ZPEnergy.com - Lockstep Molecular Resonance and OU

Dr. Douglass White is back with another essay on a possible mechanism for energy extraction based on synchronous molecular interactions.

More Directions for Energy Research and General Comments
(from the GreaterThings News site - see Hot Links).

Maybe today we should all go out and hug a tree! Almost all of the
fossil fuels that we use today are the remains of millions of years of
plant growth. When we add to this all the contemporary logs stoked
into fireplaces, we owe a considerable energy debt to the plants.

Perhaps, instead of just burning the dead or living bodies of plants,
we can learn something from them. How do they capture all that energy
they use to build their manifold structures? Biologists tell us they
use photosynthesis to divert some of the energy in the sun's light that
bathes our planet every day. In simplistic terms a plant uses two
processes, photolysis and the Calvin cycle, to convert carbon dioxide
and water to glucose and oxygen. The plant absorbs CO2 from the air
and releases O2. We do not necessarily need to get involved in the CO2
and glucose aspects. These serve the plant's purpose of fixing carbon-
based molecules into its physical structures. We can just focus on the
energy transformation processes.

The key points are photolysis (see below) and the ATP/ADP energy pump
(see my comments on Boyer Wheels and nanotechnology). A plant is a
solar powered machine. It gets its fundamental energy from sunlight
photodissociating water molecules. It apparently gets a secondary
energy boost from its ATP/ADP pumping stations. It operates over unity
at these two junctures in its electrochemical sequences. It does so in
the case of photolysis by being an open system that taps into some of
the sun's vast flow of radiation as it hits the earth. Chlorophyll
molecules in the chloroplasts of the leaves absorb the energy of
sunlight to split water molecules. The ATP case is not yet so well
understood, but we know how the basic chemistry proceeds and we are
making rapid strides.

But, for photolysis to happen, we don't need to rely on sunlight. A
battery gets the same results by electrolysis. The problem is that the
battery takes energy to make and eventually runs down. If we try to
take out the battery and loop the energy from recombining hydrogen and
oxygen to run the electrolysis, it won't work, at least by conventional
means. There is a loss of energy along the way. Because the system is
isolated, it runs down and ends up in equilibrium. Trees have been
successful "perpetual motion machines" for hundreds of millions of
years because they are not isolated systems. They use photovoltaic
cells called leaves and draw energy from light.

Does that mean we can't get "over-unity" energy performance from water
without depending on solar cells? It certainly can't be done with a
conventional fuel cell alone. The only way it can be done is to tap
into some additional energy resource that can not only match, but also
exceed, the heat losses and other inefficiencies incurred as the atoms
recombine in a fuel cell, let's say, and generate electricity. Fuel
cells usually operate at around 60% efficiency.

It turns out that there is quite a bit of research going on in the
field of photolysis these days. One direction is to learn everything
we can about how chlorophyll does its job with sunlight. But another
direction of research is not focused on tapping solar energy. Sunlight
is chaotic radiation at many different wavelengths. The new photolysis
research involves using the coherent light of lasers. With a tunable
laser a researcher can precisely adjust the wavelength to find a way to
split the bonds holding water together as a molecule in the most
efficient manner.

As an example, I recently saw a 1999 University of Colorado doctoral
thesis by Ondreij Votava entitled "Vibrationally Mediated
Photodissociation of Water...." Chapter three deals specifically with
photolysis of water without regard to other admixtures. You can find
portions of the paper posted as pdf files at
jilawww/colorado.edu/www/sro/thesis/votava. In his experiments Votava
found that the first vibrationally excited state of water causes the
bonds to become repulsive. By tuning to an IR wavelength, he excited
the molecules so that an H would stretch away from an OH. To draw on
the cartoon image I used in earlier comments to describe the water
molecule's shape, this is like pulling Mickey Mouse's ear. According
to Votava, the IR wavelength resonates the water into a repulsive state
that makes it receptive to dissociation. Then he uses a laser tuned at
248 nm (in the UV range) to tease the atoms apart. The UV pulse
apparently is an overtone of the IR pulse that he uses. So, by the
addition of some well-aimed energy from outside the water system,
Votava can make use of the internal energy states of the water to shift
it into its diatomic phase. This approach is a bit different from the
scenario I recently suggested, but close enough, and represents
carefully reviewed lab work.

To give an analogy for what Votava is probing toward in this paper,
imagine that the molecular bond in a water molecule is like a bridge
over a stream in a village. (H2O/H2O!!) Ordinarily during the day about
50 people are walking on the bridge at any one time, but their
movements are random and so do not approach the bridge's structural
tolerances. The walking people are like the random kinetic motions of
the water molecules bumping around. Most of the time not enough
happens with the bumping to stress the molecule out of shape. Now
suppose the citizens are replaced by a troop of 50 soldiers all
marching in unison. The same number of people are now walking the same
average number of steps on the bridge, but in unison. No significant
amount of energy is added; just an adjustment that entrains the random
motions into an orderly rhythm. The bridge starts to vibrate. The
leader adjusts the stride of the soldiers so it resonates harmonically
with the wave structure of the bridge. This is like the IR pulse in
Votava's experiment. Now the wave patterns of the marching soldiers
instead of randomly interfering, all interfere constructively to
greatly magnify the bridge's vibration. The bridge starts to stretch
as it vibrates. The sadistic leader now orders his men to hop at the
same frequency the bridge is vibrating. The bridge breaks, and all the
men end up in the water. This order is like the UV pulse that causes
the water to end up split into its diatomic phase.

By using principles of resonance, the adding of a tweak of energy from
outside combines with the water's own internal energy to break the
bonds. This way there's a lot less input of energy needed compared to
what you need when the water is in attraction mode or chaotic. The
kinetic energy carries over into the atoms, but some is dissipated as
heat.

