cold fusion
Question:
> Hello all > What should one call "Cold fusion" as the effect may well (is probably ) be something other than fusion…? > Yours > With kilowatts > Tim
If in fact the device that Pons and Fleishman works, it is indeed fusion. The way it works is to have a metal (which metal I am not aware) rod in a jar that soaks up particles from the medium that it is immersed in. The surface of the rod is such that it will accept more and more particles until it is packed full. Then instead of rejecting more particles, it continues to accept them by packing the atom in the center of the metal rod tighter and tighter until they fuse. The weak force which keeps the atoms apart is overcome by the packing of more and more particles into the rod. Fusion results and somehow it produces heat. But the heat is low due to the smallness of the device. It is not clear at this time that it really works as other researchers have not been able to duplicate the feat. P & F now have a lab in the South of France and are still working on the project. > p.p.s > How many Californians does it take to change a lightbulb? > 501, 1 to screw it in, 500 to share in the experience
How many Psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? One! but the lightbulb really has to want to change! Hang in there. Regards, AllisonWonderland — CHECK OUT THE WEBPAGE AT http://www.livingston.net/allison/home.htm Comments welcome.
Response:
Anyone with doubts or questions about cold fusion might want to check out these two sites: http://www.overunity.de/ceti.htm http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan/files/cetidemo.txt Apparently the US patent office is now passing out the real thing on what some people thought was a hoax. Michael – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hello all > What should one call "Cold fusion" as the effect may well (is probably ) be something other than fusion…? > Yours > With kilowatts > Tim > If in fact the device that Pons and Fleishman works, it is indeed > fusion. The way it works is to have a metal (which metal I am not aware) > rod in a jar that soaks up particles from the medium that it is immersed > in. The surface of the rod is such that it will accept more and more > particles until it is packed full. Then instead of rejecting more > particles, it continues to accept them by packing the atom in the center > of the metal rod tighter and tighter until they fuse. The weak force > which keeps the atoms apart is overcome by the packing of more and more > particles into the rod. Fusion results and somehow it produces heat. But > the heat is low due to the smallness of the device. It is not clear at > this time that it really works as other researchers have not been able > to duplicate the feat. P & F now have a lab in the South of France and > are still working on the project. > p.p.s > How many Californians does it take to change a lightbulb? > 501, 1 to screw it in, 500 to share in the experience > How many Psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? > One! but the lightbulb really has to want to change! > Hang in there. > Regards, > AllisonWonderland > — > CHECK OUT THE WEBPAGE AT > http://www.livingston.net/allison/home.htm > Comments welcome.
Response:
>If in fact the device that Pons and Fleishman works, it is indeed >fusion. The way it works is to have a metal (which metal I am not aware) >rod in a jar that soaks up particles from the medium that it is immersed >in. The surface of the rod is such that it will accept more and more >particles until it is packed full. Then instead of rejecting more >particles, it continues to accept them by packing the atom in the center >of the metal rod tighter and tighter until they fuse. The weak force >which keeps the atoms apart is overcome by the packing of more and more >particles into the rod. Fusion results and somehow it produces heat. But >the heat is low due to the smallness of the device. It is not clear at >this time that it really works as other researchers have not been able >to duplicate the feat. P & F now have a lab in the South of France and >are still working on the project.
Jeez, well. There you have it. I wouldn’t rely on this explanation on cold fusion. Especially when it gets vague about "some metal" in "some medium" and packing the particles until they fuse. And "somehow it produces heat" just tops it off. S. Yeah, Flame me. I can’t explain it because I don’t *know* the facts on cold fusion, but the above is too vague to hang anything on.
Response:
The truth is, these guys don’t really know how it works. There’s a new patented heat-producing cell (CETI – do a search on it) being sold in test kit form by a company in Texas that works, but they don’t know how. You put in 1 watt of electricity, and you get about 200 in heat from it. Not only that, but a Bechtel (you know, the BIGGEST construction company in the friggin’ world, where former US gov’t advisors work after they leave the gov’t) rep says they’re convinced of the thing, and a jet engineer I know says they’re already in use, but nobody can explain how they work, exactly. Truth. Michael – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->If in fact the device that Pons and Fleishman works, it is indeed >fusion. The way it works is to have a metal (which metal I am not aware) >rod in a jar that soaks up particles from the medium that it is immersed >in. The surface of the rod is such that it will accept more and more >particles until it is packed full. Then instead of rejecting more >particles, it continues to accept them by packing the atom in the center >of the metal rod tighter and tighter until they fuse. The weak force >which keeps the atoms apart is overcome by the packing of more and more >particles into the rod. Fusion results and somehow it produces heat. But >the heat is low due to the smallness of the device. It is not clear at >this time that it really works as other researchers have not been able >to duplicate the feat. P & F now have a lab in the South of France and >are still working on the project. > Jeez, well. There you have it. I wouldn’t rely on this explanation > on cold fusion. Especially when it gets vague about "some metal" > in "some medium" and packing the particles until they fuse. And > "somehow it produces heat" just tops it off. > S. > Yeah, Flame me. I can’t explain it because I don’t *know* the > facts on cold fusion, but the above is too vague to hang anything > on.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->If in fact the device (snip) works, it is indeed fusion. >The way it works is (snip) a metal (snip) rod in a jar that soaks up >particles from the medium that it is immersed in. (snip) by the >packing of more and more >particles into the rod. Fusion results.(snip) It is not clear at >this time that it really works. (snip) P & F now have a lab in the >South of France and are still working on the project. > Jeez, well. There you have it. I wouldn’t rely on this explanation > on cold fusion. Especially when it gets vague about "some metal" > in "some medium" and packing the particles until they fuse. And > "somehow it produces heat" just tops it off. > S. > Yeah, Flame me. I can’t explain it because I don’t *know* the > facts on cold fusion, but the above is too vague to hang anything > on.
