"Canuck57" wrote in message
news

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


Be careful here. The laws of physics and mathematics preclude the
possibility of generating more than 3413 BTU/hr per kilowatt. The
only exception is if heat is moved from one place to another in the
process, for example, a heat pump.



That's why the results of the tests were so bizarre.
What I was doing was heating an object of a certain mass.
When heating it with conventional means (or those used for the
state-of-the-art at the time)
the time required to heat the object ..... in this case to 200 degrees C.
took many, many times longer when compared to the plasma configuration,
using roughly the same amount of input power. I'll have to review the
notes to get the actual numbers.

I don't profess to understand what is going on, except for the facts that
this occurs in a vacuum, under a partial pressure. Argon gas molecules
are energized to an ionized (plasma) state within a confined space and
are used to bombard the object, using a 400 - 500 volt DC potential
difference. In some cases, I actually was able to begin to melt
(actually evaporate or sublimate) the aluminum object in very short
order, something that never occurred with the other means of heating.
It's not dis-similar to a process called "sputtering", but you don't
apply enough power to knock atoms of material off of the object (target).

I am purposely leaving out a significant detail of the configuration, for
selfish reasons.

I read one scientific paper that talked about the same type of phenomena.
The patent attorney found it and gave it to me to read. If I recall
correctly, the author, in his summary (which is really all I could
understand) acknowledged that he didn't have a clue either, other than
it didn't appear to follow accepted thermodynamics laws and he (as others
have done) theorized on a new state of matter. Not a gas, not a solid,
not a liquid.

All this occurred in 1983 or thereabouts.

Eisboch

Quite correct, this did occur in the early 80's. But two differences
exist. This is much bigger and more depth to it. While I knew it was
coming, the depth has surprised me big time. But that means more profit
when it ends.

The second difference, the wild card of this event, is the governments
reaction delivering ever larger bailouts. This is scary. Not being an
active investor in 1980 I am guessing, but did not interest rates go up
above inflation and up to the high teens to stem debt? Is your average
middle class Joe in North America so far in debt the government has
screwed up with interest rates below market to a point of a larger
collapse?

Time will tell, but I suspect double digit borrowing rates before this
recession ends.


Gotta give you credit. You have a one track mind.

Eisboch