1995.04.04 / Stefan Hartmann /  TOMI and PM_Square explanation !?
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.
hysics.new-theories,cl.energie.alternativen,de.sci.electronics,sci.envir
nment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: TOMI and PM_Square explanation !?
Date: 04 Apr 1995 07:29:00 +0100

Hi,
I received this from an "anonymous" friend. Please read it and let me know  
what you think about this theory for the explanation of the TOMI and  
PM_Square effect !



Irreversible Processes in Fields
================================

It is well known theory that the thermodynamic potentials go to
an extremum. This is regarded as equivalent to Planck's 2nd law
although the complete equivalence between both formulations of
the second law never have been proved generally, especially if we
apply the extremum principle of the thermodynamic potentials to
electromagnetic fields. In this article we investigate this
question.

I. Irreversible Processes in Vapour-Liquid Mixtures

We begin here with a well known and quite trivial example. We
regard two cylinder volumes connected by a tap in the middle.
Both the volumes can be set by moving a piston up and down into
or out of the volume.  With this experimental setup we proceed
the following isothermic irreversible cycle, comp fig.1a):We take a fluid  
(for example water) being at the dew line of the
phase diagram. We expand both the pistons isothermically from
point 1 to point 2. So liquid condenses and is collected in the
lower cylinder. Now the tap is closed and both the volumes are
recompressed at equal pressures until the starting volume is
reached again. Now we regard the question whether Planck's law is
fulfilled. This question can be answered by writing the 2nd law
for free energy which states that the free energy F tends to be a
minimum. Therefore, if we leave the minimum in doing the cycle
          Fstart-Fend = - circle integral P dV > 0

must hold because the cycle is isothermal (dT=0)  with no matter
exchange (dn=0). The orientation of the integral shows that
Planck's second law holds, comp. fig.1b).

II. Irreversible Processes in Fields

a) General
According Landau and Lifshitz (1) the free energy of a system
including electric fields and linear dielectrics is defined by
     F'(V,T,D) = F(V,T) + 1/(8*Pi*eps) Int D^2 dV

The Legendre transform of this potential is

     F''(V,T,E) = F(V,T) - eps/(8*Pi) Int E^2 dV

Both these definitions are not useful for thermodynamics
because they are non-homologous functions regarding the molar
ratios. Therefore, the following definitions are used and
specified for constant dielectrics

f'(V,T,P) = f (V,T) + 1/(8*Pi) Int E dP = f + 1/(8*Pi*Xi) P^2
f''(V,T,E) = f(V,T) - 1/(8*Pi) Int P dE = f - Xi/(8*Pi) E^2
Regarding the 2nd derivative of the electric variable of both
these potentials we see that for a constant homogene dielectrics
f'(V,T,P) approaches a minimum and f''(V,T,E) approaches a
maximum in the equilibrium state, if Xi > 0. Similar
considerations hold for magnetic fields as well.
b) Mixing Processes
Now, similar like in section I, we investigate an isothermic and
isochoric cycle if an intense field is applied to a non ideal -
non linear binary dielectric liquid (2).
We start at the phase separation line at low field and apply a
stronger field. Then demixing of the solution occurs. We close
the tap and discharge the field. In the endpoint of the cycle at
lower field we reopen the tap and return to equilibrium. Because
we leave the equilibrium in performing the cycle the unequality

                df'' = - circle integral P dE < 0

holds according the last lines of section II a). Regarding the
orientation of this integral we realize that it is a negative
hysteresis relative to the usual ferroelectric hysteresis. Therefore, our  
consideration predicts a violation of Planck's
second law  for electrically induced irreversibilities. The
irreversibility goes the other way round according to the Gibbs
formalism contrary to Planck's 2nd law.
c) Permanent Magnet Motors
In Landau/Lifshitz (1) there exists a proof which shows that if
we introduce a para- or ferromagnetic body into a fixed magnetic
field (j=constant) the following relation holds:

                    df' = - M dH

Because df' approaches a maximum we interprete this equation that
a self accelerating perpetual motion is possible in a magnetic
field as an irreversibility.
Therefore, in order to find an example we first rule out the
conditions under which a perpetuum mobile is impossible. This is
always the case if the magnetic field can be described as a
potential field. According Jackson(3) a magnetic field of a
closed loop or the field of a hard permanent ferromagnet can
formally be decribed by a potential. This means that rot B
vanishes. This has as a consequence that a perpetuum mobile
acceleration of a magnetic charge is impossible.Therefore, the question  
arises whether there exists the
possibility to break this zero rot B - field. The question can be
answered positively.  Using by Mu metal shieldings a non zero rot
B field can be generated from a potential field by shielding off
the unwanted parts of the field . We illustrate this idea by the
following axial motor construction proposal which is derived by
us from the linear Harris TMI set up (4), comp. fig.3)+b), which
works and which has been confirmed and discussed by different
persons(4,5). We do not claim that our proposal is a perpetuum
mobile.
We use a cylindrical tube of Mu metal as housing for the motor.
In the housing tube we have a tube of lower diameter made from
conducting material having the same axis as the housing tube. A
current flows in the inner tube along the length equally
distributed across the thicknell of the wall.The common axis of both these  
cylinders consist of a wire
carrying a current flowing in the opposite direction relative to
the current tube. If we look at the configuration of the field we
have a circular non vanishing rot B field in one direction near
the wall and a circular B field in the opposite direction near
the central wire. Now we use the wire as an axis of a rotor which
carries at least two symmetrically balanced permanent magnets
rods whose north poles point radially and the south poles
axially. The north poles are standing under the influence of the
B field near the wall, the south pole feels the opposite field
near by the wire. So a permanent torque is exerted on the rotor
which begins to spin around the central wire as the axis. We see
that our motor works only with permanent fields and needs no
brushes.
Therefore, the question arises: Is it not possible to use
permanent magnets + Mu metal shields to replace the current wires
by permanent magnets generating circular non vanishing rot B
fields of opposite orientation to get the rotor spinning, comp.
fig.5a).  Similar constructions are already patented
and can be found in the literature (6), comp. fig. 5b).
Furthermore, we emphasize that until today there exist no
generally accepted magnetic force law between differential
current loops. Only for closed current loop the situation is
clear, because all the different differential form coincide in
one. Different forms have been proposed by Biot Savart (7),
Ampere (7) (includes actio and reactio and conservation of
angular momentum), Whittaker (8) (includes only action=reaction),
Aspden (7) (includes only conservation of angular momentum) , and
Marinov (9). Marinov claims that he would have proved
experimentally his form as the correct one. Therefore, there seems to be  
an interesting field where important
questions can be solved.

Bibliography:

1) Landau L.D., Lifshitz E.M.
   Electrodynamics of Continous Media
   Pergamon, Oxford, 1984

2) Wirtz D., Fuller G.G.  Phys.Rev.Lett.71, 2236, (1993)
   Debye P., Kleboth K. J.Chem.Phys.42, 3155, (1965)

3) Jackson,J.D.
   Classical Electrodynamics 2nd edition
   John Wiley, New York, 1975

4) Decker, J. BBS Keelynet PO-Box Mesquite Texas USA 75187
   Modem ..214 324 3501 Filename: TOMIBILD.ASC

   harti@shb.contrib.de    TMI device, free energy device ?
   24.2.95 in ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES

5) anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk   TMI device, free energy device?
   26.2.95 in ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES

   harti@shb.contrib.de    TMI + MRA updates, free energy
   25.2.95 in ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES

   harti@shb.contrib.de    TOMI enhanced ! Free emergy device !
   31.3.95 in CL.ENERGY.ALTERNATIVEN

   prebys@puhep1.princeton.edu   TMI device, free energy device ?
   25.2.95 in SCI.ENERGY

6) Johnson, H.R. Permanent magnet motor  U.S.Patent No. 4.151.431
   Apr.24,1979

7) Aspden, Harold Physics without Einstein  Southampton 1969
   Aspden, Harold Modern Aether Physics     Southampton 1975

8) Whittaker, Edmund Sir
   A history of the theories of Aether and Electricity   Vol I  The  
classical theories
   Humanities Press  New York  1975

9) International Glasnost Journal of Fundamental Physics   Vol.3, No.11,  
Marinov, Stefan; p.18
_________________________________________________________________
Figures:

      ||                      ||                   ||
   |  ||  |                |======|             |  ||  |
   |======|                |      |             |======|
   |      |                |      |             |      |
   ---  ---                ---  ---             ---  ---
     |  |                    |  |                 |  |
     |  |---|                |--|-|               |--|-|
     |  |                    |  |                 |  |
   ---  ---                ---  ---             ---  ---
   |      |                |      |             |//////|
   |======|                |//////|             |======|
   |  ||  |                |======|             |  ||  |
      ||                      ||                   ||