Dear Phillip, I have to agree with you about the vagueness of the post. I had read an article on it way back when it came out. That was in the late 1980s. My recollection of the article was not very comprehensive, but as I recall, neither was the article. It was more of an "if this works then this is how is works" type article with little or no details. Of course there is more specific information on the subject but the above post was in response to a question of "Is it really fusion?". Sorry that I have not more detail intensive information. And I would agree with you that there was little in the post to hang anything on. And why would I want to flame you? You are right! I would ask though, that you accept the post in the spirit it was made. I read the newsgroups, I comment, I have interest in the subject, I look forward to seeing the thread continue. Even if what was written is vague, I see by your post that my post did accomplish the encouraging of that continuation. Hang in there. Regards and sincere best wishes. AllisonWonderland — CHECK OUT THE WEBPAGE AT http://www.livingston.net/allison/home.htm Comments welcome.
Response:
> The truth is, these guys don’t really know how it works. There’s a new > patented heat-producing cell (CETI – do a search on it) being sold in > test kit form by a company in Texas that works, but they don’t know how. > You put in 1 watt of electricity, and you get about 200 in heat from it. > Not only that, but a Bechtel (you know, the BIGGEST construction company > in the friggin’ world, where former US gov’t advisors work after they > leave the gov’t) rep says they’re convinced of the thing, and a jet > engineer I know says they’re already in use, but nobody can explain how > they work, exactly. Truth. > Michael
/ snip / Have read thru <http://www.onramp.net/~ceti> where they talk about even higher power output. From my school knowledge (which is a bit rusty) I would have expected some neutrons and/or gamma rays (not lethal but measurable) if its really fusion thats going on. I think this would be a far better proof than caloric measures. Axel
Response:
>Have read thru <http://www.onramp.net/~ceti> where they talk about even >higher power output. >From my school knowledge (which is a bit rusty) I would have expected some >neutrons and/or >gamma rays (not lethal but measurable) if its really fusion thats going on. >I think this would be >a far better proof than caloric measures. >Axel
This is certainly true, if it were fusion as we understand it then we would see gamma radiation. But that we get energy from the thing is pretty much irrefutable so something must be happening. Another effect of cold fusion is the transmutation of elements, which is, according to our modern physics, not possible. Thus there must be some nuclear effect occuring, just one we don’t understand. Modern physics is missing something, or at least had, and now has to make up for it. We’re going to see some pretty strange stuff in the next 20 years. — Remember: Death is just God’s way of saying your crap
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->If in fact the device that Pons and Fleishman works, it is indeed >fusion. The way it works is to have a metal (which metal I am not aware) >rod in a jar that soaks up particles from the medium that it is immersed >in. The surface of the rod is such that it will accept more and more >particles until it is packed full. Then instead of rejecting more >particles, it continues to accept them by packing the atom in the center >of the metal rod tighter and tighter until they fuse. The weak force >which keeps the atoms apart is overcome by the packing of more and more >particles into the rod. Fusion results and somehow it produces heat. But >the heat is low due to the smallness of the device. It is not clear at >this time that it really works as other researchers have not been able >to duplicate the feat. P & F now have a lab in the South of France and >are still working on the project. >Jeez, well. There you have it. I wouldn’t rely on this explanation >on cold fusion. Especially when it gets vague about "some metal" >in "some medium" and packing the particles until they fuse. And >"somehow it produces heat" just tops it off. >S. >Yeah, Flame me. I can’t explain it because I don’t *know* the >facts on cold fusion, but the above is too vague to hang anything >on.
Basicly corect. The metal is paladium (about $50 an ounce last time I checked) The medium was heavy water (rich in deuterium)
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>If in fact the device that Pons and Fleishman works, it is indeed >>fusion. The way it works is to have a metal (which metal I am not aware) >>rod in a jar that soaks up particles from the medium that it is immersed >>in. The surface of the rod is such that it will accept more and more >>particles until it is packed full. Then instead of rejecting more >>particles, it continues to accept them by packing the atom in the center >>of the metal rod tighter and tighter until they fuse. The weak force >>which keeps the atoms apart is overcome by the packing of more and more >>particles into the rod. Fusion results and somehow it produces heat. But >>the heat is low due to the smallness of the device. It is not clear at >>this time that it really works as other researchers have not been able >>to duplicate the feat. P & F now have a lab in the South of France and >>are still working on the project. >Jeez, well. There you have it. I wouldn’t rely on this explanation >on cold fusion. Especially when it gets vague about "some metal" >in "some medium" and packing the particles until they fuse. And >"somehow it produces heat" just tops it off. >S. >Yeah, Flame me. I can’t explain it because I don’t *know* the >facts on cold fusion, but the above is too vague to hang anything >on. > Basicly corect. The metal is paladium (about $50 an ounce last time I > checked) The medium was heavy water (rich in deuterium)
Thanks for the clarification, but what S was saying was the my post wasn’t very detailed. A point that I must concur on. As I continue to read the NG, more and more information is brought to the fore. That’s the way that knowledge is accumulated. It’s kind of like one of the "interlaced" graphics files. The first pass on the picture shows the pic, but not very clear. The next pass makes it a bit more clear, and so on till the pic is finished. If we could do this on any subject, it wouldn’t be long before many of the subjects that are unclear would become more clear. I have thought that the next big "discoveries" would be: AntiGravity TimeTravel TeleTransport and V<c (Faster than light speeds) It takes a place to start, with concept and as many details as is know, though details are not too important to start with. The process of adding details would bring things into focus and others would have additions or detractions and that would stimulate the discussion. Anyone? Hang in there! Regards and sincere best wishes AllisonWonderland — CHECK OUT THE WEBPAGE AT http://www.livingston.net/allison/home.htm Comments welcome.
