Frogfall Verified User
  • Member since Aug 25th 2022

Posts by Frogfall

    For someone looking to heat the feet and or face, the extra 50% heat from a fully renewable electricity source is certainly attractive

    The problem is that a single candle gives out around 80 watts - so even when operating at its stated maximum capacity, this device supposedly produces less heat than two candles - and you still need to power it with 100 watts of "renewable electricity".


    But yes, I think you are right that a conventional vapour compression heat pump would be expensive - and not really cost effective at this power level. And the desire for any heating method - in areas where fuels are scarce and expensive (i.e. paraffin, propane, coal, dried peat, dried dung, firewood) is very real.


    As I said, it is a start - and we need to keep an eye on this.

    I have often wondered if the variability of the Ba dosing was the reason some JM Pd worked, and some did not.

    Back when I was looking at the problem of hydrogen embrittlement in alloy steels (e.g. plated high tensile bolts), I did think about "cleanliness" and the presence of solid impurities that might act as hydrogen "centres of migration". Aluminium is often used to "kill" steel (grab oxygen), and some small aluminium oxide particles remain in the melt.


    I was always intrigued by the time delay between the torque tightening of a hydrogen-loaded bolt (say, to 2/3 of yield stress) and the sudden fracture of the bolt. Usually the fracture happened overnight, so nobody saw it happen - and you just found a bolt-head on the floor in the morning.


    The classic view is that the time delay allows hydrogen to migrate to grain boundaries and lattice dislocations - where it builds up pressure, and allows cracks to form. However, when inspecting the surface of the fracture there never seemed to be any evidence of particular crack origins. (Unlike when inspecting, say, the aftermath of a fatigue fracture). The surface was always nicely granular - as if it had been fractured by a sudden tensile overload.


    My suspicion was that there was some kind of sudden physical change in the region of highest stress - leading to the fracture. Maybe the changes centred on impurities, rather than simple dislocations. Some metal oxides can act as catalysts, after all.

    Have been reminded of this post (further up the thread)



    Early Coherers used a "tapper" to disrupt the RF conduction effect. I wonder if Colman was originally trying to create some kind of magnetically disrupted "non-tapping coherer"?



    Coherer - Wikipedia
    en.wikipedia.org


    Successful inventors very often "stumble upon" an odd effect while they are working on something else - and have the presence of mind to not simply dismiss the observation, but investigate it further. Hence, to understand the sequence of events that led to a particular invention, it is always important to look for the "origin story".

    Quote from From their press release

    Venkat Tangirala, CEO, WindStream Technologies, informs, “The power required for this device is very low, that is, 100W per 1 hour, which translates to 2.4 kW per device per day (24 hrs).

    No it does not. The 100 watts consumption is a power, regardless of time. The daily energy consumption is 2.4 kW.hr (kilowatt-hours) - but it is still only consuming 100 watts, continually.


    Whoever wrote the press release doesn't understand electricity, or power calculations.


    Quote

    The SeeGen is advertised as providing 30-50% efficiency, providing 130-150 Watts heat power

    They are actually describing an efficiency of 130% - 150%, electrical to thermal. That is not an efficiency of 30-50%.


    (n.b. You can get better performance from a heat pump.)


    I guess it is a start. But I suspect it doesn't work the way they think it works. Let's see if they can manage to (a) scale it up to a larger device, and (b) increase the CoP to something more useful.

    You said CaO reacts with water. How about hydrogen all by itself? Not H2O.

    I actually said:

    I was wondering if a similar but smaller reaction would occur with plain hydrogen.


    Maybe the chemists here can comment, as information on the monohydrate reaction seems well hidden, across the internet, by all the references to calcium (II) hydrate.

    In other words, I know the monohydrate exists (CaOH) but could not find a reference to reactions between plain hydrogen (either monatomic or H2) with CaO. For all I know, it might not occur - or it might only occur if the CaO granules are very finely divided (which might be extra support for Ed's observed "particle size threshold effect").

