From Stanford University encouraging news, a rechargeable Zinc-air battery would put electric cars into the realm of reasonable practicality, where with lead-acid batteries they are currently not.
Stanford scientists develop high-efficiency zinc-air battery
Stanford University scientists have developed an advanced zinc-air battery with higher catalytic activity and durability than similar batteries made with costly platinum and iridium catalysts. The results, published in the May 7 online edition of the journal Nature Communications, could lead to the development of a low-cost alternative to conventional lithium-ion batteries widely used today.
“There have been increasing demands for high-performance, inexpensive and safe batteries for portable electronics, electric vehicles and other energy storage applications,” said Hongjie Dai, a professor chemistry at Stanford and lead author of the study. “Metal-air batteries offer a possible low-cost solution.”
According to Dai, most attention has focused on lithium-ion batteries, despite their limited energy density (energy stored per unit volume), high cost and safety problems. “With ample supply of oxygen from the atmosphere, metal-air batteries have drastically higher theoretical energy density than either traditional aqueous batteries or lithium-ion batteries,” he said. “Among them, zinc-air is technically and economically the most viable option.”
Zinc-air batteries combine atmospheric oxygen and zinc metal in a liquid alkaline electrolyte to generate electricity with a byproduct of zinc oxide. When the process is reversed during recharging, oxygen and zinc metal are regenerated.
“Zinc-air batteries are attractive because of the abundance and low cost of zinc metal, as well as the non-flammable nature of aqueous electrolytes, which make the batteries inherently safe to operate,” Dai said. “Primary (non-rechargeable) zinc-air batteries have been commercialized for medical and telecommunication applications with limited power density. However, it remains a grand challenge to develop electrically rechargeable batteries, with the stumbling blocks being the lack of efficient and robust air catalysts, as well as the limited cycle life of the zinc electrodes.”
Active and durable electrocatalysts on the air electrode are required to catalyze the oxygen-reduction reaction during discharge and the oxygen-evolution reaction during recharge. In zinc-air batteries, both catalytic reactions are sluggish, Dai said.
Recently, his group has developed a number of high-performance electrocatalysts made with non-precious metal oxide or nanocrystals hybridized with carbon nanotubes. These catalysts produced higher catalytic activity and durability in alkaline electrolytes than catalysts made with platinum and other precious metals.
“We found that similar catalysts greatly boosted the performance of zinc-air batteries,” Dai said. both primary and rechargeable. “A combination of a cobalt-oxide hybrid air catalyst for oxygen reduction and a nickel-iron hydroxide hybrid air catalyst for oxygen evolution resulted in a record high-energy efficiency for a zinc-air battery, with a high specific energy density more than twice that of lithium-ion technology.”
The novel battery also demonstrated good reversibility and stability over long charge and discharge cycles over several weeks. “This work could be an important step toward developing practical rechargeable zinc-air batteries, even though other challenges relating to the zinc electrode and electrolyte remain to be solved,” Dai added.
Other authors of the Nature Communications study are Yanguang Li (lead author), Ming Gong, Yongye Liang, Ju Feng, Ji-Eun Kim, Hailiang Wang, Guosong Hong and Bo Zhang of the Stanford Department of Chemistry.
The study was supported by Intel, a Stanford Global Climate and Energy Project exploratory program and a Stinehart/Reed Award from the Stanford Precourt Institute for Energy.
This article was written by Mark Shwartz, Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford University.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gary Pearse says:
May 30, 2013 at 6:22 pm
Iron, cobalt, zinc? These are heavy elements compared to Li (20 times). How does the energy density stack up weight-wise (per Kilogram)? A car that adds a ton or so of additional weight on uses a lot of the “extra” energy to accelerate and stop.
Electric cars get that energy back during regenerative braking.
Let’s end the subsidies and let the rich hobbyist types be the ones to test these things for us. If they work, great. If they don’t, they’ll only have wasted their own money.
“The NTSB don’t play games.
That is why commercial air transport is so safe.”
Neither do insurance companies nor customers.
Airlines hate crashes, it’s very bad for business.
The NTSB is actually a subsidy to airlines, otherwise they’d have to pay for crash investigations themselvesl
Once electric cars get the cost/milage issues worked out, I envision all electric cars will run on uniform multiple battery packs that are simply changed out robotically at charging stations.
