Science and Technology news... :: View topic

hanson · Guest

Was Re: uncle al(asshole)
"Nils Dalen" <nilsdalen1912@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:892df052.0308151515.6dda555@posting.google.com...
[quote]"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
OK, ok.....but never mind the "mistakes", "boneheads" or "meanings" etc.
I am interested, as I stated in my previous post:
What is the route, the synthesis, by which CrO2, Chromium Dioxide,
was/is commercially produced?
I am not interest in the current research which lays CrO2 down by CVD.
Nils, Eric (may still be down 'cause of the Blackout), .....anybody?
thanks,
hanson

I don>t know the actual process for CrO2.
However, here are a few places to start:
Here is a recent paper--the references might help you track down the
process actually used:
Method for the synthesis of CrO2 at ambient pressure and temperature
Ye H, Zhang Q, Saito F, Jeyadevan B, Tohji K, Tsunoda M
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 93 (10): 6856-6858 Part 2 MAY 15 2003
Or, try this patent by DuPont:
US3512930: STABILIZED FERROMAGNETIC CHROMIUM DIOXIDE
It was referenced 24 times, so it probably had something useful in it.
Check it out on the uspto website or delphion.com (if delphion still
allows for non-paying access).
Looking at some of the patents, it is still being produced. BASF has
patents at least into the '90s.
Nils

Hey, thanks a million, dude.[/quote]
The patents show that the simplest reaction for producing
CrO2, Chromium Dioxide, via CrO3 + Cr2O3 = 3 CrO2
does not work in practice. All patents show that a vast excess
of CrO3 is required which shows reactions that look like:
3 CrO3 + Cr2O3 = 5 CrO2 + O2 .... to .....
6 CrO3 + Cr2O3 = 8 CrO2 + 2.5 O2.
The Cr6+, the Cr3+ plus some water are mixed into a paste.
Reducing- and nucleating agents are added and then the paste
is typically cooked at 110-750°C for 1 to 15 hrs under 100 to
700 atm. The reaction mix then is slowly cooled & the insoluble
CrO2 that formed is separated and worked up to be ready for
mixing into various "glues" that are applied onto a carrier tape.

The wide variety of conditions to produce CrO2 shows again
how little value "Theory" has in the real, ponderable and tangible
world. Theories are just fucking stories developed AFTER the fact
and mainly good to teach the children what>s going on.
Folks who make a living from writing theories = stories or teaching
them will of course disagree.
But given that fact that all the theory, physics and chemistry, that
goes into the manufacture of a toilet bowl, will not enable a single
theoretician to construct one, no matter how fancy his theories are.
The theoretician, especially the relativity ones, should therefore go
and take a shit in the woods or the cow pasture and wonder
why this works too.
ahahahaha..........ahahahahanson

Mark Tarka · Guest

"Eric Lucas" <ealucas@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<iHX_a.99414$3o3.6905000@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
[quote]"Nils Dalen" <nilsdalen1912@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:892df052.0308141316.5598ba13@posting.google.com...
mark_tarka@yahoo.com (Mark Tarka) wrote in message
news:<6b70c71c.0308140834.62d77459@posting.google.com>...

Now, here is where it was easy to see that your statement was wrong:
Take a look at your old cassette player (unless you are like me and
threw your cassette player away 10+ years ago). There is a setting
for Cr2O3 tapes. You don>t record on paramagnetic materials (by
definition, a paramagnet doesn>t hold magnetization).

No, that setting is for CrO2 tapes, not Cr2O3. You>re right, you>re not a
"fancy schmancy chemist"--a chemist would immediately recognize and remember
the difference between CrO2 and Cr2O3.
[snip...][/quote]

"Counterfeit Deterrent Features for the Next-Generation
Currency Design", Pub. NMAB-472, National Adademy Press,
1993, has a couple of clues:

(1) "U.S. currency if currently printed using intaglio
[those fine lines in the face of the Pres.] techniques.
Intaglio inks are typically dark powder pigments that
are added to oils." Page 53.

