Post Scripts - leave a comment on any... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » Post Scripts » Post Scripts - leave a comment on any topic « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Friday, April 25, 2008 - 10:31 pm:   

(click image) for Table of Contents of Humancafe forums

Much had been written over the past decade, and while these forums are to be archived (as read only Dec. 21, 2008) into 'safekeeping' until reopened, please leave your comments here. You may refer to existing threads with links, or have your say as you wish. All ideas are welcome, respectful of others. Formatting instructions may help better express your comments. We have tapped into the mind of the world, through the World Wide Web, a human cafe, and from it comes something wonderful. And while these forums are closed, their ideas live on. Your postscripts will determine how and when these forums will reopen in the future. Enjoy! There's a lot here, with more to come. It's a long Millennium project, all part of our planet Earth's Emergence.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, April 28, 2008 - 09:13 pm:   

How many web sites are there in the WWW? Over 70 million sites as of 2005, and over 20 billion pages. This is big!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 10:38 am:   

Ivanetto, I did visit the forum and saw the map for visitor location. Did they mark my visit?

It is a nice tool if it works.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Math tutorial
Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 - 10:41 am: tutorial and practice, calculators and examples:

For those who once learned math and forgot, or never learned math and want to, if reading some of the science stuff written here. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2008 - 11:45 am:   

postscripts to the aliens...

6ff ps to 'letters to aliens'

1. most of us have two forelegs and two hindlegs with five digits, but some like crabs and insects have six or more, and humans don't usually walk on their forelegs.

2. we love to watch earth's beautiful sunrise and sunsets, nightowls love sunsets, earlybirds love sunrise.

3. we humans like to laugh but quarrel too, other animals quarrel too, so must be laughing at us.

4. our humor can be slapstick or slick and cool, often cynical, but those who laugh at clowns clobbering each other take offense if cool humor is directed at them.

5. simple people think they must explain things to those who know more than they do.

6. nice people love their pets and animals, bad people abuse them, primitive people still eat them.

7. we have beautiful rivers and oceans, but some turned them into sewers while others are cleaning them up.

8. we all have some religion, worshipping our deity with love, and art or dance, but others fear their deity and forbid laughter or punish any who disobey, sometimes with death.

9. our children are loved usually, but at times abused, but we no longer eat them.

10. we still kill each other in wars, but we also save whales and lions from extinction, including our own.

11. we have learned to use reason, as our technological progress proves, but many fear reason and obey blindly, because reason is not taught to them.

12. much of our plant life is a beautiful green of the planet, but not all, and some life is invisible to the eye, though it is as old as our world.

13. flowers give us joy and keep bees and birds busy, as they turn their faces to our sun.

14. we have learned to govern ourselves as free men and women, but not all believe in this and lament their freedoms, so some are still slaves.

15. we have taken small steps to venture into space, and leave our planet with our space ships, but we sent humans only to our moon, so there is much more we would like to do.

16. boys and girls like each other, often but not always get married and have children, and even love each other.

17. we love beautiful things, obey the truth, but are still lost in confusion of which is which.

18. we are still evolving, like all life on earth, yet it is a universal law all life must die.

19. the stars in the night sky have been a wonder to us for a very long time.

20. all our great cities have a main street that is its heart, for new york it is fifth avenue, but all have this by another name.

21. we are proud of our cathedrals and great temples, beautiful buildings and parks, all the works or human hands and minds and hearts.

Who is You? what are you like, or love and fear? why are our governments afraid of you?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2008 - 01:55 pm:   

The trouble with "Dialogue with a Muslim" ( ) is that while modern human beings glean truths from the study of reality, reasonable concepts and principles, the antiquated Muslim mind seeks its truths through the sayings of an ancient man who said everything in the universe is through his Allah, as he described it. Modern society is based on agreed up laws, while Sharia society is based on laws arrived at by consultation. This on the surface appears to be the same thing, except in laws of agreements between human beings there is room for evolution and adjustments to better serve society and its individuals, while in Islamic laws there is no room for change or challenge of the status quo. In fact, if anyone tries to challenge these laws of Allah they face terrible punishments, even death, such as death by stoning or for apostasy, or homosexuality. The problem with Islam is it cannot change to adapt to modern scientific times.

The only possible solution is to highlight in the Quran passages that are valid for today's work, while obscuring passages that are no longer validated (ie, 9:5, 9:29; 4:34; 8:111 etc). It can be in large print vs. small print, or red letter vs. black, or however they will modify it, but this is what is necessary to make "consultation" in Islam equivalent to modern "laws of agreements." Otherwise, it remains antiquated and dangerous ideology in today's modern world of equality and free men and women. Sharia in its present form is dangerous to our freedoms, because it represses the mind from a scientific understanding of reality and humanity.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 09:49 am:   

Scientific 'truths' by a religious minded person, for example:

Let us agree to the theory of evolution that it supports the survival of the fittest. In the absence of intervention by God Almighty the fittest could be identified say at time t by looking at the properties of the survivors of time t’ where t’>t. In other words, we let the simulation of evolution run freely, look back in time and define the fittest conditions leading to survival.

Now let us look at the why after considering the building of the first boat. From we quote Verses 36 – 43 both inclusive:
11:36 It was revealed to Noah: "None of thy people will believe except those who have believed already! So grieve no longer over their (evil) deeds.
11:37 "But construct an Ark under Our eyes and Our inspiration, and address Me no (further) on behalf of those who are in sin: for they are about to be overwhelmed (in the Flood)."
11:38 Forthwith he (starts) constructing the Ark: Every time that the chiefs of his people passed by him, they threw ridicule on him. He said: "If ye ridicule us now, we (in our turn) can look down on you with ridicule likewise!
11:39 "But soon will ye know who it is on whom will descend a penalty that will cover them with shame,- on whom will be unloosed a penalty lasting:" ...etc etc...

So what is presented as 'scientific' reasoning is really story telling about some ancient piece of fiction to define evolutionary theory. How do concepts and principles apply? No disparaging Mohideen's faith, but to call it scientific reasoning is pure nonsense, a clear case of 21st century rubbing the 7th, where Muslim scientific evolution was clearly left behind. That is the trouble with Islam and pious Muslims, that they are left behind... This is their Last Days.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2008 - 09:27 am:   

Einstein's universe or Humancafe-Alexander's universe?

In the PostScripts, Aprl. 7, 2007, it says:

"Post Script - on deep space gravity having Newton's G 6 orders of magnitude higher than in our solar system - some thoughts on the immense implications."

So is it Einstein's universe where relativistic gravity travels at c, all information travels at c, and gravity is a mystery at universal constant G? Or is it Alexander's universe where gravity potential is instantaneous, all light is entangled cosmically, and Newton's G is a variable, potentially to be manipulated? Will the Real universe please stand up!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

amnon/truth vs coercion
Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2008 - 09:51 pm:   

Coercion vs. Agreements

Coercion works only while it is able to sow fear, to terrorize, to cow people into submission with threats of punishments, and coercions to force you to surrender against your will.

Agreements work because they are supported by reasonable understanding of reality, by reasonable expectations of what can be agreed upon voluntarily, what is honest and true, what is reasonable for a free person to accept of their own free will.

So coercion works because it is empowered by us humans, when we submit to it; while agreements work because of what is true without coercion. Which is more reasonable? Which more true? Which one would you choose of your own free will?

There is the trouble with sharia vs. a free society, that sharia is coercion empowered by men, while freedom is agreed upon by men, empowered with the truth.

Think about it: WE empower coercion! Don't empower it and be free, then you are empowered by the truth.

Is it any wonder jihad is coercive, same as its ultimate goal of sharia? They are pure coercion!

Man vs. truth, but the truth will always win. Is this not the same as Man vs. God? We know which will win!

But here is the real difference: Man made laws to support agreement between men, honest agreements, that we choose of our own free will, these laws are supported by the truth of the universe. But laws defined by one man, or any group of men, allegedly from God that demand that we submit to them in humble surrender or be punished with coercion, these laws are supported only be fear of punishment, which is slavery, and unsupported by freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, etc. Is it any wonder people desire a free society and escape from coercive societies? It is as natural as our belief in God!

Do not submit to coercion, do not surrender your soul to false religion based on coercions, and be a free human being in the truth, because it is the truth that sets you free.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/amnon free
Posted on Friday, August 29, 2008 - 09:34 am:   


Think about it: WE empower coercion! Don't empower it and be free, then you are empowered by the truth.

This is the 'end game' of the Last of Days?

Well said Amnon. Do not empower coercion, and you are free.

ps: read all of Fjordman's essay on Science and Religion, supportive of above.
Also in EU from WorldNetDaily: No new mosques.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 07:46 pm:   

911 for big US banks -- who's killing major financial institutions?

Is there a pattern here? 180px-Lehman_Brothers_Times_Square_by_David_Shankbone.jpg Lehman tower in NY

1. Sept. 8, 2008: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac go under. The US 'rescue' was worthless, leaving investors who believed it with zero.

2. Sept. 15: Lehman Brothers collapses. Chapter 11 bankruptcy leaves investors with zero.

3. Sept. 22: ????? Who's next? AIG (American International Group) may be on the rocks, if they fail to come up with $75 billion within 24 hours... Who's next?

Why are these margin calls and defaults coming in rapid succession? Who's behind them, the overnight securities downgrades, the failed response by government regulatory agencies, the make believe 'rescues' that leave investors with Zero?

Follow the trail of those margin calls, failed repo agreements, and see who pulled the string that unravelled the world capital system, and follow the trail some more, to where the oil stinks of petrodollars, and then follow the trail some more... You will be surprised who launched the new 911 seven years after the first. Same story, but now when the planes hit the bank towers, they will burn with a new fury of failed markets and destroyed investors... crashing all the way down to Ground Zero.

Somebody wants to take us down. And they don't have a face.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Friday, September 19, 2008 - 08:52 am:   

The markets rally, but THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 09:04 am:   

Star sized failure?

I wonder if every living star system with at least one planet supporting advanced life, where at some point its species of intelligent life will reach the technological evolutionary threshold, there will be an event which will decide whether that star is successful in producing post microbial life, or failed. If failed, some mechanism or human intervention will make it blow up with cataclysmic force destroying all its advanced life.

Why did I think of this strange thought? I don't know... Maybe it was reading science fiction, or all possible science scenarios, or this story: Cosmic explosion is most distant ever seen ver-seen.html

How classic if stars explode as a record of their pass-fail of its life produced rather than simply running out of fuel. Intelligent life may be the wish of every living star system, but not all make it. The cosmically sad lesson may be if they fail, they commit star sized suicide.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 09:14 pm:   

It ain't finished 'till it's finished, more oversight needed and progress reports, needs work.

Wall St rescue plan 'needs work' - BBC News


The plan, as it was first proposed last week, would broadly help relieve finance firms of their "toxic" bad debt in the form of complex financial instruments backed by sub-prime mortgages that many holders can no longer pay off.

Not exactly right, this is not "Wall Street rescue" but mortgage banking and 'credit-default swaps' financial rescue, to re-institute controls abandoned a decade ago on this potentially volatile market. Derivatives worked to increase 'liquidity' in the capital markets while there was stability, but they proved far less than robust when the sh*t hit the fan, when house prices dropped.

180px-Ustreasur.JPG (interactive)
How Main street will benefit - Bill Gross op-ed


The extreme measures are extended government guarantees and the formation of an RTC-like holding company housed within the Treasury. Critics call this a bailout of Wall Street; in fact, it is anything but. I estimate the average price of distressed mortgages that pass from "troubled financial institutions" to the Treasury at auction will be 65 cents on the dollar, representing a loss of one-third of the original purchase price to the seller, and a prospective yield of 10 to 15 percent to the Treasury. Financed at 3 to 4 percent via the sale of Treasury bonds, the Treasury will therefore be in a position to earn a positive carry or yield spread of at least 7 to 8 percent. Calls for appropriate oversight of this auction process are more than justified.

Warehouse it until markets come back to normalcy, then gradually sell it off is what is being proposed. Buy it at 65 cents on the dollar, with a double digit yield, and sell it for near par while collecting interest. It's a plan not too different from what credit card companies do to 'insure' themselves against default, by charging a higher premium. It might work. The 'politics' can take a rest and step aside. There is work to be done, historically significant work, that will affect the whole world's financial well being and make it more robust than it had ever been.

US Financial Bailout (2008)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

humancafe eds.
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 07:49 pm:   

But hasn't this mortgage mess been brewing a long time!?

See Humancafe forums posts at: Avoiding foreclosure - banking crisis by Mohideen Ibramsha

It goes back to March 2007, or earlier, it's still with us today. Maybe this weekend a Resolution by congress? It can be done. Leadership is what is needed now. A market broken cannot heal itself, if it is under attack from those who would bring it down. Wiser heads must prevail to avoid the United States of 'Democratic Socialism'. Functioning markets reflecting the values of human agreements is a better way. Fix it.

Fixing it will require an awareness that markets cannot be abused. In a Mechanism of Exchange it says:


An efficient market system does not have to be an arena of many participants in perfect competition. That is a myth. On the contrary, it takes only two to agree on a price; a market is in fact most competitive where there are the least number of participants. Then, the trading environment is not crowded by competitors because there is no benefit from their being there; the prevailing price of exchange is optimum and cannot be improved upon; there is no advantage to be gained from it. A discrepancy in price creates its own competition; it does not have to be artificially maintained as a guard against market inefficiency; it needs only the freedom to be allowed to work as a system of mutual agreements.
So, for markets to be efficient, they do not have to be composed of many participants, but they do have to be free from coercion. A market in which exchange is restricted, because entry is prohibited or because the costs of exchange are too great, is a market in which will not be reflected the greatest price efficiency. When free from this coercion, whether or not the price then reflected is optimum will be determined by whether or not the conditions of exchange are then optimum. If there is undue risk, such as from theft or currency instability or from confiscatory measures, then the price will also reflect the concern for this risk; the price mark up will be higher as insurance compensating for this risk. Then, if the price so arrived at appears to be less than optimum, it is only a reflection of conditions as they then are; the market cannot be improved upon if the conditions of exchange are negative. Exchange by agreement, when free from coercion, only reflects the state of things as they are between individuals. It is the property of free markets that, when allowed to work efficiently, they always reflect things as they are; if these conditions are constructive and unrestrictive, then they reflect efficiently our human effort and productivity; if they are negative and coercive, plagued by undue risk and by disregard for the rights of the individual, then they reflect human inefficiency as forced from coerced labor. If we are not pleased with our results, the blame does not rest with the exchange mechanism; a free market reflects only human agreements.