      1                        2                    3


fig. 1a): Isothermal cycle of a simple fluid with irreversibility
1 starting a the dew line 1-2 expansion, condensation of liquid 2
separating volumes by closing the tap 2-3 recompression 3 opening
the tap, work has to be added to proceed the cycle

   P   ^     3 ._
   r   |       | |_
   e   |       |   |_
   s   |       |     |_ 3
   s   |     1 ._     |_
   u   |         |_     |<
   r   |           |__    |_
   e   |              |_>_  |__
       |                  |___.|
       |                        2
       |
       |
       |
       |
       |
       ----------------------------------------->
                                          Volume
fig. 1b): Isothermal cycle of a simple fluid with irreversibility
Pressure-volume diagram: 1 starting a the dew line 1-2 expansion,
condensation of liquid 2 separating volumes by closing the tap
2-3 recompression 3 opening the tap, work has to be added to
proceed the cycle

       ^
   P   |
   o   |
   l   |
   a   |
   r   |                          2
   i   |                   -------.
   s   |                __|   ____|
   a   |        1   _>_|  _<_|
   t   |        .__|   __|
   i   |        |   __|
   o   |        .__|
   n   |        3
       |
       |
       |
       ----------------------------------------->
                                   electric field




fig.2: isothermal cycle with electrically induced irreversibility
1 starting at the phase separation line with low field
1-2 applying a field 2 closing the tap 2-3 dicharging of the high
field 3 opening of the tap and returning to starting point 1A negative  
hysteresis is predicted according the Gibbs formalism.

                    _ _ _ _ _
       Top view  S |_|_|_|_|_| N   <--------moveable ROLLER magnet

 direction     S  |<--track-->|  N
 of ROLLER  ____________|____________
     |      |  ___|     |      |___  |
     |      | |___|  (start)   |___| |
     |      | |___|            |___| |        RUNNERS
     |      | |___|  incline   |___| <--------roll of magnets,positioned at
     |      | |___|            |___| |        the same angle as the slope of
     |      | |___|            |___| |        the incline
    \|/     | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|____________|___| |
            |  N  |            | S   |
            |     |   decline  |     |<-------no magnets here, but not as much
            |  S  |            | N   |        space between the rolls as shown
            |  ___|____________|___  |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|  incline   |___| |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|            |___| |
            | |___|____________|___| |
            |     |            |     |
            |  N  |   decline  | S   |
            |     |            |     |
            |     |____________|     |
            |        (finish)        |<-------ROLLER winds up here
            |________________________|




fig.3a) the TMI device, top view
the two magnets along the incline are stationary, the magnet in
the middle begins to roll standing under the influence of the
stationary magnets. It is drawn over the fulcrum. There it rolls
down under the influence of gravitation until it reaches the
bottom of the second hill.


Side view ! (enhanced version !)
===========


     ROLLER starts here
         \|/
          |     ----------------> direction of moveable magnetic ROLLER
          |     /\              /\
          |   /    \          /    \
          | /        \      /        \
          /            \  /            \
        /-------------- /  -------------- <--------Magnetic ROLLER ends up  
      /               /                            here



fig.3b) the TMI device, side view comp. textthe two magnets along the  
incline are stationary, the magnet in
the middle begins to roll standing under the influence of the
stationary magnets. It is drawn over the fulcrum. There it rolls
down under the influence of gravitation until it reaches the
bottom of the second hill.

                    ___________________________
                  /                             \
                /                                 \
 Mu metal     /                                     \
 housing    /                                         \
          /                                             \
        /                                                 \
      /                   _______________                   \
    /                   /    ------->     \                   \
   |       current    /      B-fields       \                  |
   |          tube  /           |             \                |
   |              /             |               \              |
   |             |    /---------|----------\     |             |
   |             |  / _______  <--  ________ \   |             |
   |             |  ||S     N| /-\ |N      S||   |             |
   |             |  ||_______| \-/ |________||   |             |
   |             |  \       axis wire        /   |             |
   |             |    \--------------------/     |             |
   |              \           rotor              /             |
   |               \                           /               |
   |                \          -->           /                 |
    \                 \ ___________________/                  /
      \                                                     /
        \                                                 /
          \                                             /
            \                                         /
              \                                     /
                \                                 /
                  \_____________________________/

fig.4 magnetic motor with no brushes; top view
the magnet charges on the rotor are spinning around the axis wire
in the stationary double circular and opposite rot B fields of
the wire and the current tube.