(2) "Transition metal compounds as in pigments such as
_chrome_green_, where the colors are caused by light
absorption at restricted energies, producing the
excitation of unpaired electrons." Page 113 [this
sentence taken out of the context of the page sounds
awful].

Then there>s "Statistical Theory of Magnetoelectric Effects
in Antiferromagnetics", George. T. Rado, _Phys._Rev._,
128(6), 2546-2556(1962). The Neel temperature T(N) allegedly
splits the antiferromagnetic behavior (<T(N)) from
paramagnetic behavior (>T(N)). T(N) for Cr2O3 (chrome
green) is 307 K. The article shows some experimental
results in graphs. There>re two factors, alpha(perpendicular)
and alpha(parallel), neither of which come into play here,
since a _crystal_ was used as the sample, and measurements
are made relative to an applied [magnetic?] field.

That, plus the fact that at room temperature (293K), the
physical effects of being below T(N) don>t appear to be too
great that close to the transition point and the ink on the
paper is assumed to be random, the only way to keep
this whole stupid argument going is to have someone
pop up and state flat out, that green ink alone will not
cause an effect on a dollar bill in a sufficiently
strong magnetic field such as might be found in modern
magnets. Heck, Don Rumsfeld would sooner come out and
tell the world that opium production is up in Afghanistan,
and he knows that>s just awful but he doesn>t know what
to do about it, than admit a U.S. greenback hasn>t got
what it takes to flutter in the face of shocking and
awesome magnetic lines of force.

Mark (Now, getting back to the real deal...the One-Atom....)

William David Thweatt · Guest

Richard Saam (rdsaam@att.net) wrote:
: Hi All:

: Now that we have the electrical power distribution infrastructure
: strained to performance limits and in much need of replacement
: enhancement, where is the promise of superconductivity as hyped 15 years
: ago.

: Liquid nitrogen cooled YBCO in pipes just will not do.

: Conceptually we need something like environmentally innocuous carbon
: strands produced at a few thousand dollars per ton with Tc = 298 K and
: critical current at 10^5 amp/cm^2. Nothing on the horizon resembling this.

I>m still waiting for "Mr. Fusion" from Ron Popeil.

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welsh Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
thweatt@ruf.rice.edu
dave.thweatt@us.army.mil

G. R. L. Cowan · Guest

Richard Saam wrote:
[quote]
Hi All:

Now that we have the electrical power distribution infrastructure
strained to performance limits and in much need of replacement
enhancement, where is the promise of superconductivity as hyped 15 years
ago.

Liquid nitrogen cooled YBCO in pipes just will not do.

Conceptually we need something like environmentally innocuous carbon
strands produced at a few thousand dollars per ton with Tc = 298 K and
critical current at 10^5 amp/cm^2. Nothing on the horizon resembling this.
[/quote]
The implied solution if we had that would be --
lay some cable. But that will work with what we have:
ambient-temperature aluminum.

I of course like nuclear production of fuel,
which trucks itself with very little loss,
and to places that aren>t, and if the fuel is good enough
need never be, on any grid of wires or pipes.

--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
how cars gain nuclear cachet

Terry Wilder · Guest

"William David Thweatt" <thweatt@rice.edu> wrote in message
news:bhrf7a$2b7$8@joe.rice.edu...
[quote]Richard Saam (rdsaam@att.net) wrote:
: Hi All:

: Now that we have the electrical power distribution infrastructure
: strained to performance limits and in much need of replacement
: enhancement, where is the promise of superconductivity as hyped 15 years
: ago.

: Liquid nitrogen cooled YBCO in pipes just will not do.

: Conceptually we need something like environmentally innocuous carbon
: strands produced at a few thousand dollars per ton with Tc = 298 K and
: critical current at 10^5 amp/cm^2. Nothing on the horizon resembling
this.

I>m still waiting for "Mr. Fusion" from Ron Popeil.

