Originally posted by John_Bedini
View Post
This is the crux of the issue. Minerals can and do OFTEN contain water as part of the crystal Lattice. Water amplifies the output on Salt based cells. I have done EXTENSIVE AND LONG TERM desiccant tests on cells, including hyperbaric and negative pressure tests. There is given the nature of the materials we are using a natural proclivity of the salts to imbibe water from the atmosphere, albeit in tiny trace amounts. This is critical to the ionic mobility within the lattice itself, given the materials we ARE using on these cells the stove top cell included.
The key to the continued operation of the cells either by passive or active modus is found here:
Hygroscopy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Specifically respecting the concept of Deliquescent materials.
JB or others please correct me if I am wrong but POSITIVE IONS can only travel in Gaseous or LIQUID medium, and yes, glass is a supercooled liquid. This means Plasma or fluid. What we perhaps all seek is that tantalizing tidbit and really nifty demonstration of the glassy type electrolyte cell that John presented. That is an apple, we are playing with oranges. They are NOT the same fruit, yet share the same characteristic that they both use liquid for ionic transport, one being for all intent and purpose solid glass.
These cells we are making are not plasma to be sure, therefore, some type of carrier liquid is essential. How much, where it is trapped and how long it lasts has to do with the geometry of the lattice, the cell and the ambient environment. I am a simple dentist. I know a little about crystal lattice and the effects of hydration on a practical level. TEETH are crystalline and they ARE hydrous. They also are piezoelectric believe it or not due to hydroxyapatite. Remove the fluid from the lattice and BAD things happen to all the aspects and characteristics of the lattice. This is not the case for all crystals, rather it may be a realization of knowing what you are working with. Another example is opal as a stone is HYDROUS and thus, needs to be periodically treated with oil or stored if not mounted in oil to ensure the TRAPPED water is not lost which leads to lack of the luster and characteristics of opals. We need to SEE what CRYSTALS we are working with are predominantly SALTS. THEY ABSORB WATER, unless you place them in an environment that PREVENTS this. The key is to see how efficiently we can harness useable electricity without losing the constituent electrode materials via galvanic action and more specifically electrically driven metallic consumption. I have made cells that seem to keep the Mg around as well as the cells that seem to create a ton of current yet after prolonged use, Mg deterioration is noted, albeit in a very delayed way, thus JB's noting that it would take YEARS to kill a cell. THIS IS TRUTH. Now, the simple determination needs to be made by all what it is that you seek to accomplish.
I can say I seek to make a cell that does not digest itself. If all that is required is the periodic application of SOME form of Liquid, be it water or other, than we have what could be considered a fuel cell. That is fine. If what we can make requires NO hydration but RECHARGING then we are no further ahead but perhaps safer than existing art of LiPo cells. IF we can make a system that RECYCLES the Fluid such as the MR cells perhaps do, and acts as an infinite battery, due to clever ionic recycle and shuttle of electrons, or as billions of diodes to capture RF or other flavors of energy that permeate the milieu, than FOR SURE THIS IS CARVING NEW TERRITORY. This is what I seek to make. So I would propose that we accept that the salt based crystals are in some manner or other tied to water for function. What is not entirely clear is that metallic degradation is CONTINUOUS. I know that metallic alteration CAN AND DOES OCCUR if you electrically attempt to deposit material on an electrode. Now, does CONTINUED METALLIC DESTRUCTION CONTINUE? Not necessarily. This is the tough one to prove.
I am still attempting to vet that it is possible to prevent consumption of the metallic substrates, thus, I choose to use Mg that can easily register deterioration. Al takes much longer to see, and perhaps may even prove to be a better metal due to the fantastically fast oxide production such that what would last for years on Mg may last DECADES on Al. Just a thought. Now again, is this what we are seeking? I wish to pursue NON consumption of metallic compounds. So the proposal is to perhaps start a thread on the INFINITE BATTERY. The rigor of determining NON metallic consumption will be a tough hurdle. BUT the benefits of the brilliant minds out there may just make it possible. Just a thought. Just a proposal.
If we seek to make something different, we need to shift gears.
Please forgive my standing on a soap box. I am short of stature
I welcome all thoughts on my mini rant. I do not pretend to have the answers to be sure, rather, I seek to learn more, in essence, I am not satisfied with where we are. This list and group have accomplished a great deal. The mentorship and guidance is heartfelt and appreciated beyond words, JB, Chuck, ALL who experiment and to those BRILLIANT ones who make the output of our cells actually useful, JB, Lidmotor et all. Lets keep the momentum up. We can accomplish more. There are many minds that can work together to find New answers.
Very Best Regards,
Jim
Leave a comment: