About
Community
Bad Ideas
Drugs
Ego
Erotica
Fringe
Abductees / Contactees
Area 51 / Groom Lake / Roswell
Crop Circles and Cattle Mutilations
Cydonia and Moon Mountains
Dreams / Auras / Astral Projection
Flying Saucers from Andromeda
Free Energy
Fringe Science
Government UFO Coverups
Gravity / Anti-gravity
Life Extension
MJ-12 - The Alien-Government Conspiracy
Men In Black
Tesla
Society
Technology
register | bbs | search | rss | faq | about
meet up | add to del.icio.us | digg it

Patio Fusion

-------Patio Fusion Data--------

This is some data that was collected in a backyard fusion experiment,
uploaded for the delictation of those who enjoy such things. The setup
is crude, but any data is better than no data.

This is not top notch, authoritative, well-instrumented work, it is
rather a practical test of the Utah claim that fusion experiments can be
performed on the kitchen table. Generally, you have to be batching it to
tie up the kitchen table for extended experiments and venting hydrogen
in the house can be a little risky so, lacking a garage, this experiment
was performed out on the patio. This is, therefore, the first account
I've heard of Patio Fusion experiments.

Experimental setup:
Two electrolysis cells were run side by side in a water bath. Cells were
constructed from test tubes, each consisting of a 20mm tube inside a
25mm tube with silicone rubber sealent around the rim and air in the gap
between the tubes; intent was to raise thermal resistance above than of
a single test tube. Preliminary tests indicated 10 degrees temperature
rise per watt of heat loss but a value of 8 degrees per watt works
better in balancing average energy in the light water cell. Each cell
had a negative el ectrode consisting of a piece of 1/8 inch OD
palladium/silver allooy tubing, wall thickness aprox 0.004 inches.
Around each negative electrode was placed woven inorganic (glass?
asbestos?) fiber insulation and around this was wrapped a winding of
platinum wire. Electrode assemblies were passed through and supported by
a rubber stopper and immersed in electrolyte. Thermometers were passed
through the same stopper as was a small vent tube. One cell contained
heavy water (deuterium oxide) and the other regular distilled water.
Lithium Deuteroxide and lithium hydroxide, prepared by reacting metalic
lithium with D2O and H2O, were added to the respective cells. The cells
were operated in a water bath, immersed to roughly two thirds of their
length and operated at roughly 5 volts for the period indicated in the
data. The setup was on a sheltered patio table subject to diurnal
temperature changes but well shaded (informal checks showed no effect of
equipment orienta tion with respect to the sun). A buildup of precipit
ated lithium salts deposited in the woven insulation over time, reducing
cell conductivity and ultimately forcing termination of the experimental
run.

I didn't do this work, just watched it. Based on what I was told,
concentration of the lithium hydroxide was adjusted to make cell
conductivity similar thus balancing the power input when the cells were
run in parallel on the same power source -- slight differences in
chemical and physical properties made balancing currents otherwise
impossible. Cells were periodically refilled with water/heavy water as
contents were lost as gas. Ambient temperatures were not recorded in the
first few days. Near the end of the experiment current dropped off due
to lithium salt deposits and the electrodes were removed and boiled in
distilled water to try to disolve the deposits --- success was only
partial. Glass thermometers used initially were replaced with more
precise digital thermometers after several days.

The palladium tubing used in this work was salvaged from a hydrogen
purifier that was bought surplus on a whim some years ago. It was
initially estimated as a 25% silver/75% palladium alloy and this was
largely confirmed by qualitative chemical tests and by a feller I know
who ran it through an XRay analyzer contraption for me ( he thought the
silver content might be closer to 26 or 27% ).

I personally held a geiger counter next to the apparatus on several
occaisions and note that no difference from background radiation was
apparent; the same geiger counter registers offscale high in response to
a Coleman lantern mantle. I conclude that the experiment was and is
entirely safe from a radioactivity point of view.

I personally observed readings on two widely seperate occaisions and
found them representative of those tabulated at the end of this file.

Regarding interpretation of the data, the following assumptions seem
reasonable: 1. Gas leaving the test tube can be presumed to be a
stoichiometric hydrogen/oxygen mixture flowing at a rate proportional to
current. This vented mixture represents an energy stream...you could
ignite it and recover heat. 2. The temperature difference between a cell
and the surrounding bath can be considered roughly proportional to the
rate of heat flow from the cell to the bath. This represents a second
energy stream. The ratio of heat loss to temperature drop is presumed
similar for each cell although some slight difference in properties of
heavy and light water exists. 3. Energy supplied to each cell can be
approximated by the watts (volts*amps) supplied. 4. Any excess energy
produced by reactions such as fusion, transmutation of moonlight, or
chemical activity of unspecified sort would be calculable at least
approximately by subtracting input watts from output heat and gas
heating value. 5. Accepting similar thermal resistance R for each cell,
excess energy from the heavy water can be estimated by using linear
regression methods and solving for R in the equation Excess = 0 =
volts*amps - R*(CellTemp-BathTemp) - G*amps

My conclusions are that apparent excess energy production is small and
irregular but may be 20% or so on average when estimated as above. Based
on this, I'd concur with the most cogent analysis of the state of cold
fusion technology I've heard to date: "Don't sell your oil stock yet!"
The data does NOT, however, seem to contradict the Utah reports.