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welsh Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
thweatt@ruf.rice.edu
dave.thweatt@us.army.mil
[/quote]
Last heard low tension HTS cable experiments being conducted by Detroit
Edison.

Mark Tarka · Guest

nilsdalen1912@yahoo.com (Nils Dalen) wrote in message news:<892df052.0308180940.166a6bf0@posting.google.com>...
[quote]mark_tarka@yahoo.com (Mark Tarka) wrote in message news:<6b70c71c.0308161236.479e2eef@posting.google.com>...
"Eric Lucas" <ealucas@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<iHX_a.99414$3o3.6905000@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Nils Dalen" <nilsdalen1912@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:892df052.0308141316.5598ba13@posting.google.com...
mark_tarka@yahoo.com (Mark Tarka) wrote in message
news:<6b70c71c.0308140834.62d77459@posting.google.com>...

Now, here is where it was easy to see that your statement was wrong:
Take a look at your old cassette player (unless you are like me and
threw your cassette player away 10+ years ago). There is a setting
for Cr2O3 tapes. You don>t record on paramagnetic materials (by
definition, a paramagnet doesn>t hold magnetization).

No, that setting is for CrO2 tapes, not Cr2O3. You>re right, you>re not a
"fancy schmancy chemist"--a chemist would immediately recognize and remember
the difference between CrO2 and Cr2O3.
[snip...][/quote]

Goodbye, Nils.

w_tom · Guest

There is a serious misconception in this post. The only
place where the grid is in serious problem - in mouths of
politicians and those seeking free government funding.
Look at the NERC.COM reliability report for years 2002-2011.
Most all the grid is sufficient - the weakness only being in
the NY ISO to NYC and SW Conn where political problems have
created transmissions problems.

Hypesters will be quick to have you believe half truths and
outright lies before the facts arrive. Reality is that the
grid is sufficient - predicated on proper maintenance and
proper operation. You now want to visit
alt.engineering.electrical in a thread entitled "Power
Outage - a deliberate calculation" or
http://tinyurl.com/kigz to see why such failures happen.
Therein lies why proper maintenance and operation is not being
done. Therein lies why something good called deregulation is
being subverted by those who come from where?

In the meantime, superconductivity is not a solution as
hypsters would have you think. A superconductor cable is
being installed in Detroit Edison only because the
superconductor takes less space than a conventional cable.
Space is the problem being solved by superconductivity.
Always go first to where 85% of all problems are directly
traceable. Read those posts in alt.engineering.electrical.
then go back to news articles or even last nights Nightline
(www.nightline.abcnews.com) to see what they also report at
the broadcast>s start.

Only the ill informed are claiming we need more power plants
and more transmission lines. Notice how PJM which is properly
managed probably saved the entire east coast to FL and the TX
border from a blackout. Facts before speculation is what
those hypsters don>t want you to do.

Richard Saam wrote:
[quote]...
Now that we have the electrical power distribution infrastructure
strained to performance limits and in much need of replacement
enhancement, where is the promise of superconductivity as hyped 15 years
ago.

Liquid nitrogen cooled YBCO in pipes just will not do.

Conceptually we need something like environmentally innocuous carbon
strands produced at a few thousand dollars per ton with Tc = 298 K and
critical current at 10^5 amp/cm^2. Nothing on the horizon resembling this.

What to do,

Richard Saam[/quote]

Richard Saam · Guest

w_tom

I read some of the numerous posts in a

alt.engineering.electrical

Staying clear of the MBA vs engineering tension, one fact appeared and that is the very short period of time (9 seconds) for the grid to respond to a defect. Even this appears to be long considering that the electricity travels at the speed of light (maybe a little less for index of refraction). There must be some mechanical relays in the system.

You mentioned that good reliability is ensured out to 2011. That really is not too far away. Perhaps we should be looking for a better way 20 years down the road when grid complexity surely will be increased with much larger demand.

My question, is whether there is something inherently characteristic to superconductivity that would make a transmittion system more reliable??