Response:
Bruce Cathie is an internationally know resarcher into the wrold energy grid. His latest book is – The Harmonic Conquest of Space ISBN 0 646 21679 1. If you want to follow his working, evidence, and research to-date, obviously you need to buy the book. I just want to dwell on some of the contents in chapter 14. Nikola Tesla was aware of the world grid, he used it to run a converted Pierce Arrow car in 1931. It was powered by what he called an energy reciever, or gravitational energy converter. The antenna was 5.9 feet long, and the car did up to 90 m.p.h. and 1,800 revs per minute. Obviously moden electric engines, being more efficient would do a lot better than this. Bruce Cathie checked the figure of 5.9 feet, and has found that the length of 5.914441183 exactly fits his harmonic equations. Therefore, very high frequency energy can be tapped from as good as thin air. All that is needed is some form of converter to turn the very high frequency energy into something more useful, like Tesla has already done. I’d love to test this, since there does seem to be plenty on evidence to confirm Bruces’s theories, but I lack the electrical expertise to test this 5.9 stuff, and I don’t have the time needed to learn some electronics. I haven’t found this 5.9 stuff stated anywhere on the net, so I thought I’d post it. Again, if you want to know more, you need to get hold of Bruce’s book. In the meantime, a file on Bruce’s work is available here: — http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/tech/cathie.html although without reading some of the supporting evidence, I can appreciate it might seem a bit far-out and odd. Tim.
Response:
> Bruce Cathie checked the figure of 5.9 feet, and has found that the > length of 5.914441183 exactly fits his harmonic equations. Therefore, > very high frequency energy can be tapped from as good as thin air. All > that is needed is some form of converter to turn the very high frequency > energy into something more useful, like Tesla has already done.
Hmmmm… So, what size oscillations will thermal vibrations induce in an object roughly 6 feet long? What are the limits on manufacturing tolerance of metal? (In machine shop in high school we did 10^-4 inches, but surface roughness on most of our machining tools was probably at least this big.) Then there’s things like sound outdoors vibrating the antenna, changes with temperature, etc. etc. I just don’t believe 10 significant digits in a length manufacturing tolerance. Reminds me of an annecdote about road construction. This architect was all excited that his drainage ditch had to be exactly 12 feet deep. The foreman of the project looks tired and tries to explain that this is silly. The architect persists that everything will fail if the ditch is not exactly 12 feet deep. So the foreman calls to one of his workers. "Hey Joe. How deep is the hole?" Joe leans over and looks down the hole. "Twelve, twelve-an-a-half." The architect went away. Say, is that number a phone number? Maybe somebody is playing a big joke on us by publishing his girlfriend’s phone number as some kind of physical constant. > although without reading some of the supporting evidence, I can > appreciate it might seem a bit far-out and odd.
Yup. — Standard disclaimers apply. I don’t buy from people who advertise by e-mail. I don’t buy from their ISPs. Dan Evens
Response:
> Nikola Tesla was aware of the world grid, he used it to run a converted > Pierce Arrow car in 1931. It was powered by what he called an energy > reciever, or gravitational energy converter. The antenna was 5.9 feet > long, and the car did up to 90 m.p.h. and 1,800 revs per minute. > Obviously moden electric engines, being more efficient would do a lot > better than this. > Bruce Cathie checked the figure of 5.9 feet, and has found that the > length of 5.914441183 exactly fits his harmonic equations. Therefore, > very high frequency energy can be tapped from as good as thin air. All > that is needed is some form of converter to turn the very high frequency > energy into something more useful, like Tesla has already done.
Harmonic equations of *what*, exactly? I can pick out any number and find some equation that will agree with it. But if the equations that this number agree with are some major, scientifically-accepted cornerstone of physics, that’s another matter entirely 
> I’d love to test this, since there does seem to be plenty on evidence to > confirm Bruces’s theories, but I lack the electrical expertise to test > this 5.9 stuff, and I don’t have the time needed to learn some > electronics. > I haven’t found this 5.9 stuff stated anywhere on the net, so I thought > I’d post it. Again, if you want to know more, you need to get hold of > Bruce’s book.
Remember, Tesla was master of *transmitting power without wires*. Most likely, the device in his car was simply a tuned antenna receiving power from a nearby Tesla power transmitter. Several people think that the device was legitimate, and have tried to make devices of similar function. Only name that comes to mind is Bedini, if you do a net search for Bedini and free energy, you might run across it. Basically, the device charges two capacitors in parallel — then in discharges the capacitors back into the battery in serial. If it’s a 12v battery, the caps pump 24v, albeit at half-the-current, back into the battery. Nothing magic here. However, by some unexplained chemical action upon the battery itself as a result of putting way too much voltage back in, the battery *really does last longer* — sometimes as much as 100%. Free energy device, however, it is not. Chris C.
Response:
> Harmonic equations of *what*, exactly? I can pick out any number and > find some equation that will agree with it. But if the equations that > this number agree with are some major, scientifically-accepted > cornerstone of physics, that’s another matter entirely
This is the first message I’ve seen in this thread, so I’m not going to comment on the free-energy thing per se. But don’t go too hard on the "established scientific fact" thing. Was it two years ago that doctors refused to believe that anything could live in the pH 1 environment in the stomach? Now they’re killing the things that DO live there and curing ulcers by doing so, and the "crackpot" who "told us so" is vindicated. That said, those "harmonic equations" had better be good… > Basically, the device charges two capacitors in parallel — then in > discharges the capacitors back into the battery in serial. If it’s a > 12v battery, the caps pump 24v, albeit at half-the-current, back into > the battery. Nothing magic here. > However, by some unexplained chemical action upon the battery itself as > a result of putting way too much voltage back in, the battery *really > does last longer* — sometimes as much as 100%.