Fix the market mechanism itself, and then the markets can fix themselves, but not before.

Editors, Humancafe
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2008 - 08:50 pm:   

Opinion vs truth as Morality.

Moralizing, or morality, even if held as true by many, is subjective in nature, so it is merely their opinion on what they personally or collectively think is what 'right vs wrong'. It is merely their opinions.

Avoid this trap of morality, but stick to the facts, the truth of the matter. The facts, the truth, is a natural morality, because it is what is true. Objective facts trump subjective morality every time. Truth wins out is the best 'morality'.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/objective morality
Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2008 - 10:23 pm:   

Objective morality?

If I understand you, Amnon, you are saying that people are free to agree or disagree, and as long as they deal with each other truthfully with facts, they are free to form their own morality as it applies to themselves? This could work only as it applies to consenting adults, and no one may judge them on moral grounds if, and only if, it affects no one else's rights. (For example, what they do in the bedroom, of their own free will.) But any actions based on truth or facts that affects others (I'm thinking racism or other bigotry) then such acts become amoral of necessity, even if they are based on facts as perceived. In the end, it is all a matter of opinion, when it affects others, and the agreements or disagreements between people are always a matter of opinion. That said, I must agree with your "Objective facts trump subjective morality every time," in that it is nobody else's business to impose their own (subjective) version of morality on others, when they are consenting adults. That is in effect a definition of our freedoms, that we are moral beings in our own right as long as we are truthful with ourselves and others. Thanks for this input, and please correct me if I misunderstand.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Friday, October 03, 2008 - 12:54 am:   

Morality is seductive. It gives you the illusion of differentiating right from wrong, but it is really just a group opinion with the force of law, whether right or wrong. At the end of the day, it is the power of the group that decides right from wrong, not inherently the true justice of the matter.

In a court of law it is the force of reason and factual evidence that sways judgment, ideally, though in modern courts this may not always be the case... plea bargaining, slick lawyers, money. But in morality it is the force of group psychology, what they had subjectively accepted as morally 'right'. It may not be just, nor intelligent, but once morality takes on legal status, it can overpower all sense of reason. An example is the Salem witch trials.... or Sharia in the neo-Eastern world.

You get the picture. When that happens, the public becomes seduced, and rational reason and freedom are lost. Therefore, it is morally wrong to accept the seductive powers of "morality", if you get my drift. Stick to the facts, and let people find their own way. That is the best morality, in my humble opinion, the only workable 'morality' for a freedom and justice and truth based society. By this we had excelled over all other societies. I hope we are not seduced to lose it.

In a secularized world, when there is justice, morality is redundant. Stick to the facts.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 04:54 pm:   



Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 02:54 pm:
This is one of the best sites I have ever found. Thanks!!! Very nice and informal. I enjoy being here.,

Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 02:54 pm:   
I glad too see this interest site, I tell my friends about it! They like sites like that: site,...etc...

Your posts with multiple (suspicious) email addresses are summarily DELETED because you have nothing to say, so you are trolls and spammers. We at Humancafe forums do not value your 'friendship' or accolades.

To all who visit this site, please do not click on anything these spammers leave here, since they may be infected. Advise caution, they are NOT WELCOME here. All their posts are deleted.

Editors, Humancafe
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/human being
Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 - 09:14 pm:   

Be your full human Being.

1380.jpg (interactive)
Vega goddess

You are a human being, not an economic unit or political unit, but a conscious feeling thinking human being.

In community you are respectful of other beings, reciprocally, to help each other reach those dreams in life, our loves and hopes. Do your best, you can do no more, and be mindful of that cosmic dream that is Who you are.

As a full human Being you are connected to a whole universe of Life. In those inner dreams who define You, be true.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Friday, October 10, 2008 - 09:35 pm:   

There'll be hell to pay.

The markets failed to rally after Treasury and there was blood, with hell's attack on our financials.
They promised a second 911 in seven years, they delivered it. Oil now must crash, hard.

They failed, and "we will drink their milkshake," for there will be blood... theirs.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carol T.
Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 07:56 pm:   

Happy Halloween! Bubble bubble witches trouble...


Witching you the very best Halloween! :-) "I will drink your milkshake."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/how big universe?
Posted From:
Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2008 - 07:33 pm:   

How big is the universe, really?

180px-Fractal-zoom-1-03-Mandelbrot_Buzzsaw.png (interactive)
Video - A Mandelbrot the size of the known universe
3 min 30 sec -
Also see video: Cosmic Super Zoom for scale of the universe from quarks to billions of galaxies.

I had this thought while out walk-jogging this afternoon after a morning rain in the lovely cloud filled sunlight. How big is it? Think of it, if there is no space expansion because the Hubble redshift is an artifact of deep space high gravity (for all the dust and gasses there, with Newton's G some 5 orders of magnitude greater than here), then the visible universe is actually smaller than we think. Those very distant stars and galaxies light years away from us may actually be closer than we think. Now, if it were only possible to find a way to accelerate without limits of chemical rocket propulsions, say at the same rate as gravity accelerates in deep space (5 or more orders of magnitude greater than Earth's G), would it not be possible to visit the stars? Once we get to that point in physics were this is possible, beyond the Einstein limit of v=c, we may discover that not only our Milky Way is achievable, but perhaps even other nearby galaxies, in time. Humans have a destiny in the stars, I believe this. Someday in some distant future we will look out the porthole to see this: Our galaxy in 3D.

Well, that was a thought, not necessarily scientific but more philosophical in scope. Why not a universe much smaller than we think? Can we actually get there? I think we will. And when we do, once we get past lightspeed c, looking out the window it will look like those Mandelbrot fractals, looking into infinity. The miraculous images in the above video (click image above) may be what we will see at above light speed. What a light show it will be!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/be grateful
Posted From:
Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2008 - 12:11 am:   

Scroll down and watch the video and you will never complain about your life again!


(sent to me via email by my friend Alan)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted From:
Posted on Monday, November 10, 2008 - 11:03 pm:   

Sleeping puppies, live feed.

(sent via email by Celsia)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Annon - A New ERA
Posted From:
Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 11:33 am:   

A New ERA has dawned with the fall of the Republican Party. Linked via the internet thousands of people coordinated the downfall of the Republican Party that lead this nation to the brink of a military and economic disaster the scale of which boggles the mind.

Obama used the internet to reach millions of small donors whose small contributions raised collectively hundreds of millions of dollars.

Osama Bin Ladden used the internet to create and command and control a Global Terrorist Network fueled by millions in untraceable funds transfered using an low tech Arab money transfer system.

In the United States, a master criminal genius used the Internet and various ploys to nearly banckrupt several insurance companies a few years ago.

In the recent campaign internet information releases were used by a grass roots democratic oriented organization to very effectively damage the Republican front runners.

What all of the above shows us that it is possible to change the world and impact organizations through the use the internet and timed and coordinated releases of information, rummors and false facts.

Now take that capability and gave it to a genius, trained in psychological warfare, covert operations, cryptography, computer science, agent network handling, religion and poltical science, with complete knowlege of every classified program in the world. Is it not possible that such a genius coordinated the fall of the Republicans?

If we are open to that and look at the analytic results of some work in geometry posted here, we find that work exceeds the capability of current software programs to effectively calculate its degree of precision. Manual analysis of that work, invovling a few thousand seperate equations, would tend to support this premise.

Now if we look at the history of that genius and his war record, including his training to run agent networks spanning most of Europe during the Cold War, with no Blackburies or technological support and couple that to his ability maintain a 3.8 GPA, while working 60 plus hours a week, where he was responsible for directly coordinating the operations of 38 people while he simultaneously fused data from over 12 different databases and handled several different communications devices on less than 4 hours of sleep a night for 48 consequative months
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gulf War Illness Proven
Posted From:
Posted on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 04:18 pm:   

A Congressionally mandated committee has found that Gulf War Illness is real. In the fight for the truth, one man stood at the front of this illness and despite all rose against it. With the aid of modern medicine and advanced treatments he was able to overcome the effects of a 1200 times normal dossage of Neurotoxin.

For those that scoffed and laughed The Congress of the United States now free from Republican Control has spoken the truth.

Let those who suffered and died in the interim rest easy knowing the truth has finally come out.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted From:
Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2008 - 12:43 pm:   

HAPPY THANKSGIVING - to all around the world.

Thanksgiving-Brownscombe.jpg (interactive)
Painting of "The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth" By Jennie A. Brownscombe

We have much to be thankful for, when the Founding Fathers - a short time after the first arrivals to these American shores - saw a vision of freedom for all humanity equally. We who cherish and preserve these freedoms wish the same universally for all humanity. Though we Americans may not be perfect in our conduct, our desire for a better life for the world is as much a part of our higher culture as the right of each individual human being to enjoy his or her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as a God given right. Today Thanksgiving is largely a secular holiday; we should not forget that its origin is a thanks to God, that our early Pilgrims arrived safely on these shores. And then we built the greatest nation in freedom on Earth. Enjoy the bounties of good will and prosperity these freedoms have brought. May it spread to the whole world.

A special thanks to all our brave men and women who, today and through history, have fought to preserve our God given freedoms.

Thank you.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted From:
Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2008 - 03:06 pm:   

My prayers and thoughts go to Obama on this Thanksgiving day, whom we are blessed to have during these unique times. May his confidence, intellect, optimism and strength lead to a spiritual prosperity for all Americans that we have not seen in a long time.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

One on one love
Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 03:22 pm:   

One on one works, given a chance.

See: Polyandry and Polygamy, are they fair?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/talk to spirit
Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 12:58 pm:   

Talking to your spirit.

It should not take a mini-stroke to hear your spirit or talk to him-her, should it? In my case, it was what happened this mid-week, where my clock stopped the old ways to a new kind of rebirth and introspection. I cannot be who I was before, so must accept change.

Leonardo Da Vinci's double vision

I was lucky, and though I write this with some fine-motor difficulty, my mind was spared greater dysfunction. My fingers on the right hand feel numb, as does the right side of my body from head to toe, all tingling like. But I can walk, my speech almost normal (slurred at times) is intelligible, and my double-vision has mostly corrected itself in the past 24 hours, though I would not dare drive for now. The medical staff at the stroke center in east wing of Hoag Hospital were wonderful, truly professional and caring souls, deserving of the title they earned "Center of Excellence." While under observation and tested with a battery of blood drawing, wired monitors, speech and coordination tests (how do you spell WORLD backwards?) all of which showed my mind was okay, but my motor skills partially impaired. I have some trouble walking, though the fact that I can is a miracle of sorts. Most hospital medical staff thought me very lucky and something miraculous that my lower left lobe mini-thrombosis visible in the MRI did no more damage; they feel I should heal in time, with the greatest progress within 30 days, slower progress after that. Big life change in my habits, like no more cigars, watch sugar levels (got a test kit), and lower cholesterol, all so important. To think two weeks ago I was climbing mountains in the desert; now I must go slow to rebuild. Work will have to wait, my affairs handled capably by my business partners, Adam and staff. And in a way, did my spirit already know all this, where some months ago I was planning to put Humancafe forums on hold? We talk to our spirit all the time, unknowingly, while the spirit talks to us in a much bigger picture than we can understand. Also I am midway in process of proof reading Scriptorium for publication next month and feel it important to do the task at hand. But I was lucky and given a second chance to change my life habits for the better, and hopefully live a long and productive life again.

Thanks to my wonderful wife and dear friends who insisted I go to hospital with given symptoms, of which I was in denial; specially kind thanks to Cinzia and Anthony for insisting on overruling me and take me to ER. And thanks also to the wonderful Hoag staff for all their caring attention, they were truly wonderful souls who made me appreciate mine. We should talk to our spirit more frequently, and listen. God bless.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

damned cosmology
Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 11:48 am:   

Damned cosmology?'

Do you realize that if the universe is NOT made of a UNIVERSAL constant gravity, and if Newton's G is not a constant, then the universe cannot be "isotropic and homogenous"? So what happens to all modern day Cosmology?

This is a follow up of the above linked Postcript Saturday, April 07, 2007, which references an earlier comment:


The implications of this are actually immense. First of all, the fact that Newton's gravity as modified by Einstein's General Relativity should NOT be a universal constant is already damaging to much of current astrophysical theory, both in deep space and for our solar system. Second, the fact that the Pioneer Anomaly approximates the Hubble constant is telling us something more fundamental about how we figured out cosmic light redshift using GR as a model for Doppler space expansion. Einstein's GR may have skewed our thinking that 'space-time' is curved to create a gravitational effect.

Now what? If the universe is all variable Newton's G, doesn't this damn to hell all present day cosmology?

That what this means for the future of cosmology as understood now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/gas giant atmosphere
Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 11:25 pm:   

How crisp atmospheric shells for gas giants are formed:

IMG003369-br500.jpg (interactive -NASA)
Saturn ... Four Years On, December 30, 2008 -Cassini-Huygens

This is a followup to the above, and earlier posted (June 15, 2007) Connecting all the dots on gravity in a variable G thread.

What if the outer boundaries of large gas giants' atmosphere shells are merely a product of how gas volume condenses in a much higher Newton's G in outer solar system (i.e., ~5G for Jupiter, ~9.5G for Saturn), so that the crisp edge of the outer atmosphere is a totally natural phenomenon, in the same way a crisp edge to our Earth's oceans is normal for water? This would indicate perhaps that at higher G atmospheres in a large body (which orbits within a higher G solar region) will naturally 'clump' together molecules of gas as we see on the gas giants.

Interesting, if the variable G is responsible for this unique atmospheric condition. It should also be evident on Uranus and Neptune, but less so on the large moons like Titan or Europa, where their atmospheres should not end with such a crisp edge as their larger parent planets, due to their smaller mass... Or perhaps not, that they too would show greater atmospheric density at the marging...? Something to look for in future solar planetary missions, I think.

More on this NASA/JPL ESA image from

Also see: Titan's atmosphere 10X taller

Cassini: Probe incinerates on entry to Saturn - BBC
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/egg black holes?
Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2009 - 01:23 pm:   

Which came first, Black Hole or the Galaxy?

