 12800 while all kinds of bad things are becoming perfectly obvious. >Someone must be buying stocks without any concern about the real world >conditions. I know that the market can be random and differences in >opinion can caused reasonable variations, but the rise over the last 6 >weeks makes no sense. All Hell is breaking loose that only the insane >would ignore. Is this the weeding out effect just before the crash? > >Ed Everyone knows that the market always goes up and down rhythmically. Therefore investors try to guess when it is bottoming out. All the news over the last few months has been about the sub-prime crisis dragging the market down. That should finally have worked its way through the markets by about June-July, so investors are looking for the markets to bottom soon. Some apparently think that is already happening, and are starting to reinvest the money the got from selling high. That pushes the market up a bit and gives others the confidence to follow suit. This will result in a short term rise, until the real recession caused by wasting a trillion dollars in Iraq starts to bight. Then there will be a strong bear market in the medium term. True recovery may have to wait a couple of years, and may only come on the back of some decisive new technological development. ..so much for my prognostications. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
In reply to MAJ Todd Hathaway's message of Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >If it is assumed that the hydrogen is produced by passing 1 amp of current for >96,494 seconds (1 Faraday = 96,494 coulombs) at 1 volt, then the energy needed >is ~96.5 kJ. That same 1 gram of H2 is capable of releasing 285kJ during the >combustion process with oxygen. This is the key faulty assumption. It is not 1 V. It is 1.48 V (and that is per hydrogen atom, not per molecule). Hence the energy input is at least 2 x 1.48 x 96.5 kJ = 285 kJ, i.e. just what you get out of burning it. Sorry, no free lunch. Everyone I have met that looks at this issue seems to be under the false impression that the "secret" is something "obvious". It isn't. There is considerable anecdotal evidence that something extraordinary sometimes happens with this type of cell, but whatever it is, it is not as trivial as reinterpreting ordinary electrolysis. There must be some additional energy source involved that is not normally accounted for, and determining exactly what that energy source is, is the real riddle. My personal bet is on some form of CF (most likely Hydrino based). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:The (possible) oil peak rolls on
In reply to Taylor J. Smith's message of Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:58:37 +: Hi, [snip] >I'm sure if lemmings could >talk, they would have very good reasons for marching into >the ocean. [snip] Apparently that film was a fake. Lemmings don't actually march into the ocean. It seems only humans are that stupid. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:30:39 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >>In reply to MAJ Todd Hathaway's message of Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:19:29 -0700 >> >>reinterpreting ordinary electrolysis. There must be some additional energy >>source involved that is not normally accounted for, and determining exactly >>what >>that energy source is, is the real riddle. >> >>My personal bet is on some form of CF (most likely Hydrino based). >> >> >Hum, so can you prove the existance of hydrinos? At the moment I personally cannot. However I said "most likely", which implies still some uncertainty. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:43:40 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] >>Well,let me put it another way. if someone were attempting to get an LENR >>reactor to work. Let's suppose that it worked, measurable anomolus heat out >>put. Then they built a hydrio generator and bubbled the out put gas into the >>LENR cell, and it worked measurably better. How would that be for "proof"? I would say that it would be very interesting, but would want to know a few more details. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >In a high voltage plasma, EUV can be be expected >without hydrinos, but there are specific spectra which >are multiples of 27.2 eV which are the important clue, >according to Mills' CQM theory; and these energy >levels should stand out very clearly in hydrino >situations. Actually, the frequencies that one might expect lie halfway between the 27.2 multiples. e.g. 13.6 eV 40.8 eV 68.0 eV etc. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:11:29 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >>In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:43:40 -0500 (CDT): >>Hi, >>[snip] >> >> >>>>Well,let me put it another way. if someone were attempting to get an LENR >>>>reactor to work. Let's suppose that it worked, measurable anomolus heat out >>>>put. Then they built a hydrio generator and bubbled the out put gas into >>>>the LENR cell, and it worked measurably better. How would that be for >>>>"proof"? >>>> >>>> >> >>I would say that it would be very interesting, but would want to know a few >>more >>details. >>Regards, >> >> >OK, what details? 1) Is this real or hypothetical? 2) What constitutes the Hydrino generator? 3) Is there normal Hydrogen &/or Oxygen (other?) in the gas from it? 4) What percentage improvement do you get from the LENR generator? 5) Is there a paper/web site describing the setup? 6) What percentage excess energy were you getting from the LENR experiment prior to adding gas from the generator? 7) As many facts as are available. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:the Imbrogno interview
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:17:08 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] >http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2532.html?theme=light A pretty drawing, but utterly meaningless. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:55:18 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >> Actually, the frequencies that one might expect lie halfway between >> the 27.2 >> >>multiples. >>e.g. >> >>13.6 eV >>40.8 eV >>68.0 eV etc. >> >> >> >Interesting post Robin. I'm reminded of the 3rd and 5th order harmonics >used by Keeley. Does anybody know if BLP is using multiple harmonics in >the electrical energy used to stimulate hydrino production? Not that I am aware of. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Oil price elasticity: Cutting through the fog
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:48:21 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The conclusion was that it was caused by the DOE pumping high grade >crude into the strategic reserve! Apparently their "buy" rate is high Which would make perfect sense if they were planning on hitting Iran. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:How many volcanoes would it take...