Your depleted batteries packs are then re-charged for future customers.
90% of the time, you’ll simply recharge your battery packs at home and you’ll be good for next day’s driving needs.
I’m sure it’s theoretically possible to eventually develop fast-charging batteries but that technology doesn’t exist yet.
IIRC there is also a gentleman by the name of Cui at Stanford working on a variety of cutting edge battery tech. As previously noted don’t count on seeing it in your next smartphone.
On the Boeing battery issue, my personal opinion is that their BMS SW was not properly set up, but it is difficult to be certain since the data required from the accidents was destroyed in the accidents. The reason I say this is because BMS SW changes re the charging ceiling and floor are deliberately mentioned as one of the corrective changes post accident, the other changes all address propagation of a failure. The Boeing and Thales battery system engineers are probably fairly well convinced of the truth but since it is not likely scientifically (engineering) provable to be the causal factor it won’t ever be disclosed. I don’t think GS Yuasa had anything to do with what went wrong as far as I can tell. Or I could just be blowing in the wind.
For whatever reason people seem to believe that Li-ion tech is magical and new, but it isn’t. Companies are out there and know how to use it, but the knowledge isn’t common place. NASA has a large battery conference in Huntsville, Al every year and these types of failures are discussed in serious engineering depth fairly regularly. Failures can be caused by all sorts of things. Dendrite growth puncturing the separator or microscopic debris falling into the can during the rolling of the edges- undetectable until failure. General abuse of the cell causes premature dendrite growth causing cell overheating leading to thermal runaway. Modern battery control systems are capable of monitoring and protecting against most of these types of failures by observing anomalies in charge/discharge characteristics and cell load balancing.
As far as the NTSB is concerned they have a page with decent info on the accident and the investigation. However my review of their material leads me to believe that the qualification of these types of battery systems in air transportation is not up to par yet.
Just my 2 cents.
“cool, now wait 20 years for it to get out of the “lab” …”
True word… why not give them to Boeing instead, they will test them for us! Or stick these in to the mobile phones designed for the elderly – if they blow up in their face, well, the rest of us are warned!
I’ve used the existing, non-rechargable zinc-air batteries and they have different load characteristics then other batteries. Not sure why these would be better then the current batteries in that regard.
Eric Worrall says:
May 30, 2013 at 4:04 pm
e-cat LENR is utter Bullsh*t.
Here is a description of what happened when a mass of Uranium accidentally went supercritical, during laboratory testing. No heat burns, just mild warming and lethal doses of radiation.
——-
There is an interesting video from NASA about new methods for fast testing of different combinations of LENR materials.
As was mentioned above LENR reactions probably don’t have anything to do with fusion. What we probably see is injection of “neutrons”/protons into the nucleus of certain materials. The result will be transmutation of the base element into another element. The amount of energy produced after adding a number of protons/”neutrons” to to Ni will be essentially the same as fusing hydrogen directly but there will be no emission of neutrons and no long term activation of the “fuel”. Looking at for example Ni we have the following stable isotopes:
Isotope Abundance
58Ni 68.0769 (89)
60Ni 26.2231 (77)
61Ni 1.1399 (6)
62Ni 3.6345 (17)
64Ni 0.9256 (9)
If we assume there is a method of generating and injecting “neutrons” into nickel we could be able to start from 58Ni ->59Ni (quasi stable 100kyr)->60Ni->61Ni->62Ni -> 63Ni(quasi stable 100 yr decays to 63Cu)->64Ni->65Ni(decays to 65Cu 2.5h)->66Ni(decays to 66Cu) .
The series above would essentially correspond to the fusion of eight protons if one looks at a neutron as a proton + electron + energy. The “neutron” isn’t necessarily a real neutron, it could also be some kind of strange short lived “resonance” where a proton robs an electron from the Ni atom and gets screened (essentially neutral)
Let’s say a battery does get found that does work for a car comparable with liquid fuel. Which kind of grid is going to sustain millions of commuters charging their vehicles at practically the same time? (mostly the time of highest demand already, afternoon/evening)
… some glitch happened continued:
If screened protons/”neutrons” can be produced efficiently a number of materials could possibly be used in a similar mannar to Ni. The classical material was Palladium … it is very similar to Ni but more expensive. Transmuting Pd would produce Silver (Ag). I think Tungsten (W) also looks very similar ti Ni and Pd from the isotope point of view. The end result would be Rhenium (Re)
We live in extremely interesting times but notice that this is plain speculation. I think the NASA link is an interesting indication that many groups really see anomalous behavior.