_45353633_blackhole_nasa_226.jpg (interactive-BBC)
Black holes are thought to exist at the cores of most galaxies


Generally, the mass of a black hole was observed to be about 1,000th that of the mass of the surrounding galactic bulge.
This constant ratio indicated an "interactive relationship" between the black hole and the bulge, say the researchers. But it was not clear whether one grew before the other, or whether they grew together.
"We finally have been able to measure black-hole and bulge masses in several galaxies seen as they were in the first billion years after the Big Bang," said co-author Fabian Walter of the Max-Planck Institute for Radioastronomy (MPIfR) in Bonn, Germany.
"The evidence suggests that the constant ratio seen [in nearby galaxies] may not hold in the early Universe."

This is a measurement error when peering at light 13 billion light years distant, where distortions show up. In fact, it is quite certain the Black Hole centers and the surrounding Galaxies started simultaneously. Per Axiomatic Equation, Black-Holes are Galaxy mass interactive of necessity.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Universal intelligence
Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 12:23 pm:   

Universal Computer -the Cosmos

200px-Torus.jpg (interactive)
Torus using cellular automata

The Universe is more than four-dimensional space time, it is a giant super-computing machine so infinitely complex it can calculate living things in action.

This is the real meaning of "infinite interrelationships", it is more than a Cartesian geometric system of space, three space dimensions with time added as a fourth.

The Comos of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin; Universe as Fractal "interstellar doillies"-Life is Art

The Universal Computer is a cosmic Cartesian system of Time on one axis, and ALL of reality on the other axis, so one can freeze any one frame and see All the cosmic reality as One interrelated Whole; or slide along the time axis to see All the inter-playing parts working together as One.

A way to imagine the reality axis is to think of all things as an interrelated matrix, from subatomic particles to great galaxy clusters, as connected in some cellular-automata fashion combined with fractals, and you begin to get an inkling of what this looks like. Except it's better, it can create Life.

That is the true Cosmic Universal Computer: where the matrix of All Reality interacts infinitely and infinitessimally along both the Time axis and the Reality axis, into a fractal-automata Totality able to redefine itself as Life.

180px-The_Creation_of_Adam.jpg (interactive)
A Universe of Life - God (shaped like brain) giving life to Adam - Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel

Now, That is Intelligence

Universe as Logos
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

JASZZ - is it real?
Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 02:30 pm:   

Is Planetary Energy based Spin Real?

This is a recap of earlier posts on JASZZ spin:


By Ivan A. on Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 01:14 am:
JASZZ SPIN, phase 6: ZPH and Spin Ratios, the Final Element: 

Let us recap what had been done thus far, though we had not reached a conclusion. In advance, I think a conclusive ratio for spin based on planetary black-body heat and orbital Energy is doable. So this is the final phase where we will seek that element that will complete the relationships we are seeking. 

SR / (P orbital days / 365) ÷ P spin = ZPH planet

Planetary spin is divided by Earth's 365 in order to bring it in line with Earth's spin of 1 day, so that all planets's spins will be as a multiple, or fraction, of Earth days.

In this manner, all the planets are now aligned both in terms of Venus, which has an essentially "zero" spin (though this will be adjust for the 245 days of spin versus 244 days of orbit), and then further adjusted for Earth's 365 orbital period, so that all planetary spin is established in Earth days. The complication for this equation started with relating Kelvin temperatures to Watts per meter squared, and now further complicated by taking Venus and Earth's relationship, thus the equation looks the way it does. Now, taking SR values from table below, let us compute Spin Ratio in terms of Venus into actual Earth spin days, which yields ZPH:
MERCURY: 1.043 / (88/365) ÷ 58.8 = 0.0736 ZPH
VENUS: 0.996 / (244/365) ÷ 244 = 0.006 ZPH
EARTH: 2.316 / (365/365) ÷ 1 = 2.316 ZPH
MARS: 3.69 / 1.81 ÷ 1.03 = 1.973 ZPH

What this means is that if ZPH tends towards zero, it is fairly balanced in terms of its interior heat and exterior solar energy. The higher ZPH, the greater is the planet's interior heat to its orbital energy environment, as it is expressed by solar irradiance. So Earth and Mars are relatively 'hot' planets, both with good spin, though of different temperatures since they inhabit different energy regions (Mars's is cooler than Earth's); whereas Mercury is cooler, slower spin, in relation to its solar irradiance; and Venus is almost totally balanced within its solar energy environment, hence almost no spin. Now, let us turn to the gas giants:
JUPITER: 11.67 / (4329/365) ÷ 0.415 = 2.371 ZPH
SATURN: 21.15 / 29.46 ÷ 0.445 = 1.613 ZPH
URANUS: 44.18 / 84 ÷ 0.718 = 0.732 ZPH
NEPTUNE: 70.27 / 165 ÷ 0.673 = 0.633 ZPH

PLUTO: ~75.66 / 248 ÷ 6.3 = ~0.0484 ZPH

Notice how 'hot' the gas giants are, especially Jupiter and Saturn, where they more approximate the internal heat ratio to orbital relative solar irradiance of Earth and Mars, and hence have fairly high spins. Pluto's internal temperature may be higher than estimated, since it has a higher relative spin, so that the resulting SR is off. The gas giants's Kelvin temperatures may be understimated as well, since their relative spins are greater than the SR results above.

Then later this was again reconsidered. But is it real?


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 10:57 pm:

Though calculations for planetary Spin Ratios vs. Kelvin heat and Energy are rough, there was a pattern that occurred with fair consistency which seems to put calculated SR and actual SR' (see chart below) within some sort of curve. This lead to 'shelve' it for a long time, until now. I think I solved what this curve represents.
In the original, August 7, 2004, I had theorized in words:

"Planetary Kelvin heat divided by planetary orbital Energy (to establish raw ratio between the two); divided by the ratio of Venus Kelvin to Venus orbital Energy (to establish Venus as a base with "zero" spin); which was multiplied by the Planetary Kelvin over Venus Kelvin (to establish a common measure of black-body temperatures in relation to zero-spin); which yields the Spin Ratio (SR as per 'phase 5' above)."

In equation form, the above looks like this, where P = planet, E = orbital Energy, for either the planet 'p' or Venus 'v', and K = Kelvin:

(Kp / Ep) ÷ (Kv / Ev) x (Kp / Kv) = SR

Note, this is the same as above: (PK^2/ VK^2) * (VE/ PE) = ZPH SR

This is the same as above, except I also divided the result by the square-root of planet distance AU from the Sun; this was to compensate for the theorized change in orbital region's G, where it grows at rate of 1G per 1 AU, though this may need revision (if the Equivalence Principle applies to a variable G). The equation used is still incomplete, where I then had said:
"Spin Ratio divided by the ratio of planet's full orbital days divided by Earth's orbital days (365); this value is divided by the planetary spin (expressed in Earth days); which yields a ZPH factor.

However, this came under criticism for having the "planetary spin" inside the equation seeking a planetary spin ratio, so is not valid. In retrospect, I agree with this criticism, so aim to find a way to express planetary spin ratio without using relative spin to Earth's 1 day; though I should adjust the above ZPZ SR for orbital periods, which means to adjust each value for planet's orbital period vs. Earth's 365 days, spin ratio adjusted (times orbital Newton's G to align for inertial mass Equivalence, per Axiomatic):

Mercury: 1.667 SR ÷ 0.24 orbital period = 6.95 SRa times the "squared value of G" at orbital region (x 0.152 = 1.056)
Venus: 1.178 ÷ 0.615 = 1.92 (x 0.518 = 0.995)
Earth: 2.32 ÷ 1 = 2.32 (x 1 = 2.32)
Mars*: 3.178 ÷ 1.881 = 1.69 (x 2.25 = 3.80)
Jupiter: 5.71 ÷ 11.86 = 0.48 (x 27 = 12.98)
Saturn: 6.865 ÷ 29.66 = 0.23 (x 90.25 = 20.76)
Uranus: 10.37 ÷ 84.23 = 0.12 (x 368.6 = 44.24)
Neptune: 12.65 ÷ 164.79 = 0.077 (x 900 = 69.3)

What is intriguing is that the resulting SRa values are virtually the same as worked out on August 1, 2004 (Jaszz Spin phase 5), where these numbers climbed in the same proportion as shown here. The higher the ratio, the greater the spin expected, though this is not what happens, so these numbers are inconclusive. However, once those values were adjusted for relative spin by dividing those SRa values by ratios of planetary spin vs. Earth's one day spin, they immediately fell into place. I then wrote (Jaszz Spin phase 6):
In this manner, all the planets are now aligned both in terms of Venus, which has an essentially "zero" spin (though this will be adjust for the 245 days of spin versus 244 days of orbit), and then further adjusted for Earth's 365 orbital period, so that all planetary spin is established in Earth days. The complication for this equation started with relating Kelvin temperatures to Watts per meter squared, and now further complicated by taking Venus and Earth's relationship, thus the equation looks the way it does. Now, taking SR values from table below, let us compute Spin Ratio in terms of Venus into actual Earth spin days, which yields ZPH:

MERCURY: 1.043 / (88/365) ÷ 58.8 = 0.0736 ZPH
VENUS: 0.996 / (244/365) ÷ (-)244 = -0.006 ZPH (edited for minus sign)
EARTH: 2.316 / (365/365) ÷ 1 = 2.316 ZPH
MARS*: 3.69 / 1.88 ÷ 1.03 = 1.963 ZPH (edited arithmetic error)

What this means is that if ZPH tends towards zero, it is fairly balanced in terms of its interior heat and exterior solar energy. The higher ZPH, the greater is the planet's interior heat to its orbital energy environment, as it is expressed by solar irradiance. So Earth and Mars are relatively 'hot' planets, both with good spin, though of different temperatures since they inhabit different energy regions (Mars's is cooler than Earth's); whereas Mercury is cooler, slower spin, in relation to its solar irradiance; and Venus is almost totally balanced within its solar energy environment, hence almost no spin. Now, let us turn to the gas giants:

JUPITER: 11.67 / (4329/365) ÷ 0.415 = 2.371 ZPH
SATURN: 21.15 / 29.46 ÷ 0.445 = 1.613 ZPH
URANUS: 44.18 / 84 ÷ 0.718 = 0.732 ZPH
NEPTUNE: 70.27 / 165 ÷ 0.673 = 0.633 ZPH


So we are back to where we started four years ago, but what does it mean? Back then, when I divided Earth's SRa by these ZPH values, the numbers fell into place for relative spin ratios (See Sept. 25, 2004), but not until March 2, 2005 was this issue "resolved":

So I've been thinking... Here is what happens when the ratio of actual SR' divided by calculated SR is compared. Notice how this then compares with the square root of AU, far right:
AU Kelvin heat Planet spin Earth days calculated SR actual SR' ratio SR'/SR sqrt AU

0.39 442K Mercury 58.8 0.0736 0.0394 0.535 0.624
0.72 231.7K Venus -245-0.0060.0059 0.983 0.85
1.0 254.3K Earth -1-2.316 2.316 1.00 1.00
1.52 210.1K Mars* 1.03 1.963 2.40 1.223 1.225
5.2110K Jupiter 0.4152.371 5.541 2.38 2.28
9.581.1K Saturn 0.445 1.68 5.204 3.10 3.08
19.2 58.1K Uranus 0.7180.732 3.226 4.40 4.38
3046.6K Neptune 0.673 0.633 3.441 5.44 5.48

And so we come full circle, where the square-root of AU (which is same as square-root of G at AU), drives the numbers to show planetary spin. (I cannot vouch for anything of real value here, because I may be double-counting?) What I wanted to show by this re-examination is that using a different approach, the same ratios for planetary spin come out only, and only when, the variable G is invoked, but I cannot claim I understand this.

To sum up, here is what happened: I took the original equation for ZPH SR and multiplied it by square-root of AU (G) and got a rising ratio SR, that when I multiplied by square G so got ratio SRa, which approximates the original steeply rising values; in effect, the square-root G and squared G both interact; but when ratios of planetary orbit and spin (adjusted for Earth's) were applied, the resulting ZPH ratios became a function of square-root AU (G) to give us an approximation of actual planetary spin ratios (vs. Earth's) in the final analysis.

So is there a significant relationship between planetary spin and orbital energy vs. Kelvin black-body heat? Only when a variable G is taken into effect. Otherwise, the answer would be "no", not without G per Equivalence.

These results of comparing ratio of actual to calculated planetary Spin match up fairly well, within 10-15% error (except Pluto), of the square root of AU distances from the Sun. The two curves match up pretty well. What can it mean?

A few days ago, Feb. 27, 2005, I posted Earth's kg. vs. planetary kg., and came up with a similar problem where the square root relationship of (G'/G)] was needed to bring the Earth's kilograms in line with local planetary kilograms, in order to adjust proton mass for local G conditions. This worked out fairly well, and it so happens that the square root of G differentials also approximates closely the square root of AU distances (where delta G is ~7E-11 per AU).

So this is but another function of adjustment planetary Spin must undergo, if G is variable, to fit the curve of how it calculates in Kelvin heat vs. Energy for each orbit. Though this was a complicated process, it could no doubt be simplified further into an equation, which then yields the Spin Ratios for the planets in terms of their interior black-body Kelvin heat and their orbit's total solar Energy. For Earth, it is always a ratio of 1, with E = 9E+16 Joules. Of course, it is a different E for each planet, with different Spin Ratios, which dove tails nicely into the variable Newton's G 'proportional' hypothesis.

Now, to figure a more simplified equation to explain Spin Ratios. Also, I suspect that the Axiomatic Equation can be used to explain planetary acceleration in orbit at the perihelion, and deceleration at the aphelion, but haven't done the work yet. Would need to calculate these using Newton's orbital: GM = Rv^2. The same principle applies for distant inertial mass as a function of either (G'/G)F = ma, where kg. must be adjusted for different G. Or perhaps the square root will be what actually is needed, still don't know...

But is any of this real, or is it false reasoning? The appeal of an energy-engine driving planetary spin is appealing, if it were true!

See more on this here: Zero-point Planetary Spin reexamined and
Planet spin ratios anomaly, revisited
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Jaszz's good
Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 03:59 pm:   


But is any of this real, or is it false reasoning? The appeal of an energy-engine driving planetary spin is appealing, if it were true!

Admittedly, my whole reasoning process is totally convoluted, and in my present state of ill health (where my brain feels like filled with cotton) I am in no position to refute it. Nor am I able to simplify. But stop and think about it simply: Take SPH calculated SR (per above) and multiply it by the square root of AU (per G equivalence- variable G -where G grows at rate of 1G per 1 AU per Axiomatic), and you come up pretty close to the real planetary spin ratio figured in Earth days.