Votava's experiments are all well under unity. They were designed to
facilitate studying the internal dynamics of the photolysis of water
and not optimized for minimizing energy consumption. What if we work
on the cavity design and the ratio of pulses to amount of water and
perhaps other factors?

Votava used batches of about 4x10^11 molecules. He speaks of 10-20%
going into the proper excitation mode in his experiments. Let's say we
can get 10% of the water in the cavity to split with a single pulse.
This comes to 4x10^10 molecules of output. Let's say we put 10 moles
of water into an optimized cavity. Upon excitation with a single pulse
we theoretically might be able to photolyze 1 mole of H2O. This is
6.022x10^23 water molecules. Votava used .5-1x10^-2 J for IR and 2x10^-
2 J for UV. Ideally we expend, let's say, 3x10^-2 J on the single
pulse to photolyze 6.022x10^23 molecules. That comes to about:

* 5x10^-26 J / molecule.

Let's say our fuel cell gives us about 60% performance, giving about .9
V. The energy drops from 2.37x10^5 J/mol down to 1.42x10^5 J/mol. That
comes to 2.36x10^-19 J/molecule. Comparing we get:

* 4.7x10^6 / 1. (A 4.7 million-fold energy gain over unity.

You're not going to get that kind of performance. The pulses probably
would be way too weak for that much water. But the laser effect is
nonlinear. We have to go to the lab for experiments, but what if it
turns out that by hitting the water with 10^4 pulses we can split our 1
mole out of 10? We're still getting almost a 4.7x10^2 fold energy gain,
and 470x is not bad. That covers the fuel cell energy losses and
leaves a lot left over for usable work.

Going back to our analogy of the bridge, the only energy the soldiers
added to what was already present on the bridge every day is some
organization and the extra little hop in tune with the bridge's
resonant vibration. The situation with water is not exactly the same,
but you get the idea. Orderliness is very powerful. It
also "infectiously" entrains in a nonlinear manner, and thereby it
polarizes the system from the chaotic environment and gives us the
ability to do work (breaking bonds) where that ability did not exist
before.

A personal experience (another analogy): I once took a special course
in the secrets of Ninja martial arts from a great Japanese-American
master. In one section of this amazing course he introduced us to the
fine art of board breaking. A novice whacking a board with his bare
hands just hurts his hand. Then the master shows him how to organize
his energy so that after only a few minutes of training and with a
proper angle of attack and a nice karate shout, he can break a standard
pine board barehanded with one stroke -- and feel no pain!

Then the master demonstrates breaking a board with no attack at all --
by simply waving at it. Yes, with just a casual WAVE. I saw him do
it, and my jaw dropped. Then he said, "Now it's your turn." He showed
me how, and I did it -- first try. So did about 80% of the class. I
gave a relaxed, effortless, silent wave just as he had showed me, and
the board exploded apart. What a strange, mind-expanding experience
that was. It convinced me: we can do pretty much anything with the
right kind of wave.

Let me close this little thought storm with a clarification for those
wondering what kind of wacko is posting this stuff. Although I am a
trained and well-doctored academic with teaching experience at several
universities and have run a hightech R&D operation in software and
hardware design, I am not a conventionally trained physicist,
mathematician, or engineer. My field is research into the foundations
and development pathways of civilizations. Sometimes I write essays on
topics in science (e.g. Observer Physics: A New Paradigm) and sometimes
I write science fiction (e.g. Solomon's Treasure, a taboo-buster
written under a pen name). I like to explore different ways of looking
at things. The above mentioned works are quite unconventional. But,
for example, the satirical sci-fi novel I wrote predicted an aerial
terrorist attack from an organization based in the Afghan region
several years before it actually occurred. (Of course, no on paid any
attention, and we all have 20/20 hindsight. Yes, the date was a little
bit off; and no, it didn't pinpoint the towers. The hint was based on
trend analysis and a study of mass consciousness, and drew on
predictions made by a certain master centuries ago.)

Science and technology are prominent features of our current version of
civilization. Energy management also plays a key role in most
civilizations. In my field I naturally have a keen research interest
in these issues (foundations of mathematics, physics, energy
management, etc.) aside from my personal interest in survival. I am
amazed at how little creative thinking and economic resources are
dedicated to bringing our planetary energy management into homeostasis
with the biosphere compared to the critical importance of its role in
our present attempts at civilization and global economic development.

For whatever it's worth, I am contributing a few ideas to brainstorm on
this subject and will be happy to work with anyone interested to get
some increased public awareness focused on resolving the energy
management issue and other interesting challenges we face in this
century. Please feel free to tear these ideas apart and see what ticks
behind them, if anything.

I have heard noise coming from the US administration about shifting to
hydrogen as the clean fuel of the future and a plan to extract it from
fossil fuels. The hydrogen part sounds good. You can pack it into
Powerballs or carbon fiber tanks for use at home or on the road. I am
sure this can be done, and the CO2 can be centrally processed to cut
back on planet-warming emissions. But the proposed methodology still
relies on the fossils. So it is just a postponement of the inevitable
depletion of resources that favors the extraction of maximum wealth
from the population by the big oil people. I have no problem with oil
merchants making lots of money selling oil, but I would sure like to
stop burning it all up. That's a stupid way to treat a nonrenewable
resource. Let's find clean, renewable alternatives. Then we can raise
the price of oil and treat it as a precious resource devoted to other
purposes, many of which are recyclable. As soon as possible we want to
re-engineer our economic systems to clean energy and recyclable
materials. Nanotechnology will be very helpful in the cleanup if we
don't abuse it into greater environmental degradation. It's our
willingness to explore and our intelligent decision process that count.

DAW