Quinn says:
May 30, 2013 at 3:25 pm
“Photovoltaics technology and battery technology are two fields that are 99% hype and 1% reality. It’s almost not worth reporting any advances when they are announced. Wait until the new technology has proved itself in the marketplace before getting excited about it.”
The release could be shorter: “We think this just might work. Send us big grants to study it in more detail to see if it can ever be commercial.”
Who’s up for some exciting, earth shattering news? On 24th April, Zenn Motor Company issued a press release with the news it had entered into an agreement with EEStor, Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas (“EEStor”) providing for the testing of recently produced layers of its electrical energy storage units by an independent testing laboratory that has been selected upon consultation between EEStor and ZENN.
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/zenn-motor-company-announces-agreement-with-eestor-for-testing-tsx-venture-znn-1782629.htm
Under the agreement, testing was to be completed and reported on by May 27, 2013. Testing will include capacitance over a range of voltages as well as dissipation factor, layer thickness, dielectric layer thickness, resistance, capacitor area, energy density and leakage current. ZENN will be provided full access to the independent testing experts as well as the certification report.
As part of the agreement, ZENN has agreed to invest an initial US$50,000 in common stock of EEStor and an additional US$100,000 in its discretion if it is satisfied with the results of the independent testing.
Later:
http://theeestory.ning.com/profiles/blogs/is-the-eestor-testing-going-to-be-genuinely-independent
Today: 0740 GMT
No news that I can find so far, however Natasha Vandesluis, the Chief Financial Officer, who issued the press release should be contactable later today. nvandesluis@zenncars.com
That was one of the Demon Core incidents involving the same exact sample, and indeed it was Plutonium. Picture a sphere of Pu of sufficient mass to sustain a neutron chain reaction cut into two hemispheres which are “safe”, well sub-critical anyway. What is stunning today is to realize how risky the methods were employed back then when handling these isotopes. In one case only the tip of a screwdriver separating the halves and the “oops” moment. They were brave, I’ll say that for them.
That particular core was spent on the 23 KT Crossroads “Able” shot dropped from a B-29 over Bikini Atoll July 1, 1946, immortalized in photos and video for all eternity. In the lagoon were 95 ships including surrendered German and Japanese. This was the air detonation and did not cause the damage one might expect. The second blast “Baker” occurred underwater and is noted for the huge geyser with greater damage to the fleet and gets a lot more airplay in movies and documentaries. That linked Wikipedia page concerning “Crossroads” is a pretty good read, pulling together years of information (and some controversy) about something that was difficult to research in the past, to say the least. What is particularly good is the astounding amount of careful Science and measurements detailing each and every facet. A clear contrast to what passes for Science with these modern AGW madmen.
Is this related to that student awarded some prize for a “breakthrough” with a super-capacitor allowing phones and other things to be charged almost instantly?
To paraphrase Geena Davis in ‘The Fly’ … be skeptical, be very skeptical
This is such an important point, and it needs to be explained to the vast majority of young’ins who would buy battery operated replacements for every single thing in their house because it is chic or trendy, while mistakenly telling everyone they are green and efficient.
Batteries get you coming and going because some energy is spent charging and discharging. We can for the sake of argument dismiss everything else (cost, dangerous chemicals, disposal, capacity, weight, etc) and simply concentrate on that physics problem. Ask your trendy friends if they would use a bank if they were charged some money each time they make a deposit and a withdrawal. If that were the case it would not really be a bank at all but a convenience like paypal or a travelers check, only worse. Now you may want to pay for that convenience which is fine, however all the crap about efficiency and greenie saving the planet must be flushed down the toilet because you are accepting the use of more net energy, not less.