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:22:59 -0400: Hi, [snip] >If volcanoes added far more CO2 to >the mix then we do, than plants would have a negligible effect and >the atmosphere and there would be practically no free oxygen. (By the >way, decreasing levels of free oxygen have not been examined, and >recent evidence shows this, too, is a threat.) [snip] At 400 quad / year energy use, and assuming that all the energy is derived from carbon combustion (e.g. anthracite), and further assuming that all the energy is used in the form of heat (or that electricity production from heat is 100% efficient), and that the biosphere wasn't recycling CO2 (IOW CO2 just accumulated) it would take 34000 years to use all the Oxygen in the atmosphere. Also consider that people live quite well at considerable elevations, where the Oxygen levels are considerably reduced. In short, I suspect we could go on like this for at least 1000 years, without even noticing any effect on our breathing from Oxygen depletion. In fact we are more likely to run out of fossil fuels before we run out of Oxygen to burn them. So, IMO Oxygen depletion is not a problem - certainly not on the scale of global warming. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Oil price elasticity: Cutting through the fog
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:27:59 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The whole point of the exercise is that we seem to have reached the >world peak in oil production, and supply cannot be increased, due to >lack of resources. [snip] I think a better definition of the "oil peak" is that it is the peak that would occur if left to economic forces. It doesn't necessarily mean that production can't be increased in the short term at the cost of the long term. Since there is still oil in the ground, it can be extracted more rapidly if we have the will to do so, but then it will simply run out sooner. What will happen fairly soon, is sharp reduction in new exploration wells, as oil companies finally get it through their heads that the number of new discoveries is so low that it isn't worth the cost of drilling hundreds of dry wells just to find one producing well. IOW rather than a divergent supply and demand curve, you will see a rising production curve that matches demand, then suddenly goes over a cliff, and drops to zero. By analogy, look at world fish stocks. In fact I think that rising prices will probably bring this about. IOW supply will continue to meet demand, until such time as the supply suddenly ceases altogether. Of course long before then it will have become so expensive that demand will have been reduced, partially due to millions of people having died of hunger. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:How many volcanoes would it take...
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:19:31 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >> >(By the >> >way, decreasing levels of free oxygen have not been examined, and >> >recent evidence shows this, too, is a threat.) >>[snip] >>At 400 quad / year energy use, and assuming that all the energy is >>derived from >>carbon combustion (e.g. anthracite), and further assuming that all >>the energy is . . . >> >>Also consider that people live quite well at considerable >>elevations, where the >>Oxygen levels are considerably reduced. >> >>In short, I suspect we could go on like this for at least 1000 years, without >>even noticing any effect on our breathing from Oxygen depletion. > >My, my, aren't you anthro-centric! Whether or not we like to admit it, survival is what motivates us. Of course I'm anthropo-centric, I'm a human being. >People are not the only species, >and breathing is not the only form of respiration. Many other >species, and many chemical process, including possibly atmospheric >processes, are affected by the slight decrease in oxygen content. Name some. >There are also problems such as the oxygen exchange with water, and >fish, and so on. The fish are already dead. We have eaten them. (somewhat tongue in cheek). BTW global warming may be more important in this regard than actual Oxygen content in the air, since less Oxygen dissolves in warm water than in cold. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge...