fig.5a) our magnetic motor proposal using only permanent magnetsthe  
central wire is replaced by an inner ring consisting of
permanent magnets and Mu metal shields generating an non
vanishing B-field; the current tube is replaced by an outer ring
of permanent magnets and Mu metal shields. the rotor is the same
as in fig. 4. The field configuration seen by the rotor is in
effect the same as in fig.4., only both the opposite non
vanishing rot B fields of the stator are generated by permanent
magnets. Unwanted parts of the field are shielded by Mu metal. It
is clear that the configuration can be multiplied to enforce the
power by taking more circles. Magnets similar as used by Johnson
are recommended for the stator fields, comp fig.5b). Using
electromagnets instead of permanent magnets would enhance power.

fig.5b) the Johnson motor, US Patent Nr. 4,151,431
permanent magnets as stator, rotor with non vanishing
rot B -field , see original patent


_________________________________________________________________
disclaimer regarding employer
Anti-Copyright  -  can be copied by everybody for nothing

cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / Richard Schultz /  Re: News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis II)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis II)
Date: 4 Apr 1995 11:08:36 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe


I have said that I will not discuss this matter any further (even to
the extent of explaining for the fifth time why your so-called
calculation of the odds that all 12 papers will be posters is completely
bogus) until you answer some of the questions I have posed to you.
What part of that do you fail to understand?
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 /  ElliotKenl /  Re: $700 well spent on Tom D.
     
Originally-From: elliotkenl@aol.com (ElliotKenl)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $700 well spent on Tom D.
Date: 4 Apr 1995 07:06:24 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

>>Is the only way to get blue light from high temperature?<<
I don't know the significance of blue light (do they see this in the
Griggs machine?).  However, the color is controlled by E=h*nu = 3/2 kT. 
The temperature is uniquely specified by the temperature.
Best regards,
Elliot
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenelliotkenl cudlnElliotKenl cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / mitchell swartz /  News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis III)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis III)
Subject: Re: News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis II)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 14:23:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3lr9bk$7f2@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis II)
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) claims he is
speaker for the American Chemical Society.

= I have said that I will not discuss this matter any further (even to
=the extent of explaining for the fifth time why your so-called
=calculation of the odds that all 12 papers will be posters is completely
=bogus) until you answer some of the questions I have posed to you.
=What part of that do you fail to understand?
=--
=					Richard Schultz

   This is funny and belongs in rec.humor.
   You were not even asked (they were rhetorical)
since your 
knowledge of this appears to be supratentorial.
  Your "answers" would be obfuscatory anyway.
  In fact, the longer this goes, the more obvious to everyone that
there is, and has been,  no denial to the comments made by the
cf submitters that this was just a another set-up and possible attempt
at censorship.





cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Griggs Report
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Report
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1995 09:47 -0500 (EST)

gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
 
-> To paraphrase Mark Twain, the death of the Griggs device was grossly
-> exaggerated.  Marshall Dudley's upcoming trip should be much more
-> enlightening.  Marshall, how are you coming with your preparations?  Do you
-> have a firm date from Griggs?
 
Griggs had indicated that he was snowed under with work until the end of April.
I am waiting until he is more firm on what dates would be available.  I will
probably give him a call next week to set something up.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / Richard Schultz /  Re: News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis III)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis III)
Date: 4 Apr 1995 17:07:12 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <D6ILB4.FGE@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) claims he is
>speaker for the American Chemical Society.

This is a lie.  In fact, I have explicitly stated that I am *not*
in any way speaking for the ACS.  So much for commitment to the 
truth on Swartz's part.

>  In fact, the longer this goes, the more obvious to everyone that
>there is, and has been,  no denial to the comments made by the
>cf submitters that this was just a another set-up and possible attempt
>at censorship.