Everytime I see a greenie using wireless mouse and keyboard I like to shove this inconvenient truth down their pompous piehole. There are times wireless, and consequently a battery is necessary and cannot be avoided. Pacemakers would be difficult if tethered. 🙂 However the truth of the matter is that someone who professes green dreams should be avoiding using batteries whenever possible because in almost every instance it wastes more energy than if it were not using one. Add in those other factors about cost and hazardous materials and disposal and batteries become as eco-unfriendly as possible.
Ric Werme
Say what. No, it’s Rossi’s job to do so.
HI,
Nothing new under the sun!
I remember reading a great article about electric cars in good old Analog magazine back in the ’70s. The author went through the complete gamut of types of batteries, lithium, zinc sodium etc, including the Ford work on sodium sulpher, and he drew attention to the recharge problem with Zinc air, (fir tree crystals shorting the plates).
He also drew attention to the problem of scale. One electric car recharging station is possible, the power to recharge millions of electric vehicles simultaneuosly is impossible. Just consider a surburban recharge station. He suggested an American motorist would not want to wait more than a few minutes for a charge, say 10 minutes. Say a full recharge of a 40Kw/h battery, that is 50 Kw/hr in 10 min, that is an equivalent of 300 Kw’hr supply. Say there are 10 recharge bays, That equates approx to 3 GW supply to a suburban street, You would need to build a power generation station in the back lot of the filling station, as the local suply and cabling will not hack it, For a time I worked in a 4m^2 aircraft modelling wind tunnel. That had a 2000 hp electric motor to shift the air. We had to call up the CEGB control room before we could power the wind tinnel up, to ensure we did not pull the 50Hz below the legal limit, i.e. there was enough capacity available.
He had an interesting idea to overcome this. He proposed that the zinc air battery was made into a removable rectangular block, that fitted into vehicles on a drawer system. Normal petrol filling stations would also have a zinc air battery exchange bay where you would drive your car in, and the old battery would be robotically exchanged for a fresh one No recharge time, time to “refill”, a few seconds, before you are on your way. The exhausted batteries would be collected, fresh ones fitted to the exchange machine. The exhausted batteries would be taken to a rework plant where new zinc electrodes would be fitted.
cheers
P
Quinn says:
May 30, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Photovoltaics technology and battery technology are two fields that are 99% hype and 1% reality. It’s almost not worth reporting any advances when they are announced. Wait until the new technology has proved itself in the marketplace before getting excited about it.
Precisely… When Texas Instruments puts it up for sale to the manufacturers, THEN it is a viable product.
Power to the People.
http://www.rexresearch.com/maxwell.htm
……
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/022502.htm
Dear John,
“You confuse COP with efficiency, and they are two quite different things. Even many of the textbooks confuse these terms quite often.
…..
“So the trick is to get the active environment to give you a “free wind” so you can have something approaching a windmill. Or as close to that as you can get.
“Fortunately, in electrodynamics there are many “free winds” one can make with ease. The simplest one is to just make a common dipole. Lee and Yang received a Nobel Prize in 1957 for their work in broken symmetry and the weak interaction. One of the broken symmetries that was proven was that of opposite charges — such as are on the ends of a dipole.
“The very words “broken symmetry” in power systems implies that something virtual has become observable. In other words, the charges of the dipole continually absorb virtual photons from the seething vacuum (that is proven and well-known, and one does not have to prove it again). The spin of the charges then coherently integrates that absorbed virtual energy into real, observable EM energy. The dipole thus pours out EM energy in all directions at the speed of light. Let it alone and don’t destroy it, and it will pour out that energy indefinitely. The dipoles in the original matter in the universe have been doing that for some 14 billion years or so. We used that fact of broken symmetry of opposite charges, together with the known clustering of virtual charges of opposite sign around any “isolated” observable charge, to treat the observable charge as a set of composite dipoles. Hence this finally explained the long-vexing source charge problem: how does a charge just sit there an pour out energy in all directions at the speed of light, establishing its associated fields and potentials and all that energy in them? We explained that in 2000, after a couple or three years work on it.
“A simple “free energy system” can be built for a dollar. Just place a charged capacitor (or electret) across a permanent magnet so that the E-field is perpendicular to the H-field of the magnet. That silly thing will sit there and pour out Poynting energy flow S = E x H, so long as you just let it alone. Wait one year, and it will have changed the energy density of a volume of space a light year in radius (reaching out beyond the solar system).