Unfortunately we are having a little difficulty repeating the experiment
with a new length of palladium tubing and a different sort of insulation
seperating the tubing from the platinum winding.

You are invited to try reducing the data yourself and form your own
conclusions. If you don't feel like working that hard you may simply
note that the heavy water test tube was warmer in most cases than the
light water one.

Data format is 10 fields per line each followed by a comma. Lines are
terminated with return character but traqnsmission may bollix this.

Significance of the data fields is as follows ---
1. mo/day: month and day of readings
2. time2400: time of day of readings, 24-hour clock
3. ambtempF: ambient air temperature, degrees F
4. bathtempF: water bath temperature, degrees F
5. voltsd2o: volts across heavy water cell
6. ampsd2o: amps through heavy water cell
7. tempd2o: temperature in heavy water cell, degrees F
8. voltsh2o: volts across light water cell
9. ampsh2o: amps through light water cell
10. temph2o: temperature in light water cell, degrees F

Data follows:
5/7, 2200, ?, 90, 4.19, .364, 102, 4.14, .336, 98.5,
5/8, 0730, ?, 67.5, 4.32, .300, 77.5, 4.32, .265, 74.0,
5/8, 1730, ?, 85.5, 4.20, .328, 98, 4.22, .274, 94,
5/9, 0700, ?, 61.5, 4.15, .217, 68.5, 4.15, .195, 65.5,
5/9, 1450, ?, 68, 4.77, .516, 85.5, 4.88, .336, 77,
5/10, 0700, 52.5, 55, 4.20, .220, 62, 4.18, .230, 60,
5/10, 2230, 59.5, 69, 4.22, .264, 77.5, 4.23, .260, 75,
5/11, 0730, 52, 55.5, 4.29, .253, 64, 4.28, .243, 62,
5/11, 1400, 79.5, 71.5, 3.88, .268, 79, 3.90, .270, 76.25,
5/12, 0800, 54, 57, 4.05, .195, 63.8, 4.06, .200, 62,
5/12, 1630, 81.5, 77.2, 4.30, .338, 86.1, 4.37, .264, 83.5,
5/12, 2100, 69, 77.1, 4.35, .337, 86.7, 4.33, .345, 84.7,
5/13, 1500, 83, 76.0, 4.34, .301, 85.1, 4.28, .343, 83.5,
5/13, 2000, 76.5, 86.8, 4.36, .304, 96.4, 4.30, .350, 93.9,
5/13, 2230, 65.5, 77.7, 4.42, .281, 86.8, 4.38, .310, 84.5,
5/14, 0900, 60.5, 61.5, 4.49, .233, 69.8, 4.42, .292, 68.6,
5/14, 2000, 70.5, 82.2, 4.44, .246, 90.3, 4.40, .268, 88.5,
?, ?, 58, 58.2, 4.56, .185, 63.9, 4.62, .130, 62.2,
5/16, 1930, 87.5, 91.9, 5.18, .178, 97.5, 5.18, .171, 97.4,
5/16, 2230, 72, 83.0, 5.26, .157, 87.7, 5.27, .144, 87.4,
5/17, 0730, 61, 64.1, 5.34, .114, 67.5, 5.33, .100, 67.4,
5/17, 2230, 61, 69.4, 5.39, .073, 72.6, 5.36, .079, 72.2,
5/18, 0800, 57.5, 57.2, 5.43, .054, 59.6, 5.40, .068, 59.7,
5/18, 2100, 69.5, 80.0, 6.96, .177, 91.9, 6.90, .200, 89.5,
5/19, 0700, 54, 57.4, 5.12, .096, 61.7, 5.12, .096, 60.2,
5/19, 1445, 87, 76.6, 4.98, .120, 80.8, 4.98, .124, 80.0,
(that's all, folks)

 
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.

 

totse.com certificate signatures
 
 
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
Hot Topics
here is a fun question to think about...
Miscibility
Possible proof that we came from apes.
speed of light problem
Absolute Zero: Why won't it work?
Why did love evolve?
Capacitators
Intersection of two quads
 
Sponsored Links
 
Ads presented by the
AdBrite Ad Network

 

TSHIRT HELL T-SHIRTS