Uh-oh, here comes the two-capacitor thread again. — | Cliff Sharp | If tin whistles are made of tin, what do they make | | WA9PDM | foghorns out of? –Lonnie Donnegan |
Response:
: > Basically, the device charges two capacitors in parallel — then in : > discharges the capacitors back into the battery in serial. If it’s a : > 12v battery, the caps pump 24v, albeit at half-the-current, back into : > the battery. Nothing magic here. : > Why use a battery when you can get couple of step-up transformers. Suppose each one steps up the voltage by 10%. You apply 10 volts to the primary of the first one, you get 11 volts out. Apply this to the primary of the second one and you get 12.1 volts in its secondary. Then hook this back to the primary of the first one. Even assuming a 20 percent efficiency loss, you get an enormous amount of free power. Or better yet just get a motor which will turn a generator. The generator powers the motor and well as providing excess power.
Response:
Just as I was about to throttle the next door neighbour’s cat on Wed, 22 Jan thus: [snip snip snip] >Bruce Cathie checked the figure of 5.9 feet, and has found that the >length of 5.914441183 exactly fits his harmonic equations. Therefore, >very high frequency energy can be tapped from as good as thin air.
[snip snip sni.. clunk - rats, the energy grid must have popped a fuse again - where are the hand scissors? That's better - snip snip snip] I ran this through my computer. Seventy-three hours of breathless anticipation later, I had my answer. With great trepidation I looked at the output of the laser printer, and there it was – the ANSWER. It simply said, "CRAP". Couldn’t have put it better myself. I tried to put my signature here, but the ball-point kept slipping off the screen, so I’m typing this instead. I will happily read unsolicited (junk) e-mail on the understanding that I will have to charge the sender of such e-mail an invoice for my valuable time spent in reading it, at my standard rate of AUD120 per hour, one hour minimum. And DON’T think for a nanosecond that I won’t send you an invoice, because I bloody well will. Website: http://www.zip.com.au/~plexus
Response:
: : > Basically, the device charges two capacitors in parallel — then in : : > discharges the capacitors back into the battery in serial. If it’s a : : > 12v battery, the caps pump 24v, albeit at half-the-current, back into : : > the battery. Nothing magic here. : : > Sorry about the mis-attribution, apparent5ly Clifton T. Sharp didn’t write the above sceientific wisdom. I wouldn’t want to give improper credit where credit was due, after all this is going to solve the world’s energy problems!
Response:
Just as I was about to throttle the next door neighbour’s cat on Thu, 23 Jan thus: >Or better yet just get a motor which will turn a generator. The >generator powers the motor and well as providing excess power.
Now you’re being silly – I tried that once and generated so much free energy that I spun a bearing. Never again; I’ve learnt MY lesson. Bearings are damned expensive! I tried to put my signature here, but the ball-point kept slipping off the screen, so I’m typing this instead. I will happily read unsolicited (junk) e-mail on the understanding that I will have to charge the sender of such e-mail an invoice for my valuable time spent in reading it, at my standard rate of AUD120 per hour, one hour minimum. And DON’T think for a nanosecond that I won’t send you an invoice, because I bloody well will. Website: http://www.zip.com.au/~plexus
Response:
> hook this back to the primary of the first one. Even assuming a 20 > percent efficiency loss, you get an enormous amount of free power.
I hate to disillusion you, but power and voltage are very different things. There is no such thing as free energy. Anthony Potts CERN, Geneva
Response:
>: > Basically, the device charges two capacitors in parallel — then in >: > discharges the capacitors back into the battery in serial. If it’s a >: > 12v battery, the caps pump 24v, albeit at half-the-current, back into >: > the battery. Nothing magic here. >Why use a battery when you can get couple of step-up transformers. >Suppose each one steps up the voltage by 10%. You apply 10 volts to the >primary of the first one, you get 11 volts out. Apply this to the >primary of the second one and you get 12.1 volts in its secondary. Then >hook this back to the primary of the first one. Even assuming a 20 >percent efficiency loss, you get an enormous amount of free power. >Or better yet just get a motor which will turn a generator. The >generator powers the motor and well as providing excess power.
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease tell me you were just joking….. That the second just wanted to be a parody of the first one…. (as I thought after the first line)….. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease…… to some REAL sci. groups….. (although I removed them) It’s soooooooooo disappointing….. I mean I can hardly remember anything in this group this week, that wasn’t concerned with some perpetuum mobile. Why is even the smallest amount of technical knowledge forbidden amongst environmentalists???? Th(A)n
Response:
> > hook this back to the primary of the first one. Even assuming a 20 > percent efficiency loss, you get an enormous amount of free power. > I hate to disillusion you, but power and voltage are very different > things. > There is no such thing as free energy. > Anthony Potts > CERN, Geneva
Ripley….move over. Here we go with perpetual motion again.
Response:
> I ran this through my computer. Seventy-three hours of breathless anticipation > later, I had my answer. With great trepidation I looked at the output of the > laser printer, and there it was – the ANSWER. > It simply said, "CRAP".
That’s strange. When I ran it on my system it came back with "RUBBISH!". Frank
Response:
> Nikola Tesla was aware of the world grid, he used it to run a converted > Pierce Arrow car in 1931. It was powered by what he called an energy > reciever, or gravitational energy converter. The antenna was 5.9 feet > long, and the car did up to 90 m.p.h. and 1,800 revs per minute. > Obviously moden electric engines, being more efficient would do a lot > better than this.
…and Rumplestiltskin knew how to spin straw into gold!
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : > Basically, the device charges two capacitors in parallel — then in > : > discharges the capacitors back into the battery in serial. If it’s a > : > 12v battery, the caps pump 24v, albeit at half-the-current, back into > : > the battery. Nothing magic here. > : > > Why use a battery when you can get couple of step-up transformers. > Suppose each one steps up the voltage by 10%. You apply 10 volts to the > primary of the first one, you get 11 volts out. Apply this to the > primary of the second one and you get 12.1 volts in its secondary. Then > hook this back to the primary of the first one. Even assuming a 20 > percent efficiency loss, you get an enormous amount of free power. > Or better yet just get a motor which will turn a generator. The > generator powers the motor and well as providing excess power.