“In solving the dipole and source charge problems, it was found that the energy input comes from the time domain into 3-space via the negative charge, and exits 3-space back to the time domain via the positive charge.
“In electrical engineering, it is recognized that the source charge pours out the energy to create all its associated fields, but until 2000 there has been no explanation as to what furnished the input energy. In effect, electrical engineering and classical electrodynamicists for more than a century have assumed that every charge in the universe is a perpetual motion machine of the worst kind, creating energy out of nothing.
“There is no problem at all in extracting all the energy one wishes from the active vacuum, anywhere in the universe, at any time. Just make a dipole.
“The problem is in (1) catching some of that freely gushing EM energy in a circuit containing a load, and (2) dissipating the caught and collected EM energy in that load to power it, without using half the caught energy to destroy the source dipole(s).
“That is the ONLY real energy problem on the planet, and always has been.
“It is ironic that the National Academy of Science, the National Science Foundation, the great national test labs, the universities, and the private research institutes are not working on the sole energy problem at all.
Hope this helps.”
Tom Bearden”
=====================
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/PJKbook.pdf
“The fact of the matter is, that we are sitting in a vast field of energy which we can’t see. This is the equivalent of the situation for the crystal set shown above, except that the energy field we are in is very, very much more powerful than the radio waves from a radio transmitter. The problem is, how to tap the energy which is freely available all around us, and get it to do useful work for us. It can definitely be done, but it is not easy to do.”
….
“So, how do you alter the natural state of the energy in our environment? Actually, quite easily. All that is needed is a positive charge and a negative charge, reasonably near each other. A battery will do the trick, as will a generator, as will an aerial and earth, as will an electrostatic device like a Wimshurst machine. When you generate a Plus and a Minus, the quantum foam is affected. Now, instead of entirely random plus and minus charged particles appearing everywhere, the Plus which you created gets surrounded by a sphere of minus charge particles popping into existence all around it. Also, the Minus which you created, gets surrounded by a spherical-shaped cloud of plus-charge particles popping into existence all around it. The technical term for this situation is “broken symmetry” which is just a fancy way of saying that the charge distribution of the quantum foam is no longer evenly distributed or “symmetrical”. In passing, the fancy technical name for your Plus and Minus near each other, is a “dipole” which is just a techno-babble way of saying “two poles: a plus and a minus” – isn’t jargon wonderful?
“So, just to get it straight in your mind, when you make a battery, the chemical action inside the battery creates a Plus terminal and a Minus terminal. Those poles actually distort the universe around your battery, and causes vast streams of energy to radiate out in every direction from each pole of the battery. Why doesn’t the battery run down? Because the energy is flowing from the environment and not from the battery. If you were taught basic physics or electrical theory, you will probably have been told that the battery used to power any circuit, supplies a stream of electrons which flows around the circuit. Sorry Chief – it just ain’t like that at all. What really happens is that the battery forms a “dipole” which nudges the local environment into an unbalanced state which pours out energy in every direction, and some of that energy from the environment flows around the circuit attached to the battery. The energy does not come from the battery.
“Well then, why does the battery run down, if no energy is being drawn from it to power the circuit? Ah, that is the really silly thing that we do. We create a closed-loop circuit (because that’s what we have always done) where the current flows around the circuit, reaches the other battery terminal and immediately destroys the battery’s “dipole”. Everything stops dead in it’s tracks. The environment becomes symmetrical again, the massive amount of readily available free-energy just disappears and you are back to where you started from. But, do not despair, our trusty battery immediately creates the Plus and Minus terminals again and the process starts all over again. This happens so rapidly that we don’t see the breaks in the operation of the circuit and it is the continual recreation of the dipole which causes the battery to run down and lose it’s power. Let me say it again, the battery does not supply the current that powers the circuit, it never has and it never will – the current flows into the circuit from the surrounding environment.
“What we really need, is a method of pulling off the power flowing in from the environment, without continually destroying the dipole which pushes the environment into supplying the power. That is the tricky bit, but it has been done. If you can do that, then you tap into an unlimited stream of inexhaustible energy, with no need to provide any input energy to keep the flow of energy going. In passing, if you want to check out the details of all of this, Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1957 for this theory which was proved by experiment in that same year. This eBook includes circuits and devices which manage to tap this energy successfully.”