More concretely, is it in the nature of superconductivity that the electrical current travels at a much slower speed (7.84E+05 cm/sec or 17,500 mph) than conventional electrical current (3 x 10^10 cm/sec or 669,600,000 mph) making grid system decision making and execution inherently more reliable??

Richard Saam

w_tom wrote:

[quote]There is a serious misconception in this post. The only
place where the grid is in serious problem - in mouths of
politicians and those seeking free government funding.
Look at the NERC.COM reliability report for years 2002-2011.
Most all the grid is sufficient - the weakness only being in
the NY ISO to NYC and SW Conn where political problems have
created transmissions problems.

Hypesters will be quick to have you believe half truths and
outright lies before the facts arrive. Reality is that the
grid is sufficient - predicated on proper maintenance and
proper operation. You now want to visit
alt.engineering.electrical in a thread entitled "Power
Outage - a deliberate calculation" or
http://tinyurl.com/kigz to see why such failures happen.
Therein lies why proper maintenance and operation is not being
done. Therein lies why something good called deregulation is
being subverted by those who come from where?

In the meantime, superconductivity is not a solution as
hypsters would have you think. A superconductor cable is
being installed in Detroit Edison only because the
superconductor takes less space than a conventional cable.
Space is the problem being solved by superconductivity.
Always go first to where 85% of all problems are directly
traceable. Read those posts in alt.engineering.electrical.
then go back to news articles or even last nights Nightline
(www.nightline.abcnews.com) to see what they also report at
the broadcast>s start.

Only the ill informed are claiming we need more power plants
and more transmission lines. Notice how PJM which is properly
managed probably saved the entire east coast to FL and the TX
border from a blackout. Facts before speculation is what
those hypsters don>t want you to do.

Richard Saam wrote:

...
Now that we have the electrical power distribution infrastructure
strained to performance limits and in much need of replacement
enhancement, where is the promise of superconductivity as hyped 15 years
ago.

Liquid nitrogen cooled YBCO in pipes just will not do.

Conceptually we need something like environmentally innocuous carbon
strands produced at a few thousand dollars per ton with Tc = 298 K and
critical current at 10^5 amp/cm^2. Nothing on the horizon resembling this.

What to do,

Richard Saam

[/quote]

Terry Wilder · Guest

Then there>s the possibility of a maximally resistant wire.
"Richard Saam" <rdsaam@att.net> wrote in message news:vUq0b.105309$3o3.7364376@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

no wrote:

Terry Wilder wrote:
"William David Thweatt" <thweatt@rice.edu> wrote in message
news:bhrf7a$2b7$8@joe.rice.edu...
Richard Saam (rdsaam@att.net) wrote:
: Hi All:

: Now that we have the electrical power distribution infrastructure
: strained to performance limits and in much need of replacement
: enhancement, where is the promise of superconductivity as hyped 15 years
: ago.

: Liquid nitrogen cooled YBCO in pipes just will not do.

: Conceptually we need something like environmentally innocuous carbon
: strands produced at a few thousand dollars per ton with Tc = 298 K and
: critical current at 10^5 amp/cm^2. Nothing on the horizon resembling
this.
I>m still waiting for "Mr. Fusion" from Ron Popeil.

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welsh Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
thweatt@ruf.rice.edu
dave.thweatt@us.army.mil
Last heard low tension HTS cable experiments being conducted by Detroit
Edison.

This company is testing a superconducting surge protector for
the power grids. They had $6MM funding from the DOE by 8/14:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=IMGC+&d=5d
I just ran across the following reference:

http://superconductors.org/roomnano.htm

"The resistance transitions observed in several multi-wall nanotube
ropes are consistent with Tc>s of about 700 Kelvin. A big bundle of
superconducting MWNT>s can [actually] levitate a rare-earth magnet."

- Guo-Meng (Peter) Zhao, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Physics,
California State University at L.A

Superconductivity in carbon nano tubes is claimed to 700K.
Thats what it will take to get proper functional superconductivity at 298K.
The Patent attorneys are getting involved.
It will take forever.
Let the acronyms fly - MWNT & RTSC
Maybe some creative person in Monrovia can do it.