For example: Saturn's calculated SR = 1.68; square root AU=3.08; multiplied=5.174 (vs. actual SR=5.204). This is based on how "actual SR" was calculated: (Earth's ZPH SR 2.316) ÷ (planet's spin in Earth days) = actual SR'. See March 2, 2005 (scroll down): "Spin Ratio Curve Solved" post.

Somethin's a happennin' no? :-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

G non-uniform
Posted on Friday, January 23, 2009 - 01:41 pm:   

Dark flow: Proof of another universe?

26921901.jpg - NewScientist


Kashlinsky and his team collected a catalogue of close to 800 clusters, using telescopes that captured the X-rays emitted by the ionised gas within them. They then looked at the CMB at those locations, using images snapped by NASA's WMAP satellite. What they found shocked them. Galaxy clusters are expected to wander randomly through their particular region of space, because matter is distributed in uneven clumps, creating local gravitational fields that tug on them. Over large scales, however, matter is assumed to be spread evenly, so on these scales the clusters should coast along with space as it expands. What's more, everything in the standard model of cosmology suggests that the universe should look pretty much the same in all directions.

But what if the universe is not the same in all directions? What if the large scale distortions are problems of measuring light over intergalactic distances? What if light on the cosmic horizon is redshifted beyond meaningful observations? What if these theories are all cosmologists' fairy tales created by an abysmally poor understanding of universal gravity 'clumping' together at much higher G in deep cold space? What if the universe is not 'isotropic and homnogenous' as assumed? Why should it be?


Predictions of the motion of galaxy clusters based on the conventional model assume matter is evenly distributed throughout space on very large scales. Pietronero and Sylos Labini claim analysis of the distributions of galaxies and galaxy clusters throughout the sky shows that this is not true, and that at large scales matter is like a fractal. If that is the case, the gravitational field throughout the universe would also be irregular and could lead to the effects Kashlinsky observed.

It only makes sense that gravity G is non-uniform.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Agnostic gods
Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 12:33 pm:   

The Cosmology Pantheon - an agnostic view.

Modern cosmology is built around the presumed origin of the universe at the time of the superinflation Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago, now expanded into a universe some 45 billion light years across, all of which is predicated upon the assumption that distant cosmic light is redshifted due to a Doppler-like expansion of space. This scenario of cosmology is so well accepted today by the astrophysical community, that now it is also a common belief system of the general lay population, such as the above Edge of the Universe article illustrates. We have come to believe through scientific reasoning, through myriad scientific tests, and through a large consortium of the best scientific minds that this model of the Big Bang universe is correct, and if anyone argues contrarily the effort will be thwarted at multiple levels from ridicule to publishing shunning to cut of research funding to loss of career possibilities to being shunted into a fringe pseudo-science corner. In effect, go against the common scientific and popular dogma of the cosmological belief system of today, and you are out, branded a heretic, and sent into scientific exile.

We laugh at out ancient Greco-Roman ancestors for believing in a pantheon of gods who ruled by their whims of passion and caprice the whole of existence, especially of human affairs in the world. These same ancestors who invented reason and polemics, who built great monuments and conquered their known world, nevertheless believed their simplistic interpretation of a universe as a pantheon of gods, so obviously not science. The common people were led to believe that the emperor himself was a god, or at least a 'son of god', and they should worship at the temple dedicated to him for favors, as was done for the other gods. We today no longer see religion in this kind of worship, though the religious idea of dogma is still very present in these modern times. But our pantheon of gods has changed, into something more like this:

  • Zeus is Big-Bang
  • Hera is Space-Expansion
  • Apollo is Light-c
  • Athena is Inflation
  • Aphrodite is Universal-Gravity G
  • Hermes is Light-Redshift
  • Poseidon is Energy-Conservation
  • Einstein-relativity is Heracles
  • Feynman is Dionysus, etc.


To the common people, as well as to the priests of cosmology and modern physics, this pantheon of gods is tantamount to dogma. But dogma has an unfortunate side effect, in that it overrides reason. One can mix up any of the above gods with mega-religion gods, such as presented by Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Shiva, Mohammed, Baha-u-Allah, etc., and they come up as a similar pantheon of 'gods' for which the common people will morally act upon their belief-systems. At its most sinister, some people today will kill others in the name of their personal dogmas, or their god, to prove theirs is the superior religion to all others. In the scientific pantheon there is no comparable murder, but there are subtle forces to re-enforce the common belief system to insure the dogma is inviolate. The only defense again dogma and its aggression against reason is the truth. Truth is what the Science pantheon-of-gods may have forgotten in the fantastic fairy-tales of modern cosmology. As a cosmology agnostic I am amused. We do not truly understand astrophysics today, but in our conceits only think we do.

There is no Hades, same as there is no Hell, nor Paradise of Heaven, these are all human inventions to control the masses into submission of belief in the priestly religions of the ancients. Only the pantheon of gods had changed. Today's pantheon is Scientifically 'proven' Cosmology of an expanding space and Big Bang inflation origin. How absurd, as silly as Hell and Heaven, but it has a mass appeal to the simplistic minds of true believers. It is a way to control the masses in what they believe and do. But is it real? Is dogma based 'reality' true? No, it is all a fine fiction.

The ancient gods must be laughing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mr. President...
Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 01:02 pm:   

Mr. President... Mr. President!

Obama: "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy" - Huffington Post


I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan. These things are interrelated. And what I've said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

Good luck Mr. President... "mutual respect" may be much harder than you think.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gettysburg address
Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 01:31 pm:   


"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

US President Abraham Lincoln, delivered at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863, during the American Civil War
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mr. President 2
Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 11:19 am:   

Mr. President! .. 2

From the Boston Globe "Obama's charm offensive and the global jihad"


Even more troubling is Obama's seeming cluelessness about US-Muslim history.

"The same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago - there's no reason why we can't restore that," he said on Al-Arabiya.

Well, let's see. Twenty years ago, American hostages were being tortured by their Hezbollah captors in Beirut and hundreds of grief-stricken families were in mourning for their loved ones, murdered by Libyan terrorists as they flew home for Christmas on Pan Am Flight 103. Thirty years ago, the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran, proclaimed America "the Great Satan," and inspired his acolytes to storm the US embassy and hold scores of Americans hostage. That same year Islamist mobs destroyed the US embassies in Pakistan and Libya, and staged anti-American riots in other countries.

Read it all.

Mr. President! Please wake up from your Carterisian slumber. We are at war.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peace only if...
Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2009 - 12:56 pm:   

From the above article:

"Ever since taking office two weeks ago, Obama has been at pains to proclaim a change in US-Muslim relations. In his inaugural address he invited "the Muslim world" to embark on "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

Taking measured step towards peace by offering an olive branch to the enemy can be a viable strategy if, and only if, it is offered with the a priori understanding that the enemy's rejection of peace, answered with renewed belligerence instead, will only validate future forceful actions against such an enemy in response to their ill will. President Obama is right to offer an open hand to Iran, but in this case the response from Iran with its clenched fist of escalating demands and belligerence will force him to respond with force, decisive force, against the Iranian mullah regime.

Sometimes "mutual respect" is earned the hard way.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2009 - 11:02 am:   

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Say what?
Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 12:23 pm:   

That's what is said, unfortunately (for all good Muslims of the world) in their book.
Is Geert Wilders inconsistent in calling for banning the Qur'an and defending free speech?

"Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Muslims and who respect our laws. My party, the Freedom Party, has nothing against such people, of course. However, the Koran does have something against them. For it is stated in the Koran in Sura 2, verse 85, that those believers who do not believe in everything the Koran states will be humiliated and receive the severest punishment; which means that they will roast in Hell. In other words, people who call themselves Muslims but who do not believe, for example, in Sura 9, verse 30 [actually 9:29], which states that Jews and Christians must be fought, or, for example, in Sura 5, verse 38, which states that the hand of a thief must be cut off, such people will be humiliated and roast in Hell. Note that it is not me who is making this up. All this can be found in the Koran. The Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates, and we know what has to happen to apostates. They have to be killed.

Madam Speaker, the Koran is a book that incites to violence. I remind the House that the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code. In addition, the Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem. The distribution of such texts is made punishable by Article 137(e). The Koran is therefore a highly dangerous book; a book which is completely against our legal order and our democratic institutions. In this light, it is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defence and reinforcement of our civilisation and our constitutional state. I shall propose a second-reading motion to that effect."

Does freedom of speech allow for banning of books? Only if they incite others to coerce, to do violence, murder, crimes against humanity, segregation based on race or gender, inequality, treason, harsh and unusual punishments, to steal and deceive, or otherwise degrades human beings into slavery or hatreds, or death; then "freedom of speech" must be preserved by restricting the damage such a book incites others to do. Perhaps "banned" is too harsh, but to severely restrict its public circulation as a "hate book" should be admissible.

Read it all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Disappearing space
Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 12:21 pm:   

'Disappearing' space over the maximum 'cosmic event horizon'?

In theory, the limits of the visible universe are expanding away from us at an increasingly rapid rate with distance. In the above article, "Dark Flow", it gives the proposition the universe has expanded out to about 45 billion light years at its furthest theoretical dimensions before merging into another (theoretical) universe, or 'verses. This maximum distance is also what we can see with our instrumentation today, light from some 13.7 billion light years ago, which marks the origin of the Big Bang inflation period.

According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today; The Hubble Ultra Deep Field showcases galaxies from an ancient era when the universe was younger, denser, and warmer according to the Big Bang theory.

Now I propose this maximum visibility with modern telescopes at any given energy wavelength, from gamma-ray to infrared, even long radio waves, will reach a limit that, given any chosen wavelength of observation, will over time show the 'edges' of the universe disappearing for the observer. I would call this the maximum "cosmic event horizon" of space. This is where galaxies now imaged would gradually fade over time into invisibility because they are expanding away from us at a very rapid rate, if observed at the same wavelength over time. Therefore, whether over fifty years or a hundred years (modern astronomy is only about 500 years old), or longer, if the universe is in fact expanding as modern astrophysics theorizes; something we cannot measure in any way except line-of-sight (we cannot measure expansion laterally); then those maximum cosmic images going over the 'event horizon' of expanding space should 'disappear' from view. The challenge is if these maximum cosmic event horizon images are not disappearing, or not fading in luminosity, then it would indicate that perhaps the universe is not expanding as modern cosmology concludes, which alternately puts the whole Big Bang at risk. Then cosmic redshift would be forced to be from other causes than space expansion.

Will it be possible to study past records of most distant objects, or more recent Hubble images at some point in the future to see if they had faded over the "cosmic event horizon", or not? That is the challenge to modern astronomy, to either prove or disprove, or falsify, the proposition of 'disappearing' space. Therefore, those most distant galaxies which are the most redshifted, if the universe is expanding per current cosmological models, then they should be the first ones to show fading or disappearing over time.

Large scale structure of the cosmos at near-infrared

How long will it take to go over the cosmic event horizon, if it exists? Will it prove modern cosmological theory, or disprove it? What would it mean for the Newton G constant, if space is not expanding but G is variable instead?

Many questions and answers will ride on this test... See HUBBLE ULTRA DEEP FIELD 3D video (4 mins)... Awesome.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cosmic edge 2
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 12:58 pm:   

ExpandingConfusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe.

by TamaraM. Davis & CharlesH. Lineweaver


Probably the most common misconceptions surround the expansion of the Universe at distances beyond which Hubble’s law (vrec = H D: recession velocity = Hubble’s constant × distance) predicts recession velocities faster than the speed of light [Appendix B: 1–8],...

It's not that easy!

See illustrations in above paper on pg. 3 & 11 to get a feel.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dr. Who?
Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 12:37 am:   

The Woo-woo Universe of Dr. Who.

180px-TARDIS2.jpg (interactive)
Dr. Who's Time-machine TARDIS

We know that the expanding universe based on Einstein's General Relativity metrics dates back about 13.7 billion years, the alleged Big Bang, and has to date expanded to about 45 billion light years in all directions. This is elementary astrophysics as now accepted by both serious scientists and pop culture writers. So it is no surprise to have the science fiction character of Dr. Who travel in his police call booth to various parts of the universe in both space and time. After all, Einstein's relativistic theories made that immanently possible. So what's wrong with that?

Referring to the above questions of Disappearing Space at the edge of the visible universe, it creates an interesting Dr. Who like scenario where the very earliest portion of cosmic existence, during just 'before' the fraction of time known as Cosmic Inflation, when the super hot universe was still a tiny ball and time had not yet been created. In essence, Time, or more specifically relativistic Proper Time, was still zero. Today, some 13.7 billion years later, that same Time and Space is visible to us as the CMB on the cosmic horizon, though this is still not the true proper Time Zero of the Big Bang; that would be the 'over the horizon' cosmic edge of the universe, some 45 billion light years away. But that 'edge of the cosmos' horizon is 'superliminal' and beyond our ability to observe with present astronomical instruments, it must remain essentially invisible to us. If you were, in the Dr. Who manner, able to travel to that cosmic edge, per Einstein's relativity, you would be in Proper Time zero, and proper space zero, or in effect, on the edge of space and time. Looking towards the inflated universe, such as it is 13.7 billion years later, you would see "into the future" of proper time and space; this is where we are now. Looking around the immediate police call box of your Dr. Who time machine, you would be looking at zero time; the space around you none of the galaxies had yet formed, so you are looking also at near-zero space, that universe not yet completed just after Inflation. But this zero space-time causes a minor problem for Dr. Who's traveler: To see into the future, you can only look into the universe from proper time zero, and to get to the present 13.7 billion years later, it can only exist at the universe's center, which had not yet been created. From proper time zero, now is 'superliminal'; conversely, from 13.7 billions years later 'now', time zero is superliminal also, so invisible. Once light speed c is achieved, where space is expanding at c or higher, then all observations from our proper time ceases, and any observation on the 'event horizon' of invisibility is 'frozen' in time. So any change is invisible from both! We cannot observe, due to relativistic factors, what is happening on the edge of the cosmos, because any change there is invisible to us. Now, that's a mega-conundrum for Dr. Who in his TARDIS: Did it really happen?