=============
http://www.brucedepalma.com/
=====
Anyone here who can solve the problem to build something easily replicable for the common man?
So we no longer need be in thrall to vested interests monopolising our energy supply and at the mercy of crazed greenie useful idiots penalising us with draconian taxes and restrictions to our freedoms.
Here – says any competent EE department could build one:
“So we have used a deliberately ASYMMETRICAL system to freely potentialize the pinned electrons in the external circuit, in total violation to standard electrical engineering SYMMETRIC-ONLY usage. And then we have switched away the very small VOLTAGE source dipole, by reconstituting the open external circuit into a closed-circuit system that then DISSIPATES the collected energy to (1) power the loads and losses, and (2) kill its own dipolarity.
“Any competent EE department or physics department can readily build and demonstrate this system, if they but put their minds to it.
“And it means that, by MERELY CHANGING AND UPGRADING THE HORRIBLY MUTILATED AND ANTIQUE OLD SELF-SYMMETRIZING HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ SYMMETRIZED MODEL, TO A MUCH MORE MODERN DELIBERATELY-ASYMMETRIC OVERALL SYSTEM USAGE, one can solve the world energy crisis easily and forever. One easily cleans up the biosphere now, because there need be no coal burning, diesel fuel burning, etc. Our cars can be electric and powered by very small VOLTAGE sources (“batteries”), that need hardly furnish any CURRENT at all.”
And that page gives a short history of how Maxwell’s assymetrical equations via Tesla’s work got mangled, in a letter to the New Scientist.
“Slightly re-edited 12 Sept. 2010
Dear New Scientist:
Yes, there are some subjects I would very much like to see you include and discuss in New Scientist in the future. E.g., in the energy field, you are way behind and way off-track. As an example, consider the standard electrical engineering, which handles and develops most all our electrical power systems.
In 1892, there were no electrical engineers at all, because it (electrical engineering) had not been born yet — but technical engineers were now needed to design, build, work on, and maintain the new AC power systems etc. given us by Nikola Tesla. Maxwell was already dead (he died in 1879), and everyone hated quaternions. There were only about three dozen PHYSICISTS on earth who understood something of electrodynamics, and that was it. To provide the new Tesla AC power technology, which was to be taught in our universities and called “electrical engineering”, Lorentz was preparing the equations for the mathematical model to be used. He was using Heaviside’s original vector equations, which were still ASYMMETRIC and thus included asymmetric Maxwellian systems.
Tesla had discovered in the late 1880s and early 1890s how to build ASYMMETRIC systems which could take and use all the EM energy one wished, from the “active medium” (Tesla’s term) and without consuming fuel. And Tesla was briefing technical societies to that effect. (See rigorous proof that Tesla could have given us free EM energy from the seething active medium: See T. W. Barrett, “Tesla’s Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory,” Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett rigorously shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and dissipation of the energy in those regions desired. The quaternion electrodynamics also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis using the symmetrized Heaviside-Lorentz vector equations cannot reveal. Barrett shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this]
We also strongly note that Barrett is a very noted (though quiet) electrodynamicist and one of the cofounders of ultrawideband radar, along with Harmuth.
All this was known to the ruthless financier J. P. Morgan, still angry and smarting at his own backing of Edison and DC power systems being soundly defeated by Tesla’s much more practical AC power systems. So he was already setting up the total suppression of Tesla, by first breaking his backer Westinghouse (which he did) and then deliberately breaking Tesla (which he did also).
Morgan had already had his technical advisors check the work of Tesla, and they found that Tesla’s confounded “energy freely from the active medium” systems (asymmetric systems) were for real.
As a result, Morgan’s tech advisors did a group analysis on the Heaviside equations and showed that the Heaviside equations were still ASYMMETRICAL — and thus they still contained some of those confounded Tesla “free excess energy from the active medium” (i.e., asymmetric) systems. At Morgan’s bidding, Lorentz was then elicited to eliminate those “free energy from the active medium” systems from this new-fangled electrical engineering that was being formed.