    And, of course, the various "rights licensing agencies" are simply a protection racket. None of the money collected ever makes it into the pockets of anyone who created the "content" in the first place. But once they find you - you can never escape...


    I'm also uncomfortable about this thread being visible in the "fully public" area of the forum - as it will turn up in google searches.


    World’s biggest experimental nuclear fusion reactor launched in Japan
    Joint project with EU involves more than 500 scientists and engineers and more than 70 companies
    www.theguardian.com


    This is the JT-60SA.


    Quote

    It was planned for JT-60 to be disassembled and then upgraded to JT-60SA by adding niobium-titanium superconducting coils by 2010. It was intended for the JT60SA to be able to run with the same shape plasma as ITER. The central solenoid was designed to use niobium-tin (because of the higher (9 T) field).

    Construction of the tokamak officially began in 2013, and it was to continue until 2020 with first plasma planned in September 2020. Assembly was completed in the spring of 2020, and in March 2021 it reached its full design toroidal field successfully, with a current of 25.7kA. A test of the poloidal field coils in March 2021 suffered a short circuit leading to a lengthy investigation and repair.


    And, of course, still no surplus power...

    Would some variation of: "I run an online library of scientific material, and I've just received a large donation of physical papers. I want to scan and upload them, but I don't know whether or not it's legal for me to do so. They are copyrighted, but certain exemptions seem to exist in copyright law for fair use, etc. What are my options and potential liability?" work?

    One problem is that even if you buy a physical printed paper, directly from the publisher, and you scan it - just for your own storage and reference purposes (not to share with anyone else) - then you have already infringed mechanical copyright. When purchasing a paper (or, back in the day, a piece of music on a vinyl record) you do not have the "rights" to copy and transform the text into another physical form.


    In practice, of course, most of us used to buy records to play at home, and then record them onto cassette tape to play in the car. We also made copies for friends. We also taped stuff off the radio. It was impossible to stop - and yet (in the UK, at least) the Record Industry tried...



    Note that under the UK version of copyright law, there is no such concept as "fair use", as there is in the US version. This complicates things when the information is transferred across national boundaries - as we now do every day, via the internet.


    The sharing of academic papers has always happened, and (arguably) science would grind to a halt if all researchers always had to comply with the letter of copyright law, and pay publishers whatever they demand for every single copy of every paper we wish to look at.


    (Anecdote time) About 25 years ago, when starting some part-time research at the University of Manchester, my supervisor thought nothing of running a large stack of papers through the photocopier for me to take away and peruse. This sort of thing happened everywhere, and I'm sure many people here will have experienced the same. A couple of years later, some academic publishers took the same University to court - and managed to impose a huge fine on them for photocopying papers without paying licence fees. It was done as a test case - to scare all the other universities into complying with the publishers' demands (and it worked).


    Nowadays, of course, university staff, researchers, and students access papers electronically - but copyright law, and legal threats, mean that each university has to pay eye-watering annual fees to publishers for the privilege.


    Sharing papers between friends still happens, but that is mostly because it either flies under the radar of the publishers, or they decide that it isn't worth pursuing some infringers - as long as it doesn't affect their profits too much.


    But if the infringement becomes too well known, they will not hesitate to use the courts to close it down. That happened with the Z-Library archive last year, which had been used, quietly, by many people for years - until Tik-Tok users heard about it and started making videos telling everyone. The publishers then made sure that the main domains got shut down.

    Ed emphasizes that CaO is inert. It does not react.

    I took him to mean that it didn't react with the palladium.


    But, after all, CaO is quicklime - and does react, exothermically, with water (which is how we make cement). The resulting Ca(OH)2 hydrated molecule is quite a bit bigger than the anhydrate, so I was wondering if a similar but smaller reaction would occur with plain hydrogen.


    Maybe the chemists here can comment, as information on the monohydrate reaction seems well hidden, across the internet, by all the references to calcium (II) hydrate.

    Presumably the CaO particles will also react with hydrogen that is migrating through the Pa lattice, to create CaOH (calcium monohydrate). This will have a different structure to the CaO, as the double bond will be split - leaving one free radical electron. I'm guessing this would take up more volume than CaO, and create internal stresses, and possible local cracking, in the palladium.