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:09:25 +0200: Hi, [snip] >No it wouldn't be, but even with my limited QM skills, I know that fortunately >you don't have to get that close for nuclear fusion. Nucleus is fm scale >(10^-15 m), but its De Broglie wavelength (roughly the distance at which >tunneling can start occurring) at even room temperature thermal energy is >quite sizeable, 0.78 Å IIRC, about 10 times larger, and even more at >higher energies of course. Actually De Broglie wavelengths *decrease* with energy. (momentum is in the denominator). > >So an impinging deuteron getting only as close as say 0.5 Å from the desorbing >deuteron would have good chances to tunnel to it and fuse I think, correct me >someone if I am wrong. The chances are a lot less than "good". What you need is a means of keeping them in close proximity for extended periods. e.g. the fusion half-life of D2 (with a separation distance of about 0.7 Angstrom is > 1E80 years. However this decreases insanely with separation distance. A decrease in distance by about a factor of 10-20 should be enough to reduce it to the point where fusion would be a practical energy source. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:36:24 +0200: Hi, [snip] >Hi Robin, many thanks for your corrections. > >Indeed momentum p is the denominator of the De Broglie wavelength h/p, my >mistake. So in fact the more immobile the target deuteron, the less close the >incident deuteron needs to get in order to fuse... This is also the way I used to think, however it is somewhat problematic. In order to tunnel, a particle has to "make an attempt", i.e. it has to move at least a little. Furthermore, the more frequent the attempts, the more likely tunneling is in any given period of time. (However maybe the zero point motion is enough to count as an attempt?) - Anyone know how to calculate the frequency? > >1/ Wouldn't it therefore dramatically improve things if we threw (by >electrolysis, gas discharge or whatever) the incident deuterons onto a >deep-cooled deuteron desorbing cathode? (liquid deuterium in a back side >chamber could provide the deuterium, the low temp and the pushing pressure >maybe) IIRC, there were a few early attempts using loaded cathodes rapidly immersed in liquid nitrogen (with a few neutrons detected if I'm not mistaken). > >2/ Another thought triggered by your correction, forced cooling or not, isn't >a deuteron about to desorb (for Jones's entertainment: stuck half way through >the surface Pd "sphincter") particularly immobile due to its squeezed >condition, and therefore an easier fusion target? I wouldn't think *anything* is particularly "stuck" at the atomic level. > >3/ I have found this 2002 paper "Study on Physical Foundation of Cold Fusion" : >http://www.swip.ac.cn/cfs/english/Information/nb2002/024.2.pdf >The English is very poor but the physics seem quite understandable, even to >this QM ignoramus. I find the "volcano section view" shaped potential curve >quite helpful: positive hill shape is Coulomb repulsion potential (hill is >lowered and narrowed by any screening negative charge density I guess), narrow >central pit going down to very negative values is nuclear force attraction >potential. > Summary of my understanding of this paper: in order to fuse i.e. fall into > the pit an incident deuteron doesn't have to classically go all the way up > the hill, instead it can tunnel through it if it gets closer than the > target's De Broglie wavelength. It seems the incident deuteron can be treated > as a classical point charge loosing KE and gaining PE to find how high on the > hill --and therefore how close to the target deuteron-- it gets. > Your comments on the paper or my summary welcome. > >4/ Do you have a ref for your factor 10 to 20 (0.035 to 0.07 Å instead of D2's >0.7 Å separation) required for practical D-D fusion power production? Sorry, but that's based upon my own (possibly wildly inaccurate) calculations. (See attached gif, which contains one of my various attempts to get this right). Z = atomic number of the target nucleus d = initial distance before tunneling m = mass of tunneling particle (assuming that tunneling particle has an atomic number of 1). See also the paper:- "Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions between Hydrogen Isotopes by mu- Mesons" by J.D. Jackson, Physical Review, Vol. 106, Number 2, April 15 1957, page 330. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant. <>
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:51:39 +1000: BTW, hs = h_stripe = h/(2*Pi) epsilon = permittivity of the vacuum Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:51:39 +1000: Hi, BTW2, ce = unit charge (i.e. absolute value of electron or proton charge). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:responce to the IPKat - weblog