So if you are in the TARDIS today, 13. 7 billion years after the Big Bang, and you look as far as possible in any direction of space, you are necessarily looking back in "time" towards proper time zero, though you cannot see it. From the other direction, at proper time zero, you can see the "present" proper time, 13.7 billion years later, but only by looking into the center of the physical universe where we happen to live now. But this creates another mega-conundrum which violates the Copernican principle, because the "center of the universe" is the present proper time, which happens to be exactly where we are. Any other physical part of this universe, from proper time 13.7 billion years to proper time zero, is of necessity somewhere in between here and 45 billion light years away. Which means, of course, that no other part of the universe can be proper time 13.7 billion years "present" except here, since all other observable phenomena in any direction are backwards in time, all the way back to the CMB, and still further back to the Big Bang zero proper time at the edge of the universe. Can we see that far back? No, we can only see somewhere in between here and subliminal light, not superliminal. But the universe is not infinite. Therefore, nor can we really be the "center of the universe" in proper time, unless we violate the Copernican principle, or make the universe infinite. Oddly, from proper time zero, all of the universe is 'fixed' forever at zero time, that makes it woo-woo, at best. In fact, the Dr. Who cum Einstein relativistic space expansion Big Bang universe becomes highly suspect, even unlikely, though relativistically correct.

Hubble image shows an infant galaxy forming nearby, which means this happened very recently on the cosmological timescale. This is evidence that the Universe is not quite finished with galaxy formation yet.

Are we finished yet? Helloo? Dr. Who?

Also see: The further we look, the more we see - red
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Habeas Mentem 1956
Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 11:40 am:   

HABEAS MENTEM revisited, 1956

"Creative Health and the Principle of
Habeas Mentem" by FILLMORE H. SANFORD, Ph.D.

This may have been the first use of this term meaning "man has a right to his own mind."

Aldous Huxley used the term in his Brave New World Revisited, 1958

This is follow up for this post: Man in All that Is (Habeas Mentem), 1986

Also see: Conscious vs. Unconscious-ness -Humancafe dialogue, 2002

Habeas Mentem Applied -Habeas Mentem essays/Humancafe (2002-5)

A Letter to My Students by Frank Trujillo (1987)

Is there proof of universal consciousness (other than human) - examined reference to Humancafe dialogue (2001)

Unite Nations Univeral Declaration of Human Rights

12 Keys to understanding Habeas Mentem

The universe designed you to be Who you are, and that Who must be protected, reciprocally, from coercion. That is the fundamental meaning of Habeas Mentem, to ‘have the mind’.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CC/ Earth breathing
Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2009 - 01:22 pm:   

The Breathing Earth, as seen second by second, in births and deaths.

co2emissions.jpg (interactive)
Co2 emissions, birth rate & death rate simulation © David Bleja 2006-2008

Click image and scroll down for more info.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2009 - 10:51 am:   

Three steps to understanding habeas mentem: to have a mind

  • interrelationship is the language of infinity
  • identity is the language of mind
  • infinity of mind is Who I Am

These are the soul of Habeas Mentem

The soul in a funerary slab, Turkey, 800 BC

Who am I?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Who am 2?
Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2009 - 06:55 pm:   


Who am I?

Does this hark back to the biblical "I am who I am?"

i.e,"I am that I am" in Hebraic tradition?

Who are we? We choose the answer, with the mind.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Who's time?
Posted on Monday, March 02, 2009 - 12:26 pm:   

It's all about Time. :-)


If time is so relativity dilated that it essentially stands still, is it still Time? Or is it an artifact of light so relativistically dilated that it essentially stands still? It can't be both, must be one or the other, or else Time as a definition stops working.

On the SMBH event horizon where gravity is so great as to fully dilate light waves into standing still for the observer, does not mean of necessity that the same thing has happened to Time at the event horizon. Yes, it may 'appear' it is standing still, for the observer, but time is still time, and the ticking of the clock has not stopped because light is relativistically dilated. It is what happens to light, or vibrating cesium atoms, at the event horizon; and to call Time by the same label defeats the purpose of measuring time. Why bother? Is it not better, and more true, to simply measure wavelength as seen by the observer, such as witnessed in a strong gravitational field stretching-redshifting light; while relativistic Time is merely a clever parlor word trick?


Who's Time are we talking about? Oh yeah, I forgot, Uncle Albert's proper Time, like at a black hole horizon where it is being sucked back gravitationally into standing still. Like when asked about Relativity Time, where does the definition of Time switch from a rythmic tick-tock to a stretchable elasticity adapted to light speed c? Is Time merely a question of semantics?


Woo-woo Dr. Who?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

GeoGebra paper online
Posted on Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 02:04 pm:   

New GeoGebra paper now formally online at Geogebra as research aid

This is a continuation of earlier entries regarding "squaring the circle", where geometric algebra was first introduced here, and illustrated here. What has become of this is the cooperative efforts of Mohideen Ibramsha, Edward Chesky, and Ivan Alexander, in the paper listed above.

Algebraic geometry - Wiki

From the paper:


"Notwithstanding the importance of algebra, mass literacy in algebra is lacking. Marya D [3] gives the following explanation.

When industrialization was taking place, universal literacy became important for progress. What “literacy” meant for math, back then, was basic arithmetic. Now it looks like the civilization needs, among other things, mass algebraic literacy to progress and to solve its problems. Governments have been working toward that goal, by their usual means (influencing school curricula). Despite this mass algebra instruction, we don’t see mass algebraic literacy.

I think one of the reasons why we don’t see mass algebraic literacy is that algebra isn’t viewed as something you MESS with. Kids doodle or compose texts for their myspace, but they don’t MAKE (construct, create, build) any algebra entities, ever."

How true, and may this geometric-algebra, or GeoGebra online, become the venue for new learning, to create and build into the future.

(Submitted via email by Mohideen Ibramsha, thanks. Ivan)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed Chesky's autobiography
Posted on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 12:07 pm:   

Ed Chesky's autobiography, now available at

I have published my autobiography on Amazon as a E-Book.

It is entitled, "Autobiography of a Shadow Warrior"

4118JUaxBdL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA278_PIkin4,BottomRight,-49,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg (interactive)

The book is the first of a series of books that build upon my work over the course of my lifetime.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Casimir Force revisited
Posted on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 02:28 pm:   

Casimir Force revisited

Casimir hole.jpg
Casimir 'hole' gravity?

Back in 2003, Does Modern Physics need Rethinking? (June 5, 2003, September 20, 2003), when we talked about the Casimir force, there was a speculation that this force between non-electric plates was somehow gravitic:


The Casimir force effect is, per new physics, no more than the natural gravity of space when devoid of energy. For this force to work the plates, which are in a vacuum, must be close enough together so that the space between them is smaller than lambda of energy around them. If the energy cannot penetrate between the plates, then the natural gravity of space devoid of energy takes over, and thus the two plates's atoms feel each other's attraction. This is not the same as having opposite electric charges which would act to attract them magnetically. Current theory has it that the "pressure" of electromagnetic waves from outside the plates causes them to come together. Rather, this attraction is simply of natural gravity of space not weakened by energy. .. Sept. 20, 2003

We also speculated, July 2, 2004:


The idea of a zero point energy of the vacuum of space is still new, and little understood. One example of this force is the Casimir force (conundrum), where space vacuum has some intrinsic energy locked in it. The concept presented here is based on that this space vacuum energy is in fact the measured level of gravity at that zero point, or Zero Point Gravity, ZPG. The reason this force is so weak on Earth, and in the band of space where Earth travels around the Sun, is that we are located fairly close to our radiant star, and thus experience relatively little gravity here. We measure its intensity in Newton's G, which is approximately G = 6.67e-11 Nm^2. If this ZPG were measured around the orbit of Saturn, for example, it should register a higher reading, let's guestimate G(Saturn) = G e-9 Nm^2, for example, though I do not know this number is correct. Conversely, G(Venus) = G e-14, and Mercury's would be lower still, while Pluto's would be extremely high, i.e., G(Pluto) = G e-5 Nm^2, and out in the cold of space, higher still. These are arbitrarily picked numbers to illustrate how the ZPG would change depending upon where, or in what orbital band, it was measured.

However, none of this really explains why there is an attractive force between solid plates (may be repulsive in liquid) in a vacuum, as now understood as background zero-point Quantum Vacuum fluctuations (Dr. H.E. Puthoff):


"Specifically, Sakharov suggested that gravity might be an induced effect brought about by changes in the zero-point energy of the vacuum, due to the presence of matter. If correct, gravity would then be understood as a variation on the Casimir theme, in which background zero-point-energy pressures were again responsible. Although Sakharov did not develop the concept much further, he did outline certain criteria such a theory would have to meet such as predicting the value of the gravitational constant G in terms of zero-point-energy parameters."

This last by Puthoff may be closer to the mark of why finely polished uncharged metallic plates will attract in a vacuum, that it is gravitic in nature. In our Earth orbital region, the Sun's energy is strong, so per the Axiomatic Equation gravity is therefore weak. However, in minimizing the solar energy's effect in between plates, it is regenerated slightly stronger, so a Casimir attraction effect is recorded. Were we farther out in the solar system, say by Saturn, that effect would be about an order of magnitude greater than on Earth. But this will have to wait for future testing, as for now the idea of Variable-G gravity is still a speculative hypothesis awaiting future tests.

Also see: The Atom

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

More on Higgs Boson
Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 12:58 pm:   

LHC Uncovers New Higgs Boson Decay Mechanism

dnews-files-2014-06-cms-higgs-670x440-140623-jpg.jpg (interactive)


Since the elusive Higgs boson was discovered in 2012, scientists have been poring over Large Hadron Collider (LHC) collision data for more evidence of interactions involving the particle. Now physicists of one LHC experiment have announced tantalizing evidence that the Higgs doesn’t only decay into other bosons; it also has the ability to decay into fermions — further proof that we are looking at a Standard Model Higgs boson and not something more exotic.

But then...

The Higgs Boson Should Have Crushed the Universe

dnews-files-2014-06-higgs-destroy-670x440-140624-jpg-1.jpg (interactive)


This may seem a little far fetched, but if our understanding of the physics behind the recently-discovered Higgs boson (or, more specifically, the Higgs field — the ubiquitous field that endows all stuff with mass) is correct, our universe shouldn’t exist. That is, however, if another cosmological hypothesis is real, a hypothesis that is currently undergoing intense scrutiny in light of the BICEP2 results.

The mystery continues...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Philae has landed
Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2014 - 12:17 am:   

The Philae has landed… and landed, landed.

_79003681_024715832.jpg (interactive)
Philae image sent from surface of comet 67P - BBC Science News

After ten years, and billions of miles in space, Rosetta comet spaceprobe made a spectacular rendezvous with a comet more than 300 million miles from Earth. The science and engineering, the mathematics and astrophysics that went into this European Space Agency attempt at landing a probe on a comet is breathtaking, and they did it! Small misfires along the way, thrusters failed to fire, grappling harpoons didn't deploy, did not detract from the overall success of the mission. ESA's performance was brilliant, and they hit their difficult target. Bravo and kudos!

The science being performed is some 80 percent completed, with telemetry of their results radioed back to Earth. Due to Philae's ultimate position, it sidelined on the edge of a crater, the solar panels may not get enough sunlight to fully power the mission for its duration, but there is still a small hope that the comet's natural seasonal shift will realign the panels with more durable sunlight. If so, then more science can be accomplished as planned. What is the comet made of? Is its amalgamated structure the original building blocks of our solar system? How will it behave structurally, gassing out, rotational anomalies, to help us better understand the science? Is 67P/Chuyumov-Gerasimenko truly 4.6 billion years old, or is its surface of newer stuff? We can't know without the science studies, but hope they will clarify our understanding. As a fairly eccentric orbital phenomenon, where its perihelion is about 1.3 AUs, aphelion about 5.6 AUs (now about 2.9 AU, traveling ~66,500 km per hour, 18.47 km/s), will it show any variables we should know of? Perhaps it will reveal better how and why of its gassing out closer to the Sun, for example. Does 67P accrete detritus at aphelion, only to release it at perihelion? (*) Rosetta may help us understand this better, even if Philae falls silent. There is much to be learned, including similar future missions to other wanderers in our solar system, asteroids and comets. But already data is streaming in.

Stay tuned, Rosetta & 67P live….

Also see: BBC How big is space? - interactive (from Riding a rocket through our Solar System)

Rosetta spacecraft sees sinkholes on comet

(*) 67P comet is layered like an onion - BBC Science

Comets gassing out

Rosetta spinning down approaching Perihelion -(BBC 2015)

Rosetta Comet 67P past perihelion spinning up (BBC 2017) saw cliffs collapse, rate of spin increase (expected as it enters higher gravity-G away from the Sun).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dark Matter is collision-less?
Posted on Friday, March 27, 2015 - 01:42 pm:   

Dark Matter is collision-less, or merely invisible?

_81929037_81929035.jpg (interactive)
Dark matter flits through collisions - BBC Science

Astronomers have found 72 observations of Dark Matter collisions in intergalactic space, which appear to be non interactive. The vast galactic clouds of dark matter seem to pass through each other, same as stars will glide past each other without colliding. But this counterintuitive phenomenon may not be so strange, if the 'dark matter' is merely very high gravity-G matter (of about one molecule per cubic centimeter) gliding past each other during their collective collision. It would be analogous to the great distance between stars in interstellar mergers, where they fail to collide. One molecule per cubic centimeter may not seem far apart, except the molecules are extremely small, so the analogy is not so strange, as their relative distances (if compared to stars) are cosmic distances apart. Because the mass of the dark matter cloud is isotropic, the gravitational pull of the molecules (though they exhibit very high G) is likewise identical in all directions, so their collective ambient gravity balances out to near zero. The only observable event over time would be a slight narrowing of their width and length, depending upon how diffuse and how high the G there. The less hot stellar energy (per Axiomatic equation) the higher the gravity-G, so any such aggregate shrinkage would be a function of their collective G at the margins. In short, if the assumed Dark Matter is merely ordinary matter in very high G, then its failure to collide is a result of the very great distances between the molecules gliding by each other. If any do collide, it is not registered on our equipment, so invisible to us. But it may not be so strange that the Dark Matter clouds glide past each other as had been observed.

In the BBC article linked (image above) it says:


So although some theories remain, many can now be ruled out. This includes the idea that dark matter is some sort of "dark" version of ordinary matter, made of "dark atoms". It must be more outlandish than that, Dr Massey said.

Perhaps this 'dark matter' is not so mysterious after all, nor so outlandish, if the interstellar diffuse atomic matter is simply very high gravity-G matter in deep cold space. But to date that remains unconfirmed.