It’s not the same. You have to pump the voltage *back into the battery*. Somehow, by overvoltaging the battery, it agitates the chemicals so that the chemical-to-electrical reaction becomes more efficient. The battery lasts longer, and therefore releases more energy. This in contrast to a transformer step-up, which increases voltage at the sake of amperage, and creates no real energy gain. Chris C.
Response:
> > I ran this through my computer. Seventy-three hours of breathless anticipation > later, I had my answer. With great trepidation I looked at the output of the > laser printer, and there it was – the ANSWER. > It simply said, "CRAP". > That’s strange. When I ran it on my system it came back with "RUBBISH!".
I ran mine on a Cray Y-MP. It said: The relative verisimilitude of the presented dissertation suggests implications which beg cautious but studious investigation. Please install an intelligent lifeform at the input device before submitting further input. — | Cliff Sharp | If tin whistles are made of tin, what do they make | | WA9PDM | foghorns out of? –Lonnie Donnegan |
Response:
>> hook this back to the primary of the first one. Even assuming a 20 > percent efficiency loss, you get an enormous amount of free power. >I hate to disillusion you, but power and voltage are very different >things. >There is no such thing as free energy. >Anthony Potts >CERN, Geneva
Thank You! lkh Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.
Response:
Hello all I’m knew to this list, but have a great interest in renewable energy. The main subject I have of interest is that of cold fusion, I was wondering if there have been any knew developements in the field over the last couple of months. Since reading an article in Fortean Times recently, my hopes for the future of this energy source have been greatly increased. p.s. What should one call "Cold fusion" as the effect may well (is probably ) be something other than fusion…? Yours With kilowatts Tim p.p.s How many Californians does it take to change a lightbulb? 501, 1 to screw it in, 500 to share in the experience — Remember: Death is just God’s way of saying your crap
Response:
>> It’s not the same. You have to pump the voltage *back into the > battery*. Somehow, by overvoltaging the battery, it agitates the > chemicals so that the chemical-to-electrical reaction becomes more > efficient. The battery lasts longer, and therefore releases more > energy. >Enormous yawn.. >Whenever I overcharge a battery, it dies.
Whenever I overcharge _my_ battery it’s called an equalizing charge, and it’s essential for the long life of a deep-cycle lead-acid battery. — "Hey! You got your razor in my wager!"
Response:
writes – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Bruce Cathie is an internationally know resarcher into the wrold energy >grid. His latest book is – The Harmonic Conquest of Space ISBN 0 646 >21679 1. If you want to follow his working, evidence, and research >to-date, obviously you need to buy the book. >I just want to dwell on some of the contents in chapter 14. >Nikola Tesla was aware of the world grid, he used it to run a converted >Pierce Arrow car in 1931. It was powered by what he called an energy >reciever, or gravitational energy converter. The antenna was 5.9 feet >long, and the car did up to 90 m.p.h. and 1,800 revs per minute. >Obviously moden electric engines, being more efficient would do a lot >better than this. >Bruce Cathie checked the figure of 5.9 feet, and has found that the >length of 5.914441183 exactly fits his harmonic equations. Therefore, >very high frequency energy can be tapped from as good as thin air. All >that is needed is some form of converter to turn the very high frequency >energy into something more useful, like Tesla has already done. >I’d love to test this, since there does seem to be plenty on evidence to >confirm Bruces’s theories, but I lack the electrical expertise to test >this 5.9 stuff, and I don’t have the time needed to learn some >electronics. >I haven’t found this 5.9 stuff stated anywhere on the net, so I thought >I’d post it. Again, if you want to know more, you need to get hold of >Bruce’s book. >In the meantime, a file on Bruce’s work is available here: >– >http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/tech/cathie.html >although without reading some of the supporting evidence, I can >appreciate it might seem a bit far-out and odd. >Tim.
Not another one! Jim Barr Machine Conversation http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ Best is the enemy of good enough Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > writes >Bruce Cathie is an internationally know resarcher into the wrold energy >grid. His latest book is – The Harmonic Conquest of Space ISBN 0 646 >21679 1. If you want to follow his working, evidence, and research >to-date, obviously you need to buy the book. >I just want to dwell on some of the contents in chapter 14. >Nikola Tesla was aware of the world grid, he used it to run a converted >Pierce Arrow car in 1931. It was powered by what he called an energy >reciever, or gravitational energy converter. The antenna was 5.9 feet >long, and the car did up to 90 m.p.h. and 1,800 revs per minute. >Obviously moden electric engines, being more efficient would do a lot >better than this. >Bruce Cathie checked the figure of 5.9 feet, and has found that the >length of 5.914441183 exactly fits his harmonic equations. Therefore, >very high frequency energy can be tapped from as good as thin air. All >that is needed is some form of converter to turn the very high frequency >energy into something more useful, like Tesla has already done. >I’d love to test this, since there does seem to be plenty on evidence to >confirm Bruces’s theories, but I lack the electrical expertise to test >this 5.9 stuff, and I don’t have the time needed to learn some >electronics. >I haven’t found this 5.9 stuff stated anywhere on the net, so I thought >I’d post it. Again, if you want to know more, you need to get hold of >Bruce’s book. >In the meantime, a file on Bruce’s work is available here: >– >http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/tech/cathie.html >although without reading some of the supporting evidence, I can >appreciate it might seem a bit far-out and odd. >Tim. > Not another one! > Jim Barr Machine Conversation > http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ > Best is the enemy of good enough > Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves
I think the above scientific analysis (choke) does prove that there is such a thing as free time.)