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:40:29 -0400: Hi, [snip] >What is missing from Mills' publications, and apparaently the scientific >literature as well, is data on the effective range of the resonant transfer >effect, or the 'cross section'. [snip] My bet is that actual physical contact is necessary, in order to transfer angular momentum. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Capturing CO2 ?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:54:28 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >...it sounds crazy at first; since more coal could be >required for removing CO2 than what is burned, until >you think about the possible advantages. [snip] What happens to the cyclic carbonates when they reach the end of their useful life? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:05:33 +0200: Hi, [snip] >Indeed two immobile d's wouldn't attempt much I don't think, but isn't it ok >if _one_ d in the pair, namely the incident one, makes the attempt, as in the >Desorbing vs Incident Excess Surface Electron Catalyzed Fusion (DIESECF) >scenario we are discussing? [snip] >I was thinking of permanently cooling the back (loading) side and exposing the >front side to more energetic incident deuterons. This way we would benefit >from the cooling-induced wider quantum spread (larger De Broglie wavelength >h/p) of the target deuteron, allowing tunneling to it from a larger distance, >and of the energy of the incident one to get as close as possible to the >target, does this make sense? The De Broglie wavelength is based on the *relative* velocity between the particles. In fact one should probably calculate this in the common centre of mass frame of reference (in which case both particles have the same De Broglie wavelength - my thanks to Charles Cagle). What this means is that you can't have one fast particle and one slow one. They both need to be slow. This also implies that tunneling probably only takes place when the approaching particle has used up all its kinetic energy in overcoming the electrostatic potential of the other particle, and is just on the verge of reversing course. I.e. it's usually a "one shot" affair. Consequently, "glancing blows" may not contribute, it may need to be a head on collision. [snip] >I appreciate, thanks also for your other posts. What do you mean by "initial >distance before tunneling", is this the distance at which the incident >(projectile) deuteron comes to a halt? Yes. >I don't see where the De Broglie wavelength or the energy of the particle(s) >comes into play BTW, it should matter as we discussed above. The De Broglie wavelength is only a guide - a rule of thumb if you will. Note that when the particles are stationary relative to one another, the De Broglie wavelength is infinite, hence no longer relevant. When two particles are within the De Broglie wavelength of one another tunneling is possible, but not guaranteed, and the chance that it will happen is strongly related to the separation distance. That chance is what I have attempted to calculate in the gif file I attached to my previous post. Note also that even when tunneling does take place, fusion is not guaranteed. Whether or not it happens, depends also on the nuclear cross section of the reaction. Some reactions are more likely than others. A good example of a poor reaction is the p-p reaction. Tunneling probably happens quite often, yet a nuclear reaction seldom ensues. OTOH, a reaction with a good cross section is the p-B reaction, but this is limited by the reduced tunneling probability due to the high charge on the B nucleus. > >Surely there must be a standard way to compute this, could the approach used >in the Chinese paper I quoted above be a standard one? Yes, in fact the essence of it is the only method I have seen employed. If you look closely, you will see it is also the method I used. If you feel like working on this, and you come up with something that works well, I would very much appreciate it, if you would pass it on. > >>See also the paper:- "Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions between Hydrogen Isotopes >>by mu- Mesons" by J.D. Jackson, Physical Review, Vol. 106, Number 2, April 15 >>1957, page 330. > >Thanks, do you have a pdf version by any chance? I'm afraid it's copyrighted, but you can purchase a version on line, as I did, or visit your local technical/university library, and read it for free. (BTW Jackson essentially uses the same basic concept). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:responce to the IPKat - weblog
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:52:51 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Peter Zimmerman advanced the 'contact' agument on another forum some time >ago. The radii of a H atom and typical catalyst, such as Ar+, are so small >that if contact were required, the probability of reaction would be >vanishingly small. The probability of reaction is quite small, in fact Ar+ is not a very good catalyst. Nevertheless, contacts happen all the time, otherwise gas pressure wouldn't exist. >Since Ar+ experimetally catalyzes H, that argument is >void. That remains to be seen. >It is more likely that the transfer is a near-field phenomenon that >can be approached from antenna theory, but I do not know of any detailed >work on such. Would such allow for transfer of angular momentum? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:33:07 +0200: Hi, >Robin, > >Although it seems to make sense, something doesn't fit in your center of mass >frame of reference and therefore equal De Broglie wavelengths (DBW) paradigm: >in that frame, as you say, "when the particles are stationary relative to one >another, the DBW is infinite, hence no longer relevant", whereas that distance >r1 where the incident d has lost all its initial kinetic energy is precisely >where the Li et al paper compares the distance by which it "missed" (r1-r0) >with the DBW, which they don't find infinite but equal to 0.78 Å... > >But on the other hand, how can the DBW not be infinite if momentum is zero?? Without re-reading their paper, I think you will find that the DBW they calculate is based upon thermal energy. That's fine for a first rough guess, which is why I said it's a rule of thumb. What they mean is that the DBW is *at least* that big, ergo tunneling is possible. It's also possible that they are simply guilty of sloppy thinking. > >On yet another hand, the DBW seems the right parameter to define the "spread" >of a particle and therefore its capacity to tunnel or be tunneled to... if >it's infinite, it's all over the place so tunneling should have 100% >probability! No, just possible, not necessarily probable. It's only infinite for a very short period of time. Probability is also determined by confinement time, and at least in the literature, by the cross section of the nuclear reaction. (However IMO, QM probably compounds tunneling probability with the cross section). IOW while I have tried to separate the two, QM usually doesn't. > >This point is definitely unclear to me, any enlightening welcome. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:responce to the IPKat - weblog
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:26:06 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The probability of reaction is quite small, in fact Ar+ is not a very good >catalyst. Nevertheless, contacts happen all the time, otherwise gas pressure >wouldn't exist. > >MC: Gas pressure results for impacts with the container, more than other >atoms/molecules. Much bigger target. The atomic radius of Argon is about 0.98 Angstrom. Thus the diameter is about 2 A. When an electron is removed, it will shrink a bit, but I doubt it will shrink by more than half, so lets say about 1 A. For a gas at 1 torr, and a temperature of 1000 K with a particle diameter of 1 A, the mean free path is about 2.3 mm. That's a pretty small container. Even if we assume that the total collision cross section is supplied by the Ar+, and that the Hydrinos have 0 size, this still works out to 9 mm. Still a small container. Furthermore, it's only a *mean* free path, that doesn't mean collisions aren't going to happen in less distance occasionally. >What is the basis for your statement >that Ar+ is not a very good catalyst? In one of Mills early experiments he compares various catalysts, and Ar+ doesn't exactly shine. >In the water bath calorimeter studies, >He, Ar, and O give approximately the same energy yield. Each are as >effective on a per-atom basis. The problem is optimizing the reactor >parameters to get the highest energy yield against competting processes. The >is one reason the 'solid fuel' is significant. I already sent Mills a wash list of my doubts about the water bath experiments years ago. To summarize I suspect the actual Hydrino energy contribution was more on the order of a couple of watts (not 10's of watts), and that the small differences in energy output were primarily due to the differences in efficacy of the different catalysts. [snip] >MC: You are familiar with the water bath calorimetry? Have you another >explanation for the observed excess heat? I am very suspicious of any experiment that purports to put out 60 W of heat, when that also just happens to be the nameplate power output of the microwave generator used. Suffice it to say, that I strongly suspect measurement error in those experiments. > >>It is more likely that the transfer is a near-field phenomenon that >>can be approached from antenna theory, but I do not know of any detailed >>work on such. > >Would such allow for transfer of angular momentum? > >MC: Why do you enter angular momentum into the discussion? The 'form' of the >energy transfered is not stated. The H atoms exhibit very high kinetic >energy/ temperature, manifested as Balmer line broadening. ...because IMO, the hydrino can't shrink without shedding angular momentum. In fact I think that's the primary reason for the existence of the normal ground state of the Hydrogen atom. In order to shrink it would need to shed angular momentum, and it can't do this via photon emission, because the creation of a circularly polarized photon requires more angular momentum than the electron can supply. Hence H can't shrink via photon emission, hence the "ground" state. The Hause condition appears to be a necessary, but not sufficient condition, according to the skeptics, and I think they may be right about that. However the angular momentum condition is sufficient. Thus if shrinkage requires shedding angular momentum, and it can't be done via photon emission, then that only leaves passing it off to another particle, which in turn implies a physical collision. BTW I think you will find that Mills assumes that the angular momentum of the electron is a constant during shrinkage. One of various points upon which I disagree with him. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:28:56 +0200: Hi, [snip] >But thermal energy is actual kinetic energy isn't it, so it doesn't resolve >the dilemma. There is no dilemma to resolve. >Infinite times a short (but finite) period of time would be infinite... no, >this is definitely unclear, there must exist a correct, accepted Infinite DBW does not imply infinite chance of a reaction. If you look at QM texts, you will see that the DBW is mostly used in "hand waving" mode. One of the reasons for this is that it is frame dependent, and hence has an infinite number of different values concurrently, depending on the frame of reference (just like kinetic energy or magnetic field energy - because it is based on velocity, which is of course frame dependent). > way to compute these things, we just haven't found it yet, and don't have the > skills to tell a correct approach from an incorrect one. I don't suppose we > have a QM wizard on this list?(*) > >Regarding the frame of reference, shouldn't it be that of the cathode? We are >not just dealing with an isolated pair of deuterons here. The cathode is a >major actor in DIESECF, as the target dispenser, cooler and screener, and as a >massive "anvil", isn't it? If you have one of the particles "stuck" on the cathode, then the frame of the cathode and that particle are nearly identical. Nevertheless the proper frame should still be the CMF. Charles Cagle is AFAIK the only person on Earth that has figured this out so far. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol Al
In reply to Nick Palmer's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:14:01 +0100: Hi, [snip] >The sad fact is that "serious environmental efforts" quietly applied >behind the scenes are just ignored by the forces we have to contend with who >just hire very smart, very well paid, but morally bankrupt people who use >sophistry to justify business as usual and doing nothing. Which is why the solutions that have the best chance are those which result in a financial benefit to the perpetrator. IOW it doesn't just have to be cleaner, it also has result in a larger profit. Nothing works as a motivator like enlightened self interest. Unfortunately such solutions are usually very difficult to think of, and require great ingenuity. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toshiba Bettery
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:25:12 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The SCiB is finally in production: > >http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic/english/scib/index3.htm "High power density even equal to that of a capacitor" Unfortunately capacitors have lousy power density. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:37:48 +0200: Hi, [snip] >Forgive my obstinacy Robin, but admitting the proper frame should be the CMF, >shouldn't this be the CMF of all particles involved, i.e. including those of >the Pd "anvil"? After all, the target is not really D, but Pd(n)D, isn't it? This depends on just how "stuck" the D is to the anvil. Initially at large separation distances that will be true, however as the force of repulsion created by the approaching D increases it will eventually dislodge the "stuck" D, after which, it is no longer true. (Assuming the "fast" D had enough kinetic energy to dislodge the stuck D). >And who is Charles Cagle? http://www.singtech.com/ > >"hand waving" mode: quite appropriate for a wavelength ;) Frame dependence of >kinetic energy...good point... maybe we must use an inertial frame for COE >(KE+PE=constant) to be applicable, No, COE is valid for any frame of reference, as long as you stick to the frame of reference you have chosen. >which BTW points again to including the cathode for the center of mass frame, >the CMF of just the two deuterons is decelerated at impact time isn't it, >so you can't do proper physics in that frame. You only need to take "snapshots", and assume that the functions are monotonic. (not true at the moment of dislodgement). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:57:05 +0200: Hi, [snip] >But the moment right before dislodgement, when the deuteron pair experiences >considerable deceleration, is precisely when we would expect fusion isn't it? >So I still believe we must use the CMF of the whole system under study. >Similar to a hammer-nut-anvil system, if we leave the anvil out of the >equation the nut will never be broken. Now we are back to "stickiness" again. The energy with which D is lodged in the "anvil" is going to be a fraction of an eV at best. Unless the approaching D has much much more than this, there isn't going to be an adequately close approach anyway. This is akin to conventional fusion, and you need something on the order of 1000-5000 eV to get results. Compared to this, the fraction of an eV of "sticking" energy is meaningless. IOW it's more a fog than an anvil. > >I am pretty sure that COE is not valid in an accelerated frame of reference >BTW, except maybe in special cases. Consider a single particle in uniform >motion (constant K.E.) in an inertial frame, it will see its speed and >therefore its K.E. change in an accelerated frame, so COE isn't verified. My mistake. I should have said all inertial frames, not all frames. (I normally don't think about accelerated frames - hurts my brain). ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toshiba Bettery
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:04:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] >> "High power density even equal to that of a capacitor" >> >> Unfortunately capacitors have lousy power density. >> >Not exactly; capacitors have lousy ENERGY density. Energy isn't power, >of course, but sloppy usage is so common we tend to expect it. As it >turns out Toshiba has indeed kept the definitions of power and energy >straight, and they said exactly what they intended to say. You are correct. I finally fell into the trap myself. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toshiba Bettery