Also see: Why Dark Matter appears non-baryonic

What is the mass of the universe

Just in: Dark matter becomes less 'ghostly' - it may be interacting with itself?

Galaxy graveyard may be overflowing with dark matter - Scientists analyzed 47 galaxies that fell into the Coma Cluster...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Space Gravity 3.97e-7 G, and GUT
Posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2016 - 01:29 pm:   

Space Gravity of 3.97e-7 G, and the Grand Unified Theory (GUT).

Grand unification epoch

Planck mass is theorized at 2.176e-8 kg, which is thought to have occurred at the Planck epoch, milliseconds of the Big Bang. Also, the Planck particle is theorized at 3.86e-8 kg, which is a hypothetical black hole defined by the Schwarzschild radius at the Compton wavelength. Both of these may have been the mass of particles at a time of the Grand Unified Theory, GUT of the Standard Model. This unification would have been when Quantum Gravity merged Quantum Theory with Einstein's General Relativity. But to date such unification had not been achieved, so it remains hypothetical.*

There may or may not have been a Big Bang creation, so called, but the information calculated for such a hypothetical event is useful in another way. As the chart above shows, the first milliseconds merged Gravity into the other three Standard Model forces, Strong, Weak, and EM energies. The upshot here is that Planck particle-mass fits into the GUT scenario, where it is theorized at 3.86e-8 kg; which if we assume at that time, same as now, the Strong force was equal to S=1, then per Equivalence, we might say that the Gravity force of GUT was at about 3.86e-8 G, meaning a kilogram of mass would have been subject to this primordial Gravity constant in the first milliseconds of the Big Bang, so called. But this association with the Big Bang is unnecessary if the goal here is to find at what level of gravity-G we can merge Gravity with the other three forces of the Standard Model. And if we can find a close approximation to this, then we may be on track to solving one of those intractable problems, where Gravity does not fit in. In effect, it may be a path to take GUT into a Theory of Everything.

In prior considerations, we had estimated deep space gravity-G at 3.97e-7 G, which is the gravity constant for ambient gravity in interstellar space, as figured using Strong force gravity of the nucleus modified by femtometer lambda. The above 3.86e-8 G is within one magnitude of deep space gravity, so it is ball park at the point where all the known forces are relatively close to unification. This value for interstellar G was also collaborated using Planck's constant to figure Proton mass, which also calls for ambient space gravity at 3.97e-7 G. In effect, as also figured in calculating gravitational redshift needed to have distant cosmic light redshift at the Hubble constant, where it was calculated at 3.96e-7 G, and using the Boltzmann CMB, which works out for the same at 3.47e-6 G, (as well as MOND's value); all these point to approximate ball park values for deep space gravity-G where GUT and all the known forces converge (and Big Bang becomes unnecessary). Could this be the key to reconciling the four known forces in physics, Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, and Gravity, into TOE, a Theory of Everything?

But if so, Cosmology would need be rewritten, whereby Einstein's venerable General Relativity mathematics would need to be adjusted for deep space G: that the gravity 'universal constant' is not at Earth's value of 6.67e-11 G (as now believed), but it is closer to a universal value of 3.97e-7 G. This value is then adjusted for Earth's orbital position close to our Sun, and as described by the Axiomatic Equation to be what is gravity-G measured here. And if so, then it all works out, and we are leaving 19-20th century physics behind.

Also see: Are GR gravity waves 'falsifiable'?

Another way to derive Planck's constant via deep space gravity-G.

*(Also see: Paul S. Wesson: Astronomy and the Fifth Dimension, where a credible 5D GUT may be possible; and 5D World-Universe Model Space-Time-Energy by Vladimir S. Netchitailo (2015))

This just in:
World-Universe Model—Alternative to Big Bang Model Author(s) Vladimir S. Netchitailo (2020)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gravity at femtometer lambda?
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - 05:45 pm:   

Is Gravity at the femtometer wavelength?

IceCube neutrino hunting

This question on the neutrino wavelength at femtometer had come up before (May 2008), of how 1.32e-15 m lambda modifies atomic nucleus, which modifies gravity-G of atomic mass, as per the Axiomatic equation, which in turn modifies mass (where inertial mass is the remainder from this interaction, as is gravity per Equivalence). This is a connect presently unknown in atomic theory, as per the Bohr model, nor Quantum theory, as to how is structured atomic mass (except for Higgs boson), so for now there is no theory of gravity, other than it being a measured universal constant, as measured on Earth. But the femtometer model opens up a new line of inquiry, that mass is modifiable per the femtometer-energy flux in which it is measured, inversely proportional to energy received, viz., more energy lowers G. Could this variable also be used to modify mass, to manipulate its 'weight' in effect, which could theoretically be used to affect propulsion in the future?

This idea was further explored in Proton as Planck scale micro-black hole, that the Strong force is modified by femtometer lambda to give us the atom as it is known. If it is so, then we can hypothesize that by manipulating this femtometer energy the propulsion system of a craft can be adapted to this modified mass. In effect, lighten the craft's inertial mass with higher femtometer energy, and the craft can be propelled with less force to achieve desired velocity; or put another way, force will yield greater motion than achieved by normal Newton mechanics. Something like this may be operable in Lazar's UFO at Roswell museum, where Bob Lazar thought the alien craft examined had "gravity waves" propulsion engines. (See Robert Scott Lazar, Wiki) Of course, he had no idea what these gravity waves were, nor does anyone else. But with a modifiable G-mass mechanism, such so called 'gravity waves' could be used, though not for propulsion, but for modifying mass in propulsion.

For example, in an earlier discussion on the Moved-G force motor, the discovery was that when tested, there was a fractional G force transferred from spin acceleration to the axis of spin; this was directional depending upon which way of spin, clockwise or counter. Now, if femtometer energy be applied to the craft's mass, in essence bathing the structure (but not the motor, inertial-G drive excepted), then any force produced by Moved-G would be amplified, since its inertial mass gets reduced, resulting in amplified reaction force along the axis, so greater motion results. Naturally this breaks the (known) laws of physics and Newtonian mechanics, but that's what new discoveries do, they break the rules.

This idea is not 'gravity waves' driving such a craft, but rather modified gravity-G which modifies on-board inertial mass, so little force translates into great resulting velocity. This could hypothetically be achieved by bombarding the outer layer of craft with neutrino size femtometer lambda energy, which may ionize the air in contact with the craft's skin and make it glow; then any force applied to the craft's motors, whether conventional reactionary force (rockets, jets), or more exotic (still untested) inertial mass G-force drives, the resulting motion from such force would be greatly amplified. And if so, Lazar's alien craft could be rendered operational. It would also indicate that gravity G is a femtometer dependent value (not constant but variable) because of how this femtometer energy modifies the atom (modifies Strong force into mass), where atomic mass is inversely proportional to the energy used.

But these are merely curiosity questions, not answers. The real answers would be from tests and trials of irradiating mass with femtometer lambda energy, and see what happens, and perhaps assess how mass is modified, and why this form of propulsion might work.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

How fast travel in space
Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2017 - 03:56 pm:   

How fast in space: Instant velocity calculated for v=c using Moved-G gravity g as propellent.


How long would it take a probe powered by gravity g (9.8 m/s^2) to achieve lightspeed velocity c?

Using the familiar

vi = gt for instant velocity, where v=c

3e8 m s-1/ 9.8 m s-2 = t

t = 30.6e6 s which translates into time needed to achieve lightspeed at Earth equivalent rate of gravitational constant acceleration, which is also equal to

t = 354.3 days

Now, if space gravity is orders of magnitude higher than Earth's rather weak 6.67e-11 G, say something like deep space 3.97e-7 G*, then this acceleration is suddenly tremendously higher, where lightspeed c could be achieved in a fraction of the time.

Of course, with all due respect to Einstein, there is no reason why this gravitational acceleration need stop at lightspeed. Once v=c is topped, it just keeps getting better, until apex when the probe needs to slow down to its destination, could be tricky. But gravity-powered space travel could be a whole different wicket. There, the galaxy's the limit!

Also, what happens at superluminal speeds? Do we go through matter like light through glass? Don't overshoot the apex? Reverse thrusters! Watch for black holes!

Also see: How fast can we travel in space?

*(If for example, we were to take deep space G equivalence, where local 6.67e-11 G were to be deep space 3.97e-7 G, Earth's g=9.8 m/s would become g'=5.95e5 m/s. Now if this were applied to vi=g't, where v=c, we get

3e8 m/s=5.95e5 m/s^2 t, where

t=5e2 s

which translates into

t=8.33 minutes

Now that's fast! "Take us to 'Space-2' Mr. Sulu.")
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alien Moon bases?
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2017 - 05:25 am:   

Mining on Moon's far side? - the Clementine Mission.

photo.jpg (interactive)
Moon base?

There had been speculations that the Clementine Lunar Mission (official site) to far side of the Moon (the one we never see from Earth) has detected an alien mining operation, with unusual structures to manage their operations. Of course this is subject to debate, but there is an increasingly vocal chorus of scientists and military personnel claiming this is so. Some images are easily debunked, but others remain stubbornly unexplained. The net is replete with videos claiming the Chinese have also spotted these anomalous (unnatural) structures and are eager to return to the Moon with manned landings. There was also the issue of the Clementine Mission, scrapped under Obama cost cutting on NASA, was suddenly scrambled to send it on a photo mission to the far side. Of special interest is the Paracelsus C crater, which lies to the southwest of the large walled plain Vertregt. There is speculation the far side of the Moon, which is rich in Titanium, may be the site of alien operations mining it. Can it be credible, assuming aliens are there?

Also see: What did NASA really discover on the moon? - popular speculations

Google Earth , at 22°42'38.46"N 142°34'44.52"E on the Moon, we see this strange image (debunked)

However, at this time all this is still conjecture. If there are really alien operations on our Moon, we will find them in time, and declassify the findings. And we will demand an explanation.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Admin

Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2018 - 03:02 pm:   

Renewable-fuel base-load power-station
Edward Chesky
…Major (Retd) US Army USA
Ivan D Alexander - editor (retired investment consultant) Italy

Mohideen Ibramsha
1968 Alumni of Thiagarajar College Of Engineering, Madurai, TN, India
Associate Prof Computer Science (Retd) USA
Consultant R&D, M A M College of Engineering, Trichy, TN, India

Introduction: ALLAM cycle uses supercritical CO2 as the working fluid. Flow designs are given for natural gas and synthetic natural gas input. Natural gas is a fossil fuel and synthetic natural gas is produced by gasification of coal which is a fossil fuel. When and how does mankind shift out of the fossil fuels and move to renewable sources like hydrogen?
Synthetic natural gas could be produced from non-forest wood and thus replacing the coal gasification plant with non-forest wood gasification plant would move mankind from coal to renewable wood. The carbon in an old forest tree is similar to fossil fuel as the CO2 absorbed y an old tree would result in increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
We modify the ALLAM cycle to use hydrogen and Christine the cycle CAM ALLAM cycle adding the first letters of Chesky, Alexander, and Mohideen the inventors of the CAM ALLAM cycle. We derive the CAM ALLAM cycle in stages from the ALLAM cycle.
Analysis of ALLAM cycle: The system diagram of ALLAM cycle is given now.


As we use hydrogen as fuel, there is no CO2 extraction. All the CO2 in the system is used as a working fluid. Thus the first step of conversion yields


The gas input is hydrogen. We retain the air separation unit and burn the hydrogen with pure oxygen to ensure that the input to the turbine is simply the super critical CO2 and the mixed steam. Removing the air separator would allow nitrogen also into the turbine. It might be possible to redesign the turbine for the changed input to the turbine. Such a redesign would take a few years for the new turbine to be introduced. To avoid the delay in abandoning fossil fuels, we sacrifice 10% of the power that is used by the air separator.
From we find that the combustor gets 4.75% oxygen, 1.25% CH4, and 94% supercritical CO2 as input. The output of the combustor is 2.75% of water and 97.25% of supercritical CO2. We expect that the above quantities correspond to full load. For ease of understanding, we state that the weight of the supercritical CO2 is 9,400 Kg. The actual weights could be different based on the power generated. We use a total of 10,000 Kg for ease of discussion.

There seems to be some approximation in the above numbers. The methane burning equation is:
CH4 + 2O2 à CO2 + 2H2O
Including the molecular weights of the elements we get
CH4 [(12 + 4) x 1 ] + 2 x O2 [ 2 x (16 x 2) ] à CO2 [ 12 + 2 x 16 ] + 2H2O [ 2 x ( 2 x 1 + 16) ]
CH4 [ 16 ] + 2O2 [ 64 ] à CO2 [ 44 ] + 2H2O [ 36 ]
The numbers given in the wikipedia article above for oxygen, methane, and resultant water and carbon dioxide are approximate. 600 Kg of oxygen and methane result in 600 x [ 44/80 ] Kg of supercritical CO2 and [ 36/80 ] x 600 Kg of water. We get 330 Kg of supercritical CO2 and 270 Kg of water. At full load, the turbine receives 9400 + 330 = 9730 Kg of supercritical CO2 and 270 Kg of water. At different loads, the turbine receives the following quantities.
For total 10,000 Kg at full load
NoLoad%Supercritical CO2 kgWater kg

We use hydrogen alone as fuel. Thus no CO2 is produced in the combustor. At full load we supplied 600 Kg of oxygen and methane. Out of this 600 Kg the weight of methane is 600 x [ 16 / 80 ] = 120 Kg.
As the H2O is present as steam, we use LHV in our calculations. The heat given by methane [ CH4 ] is 50.00 MJ / Kg. Thus the total heat corresponding to full load is 120 x 50.00 MJ = 6,000 MJ. The hydrogen required to produce this LHV is 6,000 / 119.96 Kg, where 119.96 MJ/Kg is the LHV of one Kg of hydrogen. Thus the amount of hydrogen alone for full load is 50.02 Kg. The LHV values of methane and hydrogen are as given at
One Kg of hydrogen produces 9 Kg of water. Thus burning 50.02 Kg of hydrogen in the combustor would produce 450.18 Kg of water. However when we use CH4 as fuel only 270 Kg of water is produced in the combustor. To maintain just 270 Kg of water is produced inside the combustor, we need to reduce the amount of hydrogen burnt inside the combustor to 50.02 x [ 270/450.18 ] = 50.02 x 0.59976 = 30 Kg only. Ignoring the 0.02 Kg, we burn a total of 50 Kg of hydrogen, burning 30 Kg inside the combustor and 20 Kg outside the combustor. Thus, 60% of the required hydrogen is burnt inside the combustor and 40% of the hydrogen is burnt outside the combustor heating the supercritical CO2 through an additional heat exchanger. The hydrogen burnt in the additional heat exchanger is increased if necessary to overcome any efficiency of the heat exchanger being less than 100%.
The amount of supercritical CO2 entering the turbine at full load is 9,730 Kg that reduces proportionately to 9,400 Kg as the load decreases. We need to extract 330 Kg of CO2 at no load and proportionately different amounts of CO2 at different loads. Thus we introduce a variable storage with maximum storage capacity of 330 Kg to extract the right amount of supercritical CO2 based on the load.
After including the additional heat exchanger and the variable storage, we get the CAM ALLAM power cycle shown below.
The CAM ALLAM power cycle is fully renewable provided the hydrogen used is produced without any fossil fuel. Let us consider producing hydrogen using renewable only. We consider two aspects of solar power to indicate ramping up of hydrogen production using electrolysis.