Response:
>>Nikola Tesla was aware of the world grid, he used it to run a converted >Pierce Arrow car in 1931. It was powered by what he called an energy >reciever, or gravitational energy converter. The antenna was 5.9 feet >long, and the car did up to 90 m.p.h. and 1,800 revs per minute.
Never heard that one before, even from Tesla fans. Although Tesla lived from 1856 to 1943, his major work was before 1900, and I don’t think he did anything significant after 1915 or so. Tesla did try some RF power transmission, but it never worked very well. That would today be considered a giant source of ELF pollution. If you want to see RF power transmission in action, hook up a flourescent bulb to a few feet of antenna and stand under a high tension transmission line. Amaze your friends. Annoy your power company’s PR department. John Nagle
Response:
> I think the above scientific analysis (choke) does prove that there is > such a thing as free time.)
Time and tide wait for no man; they’ve already been snapped up by Luce Enterprises and Proctor & Gamble. — | Cliff Sharp | If tin whistles are made of tin, what do they make | | WA9PDM | foghorns out of? –Lonnie Donnegan |
Response:
>> I think the above scientific analysis (choke) does prove that there is > such a thing as free time.) >Time and tide wait for no man; they’ve already been snapped up by Luce >Enterprises and Proctor & Gamble.
Sure. Spam if you like. Promise any form of margarine rhetoric. This is a teflon newsgroup. Nothing sticks that would normally cause ring around the collar. There could be 409 reasons why windows squeak when you use it. But you must admit: it is N-ice, now and then to wake up with a drowsy formula. Keeps the Meta-muscile flowing. Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Nikola Tesla was aware of the world grid, he used it to run a converted >>Pierce Arrow car in 1931. It was powered by what he called an energy >>reciever, or gravitational energy converter. The antenna was 5.9 feet >>long, and the car did up to 90 m.p.h. and 1,800 revs per minute. > Never heard that one before, even from Tesla fans. Although >Tesla lived from 1856 to 1943, his major work was before 1900, and >I don’t think he did anything significant after 1915 or so. > Tesla did try some RF power transmission, but it never worked very >well. That would today be considered a giant source of ELF pollution. > If you want to see RF power transmission in action, hook up a >flourescent bulb to a few feet of antenna and stand under a high >tension transmission line. Amaze your friends. Annoy your power >company’s PR department. > John Nagle
Or stand next to a radio station transmitter:)
Response:
>> >are earnestly debating the finer points of beam dumps. > I think that’s absolutely disgusting. Beam dumps are ecologically > damaging – we should recycle as many beams as we can. > That was a typo. He was trying to type beaN dumps. Our lab has >a bunch of stuff for making high energy beans and we also have bean >dumps. You wouldn’t want to recycle any of those high powered beans, >it’s too dangerous, just dump ‘em.
The Sendero Leguminoso guerrillas are very interested in your high energy beans. — "Hey! You got your razor in my wager!"
Response:
> > All energy is free. What you pay for is postage & packing. > Here at Duke’s FEL Lab., we make use of free electrons to produce > laser light.
But it isn’t the postage and handling that is expensive, it is the routing . — sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.paranoia.com/~filipg/REPAIR/
Response:
> A little off the line but mildly relevant is I heard somewhere that > Wash. DC will go nuclear fusion somewhere around 2010, thus extending > our energy supply for the planet’s estimated lifetime.
I already thought they were having regular meltdowns in Congress . BTW, don’t expect them to come anywhere near that date. There has been yet another setback….. — sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.paranoia.com/~filipg/REPAIR/
Response:
>> Why use a battery when you can get couple of step-up transformers. > Suppose each one steps up the voltage by 10%. You apply 10 volts to the > primary of the first one, you get 11 volts out. Apply this to the > primary of the second one and you get 12.1 volts in its secondary. Then > hook this back to the primary of the first one. Even assuming a 20 > percent efficiency loss, you get an enormous amount of free power. > Or better yet just get a motor which will turn a generator. The > generator powers the motor and well as providing excess power. >It’s not the same. You have to pump the voltage *back into the >battery*. Somehow, by overvoltaging the battery, it agitates the >chemicals so that the chemical-to-electrical reaction becomes more >efficient. The battery lasts longer, and therefore releases more >energy.
Are you saying that the useful life of the battery is extended, ie it can be cycled through more charge discharge cycles, If so I find this interesting, and would like to know more. IF, however, you are saying that the method described enables the battery to deliver more amps at given voltage for a longer time for each charge ie. energy out > energy in Please clarify Jim Barr Machine Conversation http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ Best is the enemy of good enough Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves
Response:
>>> Why use a battery when you can get couple of step-up transformers. >> Suppose each one steps up the voltage by 10%. You apply 10 volts to the >> primary of the first one, you get 11 volts out. Apply this to the >> primary of the second one and you get 12.1 volts in its secondary. Then >> hook this back to the primary of the first one. Even assuming a 20 >> percent efficiency loss, you get an enormous amount of free power. >> Or better yet just get a motor which will turn a generator. The >> generator powers the motor and well as providing excess power.
Obviously this guy didn’t take Electric Shop in high school. John Nagle
Response:
Just as I was about to throttle the next door neighbour’s cat on Sun, 26 Jan > Obviously this guy didn’t take Electric Shop in high school.
I took Sex Shop in my first year of university – does that count? I tried to put my signature here, but the ball-point kept slipping off the screen, so I’m typing this instead. I will happily read unsolicited (junk) e-mail on the understanding that I will have to charge the sender of such e-mail an invoice for my valuable time spent in reading it, at my standard rate of AUD120 per hour, one hour minimum. And don’t think for a nanosecond that I won’t send you an invoice, because I bloody well WILL.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> Why use a battery when you can get couple of step-up transformers. >>> Suppose each one steps up the voltage by 10%. You apply 10 volts to the >>> primary of the first one, you get 11 volts out. Apply this to the >>> primary of the second one and you get 12.1 volts in its secondary. Then >>> hook this back to the primary of the first one. Even assuming a 20 >>> percent efficiency loss, you get an enormous amount of free power. >>> Or better yet just get a motor which will turn a generator. The >>> generator powers the motor and well as providing excess power. > Obviously this guy didn’t take Electric Shop in high school. > John Nagle
He obviously did. How else could one come up with such a joke? Boris Mohar
Response:
: If you want to see RF power transmission in action, hook up a : flourescent bulb to a few feet of antenna and stand under a high : tension transmission line. Amaze your friends. Annoy your power : company’s PR department. You don’t even need an antenna, just take the bulb out under the powerline and it will glow by itself. Works best at night.