Richard Saam

w_tom · Guest

One cannot avoid the product oriented verses finance orient
debate. It is inherent in all major problems. Most major
failures are where short term finance thinking dominates - be
it the Chrysler near bankruptcy (that was corrected when
someone took control who knew how to drive and had a driver>s
license), Three Mile Island (where cost controls tan the
facility with a defective valve that started the calamity), CA
energy crisis (where again, finance people chose deregulation
that even Ross Perot recognized as naive), Challenger (where
not one engineer would say OK to launch), or FirstEnergy
(where we cannot find a single person who knows anything about
electricity or utilities - but is happy to blame everyone and
anyone else).

Superconductors for transmission lines don>t solve these
problems. Transmission lines already are quite efficient.
Furthermore, a low temperature (even in HTS) makes long
distance transport unreasonable. Better solution are HVDC
lines which are already being installed or are planned.

Superconductivity does provide advantages in motors,
transformers, high frequency & power applications and other
places where the operation is confined. AMSC even makes a
superconductor device that can provide power during short
power interruptions where such interruptions could be
catastrophic - semiconductor factories. But superconductivity
provides no solution to national grids - whose problems are
about control and where management stifles solutions they
don>t comprehend on their spread sheets.

PJM is a benchmark for the continent. What makes PJM work
is a free market based upon the technology (which CA utility
executives found too complex for their MBA and lawyer minds),
and a control system where members are obligated to be
product oriented (to maintain and properly operate their
equipment) and where the system is programmed in advance by
massive computer simulations and other advance planning.

All this either works or is undermined by the utility
company>s management. FirstEnergy management would never
agree to a PJM type solution. They are more concerned with
short term profits than in long term reliability. This made
obvious by how they responded to Davis-Besse, by how their
transmission lines did not even have functioning alarms, and
how FirstEnergy is now passing blame on everyone else.
FirstEnergy even uses Arthur Andersen for accountants and has
been accused of accounting fraud in a stockholder lawsuit.

FirstEnergy>s response is more like Firestone. But then
FirstEnergy management has no apparent electrical or utility
experience. They could not see a freight train coming until
it hit them - which is classic of MBA type management. Solve
problems after they happen. The last place that
superconductors could be used, even if they provided a
technical advantage, is in a utility so cost controlled and so
technically naive as FirstEnergy.

Speed of electricity in superconductor provides no control
solution. Electric waves travel back and forth 60 times a
second no matter what the speed of electricity. But even
those 9 seconds are misleading. An engineer in North Jersey
reports seeing his voltage swinging wildly, multiple times,
from 79 to 147 volt in intervals of about 30 seconds. That
means unacceptable oscillation problems throughout the NY ISO
and from Detroit were ongoing for minutes - not just 9
seconds. More than enough time for power grids to respond and
to island themselves. Why did that not happen? Another
question that requires utility management with technical
knowledge.

FirstEnergy>s top management is a serious national problem.
However NY ISO and the Ontario grid also must identify and
solve their *control* problems. Superconductors will not
solve control problems. The problem is about *control* and
about top management that does not understand or that stifles
effective control systems and procedures. Superconductors
will not address either problem: management and network
control.

So what are the hypster preaching? Old network and shortage
of generators? The technically naive are picking up on and
repeating this myth. Technical people have not yet identified
solutions. Those currently preaching solutions are simply
promoting a political agenda. We only have symptoms of why
the blackout occurred. Identified are the symptoms and raw
facts. One raw fact is a top management technical
incompetence in one utility, and unacceptable maintenance by
FirstEnergy. Also is reason to suspect that FirstEnergy
violates standard industry procedures which also would be
directly traceable to top management. The blackout was a
*control* problem; not a shortage of hardware and not
something that superconductors will solve. A control problem
that also has been identified in a company with finance
oriented top management.