Hydrogen production: We want the hydrogen to be generated using renewable energy. Currently we have two technologies offering renewable energy: solar and wind. Both are intermittent. We concentrate on solar as – in our opinion – wind mills are vulnerable to hurricanes. The wind turbine needs to be mounted on tall towers which could fail due to the large bending moments on the tower during hurricane force winds. Solar has two technologies: thermal and photovoltaic. We consider the thermal version first.
Solar Concentration: Normal belief on solar power says solar power station could not produce power when there is no sunlight. Technically this could be overcome by designing the solar plant to produce more power than required during the day and storing the excess energy for use when there is no sunlight.
A solar concentration plant near Seville in Spain is generating power during the night also. From we find that the plant stores energy in molten salt and that the stored energy could produce electricity for 15 hours in darkness. This facility allows this plant to produce electricity for 270 days without using any fossil fuel.
The plant was designed for 15 hours of energy storage with 9 hours of sunshine. It is possible that larger power could not be developed because the control of heliostats beyond the current radius of the field was not possible or it was felt that producing 24 hours of electricity from just 9 hours of sunlight was enough. We believe augmentation of this plant to produce more power from 9 hours of sunshine would permit this plant to become a base-load power-station.
A graph for the average monthly hours of sunshine at Seville, Spain is given at seville,Spain,,seville,Spain The graph was exported to the ‘Paint’ program and the pixel coordinates were read. For 400 hours the number of pixels was 161. The number of pixels for every month was read and the average sunshine in hours was calculated. The calculated values are found in the third column of the following table. 
NoMonthAverage hoursDaysDaily average hours
2February 2016163.98295.65

With 15 hours of storage in molten salt, any day with a minimum of 9 hours of sunshine receives 24 hours of electricity from the plant. By using more salt we could save more energy from the energy captured on days with more than 9 hours of sunshine. On an average 0.78 hours per day could be saved during May for a future day after August. In September this excess stored energy would be depleted at a rate of 0.39 hours daily. We compute the cumulative hours of storage assuming that the amount of salt is enough.

NoMonthAverage hoursDaysDaily average hoursStored energy in hours monthlyCumulative stored energy in hours
2February 2016163.98295.65

This 234.54 hours of saved energy would be consumed to meet the residual energy required to supply energy during the night. Since September has 8.61 hours of sunlight, the required 0.39 sunlight hours would be consumed from the cumulative storage.

NoMonthAverage hoursDaysDaily average hoursStored energy in hours monthlyCumulative stored energy in hours

Assuming that the actual consumption during the night equals that during the day, the fossil fuel needs to be used from December 13 giving a total of 226 fossil-free days. For 270 fossil-free days, the power during the night has to be less than that required during the day. As a first approximation, we assume that the power required in the absence of sun is 0.9 times that required during sunlight. Then 15 hours of energy during sunlight rate would actually stretch to 15/0.9 = 16.67 hours without sunshine. Thus even during April there would be enough stored power once we have sunshine for 7.33 hours. Further for every hour of sunshine beyond 7.33 hours, we store 1.11 hours of energy required after sunset. We redo the calculations now in terms of hours of sunset.

NoMonthAverage hoursDaysDaily average sunlight hoursStored energy in sunset hours monthlyCumulative stored sunset hours
2February 2016163.98295.65
4April228.57307.62(7.62 – 7.33)/0.9 x 30 = 16.3316.33
5May303.11319.78(9.78 – 7.33)/0.9 x 31 = 84.39100.72
6June320.503010.68(10.68 – 7.33)/0.9 x 30 = 111.67212.39
7July370.193111.94(11.94 – 7.33)/0.9 * 31 = 158.79371.18
8August347.833111.22(11.22 – 7.33)/0.9 x 31 = 133.99506.17
9September258.39308.61(8.61 – 7.33)/0.9 x 30 = 42.67547.84
10October211.18316.81(6.81 – 7.33)/0.9 x 31 = - 17.91529.93
11November163.98305.47(5.47 – 7.33)/0.9 x 30 = - 62.00467.93
12December156.52315.05(5.05 – 7.33)/0.9 x 31 = - 78.53389.40

Now we have 275 fossil-free days as on December 31 with energy for 389.40 night hours residue. Thus the load during sunset is more than 0.9 times the load during sunshine but less than that during sunshine. The 270 days of fossil free operation could be extended by adding more generation during sunshine.
Instead of increasing the generation just to avoid using fossil fuel, we design the plant such that it generates enough power during the days of least sunshine. This design would generate more than the required power during the other days. Instead of just making electricity to avoid fossil fuels, we generate hydrogen and oxygen using the extra power. Accordingly, we accelerate the economy shift to hydrogen even before 2050. The details of shifting most of the economy to hydrogen by 2050 could be seen at We propose moving to the hydrogen economy earlier than 2050.

We design solar power plants to meet the design load during days of least sunshine and use the excess power for electrolysis of water to generate hydrogen and oxygen. The energy used in an electrolysis cell would be a maximum when the anode and cathode are fully immersed in the water. By lifting the anode and the cathode the load generated by the electrolysis cell could be set at any level from full load to no load. Such variable load electrolysis cells convert all the excess power to hydrogen and oxygen.
Solar roof: Instead of changing part of the roof to solar panels, we recommend making the full roof with solar panels and use the excess power to generate hydrogen and oxygen. Generation of hydrogen and oxygen after storing enough power for home consumption even during days of minimum sunshine eliminates the need for net metering. Every house becomes self sufficient and produces hydrogen and oxygen also. The oxygen and hydrogen so produced could be used in the CAM ALLAM cycle avoiding the air separator producing more power. Any excess oxygen could as well be sold to fossil fuel plants employing CCS and CCU to increase their efficiency during the transition to full renewable energy.
By building solar power based on the days of minimum sunshine, we hope we would reduce the greenhouse gases to pre-industrial levels soon, hopefully much earlier than 2050. Once the greenhouse gases are reduced to pre-industrial levels, we could let the fossil fuels stay underground.
Conclusion: The turbine used in the first ALLAM cycle plant produces 25 MW of power. This turbine is a reduced size version of the planned 295 MW turbine.
The five companies have now completed major agreements to build a 25MW gross electric (50MWt) demonstration plant in Texas. Through the successful completion of operating tests, the demonstration plant is intended to provide the basis for the construction of the first 295MWe full-scale commercial plant.
With a 25 MW power plant, with an average of 5 KW per home, 5,000 homes could be covered. Such coverage could be done by a distribution network local to a town. If the plant develops 300 MW then the distribution would cover 60,000 homes across more than one town. Such a network would have long transmission lines. With the storms dumping ice and not snow alone, long distance transmission lines are vulnerable. As the 25 MW turbine is already delivered and is expected to work as planned during the ‘First Fire’ possibly during the first quarter of 2018, we hope more plants of 25 MW capacity get built offering hurricane-proof power.
On December 30, 2017 we found a depressing fact.
The vast majority of hydrogen is generated using fossil fuels, which simply shifts C02 generation from tailpipe to production facility.
We hope our strategy explained above would eliminate use of fossil fuels for hydrogen production soon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Username: Mohideen_ibramsha

Registered: 03-2018
Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2018 - 01:06 pm:   

ALLAM Cycle flow analysis

Mohideen Ibramsha
1968 Alumni of Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, TN, India
1974 intellectual son of PhD guide Prof. V.Rajaraman & Mrs. Dharma Rajaramn, CS, EE, IIT, Kanpur, UP, India
1991 First HOD of CSE, CEC [now BSAU] Chennai, TN, India
Associate Professor (Retd), Computer Science, Framingham, MA, USA
Consultant R&D, M A M College of Engineering, Trichy, TN, India
Advisor, HyDIGIT Pte Ltd, Singapore

The designer of the ALLAM cycle, Rodney Allam and 9 more authors presented “Demonstration of the Allam Cycle: An Update on the Development Status of a High Efficiency Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Power Process Employing Full Carbon Capture” in the 13th International Conference on Green House Gas Technologies GHGT-13 held at Lausanne, Switzerland from 14th to 18th November 2016. The abstract is available at . This URL indicates that the document was made online on 18th August 2017. The above URL has a link to the full text PDF of the article, given below. 216eeec7-cae9-4d7b-a3bf-5c96d0fdaa42&acdnat=1520950536_3683bd79435d14399b08b2c17 53cf056
We use the data given in the PDF for our analysis of the 300 MWe ALLAM power plant.

Add flow descriptions
By combining the flow numbers in Figure 1 and the flow characteristics given in Table 1 of the PDF, we get the following augmented table. We have not changed the values of temperature, pressure, and mass flow. They are as given in the PDF.

No Description Temperature C Pressure bar Mass Flow Kg/s
1 Turbine Exhaust 727 30 923
2 Cooled turbine exhaust 43 29 564
3 Dry CO2 17 29 563
4 Compressed CO2 23 100 909
5 Circulating CO2 23 100 881
6 CO2 from burnt fuel 23 100 28
7 Cold circulating CO2 16 100 881
8 Cold Circulating CO2 part 16 100 689
9 Hot Circulating CO2 717 312 586
10 CO2 for adding Oxygen 16 100 191
11 Oxygen 16 100 41
12 Oxygen added CO2 2 99 233
13 Supplemental Oxygen 717 310 233
14 Gaseous fuel 266 330 10

Calculating the unspecified flows
The turbine has inputs of 9, 13, and 14 giving a total of 586 + 233 + 10 = 829 Kg/s. However the output from the turbine, flow 1 is 923 Kg/s. There is no indication for the amount of ‘turbine cooling flow which also enters the turbine. The difference between 923 and 829, that is, 94 Kg/s is the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow.’

The CO2 compressor has ‘Ancillary Bypass Flow’ and flow 3 as inputs with flow 4 as output. With 563 Kg/s of flow 3, the ‘Ancillary Bypass Flow’ has to be 346 Kg/s to match 909 Kg/s of flow 4.

Flow 6, ‘Export CO2’ and flow 5 added match flow 4. Thus the CO2 produced by burning the gaseous fuel is 28 Kg/s.

The gaseous fuel 14, CH4, is 10 Kg/s. From CH4 + 2O2 à CO2 + 2H2O, we find 16 Kg of CH4 produces 44 Kg of CO2. Thus 10 Kg/s of CH4 produces 10 x 44/16 = 27.5 Kg/s of CO2. This 27.5 Kg/s is rounded to 28 Kg and reported in Table 1.

Flow 7 of 881 Kg/s splits into two flows, flow 8 of 689 and flow 10 of 191 giving a total of 880 Kg/s. The difference of 1 Kg/s is ignored.

To burn 16 Kg of CH4 we need 64 Kg of Oxygen. For 10 Kg/s of CH4 we need 10 x 64/16 = 40 Kg/s of Oxygen. Flow 11, Oxygen is given as 41 Kg/s. We ignore the difference of 1 Kg/s.

Flow 12, being sum of flows 10 and 11 should be 232 being the sum of 191 and 41, is reported as 233 Kg/s. Again, we ignore the difference of 1 Kg/s.

The Recuperator has ‘Heat Recuperation’ and flows 1, 8, and 12 as input. The outputs are: ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’; ‘Ancillary Bypass Flow’; and flows 2, 9 and 13. We calculated the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’ to be 94 Kg/s. Likewise, the ‘Ancillary Bypass Flow’ was found to be 346 Kg/s. The total output of the Recuperator is 94 + 346 + 564 [flow 2] + 586 [flow 9] + 233 [flow 13] = 1843Kg/s. The sum of flows 1, 8, and 12 is 923 + 689 + 233 = 1845 Kg/s. The ‘Heat Recuperation’ turns out to be a negligible -2 Kg/s. Thus we ignore this negligible negative value and assume that there is no ‘Heat Recuperation’ flow.

The unspecified flows are tabulated below.

No Description Mass Flow Kg/s
1 Turbine Cooling Flow 94
2 Ancillary Bypass Flow 346
3 Export CO2 28
4 Heat Recuperation Flow 0

Consistency check
The flow of CH4 is 10 Kg/s. The burning of 16 Kg of CH4 produces 36 Kg of steam. Thus 10 Kg/s of CH4 produces 36/16 x 10 = 22.5 Kg/s of steam. Thus flow 1, the exhaust from the turbine has 900.5 Kg/s of CO2 and 22.5 Kg/s of steam. The water separator has flow 2 as input and flow 3 as output. Flow 2 is 564 Kg/s and flow 3 is 563 Kg/s. Thus the water removed at the water separator is just 1 Kg/s. What happens to the 21.5 Kg/s of steam that is the difference between 22.5 Kg/s produced and 1 Kg/s extracted? We assume, subject to consistency that the 21.5 Kg/s of steam is removed by the Recuperator as the temperature of flow 2 is only 43 ˚C. The ‘Ancillary Bypass Flow’ and Flow 3 are mixed and compressed to get flow 4. Flow 4 is at 23 ˚C and flow 3 is at 17 ˚C. The heat of flow 4 is 23 x 909 while that of flow 3 is 17 x 563. The difference 20907 – 9571 = 11336 must be supplied by the ‘Ancillary Bypass Flow’ of 346 Kg/s. Thus the temperature of the ‘Ancillary Bypass Flow’ is 11336/346 = 32.76 ˚C. We understand that the cooled exhaust after the heat exchanger is passed through a set of strainers to remove the water mixed with the CO2. We believe there is no need for any strainer in between the stages of the heat exchanger. From the article by Rodney Allam and co-authors, we find:
Three of the four stages and the associated pipework have been delivered to site in La Porte, Texas with the remaining stage well into the construction phase at Heatric’s main manufacturing base in Poole, England.