Response:
writes >>>Nikola Tesla was aware of the world grid, he used it to run a converted
SNIP > If you want to see RF power transmission in action, hook up a >flourescent bulb to a few feet of antenna and stand under a high >tension transmission line. Amaze your friends. Annoy your power >company’s PR department. > John Nagle >Or stand next to a radio station transmitter:)
You appear to be attributing a lot of words to Jim Barr,I said none of this, I was rubbishing some of the tesla, prophets and similar chaps some way back in the thread and MY sig got stuck to it!! Regards, Jim Jim Barr Machine Conversation http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ Best is the enemy of good enough Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves
Response:
>There was a theoretical proposal 10 (about) years ago to use the >temperature differential between the upper and lower layers of the ocean >off Hawaii to gfenerate power. This , though, used the density >difference between cold and hot sea water to set up a flow. Needless to >say, the proposed assembly was enourmous and non too efficient. >This is the first I have heard suggesting using the thermocouple effect, >and I cannot see any theoretical reaons why it woundn’t work. Three >engineering problems suggest themselves, though. First, the insulation >on the wires would have to be extremely resistant to salt water, given >that the verticle distance needed would be around one mile.
There are areas where the thermoclines are within ten feet of the surface, I have dived in them. Quite strange! What sort of *minimum* temperature difference do you need for your technology to be feasible? > Second, the >isolation procedures aboard the wire laying ship would have to be very >good. Otherwise, water would infiltrate between the wire and the >insulation and be drawn to the bottom when the wire was extended. This >is not foolish, I was involved in a case when a 460 metre three phase >power cable was extended into a shaft, and this particular problem >shorted us out. In a low humidity atmosphere, too. Third, the first >two problems suggest that power generated from this system would be >irregular, at least at first, and so the cost would be high. >I like the idea though, and the problems seem to be only of engineering >(= cost). I’d rather pay more for my electricity than have none at all.
True! or manage with less? Jim Barr Machine Conversation http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ Best is the enemy of good enough Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves Barr’s Law of Recursive Futility….. "If you’re smart enough to use one of these,.. ..you can probably manage without one"
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->You know, I find it totally hilarious that people seem to think that power and >voltage are the same thing, and that putting a motor and generator together >produces ‘free energy’. >Anyways, the reason I posted this is I was wondering if anyone has any real >info on the energy produced by using temperature differences in water currents >or related information. Geothermic energy is certainly clean, and I was curious >about the possible uses of water-based sources as Fossil alternatives. >This is similar to something I was considering looking into. I read >once that the world’s oceans are stratified into different temperature >bands, and I wondered how far apart they might be. Might it be >possible to hang a system of thermocouples from a boat to generate >electricity? You would need the cold junctions in the cold bit, and >the hot junctions in the warm bit. I couldn’t find any literature >about the amount of energy you can get from such a device using the >Seebeck effect. >Jonathan
They are called thermoclines (when stationary, not sure about currents). The temp changes can be quite startling, I have dived through them in the Med. The difference in density is so abrupt that debri that sinks in the warm water floats on the cold water; it looks like oil on vinigar from the side, really weird! A scheme was tried in the 60’s to capture energy via thermopiles but like most sea based systems, it suffered from the environment. ALSO I *believe* the thermoclines are not also in the same place and come and go. so you have an unreliable source at best. Jim Barr Machine Conversation http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ Best is the enemy of good enough Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves Barr’s Law of Recursive Futility….. "If you’re smart enough to use one of these,.. ..you can probably manage without one"
Response:
writes > Doesn’t anybody have kid’s out there ? They seem to have more energy then > seems reasonable for the amount of food they eat (until their teenagers ). > Just like the world grid nobody has figured out how to harness it yet. >Must be a Schrodinger Uncertainty thing – ‘borrowing’ energy from the >quantum vacuum as a child and then returning it after pubity! >-just a thought! >Phil
I once asked Heizenburg if that was true and he said it might be, but he wasn’t sure Jim Barr Machine Conversation http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ Best is the enemy of good enough Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves Barr’s Law of Recursive Futility….. "If you’re smart enough to use one of these,.. ..you can probably manage without one"
Response:
Phil Lawson wrote >Must be a Schrodinger Uncertainty thing >Phil
To which Jim Barr added: > I once asked Heizenburg if that was true and he said it might be, but he > wasn’t sure.
And Occam said he could do without it! > Jim Barr Machine Conversation > http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ > Best is the enemy of good enough > Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves > Barr’s Law of Recursive Futility….. > "If you’re smart enough to use one of these,.. > ..you can probably manage without one"
– Hang in there! Regards and sincere best wishes AllisonWonderland — CHECK OUT THE WEBPAGE AT http://www.livingston.net/allison/home.htm Comments welcome.