I have said it before, and I will continue to say it.  I will not 
discuss this matter until you answer some of the questions I addressed
to *you* -- starting with how much experience do you have with the
programming of large science conferences, and whether you think Baisden's
other option, namely, to allow two or three cf people to speak while 
giving the others no opportunity to present their data, would not have
been censorship as well.
--
					Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / Robert Huss /  Re: News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis III)
     
Originally-From: rhuss+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Robert Huss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis III)
Date: 4 Apr 1995 18:28:20 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

In article <D6ILB4.FGE@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
|>   In Message-ID: <3lr9bk$7f2@agate.berkeley.edu>
|> Subject: Re: News on cf in the March 20 C&EN (final analysis II)
|> Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) claims he is
|> speaker for the American Chemical Society.
|> 
|> = I have said that I will not discuss this matter any further (even to
|> =the extent of explaining for the fifth time why your so-called
|> =calculation of the odds that all 12 papers will be posters is completely
|> =bogus) until you answer some of the questions I have posed to you.
|> =What part of that do you fail to understand?
|> =--
|> =					Richard Schultz
|> 
|>    This is funny and belongs in rec.humor.
|>    You were not even asked (they were rhetorical)
|> since your 
|> knowledge of this appears to be supratentorial.
|>   Your "answers" would be obfuscatory anyway.
|>   In fact, the longer this goes, the more obvious to everyone that
|> there is, and has been,  no denial to the comments made by the
|> cf submitters that this was just a another set-up and possible attempt
|> at censorship.
|> 


I've just been observing this thread, but this post is too strange to
ignore.  He is asking YOU for answers Mitchell. For me, the longer this
goes on, the more obvious it is to me that you've made an erroneous 
decision that you won't back down on for any reason.

BTW, not including some type of research in a conference for any
reason is in no way censorship.

Bob.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudfnRobert cudlnHuss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / Bryan Wallace /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.philosophy.objectivis
,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,misc.books.technical,sci.astro,sci.energy,
ci.logic,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: 4 Apr 1995 19:08:14 -0400
Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida

Eric S. Hirschorn (eshg1897@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing) writes:


: >In article <3lp8vd$j61@mudraker.mtholyoke.edu>, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
(Jurgen Botz) writes:
: >|> the relative prestige of
: >|> publications are the underpinnings of academic legitimacy.

: >But if a journal is well-respected then it is well known
: >that it is well-respected, and there should be no need to
: >boast of this. A boastful statement would tend to suggest
: >that the journal in question is not quite as well-respected
: >as the boaster would wish.

: >Greg

: In his book, Wallace "argues" at great length that peer-review should
: be entirely removed from the well-respected journals.  Amazingly, he
: ignores the likely deterioration of the "well-respectedness" of any
: journal that publishes all articles sent to it.  This shows a
: disturbing lack of perception of cause and effect.

: It's also a bit curious and inconsistent that Wallace is proud that his
: paper survived peer-review.

: And as others have adequately pointed out in previous threads posted
: in sci.physics, Wallace's book is filled with quotes which are used
: way out of context to back up his (quite laughable) claim that
: "physics is an elaborate farce."  I would not contend that there are not
: imperfections - but Wallace in his eagerness for vengeance has gone
: off into the blue.

: In any case, removing peer-review from physics journals is not a valid
: way to make an improvement to the scientific endeavor.  And Wallace's
: context abuse is not consistent with his desire to set the stage for a
: "golden age of science".

: But I'm all ears for a more believable sort of discussion about the
: problems of today's science research, sans Wallace.  The group
: sci.research would be the best place for it; I don't see the need to
: burden (i.e. spam) 10 other groups with it.

: Eric

: Eric S. Hirschorn, Virtual Environments Group
: USACERL, division FFG, P.O.Box 9005, 
: 2902 Newmark Drive, Champaign IL 61826-9005        
: Phone: (217) 352-6511 x6363, Fax: (217) 373-6724       
: email: erich@pike.cecer.army.mil, URL: http://pike.cecer.army.mil/asset.html

When push comes to shove in this publish or perish world, I'm as much a
scientific prostitute as any other physicist.

Bryan


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 / John White /  Re: H2O2 - (was 'A zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless')
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H2O2 - (was 'A zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless')
Date: 4 Apr 1995 19:06:08 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
> John N. White [ jnw@vnet.net ] writes:
>>5.  Solutions of peroxide look just like water. It doesn't smell. It
>>    won't be detected unless somebody tests for it.
>
>  No.  it is pale blue, syrupy and boils at 152.C.

Peroxide is only syrupy when anhydrous. It is colorless, not pale blue.
Perhaps the peroxide you saw contained an additive.

It is unlikely that the peroxide in Pons' cells would ever go anhydrous
since peroxide becomes much less stable when the last little bit of
water is removed. The highest concentration commonly used in industry
is 90%.