Richard Saam wrote:
[quote]I read some of the numerous posts in a

alt.engineering.electrical

Staying clear of the MBA vs engineering tension, one fact appeared and that is the very short period of time (9 seconds) for the grid to respond to a defect. Even this appears to be long considering that the electricity travels at the speed of light (maybe a little less for index of refraction). There must be some mechanical relays in the system.

You mentioned that good reliability is ensured out to 2011. That really is not too far away. Perhaps we should be looking for a better way 20 years down the road when grid complexity surely will be increased with much larger demand.

My question, is whether there is something inherently characteristic to superconductivity that would make a transmittion system more reliable??

More concretely, is it in the nature of superconductivity that the electrical current travels at a much slower speed (7.84E+05 cm/sec or 17,500 mph) than conventional electrical current (3 x 10^10 cm/sec or 669,600,000 mph) making grid system decision making and execution inherently more reliable??[/quote]

Richard Saam · Guest

w_tom wrote:

[quote]One cannot avoid the product oriented verses finance orient
debate. It is inherent in all major problems. Most major
failures are where short term finance thinking dominates - be
it the Chrysler near bankruptcy (that was corrected when
someone took control who knew how to drive and had a driver>s
license), Three Mile Island (where cost controls tan the
facility with a defective valve that started the calamity), CA
energy crisis (where again, finance people chose deregulation
that even Ross Perot recognized as naive), Challenger (where
not one engineer would say OK to launch), or FirstEnergy
(where we cannot find a single person who knows anything about
electricity or utilities - but is happy to blame everyone and
anyone else).

And then their is Admiral Hyman George Rickover who engineered the[/quote]
nuclear submarine. He ran a very tight ship. His selection process for
his Naval Officer submarine corps was very demanding. He interviewed
every one and subjected each to his sometimes vitriolic personality.

It is said that in his later years, he had misgivings about having
developed this technology because of potential adverse effect.

There is something in the nature of a technology that includes a wide
spectrum of people from financiers, engineers, scientists, customers,
politicals etc. The overall mix is necessary for the technology>s
existence and perhaps sows the seed of its doom.

What happened to the dirigible? Zeppelin did all the engineering and a
passenger transport industry developed around it. The Hindenburg
spelled the end as well as the US Navy Akron and Macon. A large
structure filled with gas (helium or hydrogen) meant to be lighter than
air does not stand up well in a thunderstorm and the cost per passenger
mile is too high.

I am just saying that if a 298K superconductor were available to
transport DC energy at 10^5 amp/cm^2 under very low tension, without
loss, from any place on earth to another, that would result in a
paradigm shift in the way human kind looks at energy usage and with
significant (beneficial?) political consequences. Rivers of Energy Flow.

Question:

What are the losses in current electrical energy transmission in say:

Percent loss per thousand miles??

Richard Saam

w_tom · Guest

I no longer remember the efficiency numbers. They were
posted some years back in a newsgroup. However recently in
one tech magazine, (maybe Scientific American), a researcher
proposed a way of making superconductors cost effective. Idea
is to use superconductor also as a pipe for supercooled
hydrogen. Homes would burn hydrogen for heat and electric.
Sell excess power back to the grid if available. And hydrogen
keeps the wires at superconductor temperatures.

Appreciate the engineering problems with this scheme. First
we don>t have a good system to send electricity back to the
grid. This is a serious load balancing problem as well as
even a safety problem for linemen. Also just too complex for
electricians. We don>t have safe efficient hydrogen
generators for electricity and heat (yet). Whole new
standards need be created just for those two problems - that
is multiple decades of work. Then there is the complication
with keeping hydrogen cold inside those superconductors.
What happens when no one consumes hydrogen? Entire
neighborhoods need be dug up to bury these cables.

In the 1950s and 1960s were another period of 'technology is
the solution to everything'. Then the 1970s happened - and
the rise of the MBA.