Response:
>I always thought that warmer water is able to hold more impurities >(air, co2, oxygen) etc. than cooler water. Try this, see how much >sugar you can dissolve in a quart of warm water before it settles to >the bottom, and see how much cold water can hold before setling to >the bottom. Nutrients and co2 and oxygen are going to be the same >way. >Sheldon
I could be wrong but I thought that the aqueas solubility of gases Decreases with increased temperature, NOT the other way round. Also a lot of the *nutrients* are suspended not disolved. I am not sure about this so no big deal ok? Jim Barr Machine Conversation http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ Best is the enemy of good enough Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves Barr’s Law of Recursive Futility….. "If you’re smart enough to use one of these,.. ..you can probably manage without one"
Response:
: >I always thought that warmer water is able to hold more impurities : >(air, co2, oxygen) etc. than cooler water. Try this, see how much : >sugar you can dissolve in a quart of warm water before it settles to : >the bottom, and see how much cold water can hold before setling to : >the bottom. Nutrients and co2 and oxygen are going to be the same : >way. : >Sheldon : I could be wrong but I thought that the aqueas solubility of gases : Decreases with increased temperature, NOT the other way round. Also a : lot of the *nutrients* are suspended not disolved. : Jim Barr Machine Conversation Even more interesting is that the volume of a sugar water mixture is less than the volume of each separately. Ken Fischer P.S. Why is this thread spammed?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >: >I always thought that warmer water is able to hold more impurities >: >(air, co2, oxygen) etc. than cooler water. Try this, see how much >: >sugar you can dissolve in a quart of warm water before it settles to >: >the bottom, and see how much cold water can hold before setling to >: >the bottom. Nutrients and co2 and oxygen are going to be the same >: >way. >: >Sheldon >: I could be wrong but I thought that the aqueas solubility of gases >: Decreases with increased temperature, NOT the other way round. Also a >: lot of the *nutrients* are suspended not disolved. >: Jim Barr Machine Conversation > Even more interesting is that the volume of a >sugar water mixture is less than the volume of each >separately. >Ken Fischer >P.S. Why is this thread spammed?
To increase the entropy of the net. From Gibbs’ equation we can see that this will produce large amounts of FREE energy. Walter
Response:
writes > > > > .. There is no such thing as free energy. >Wow, I had no idea this thread would get such a response.
Tim, Your talking c**p BUT allready I like you, I have seen so many troll style idiotic jumble brained attempts to prove science wrong and the weirdo’s right and here you are you don’t even want to argue (yet). >Of course the claim ‘there is not such thing as free energy,’ depends on >your definition. Hydro-electricity has always seemed pretty free to me. >The Japanese have a patented motor with 318% efficiency.
Depends how you measure efficiency > The patterson >cold fusion power cell provides ‘free energy,’( at least they’re selling >it, and haven’t lost a court case yet like Meyers, so I presume the >device is genuine).
Or maybe their lawyers are better, but then, how do they afford them? > The Adams motor as listed in the Mad Scientist’s >lair, is apparently a ‘free energy’ or over utility device also. >There is no limit in principle in extracting energy from thin air, >nothing science fiction about it. Since the whole universe even the >vacuum, is a limitless sea of energy. The only problem is how to tap into >this energy. Theoretically free energy devices are perfectly sound. >The second law of thermodynamics which skeptics often cite only applies >to closed systems. Since the universe is an open system,
Sorry, the universe *may* be closed and probably is…. BUT I accept that if you count all energy in the universe as free, then energy is free. It is a matter of definition NOT science! ( still 
) >it is possible >in theory to build what appears to us to be a free energy, or perpetual >motion device. What skeptics also forget, it that perpetual motion is >only impossible at the macroscopic level. The zero-point energy at the >quantum level, is perpetual motion. >The challenge for free energy research is to produce a working device, >not to prove one is theoretically possible.
You got my vote there allthough, I think you may be wasting your time. >If you want my personal opinion, making a cut of a few millions in the >billions being spent/wasted ( delete as appropiate ) on hot fusion, and >diverting this to maverick inventers would be worth a shot.
TRUE, but I want to be allowed to weed out some, OK? > Big science >projects are sometimes a waste of huge amounts of public money, like for >example, the anglo-french supersonic airliner concorde. Why not give a >few speculative millions to the mavericks out there? The potential >pay-off is enormous. If some inventors are frauds, so what? Jail them, >fine them. But if 1 device is genuine, it will have been worth it.
Forget about it being worth while, its entertainment, It could easily outsparkle the next general election! Now don’t go all dramatic Tim, You have to be the first person I’ve read on the NG who talks really sensible, polite C**p, Great stuff I’ll join the billygoats on this one, Jim Jim Barr Machine Conversation http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk/ Best is the enemy of good enough Leaves rustle, blades turn, water moves Barr’s Law of Recursive Futility….. "If you’re smart enough to use one of these,.. ..you can probably manage without one"
Response:
I am an absolute novice when it comes to the subject of cold fusion. I would like answers to a few basic questions about its feasability, cost, etc. Does cold fusion have the potential to provide the world with an unlimited supply of power? What kind of health risks does it pose for the general population? How long will it be before the technology can be applied to our everyday lives? Generally, will the initial investment be so large as to be politically impossible to sell? How does it rank against other alternative energy sources? Even the briefest of answers would be appreciated.
Response:
>like answers to a few basic questions about its feasability, cost,
etc. >Does cold fusion have the potential to provide the world with an
unlimited supply of power? It would if it worked. It doesn’t. >What kind of health risks does it pose for the general population?
Since it doesn’t work, it’s hard to know. The field is filled with claims but little supporting theory, so it’s also hard to project. >How long will it be before the technology can be applied to our everyday lives?
It’s highly unlikely you will live to see the day. >Generally, will the initial investment be so large as to be
politically impossible to sell? Politics has nothing to do with it. If there were real promise, venture capital would be streaming to it. Unfortunately, the claimants are mostly hung up on government or big corporation funding. Just think how much government funding did for the personal computer business. Or IBM funding for that matter. >How does it rank against other alternative energy sources?
Since it doesn’t work, it doesn’t compare. >Even the briefest of answers would be appreciated.
I tried. — * Daly City California: * * where San Francisco meets The Peninsula * * and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
Response:
Related Posts