>  Methinks in the presence of Fenton's reagent (or any bit of
> iron in the solution) it decomposes and if memory serves gives off
> red light thru an activated electronic state of oxygen.   

Yes, it is easy to test for peroxide. There are many good ways.

>>6.  Peroxide was once manufactured commercially in electrochemical cells
>>    with Platinum anodes.

>   The peroxodisulfate system doesn't apply if not present,

There are many potential systems that could do the job. Without
knowing what Pons' secret ingredients are I don't have much chance
of guessing the system producing peroxide in his cells. My suspicion
right now is that carbonate gets into his cells and plays a role.
But Pons is the one claiming he has an exotic effect, so the burden
is on him to prove it is not peroxide. He needs to do the test to find
out if his cells contain peroxide. He refuses to release his formula,
so nobody else can reproduce his bursts and do the test for him.

The sulfate system you mentioned has a side reaction that prevents
peroxide from becoming too concentrated. That is why commercial cells
using it used a two step process. Pons ran some cells using lithium
sulfate. He got good low level excess heat, but no bursts. Note that
peroxide could cause calorimetry errors even without accumulating.
If some electrolysis is in progress during calibration then some
energy could be diverted to chemical storage. The resulting calibration
error would cause a null cell to appear to be producing excess heat.
Also, if peroxide is destroyed at the cathode, consuming hydrogen
rather than producing oxygen, then the net result would be the
same as recombination.

>> [discussion of Pons' boiloff events being due to peroxide]

>The temperature would be 152 C if you were correct.

That is the boiling point of *anhydrous* peroxide (actually, most of
my reference books say 150.2C). During Pons' boiloff events what is
coming out of the solution is mostly a mixture of D2O vapor and O2 gas.
The temperature will be well below 150C.

During the heat-after-death event water vapor rising from the decomposing
liquid will condense further up on the temperature sensors leads, and
then trickle down to the temperature sensor. This will keep the sensor
from rising above 100C.

> Also the biggest reason against
> is that it is complicated to concentrate H2O2
> using vacuum distillation or multistage fractionation.

I think you are referring to the difficulty of getting anhydrous peroxide.
Also note that I am talking about D2O2, which is more stable than H2O2.

In response to many of my reasons favoring peroxide mitchell swartz wrote:
> Reason for considering it, not evidence.

Excellent! We are in complete agreement that there are reasons to consider
peroxide, and that it is easy to test for. Now all we need is for Pons and
others with large bursts to do the test and find out one way or another.
-- 
jnw@vnet.net
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.04 /  Strutwolf /  Error in Lewis' article?
     
Originally-From: joerg@tc3.chemie.uni-bielefeld.de (Strutwolf)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Error in Lewis' article?
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 09:18:30 GMT
Organization: Universitaet Bielefeld, Rechenzentrum


Hi,

I'm relatively new to this newsgroup. I've read about an error in the 
interpretation of data in N. Lewis'et al. paper in Nature vol.340, pp.525.
Would someone be so kind and tell me what was wrong? If you think this will
bore other readers (I see here too much about cf and other stuff, where
are all the hot fusioners?), please send me a personal mail.

Greetings,
Joerg

joerg@tc3.chemie.uni-bielefeld.de

"What about the millionaire with the drumstick in his pants?
 He looked so baffeled and so bewildered when he played and we didn't dance."
 (bd)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjoerg cudlnStrutwolf cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.04.05 / mitchell swartz /  D2O2 (was 'H2O2' , 'zillion eV ....')
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D2O2 (was 'H2O2' , 'zillion eV ....')
Subject: Re: H2O2 - (was 'A zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless')
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 03:14:34 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 In Message-ID: <3lsmtg$41v@jazzmin.vnet.net>
Subject: Re: H2O2 - (was 'A zillion eV per atom of Pd is meaningless')
John N. White [ jnw@vnet.net ] writes:

> Peroxide is only syrupy when anhydrous. It is colorless, not pale blue.
> Perhaps the peroxide you saw contained an additive.

  "Pure H2O2 is a pale blue, sirupy liquid, boiling at 152.1 ....."
F. Albert Cotton, G. Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, 
Interscience (1972),  414

> The sulfate system you mentioned has a side reaction that prevents
>peroxide from becoming too concentrated. That is why commercial cells
> using it used a two step process. 

 Good point. [Nice to see science comments again, even with
                     the disagreements.   ;-)

 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Apr  5 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