Lorentz was a great scientist, but he was also noted for stealing and publishing other scientists’ work and taking credit for it. [For an expose, see J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, “Historical roots of gauge invariance,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680. Jackson and Okun discuss roots and history of gauge invariance, verify that Ludwig Lorenz (without the ‘t’) first symmetrically regauged Maxwell’s equations, although it has been misattributed to H. A. Lorentz (with the ‘t’) as being first. This is an excellent coverage of the history of who did what and when, and who got credit for it. Lorentz stole work by Lorenz (without the “t”) and published it as his own, and thereby ARBITRARILY SYMMETRIZED the resulting EE model and theory using the “Heaviside-Lorentz” modified SYMMETRICAL equations.
Hence before the very birth of EE, the model and subject were already deliberately mutilated and crippled to prevent free energy from the vacuum systems — i.e., such systems as now have been rigorously developed and demonstrated by Klimov et al. and validated by both the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the National Recoverable Energy Laboratory. The work of Klimov et al. is rigorously published in leading physics and nanocrystalline journals, and it is now accepted in both fields — and INDEPENDENTLY verified by those two great national labs.
Therefore we never have to “prove” it again, as it has been scientifically and experimentally proven for all time.
But from its very birth, the severely crippled electrical engineering model has allowed only SELF-SYMMETRIZING EM systems to be conceived, built, deployed, and used by our electrical engineers.”
Continued on:
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030110.htm
Any electrical engineers here? Does this make sense?
The current Zinc-Air batteries on the market are “button” or “coin” sized. This makes me wonder if this type of battery can even be scaled up to large format for a vehicle.
Myrrh says:
May 31, 2013 at 2:33 am
Power to the People.
I thought free energy systems were on the (in)famous WUWT banned list that includes HAARP, chemtrails, and all that other stuff….
> Any electrical engineers here? Does this make sense?
Not to me – EM (electromagnetic energy) is generally very easy to collect.
I’ll stop for a minute walking into work. It’s a clear day and some of my longwave IR will radiate in a hemisphere with a wavefront that moves at the speed of light and will change the energy density of a hemisphere a light minute in radius. Sorry, I don’t have a spare year.
I appreciate that some people think that Rossi belongs on that list too, at least we’ll have the answer about him in the next year or two.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Some good news on battery development.
“The results, published in the May 7 online edition of the journal Nature Communications, could lead to the development of a low-cost alternative to conventional lithium-ion batteries widely used today.”
Most people forget about the “low-cost alternative” requirement. They care little about the cost and try to make it salable with outrageously high subsidies. The electric car is a prime example. Without enormous subsidies only a handful of people with money to burn would drive one. The only way they can get rid of them is with huge subsidies. http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/05/31/cheap-leases-offered-to-spur-electric-car-sales/
All that guff just to say ‘ can we have some more research funding please’ in that whiney, nasal pleading tone so typical of academic researchers.
What next. A hydrogen air battery? Recharge at home using electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen, then burn the hydrogen to power your car and produce water as a by product. No need for any exotic battery. Only need a tank to hold the hydrogen. The bigger the tank, the greater the range. Short on hydrogen? Stop by the filling station for a quick charge, without any of the recharge delays of chemical batteries.
“From Stanford University encouraging news, a rechargeable Zinc-air battery would put electric cars into the realm of reasonable practicality, where with lead-acid batteries they are currently not.”
They’re also not with potato and lemon batteries.
Ric Werme says:
May 31, 2013 at 5:14 am
Myrrh says:
May 31, 2013 at 2:33 am
I thought free energy systems were on the (in)famous WUWT banned list that includes HAARP, chemtrails, and all that other stuff….
So no discussions on solar panels and wind turnbines?
> Any electrical engineers here? Does this make sense?
Not to me – EM (electromagnetic energy) is generally very easy to collect.
The problem here is that only half the potential energy is being collected, and, electrical engineers are erroneously taught that they are creating that energy mechanically.
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030706.htm
“The conventional EEs were and are trained in a symmetrical theory which only prescribes Lorentz-symmetrical circuits. They were and are taught to build circuits where the source dipole inside the generator is left wired into the source generator’s own external circuit as a load while current is flowing. The result is to equalize the back emf (translation force field that must be opposed by all current pumped back through the generator) and the forward emf (translation force field that pushes the current to flow through the external circuit and thus enables powering the external circuit’s loads and losses.