    (n.b. this is not the same as calcium (II) hydrate, Ca(OH)2 - sometimes known as slaked lime).

    Elsevier was reviving a policy that was pioneered by the record industry, a decade ago, when they started suing people who ran proxies (or even simply linked to proxies) that gave people access to the Pirate Bay database.


    BPI readies Pirate Party UK lawsuit over The Pirate Bay proxy
    The music industry body, which found its previous request for the proxy's closure rebuffed, is now preparing to take the matter to the courts.
    www.zdnet.com


    I knew a number of activists from the UK Pirate Party, at the time, including the leader of the party - who was personally sued by the BPI, along with the rest of the party leadership commitee. i.e. they didn't just sue the "party", as an entiity. The policy worked, as far as the BPI was concened, as none of these people had the funds to fight the legal action -so they closed their proxy.


    I know situations evolve - and things might be a bit different now - but I wouldn't like to see Jed becoming the subject of the next test case.

    putting a link to Sci-hub is hardly an offense.

    Copyright infringement is not a criminal offence, per se, but it gives the copyright holder the ability to sue the infringer (and even bankrupt them) via a civil court. A few years ago Elsevier extended thier legal policy by also threatening anyone who simply links to sci-hub. See:


    Elsevier threatens others for linking to Sci-Hub but does so itself
    Sci-Hub is a copyright-violating site that provides infringing access to scholarly publications that are behind paywalls. Its ethics are problematic but it’s…
    eve.gd


    and:


    Elsevier threatens others for linking to Sci-Hub but does so itself | Hacker News

    Interesting comment beneath the video:

    Quote from "WardenclyffeResearch" (E W van den Bergh ?)
    The community has coughed up quite a lot of money already to save this place and this is the first look you allow us inside the building? How many years have we been waiting? Instead of asking for more money, can you first explain what happened to all the money that has been donated already? Cleaned the outside walls and restored the chimney... Oh, but that last one was for free, wasn't it?

    I know some people here are big fans of Nikola Tesla - so this might be of interest.


    Nikola Tesla’s historic Wardenclyffe lab site at risk after devastating fire
    The crowdfunded Tesla Science Center has launched a new fundraiser to repair the damage.
    arstechnica.com


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    From an article by Steve Katinsky, in #146 of Infinite Energy Magazine (July/August 2019)


    https://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue146/KatinskyNagelIE146.pdf


    Quote from Steve Katinsky

    Soon after the U.S. made its decision to undertake the Manhattan Project, the first human-made nuclear chain reaction took place at the University of Chicago. The Chicago Pile-1 (CP-1), a developmental nuclear reactor constructed and operated by Enrico Fermi and his team, went critical in an experiment they conducted on December 12, 1942. It ran for 4.5 minutes at about 0.5 watts. Further testing was mostly at 0.5 watts.


    The first full-scale nuclear reactor after the CP-1, Hanford B, was designed to operate at 250,000,000 watts (250 MW) thermal, a power level over 250 million times that of Fermi’s test reactor. Construction of Hanford B began only four months after CP-1 went critical, and its construction was complete 18 months later. Hanford B was later operated at levels above 2000 MW (over two billion times that of Fermi’s test reactor) with the only major modification being an increase in its cooling water capacity.

    The article is mostly talking about the need for large scale cooperation. However, the above quote actually highlights what was physically achievable, by having a theoretical model that was both useful and accurate enough to allow engineers to design a reactor that would still function at a much larger scale than the original Chicago Pile. In that particular case, they also had the money and resources to go ahead and build it.


    I'm quite fond of quoting the George Box aphorism: "All models are wrong, but some are useful". But there is an implied corollary that some models, as well as being wrong, are actually useless, and a hindrance to progress - since they cannot be relied upon for any further design activities. Even if you have the money and resources, you cannot scale-up a device if you can't actually design it. Unfortunately, we seem to have been stuck at this stage for over 30 years.