In the 1970s, everything was about costs. Look on a home
construction job. Most all those power and pneumatic tools
were available in 1970 but never used. Only simple things
like portable circular saws were on a job. Even generators
were considered a luxury. They cost money! Everything was by
hand. That was the 1970s mindset.

History says we will return again to that mindset. All this
hype associated with technology is a temporary trend as
repeatedly demonstrated by history. When America gets
'technology crazy' again, I suspect the above application of
superconductors will suddenly become ubiquitous. But
currently, superconductors even in a period of 'technology
hyper-pshyche' are not a solution to most electrical power
transmission problems. I believe it will become standard with
the next wave of 'technology hype'.

Based upon how technology really advances, I don>t expect to
see widespread application of superconductors in our
lifetimes. I expect the value of superconductors and other
sub-atomic science applications to be part of a next
technology wave. Already we are seeing a fear of basic
research. $tens of millions for a space station that has no
science application; build at the loss of a TX super-collider.

One must remember that technology appears in spurts.
Electric motors were available in the late 1800s but never
really utilized until the 1920s. Most computer technology
that made the 1990s was really developed and stifled in the
early 1970s. Simply review the Xerox Star as an example. Or
Unix. Or preemptive multi-tasking. Or xDSL. Even concept
and efficiencies of a hybrid vehicles were demonstrated but
limited to pre-WWII diesel electric locomotives - until now.

Superconductors currently don>t have the cost advantages
necessary to compete with current transmission technologies.
There is an old benchmark for whether a new technology is good
enough to replace the current technology. The new technology
must be about 10 times better - or else it is not 'ready for
prime time'. Superconductors for a national electrical grid
just don>t (yet) meet that requirement.

Richard Saam wrote:
[quote]w_tom wrote:

One cannot avoid the product oriented verses finance orient
debate. It is inherent in all major problems. Most major
failures are where short term finance thinking dominates - be
it the Chrysler near bankruptcy (that was corrected when
someone took control who knew how to drive and had a driver>s
license), Three Mile Island (where cost controls tan the
facility with a defective valve that started the calamity), CA
energy crisis (where again, finance people chose deregulation
that even Ross Perot recognized as naive), Challenger (where
not one engineer would say OK to launch), or FirstEnergy
(where we cannot find a single person who knows anything about
electricity or utilities - but is happy to blame everyone and
anyone else).

And then their is Admiral Hyman George Rickover who engineered the
nuclear submarine. He ran a very tight ship. His selection process for
his Naval Officer submarine corps was very demanding. He interviewed
every one and subjected each to his sometimes vitriolic personality.

It is said that in his later years, he had misgivings about having
developed this technology because of potential adverse effect.

There is something in the nature of a technology that includes a wide
spectrum of people from financiers, engineers, scientists, customers,
politicals etc. The overall mix is necessary for the technology>s
existence and perhaps sows the seed of its doom.

What happened to the dirigible? Zeppelin did all the engineering and a
passenger transport industry developed around it. The Hindenburg
spelled the end as well as the US Navy Akron and Macon. A large
structure filled with gas (helium or hydrogen) meant to be lighter than
air does not stand up well in a thunderstorm and the cost per passenger
mile is too high.

I am just saying that if a 298K superconductor were available to
transport DC energy at 10^5 amp/cm^2 under very low tension, without
loss, from any place on earth to another, that would result in a
paradigm shift in the way human kind looks at energy usage and with
significant (beneficial?) political consequences. Rivers of Energy Flow.

Question:

What are the losses in current electrical energy transmission in say:

Percent loss per thousand miles??

Richard Saam[/quote]

Richard Saam · Guest

William David Thweatt wrote:

[quote]Richard Saam (rdsaam@att.net) wrote:

: I just ran across the following reference:

: http://superconductors.org/roomnano.htm

: "The resistance transitions observed in several multi-wall nanotube
: ropes are consistent with Tc>s of about 700 Kelvin. A big bundle of
: superconducting MWNT>s can [actually] levitate a rare-earth magnet."