“This inane practice thus produces only circuits and electrical power systems that use precisely half their freely collected potential energy from the vacuum, to do naught but destroy the source dipolarity that is furnishing the energy flow from the vacuum in the first place, quite freely.
“Electrical engineers and electrical engineering do not calculate the EM field in space, though all purport to do so, and they are not even taught what powers the electrical circuit itself. They are erroneously taught that cranking the shaft of the generator produces mechanical energy that eventually gets transduced into the Poynting energy flowing along the conductors of the external circuit, through surrounding space, and getting diverged into the circuit to potentialize the charges q.
“Electrical engineers falsely assume an inert vacuum and a flat spacetime. When the Lorentz condition is violated, or the energy density in the circuit changes, this is not true. Rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz condition provides systems having free additional energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.
“After the rise of particle physics, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum field theory, gauge field theory etc., most of modern physics was born. Along the way the errors in CEM/EE were noted now and then by various scientists, including some Nobelists and other eminent scientists. In 1957, the prediction and proof of broken symmetry in physics electrified all physics and resulted in the prompt award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang for predicting it.”
More on the Nobel Prize winners and assymetry and what we’re left with, none of it assimilated into the mainstream education of electrical engineers, why not?
http://www.cheniere.org/references/brokensymmetry.htm
“Broken Symmetry
For the open-minded reader, let me explain what broken symmetry means, and what the broken symmetry of a dipole means with respect to powering any dipolar EM circuit.
“The strong prediction of broken symmetry by Lee and Yang and its experimental proof by Wu et al. in 1957, initiated a great revolution across physics and won a nearly instant Nobel Prize in December 1957 for Lee and Yang.
“One of the broken symmetries proven by Wu et al. and published in 1957 is the broken symmetry of opposite charges, as on the ends of a dipole.
“That asymmetry is used by charges and dipoles for extracting and pouring out Electromagnetic energy from the vacuum, yet not one current Electrical Engineering or classical electromagnetics textbook mentions the energy implications of dipolar asymmetry. Nor do they mention that every charge and dipole freely pours out real observable EM energy continuously, with no observable energy input.
“Thus the textbooks implicitly assume that all EM fields, potentials, and energy are freely created out of nothing at all by their associated source charges.
“Either the conservation of energy law is falsified, or the source charge must be receiving the necessary energy input in virtual state form from the active vacuum.
“Broken symmetry essentially means that something virtual (shadowy, but real in a special sense and widely used in physics; it has real physical consequences, since it creates all the forces of nature) has become observable (real in the ordinary everyday sense that it can be detected, measured, observed, and used.). The broken symmetry of the end charges of a dipole rigorously means that, once the charges are forcibly separated to form that dipole, the dipole (its end charges) continuously absorbs virtual (fleeting) photons from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates these “photon pieces” into real observable photons, and re-emits the resulting real EM energy in the form of real observable photons in all directions at the speed of light.
“That is not this author’s work; that is particle physics as justified by the award of two Nobel Prizes. It isn’t even in the electrical engineering model, so no objection based on standard classical EM and electrical engineering concepts has any validity at all.”
My bold.
From my first post on this:
“The energy does not come from the battery.
“Well then, why does the battery run down, if no energy is being drawn from it to power the circuit? Ah, that is the really silly thing that we do. We create a closed-loop circuit (because that’s what we have always done) where the current flows around the circuit, reaches the other battery terminal and immediately destroys the battery’s “dipole”. Everything stops dead in it’s tracks. The environment becomes symmetrical again, the massive amount of readily available free-energy just disappears and you are back to where you started from. But, do not despair, our trusty battery immediately creates the Plus and Minus terminals again and the process starts all over again. This happens so rapidly that we don’t see the breaks in the operation of the circuit and it is the continual recreation of the dipole which causes the battery to run down and lose it’s power. Let me say it again, the battery does not supply the current that powers the circuit, it never has and it never will – the current flows into the circuit from the surrounding environment.
“What we really need, is a method of pulling off the power flowing in from the environment, without continually destroying the dipole which pushes the environment into supplying the power. That is the tricky bit, but it has been done. ”
What is it that is done in batteries to shut down the dipole?
Why can’t we just stop doing it?