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:04:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] >performance. The illustration is here: > >http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic/english/scib/image/feature3.gif > >The plot makes it clear that what they're saying is that their /energy/ >density is that of a battery, but their /power/ density is comparable to >a large capacitor. ...and not even a bad battery at that. Somewhere between NiMH and Li. From their specs. page:- 2.4 V, 4.2 Ah, 150 gm -> 0.067 kWh/kg which is about 40% better than a lead acid battery. One thing I don't see mentioned is price. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Fresnel focused solar
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 3 May 2008 09:08:01 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >Looks like this company beat Michael Foster to >market... > >http://www.sunrgi.com/ [snip] "Q10: Will this technology have an effect on the dependency that the U.S. has on foreign oil? A: Yes it will. Right now very little electricity is generated using foreign oil. That is not the source of our dependency. Our dependency comes from relying on foreign oil as a key source for home heating oil and gasoline. When low-cost, SUNRGI-generated energy proliferates, inexpensive electricity will encourage substitution of electrical for other energy sources electric furnaces can replace those that are now oil-fired, electric-powered cars can replace gasoline engines, and solar heating systems for homes, businesses and institutional customers can become widespread." Should this become widespread, then of course most power will be generated over day. Hence it would be useful to recharge electric vehicles while parked at work during the day, rather than at home over night. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Fresnel focused solar
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sat, 3 May 2008 13:03:03 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Small problem: frenels make cheap concentrators, but then you need >sun-tracking mounting, not shown, and that can be quite expensive. >Non-focusing concentrators have been devised, but such are not shown. > >Mike Carrell I fail to see why solar tracking should be expensive. As I see it there is a relatively simple way this can be done. First the actual motion of each set of collectors is controlled by a worm gear driven by a stepper motor. This allows for very fine control. Whole sets of units could even be linked together by a single long rod, so that a single motor would move all of them concurrently. Second the actual determination of where the thing should point could be done with a single cheap PC controlling an entire park of units. The amount of computing power required is absolutely trivial, so the PC used should be the cheapest available (read: boat anchor). The software already exists if I'm not mistaken, and is currently used by astronomers for tracking the stars. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sun, 11 May 2008 23:10:06 -0800: Hi, [snip] > 1. <http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMED>Opinion: "Fusion of deuterium into helium-4 gives a yield of 17 MeV." No it doesn't. It gives a yield of 23.85 MeV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sun, 11 May 2008 23:10:06 -0800: Hi, [snip] > 1. <http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMED>Opinion: "A study that costs no more than one industrial windmill or a B2-stealth bomber can ask and answer crucial questions within a year." Somehow I doubt very seriously that an industrial windmill costs the same as a B2-stealth bomber. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sun, 11 May 2008 23:10:06 -0800: Hi, I wrote: > 1. <http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMED>Opinion: "A study that costs no more than one industrial windmill or a B2-stealth bomber can ask and answer crucial questions within a year." Somehow I doubt very seriously that an industrial windmill costs the same as a B2-stealth bomber. [snip] However the original Dutch text: "Een onderzoek dat niet meer kost dan één industriële windmolen, laat staan een Apache-helikopter en/of een B2-stealthbommenwerper, en naar een vraag die binnen een jaar beantwoord kan worden." ... says: An investigation that would cost no more than an industrial windmill, let alone an Apache helicopter and/or a B2-stealth bomber, and to a question that could be answered within a year. (The latter part of this is a little confused, however the first part is clearer). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:It Didn't Boil Water
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 13 May 2008 12:52:53 -0400: Hi, [snip] >But Toshiba's SCiB did almost reach 100 deg C in destructive testing: > >http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3ijaeg3cg7M > >Terry My guess would be that it did boil water, and escaping steam is what kept the temperature limited to 99+ deg. C. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