: - Guo-Meng (Peter) Zhao, Ph.D.
: Assistant Professor of Physics,
: California State University at L.A

: Superconductivity in carbon nano tubes is claimed to 700K.
: Thats what it will take to get proper functional superconductivity at 298K.
: The Patent attorneys are getting involved.
: It will take forever.
: Let the acronyms fly - MWNT & RTSC
: Maybe some creative person in Monrovia can do it.

I>ll have to bounce that Tc of nanotubes thing off the people here at
Rice. Dr. Curl is my boss. I bet he>d know something about nanotubes...

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welsh Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
thweatt@ruf.rice.edu
dave.thweatt@us.army.mil

William[/quote]

As I understand it, isn>t there a major carbon nano tube pilot plant
under construction there at Rice in association with Smalley et al?
Something like $50,000,000 to spend and anticipated production on the
order of kilograms / day.

It would seem to be a natural place to "mine" some potential
superconductor material. Perhaps the "raw" nano tube powdered material
from the reactor could be sent through a magnetic gradient separator
taking advantage of Meissner effect to segregate any superconducting
entities.

Remember that the history of superconductivity has a air of serendipity
about it. Ask Dr. Paul Chu about his experience with combinations
permutations in the basement of some University of Houston lab.

All has evoked passion which has tapered off since the initial days in
the late 80>s. At that time there was a Robert Welsh meeting in
Houston, in which there was tremendous verbal energy interchange between
the physicists and chemists about the mechanism of superconductivity.

Anyway, "mining" the pilot plant carbon nano tube pile may be an
approach that may yield superconductor results.

Richard Saam LCDR USNR RET PE
Corpus Christi, Texas
rdsaam@att.net

William David Thweatt · Guest

Richard Saam (rdsaam@att.net) wrote:

: William David Thweatt wrote:

: >Richard Saam (rdsaam@att.net) wrote:
: >
: >: I just ran across the following reference:
: >
: >: http://superconductors.org/roomnano.htm
: >
: >: "The resistance transitions observed in several multi-wall nanotube
: >: ropes are consistent with Tc>s of about 700 Kelvin. A big bundle of
: >: superconducting MWNT>s can [actually] levitate a rare-earth magnet."
: >
: >: - Guo-Meng (Peter) Zhao, Ph.D.
: >: Assistant Professor of Physics,
: >: California State University at L.A
: >
: >: Superconductivity in carbon nano tubes is claimed to 700K.
: >: Thats what it will take to get proper functional superconductivity at 298K.
: >: The Patent attorneys are getting involved.
: >: It will take forever.
: >: Let the acronyms fly - MWNT & RTSC
: >: Maybe some creative person in Monrovia can do it.
: >
: >I>ll have to bounce that Tc of nanotubes thing off the people here at
: >Rice. Dr. Curl is my boss. I bet he>d know something about nanotubes...
: >
: William

: As I understand it, isn>t there a major carbon nano tube pilot plant
: under construction there at Rice in association with Smalley et al?
: Something like $50,000,000 to spend and anticipated production on the
: order of kilograms / day.

You know, I>ll have to check. That>s not really my bag. I think they
just sputter Fe nanospheres on a Si substrate, then CVD the nanotubes
from the Fe spheres. Apparently, the ethylene enters the Fe sphere. The
hydrogens fall off and are sucked out the turbo pump. The carbons migrate
through the sphere, then form the nanotube on the other side.

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
thweatt@ruf.rice.edu
dave.thweatt@us.army.mil

w_tom · Guest

What is the freezing point of methane? Can it be taken low
enough and still remain gaseous or sufficiently liquid to pump
under sufficient pressure - a thermodynamics question?

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
[quote]...
An interesting notion, but absent more data, methane is
a better fuel per cubic meter. The carbon-hydrogen
bond has more energy than hydrogen-hydrogen, and there
are more of them.

There>s also the issue of heating the cooled hydrogen, in
order to burn it.
...[/quote]


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Chemistry Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15 Next
Page 14 of 15