The temperature of the turbine exhaust is 717 °C and that of flow 2 is 43° C, the temperature of the exhaust after three stages of the heat exchanger would be 717 – (717 – 43) x ¾ = 717 – 505.5 = 211.5 °C. There would be no condensation of the steam inside the heat exchanger and the steam condenses possibly under transport in the 4th stage. Accordingly, the output from the heat exchanger is strained in the Recuperator. The final output from the strainers is assumed to be dry and is collected as ‘Ancillary Bypass Flow.’ It stands to reason, in view of the following property of the Heatric strainer.
Heatric recommend strainers (typically 330 micron) as standard fitment for all Heatric exchangers during normal operation in order to remove particulates that may cause blocking of the units.

The sum of Ancillary Bypass Flow and flow 2 is 346 + 564 = 910 Kg/s which is more than 923 – 21.5 = 901.5 Kg/s which is the rate of CO2 minus the rate of steam’ removed from the Recuperator. The 1 Kg/s of water removed by the water separator is present in flow 2. After the 1 Kg/s of water is removed, the total CO2 is 900.5 Kg/s. Accordingly flow 4 is corrected to 900.5 Kg/s. With flow 4 at 900.5 Kg/s and flow 3 being 563 Kg/s, the Ancillary Bypass Flow is 900.5 – 563 = 337.5 Kg/s. Flow 6 is the CO2 from burning 10 Kg/s of CH4 and thus is 27.5 Kg/s. Flow 5 becomes 900.5 – 27.5 = 873 Kg/s. Flow 7 equals flow 5 at 873 Kg/s. Flow 7 splits into flow 8 and flow 10. Flow 8 is given as 689 Kg/s and flow 10 at 191 Kg/s add to 880 Kg/s instead of 873 Kg/s. We reduce them in proportion. Flow 8 is reduced to 689/880 x 873 = 683.5 Kg/s. Flow 10 becomes 873 – 683.5 = 189.5 Kg/s. We need 64 Kg of O2 for 16 Kg of CH4. For 10 Kg/s of CH4 we need 64/16 x 10 = 40 Kg/s of O2. Thus flow 11 is 40 Kg/s and flow 12 is 189.5 + 40 = 229.5 Kg/s. Flow 12 passes through the Heatric heat exchanger and remains 229.5 Kg/s at 717 ˚C. The Recuperator has inflows of 1, 8, and 12 with 923 Kg/s, 683.5 Kg/s, and 229.5 Kg/s respectively. Out of the 22.5 Kg/s of steam in flow 1, 21.5 Kg/s is removed from flow 1 as water and this water out of the Recuperator is not shown. Thus the total outflow from the Recuperator must be 923 + 683.5 + 229.5 – 21.5 = 1836 – 21.5 = 1814.5 Kg/s. The outflows are flows 2, 9 13 and the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow.’ Flow 2 is 901.5 Kg/s as calculated earlier. Flow 9 is the same as flow 8 at 683.5 Kg/s, and flow 13 is the same as flow 12 at 229.5 Kg/s. Thus the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’ is 1814.5 – 901.5 - 683.5 – 229.5 = 1814.5 – 1814.5 = 0 Kg/s. Turbine has inflows of flows 9, 13 14, and ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’ and one outflow, flow 1. The sum of flows 9, 13, and 14 is 683.5 + 229.5 + 10 = 923 Kg/s. From the mass balance of turbine also we find ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’ to be 0 Kg/s.

However the turbine must be cooled. The only explanation is the sum of flows 9 and ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’ must be kept at 683.5 Kg/s. Flow 9 is at the temperature of 717° C, the same as the temperature of the turbine exit. Thus any part of flow 13 could not be used for cooling the turbine. The Heatric heat exchanger is in four stages. The ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’ is possibly drawn after just 3 stages from flow 9 at a temperature of 717 – (717 – 43)/4 = 548.5 °C. To avoid confusion, the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’ is shown as ‘X’ and flow 9 is shown as ‘683.5 – X.’ It is observed that the Recuperator is shown to be made of 8 vertical strips and the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’ leaves the Recuperator after 6 strips while flows 9 and 13 leave after 8 strips. The flow diagram could be seen in the paper by Rodney Allam and co-authors. In that paper, flow 9 is shown to be 586 Kg/s. With the sum of flow 9 and the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’ becoming 683.5 Kg/s now, the nominal ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’ becomes 683.5 – 586 = 97.5 Kg/s. The values 586 and 97.5 are shown in parentheses in the augmented flow table. The augmented table of flows follows..

No Description Temp. C Pressure bar Mass Flow Kg/s
1 Turbine Exhaust 727 30 923
2 Cooled turbine exhaust43 29 564
Ancillary Bypass Flow 32.8 29 337.5

923 = 564 + 337.5 + 21.5 of H2O removed from the Recuperator.

3 Dry CO2 17 29 563
4 Compressed CO2 23100 900.5

923 – 22.5 H2O from burning CH4 = 900.5

5 Circulating CO2 23 100 873
6 CO2 from burnt fuel 23 100 27.5

873 + 27.5 = 900.5

7 Cold circulating CO2 16 100 873
8 Cold Circulating CO2 part 16 100 683.5
8AHot Circulating CO2 717 100683.5 – X (586)

Flow 8A leaves the Recuperator at a temperature of 717 C at a pressure of 100 bar. This low pressure flow is compressed by a specially designed reciprocating pump to a pressure of 300 bar. The quantity is decreased as the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’ leaves the entered Flow 8 after 3 stages of the heat exchanger. Flow 8A becomes flow 9 after the compressor.

9 Hot Circulating CO2 717 300 683.5 – X (586)
Turbine Cooling Flow – A 548.5 100 X (97.5)

With Flow 9 at 586 Kg/s the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow – A’ becomes 683.5 – 586 = 97.5 Kg/s. The ‘Turbine Cooling Flow - A’ varies with load. When the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow - A’ changes - Flow 9 also changes. To clarify this inter dependence between flow 9 and ‘Turbine Cooling Flow - A’ we have used the variable X. The ‘Turbine Cooling Flow – A’ is compressed after it leaves the Recuperator to 300 bar and becomes ‘Turbine Cooling Flow – B’

Turbine Cooling Flow – B 548.5 300 X (97.5)
10 CO2 for adding Oxygen 16 100 189.5
11 Oxygen 16 100 40
12 Oxygen added CO2 2 99 229.5
12A Hot Oxygen added CO2 717 99 229.5

Flow 12A gets compressed and becomes flow 13.

13 Supplemental Oxygen 717 300 229.5
14 Gaseous fuel 266 330 10

The low pressure flows - 8A, 12A, and ‘Turbine Cooling Flow A’ are compressed by specially designed reciprocating pumps to a pressure of 300 bar currently supported by the industry. The reduced pressure from 310 bar to 300 bar requires the turbine to operate possibly at a pressure of 290 bar. In case the CO2 pressure inside the turbine must be maintained at 300 bar, these special compressors could be designed for 310 bar without lubricating oil. Instead of waiting for a new compressor to be designed and manufactured, we recommend reducing the pressure in the turbine to 290 bar even if such a reduction results in reducing the amount of circulating super critical CO2.

The ‘First Fire’ of the 50 MWth Demonstration Plant at La Porte, TX was expected in 2016 itself. Then it was expected in 2017 as quoted below. nears-completion/
Potential Carbon Capture Game Changer Nears Completion
August 30, 2017
So until Net Power is up and running, it’ll be impossible to say whether it can really operate as efficiently, cheaply, and reliably as hoped. But the early major test is fast approaching, with “first fire” scheduled for late November or early December. (The area around the site has sustained flooding as a result of Hurricane Harvey, but as of Tuesday, the facility itself has drained as designed and remains undamaged.)

We are yet to read about the ‘First Fire.’ Even a search on March 22, 2018 did not locate any documents related to the ‘First Fire’ at La porte, TX. In case pressurizing the flows 8 and 12 before they enter the Heatric heat exchanger causes difficulty – we don’t know the cause – it is hoped that the changes suggested above would result in successful ‘First Fire’ soon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Username: Mohideen_ibramsha

Registered: 03-2018
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2018 - 01:02 pm:   

A suggestion to perform ‘First Fire’ at La Porte, TX
based on
an analysis of Recuperator of ALLAM Cycle

Mohideen Ibramsha
1968 Alumni of Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, TN, India
1974 intellectual son of PhD guide Prof. V.Rajaraman & Mrs. Dharma Rajaramn, CS, EE, IIT, Kanpur, UP, India
1991 First HOD of CSE, CEC [now BSAU] Chennai, TN, India
Associate Professor (Retd), Computer Science, Framingham, MA, USA
Consultant R&D, M A M College of Engineering, Trichy, TN, India
Advisor, HyDIGIT Pte Ltd, Singapore

The ALLAM Cycle is a game changer. The implementation details of the power plant are detailed by the inventor of ALLAM Cycle, Rodney Allam and his co-authors found at 216eeec7-cae9-4d7b-a3bf-5c96d0fdaa42&acdnat=1520950536_3683bd79435d14399b08b2c17 53cf056
We use the data given in the PDF for our analysis of the 300 MWe ALLAM power plant.

Heating flows to 717 C at 310 bar is beyond the PCHE
For ALLAM Cycle Heatric has delivered the heat exchanger. The heat exchanger characteristics are described in the following Youtube video.
At 1:14 of 4:04 video


The above Youtube video was uploaded on December 12, 2013. The following URL was accessed on March 17, 2018. The video to introduce Heatric happens to be the same video as the Youtube video above. Using the pencil function in the ‘Paint’ program, we find the following pixel coordinates.

No Description X Y
1 Origin 367 581
2 400 bar pressure 367 271
3 800 C temperature 989 581
4 Highest temperature and maximum pressure at that temperature 998 546

The highest temperature has X pixel value of 998. The temperature is (998 – 367)/(989 – 367) x 800 = (631/622) x 800 = 811.58 C. The corresponding pressure is (581 – 546)/(581 – 271) x 400 = (35/310) x 400 = 45.16 bar.

Flow 13 in the description leaving the Recuperator has a temperature of 717 C at a pressure of 310 bar. The pixel for 310 bar pressure is 271 + (581 – 271)/400 x (400 – 310) = 271 + 310/400 x 90 = 271 + 69.75 = 340.75 approximated to 341. On the curve, we get X – 857 corresponding to Y = 341. The maximum temperature for 310 bar pressure is (857 – 367) / (989 – 367) x 800 = (490/622) x 800 = 630.23 C. Thus given the performance as per the curve, for a pressure of 310 bar, the flow would have a maximum temperature of 630 C and not 717 C. The diagram has a straight line also. On the straight line we get X = 678 corresponding to a temperature of (678 – 367)/(989 – 367) x 800 = (311/622) x 800 = 400 C. Being conservative, we could take a temperature of 400 C at 310 bar pressure. Likewise for flow 9 also we take the temperature to be 400 C. As per the performance of the Heatric PCHE given by Heatric in their web site, we could not use the Heatric heat exchangers to increase the temperature of the flows to 717 C once the pressure is at 310 bar.

If the pumps that increase the pressure of flows 8 and 12 are instead used to increase the pressure of the flows after the heat exchanger, the Heatric heat exchanger could heat the flows to 717 C.

Flow 12 also is compressed to 310 bar before entering the Recuperator. We find that flow 12 before getting compressed to 310 bar has a pressure of 99 bar. The pixel value for 99 bar is 581 – (581 – 271)/400 x 99 = 581 - (310/400) x 99 = 581 – 76.725 = 504.275. On the curve we get a temperature corresponding to pixel value 935. The corresponding temperature is (935 – 367)/(989 – 367) x 800 = (568/622) x 800 = 730.55 C. On the straight line, for 504 we get temperature for pixel value 839, which is (839 – 367)/(989 – 367) x 800 = (472/622) x 800 = 607.07 C.

We need not be conservative as discussed above in view of Figure 12 in which shows that as of 2003 itself PCHE was used as ‘feed/ effluent exchanger for mini refinery.’ Hence we conclude that Heatric heat exchanger used in the La Porte plant delivers flows 9 and 13 at 717 C but at 100 bar instead of at 310 bar. We need to pump these flows to higher pressures.

Increase pressure of flows after PCHE with reciprocating pump
A review of compressors at comparison/
Shows that reciprocating compressors alone offer pressures of 300 bar.

The article “A review of Reciprocating Compressor Crosshead Pin Reversals” by Mr. Dwayne A Hickman is published in COMPRESSORtech in pages 32 to 38 of the April 2013 issue. In an advertisement that appears in page 33 of that issue, we find the following URL accessed on March 19, 2018.. as-compressor-api-618/
Burckhardt Compression provides a robust and reliable Process Gas Compressor of Swiss quality designed for lowest life cycle costs. The design is according to individual application requirements, customer specifications and complies with the API 618 5th edition guidelines. It is available oil-free or lubricated, horizontal or vertical. It handles easily hydrogen, hydrocarbons and corrosive gases at high pressure. Burckhardt Compression has over 160 years of experience in manufacturing reciprocating compressors and offers a worldwide one-stop service.

Discharge pressure [bara] / [psia] up to 1000 / 15000

Oil-free up to 300 bara or lubricated up to 1’000 bara
The cut out of the compressor shown has two pistons, one in compression and the other in suction, and thus it is possible that the problem of ‘non-reversal of piston’ discussed in the 2013 article does not occur with this compressor. As the compressor is oil free up to 300 bar, we suggest that the ALLAM Cycle combustor and turbine be operated at 290 bar or less pressure to use the available reciprocating compressors in the market. It is expected that reducing the pressure from 300 bar to 290 bar would not affect the operation of the turbine, leading to just a marginal reduction in electricity generation.

As of now, as a first step, we pass the oxidant [ flow 12 ] without compression through the Heatric heat exchanger getting flow 12A at 99 bar with a temperature of 717 C. We compress this flow adiabatically using an appropriately designed reciprocating compressor to flow 13 with a pressure of 300 bar for the ALLAM Cycle. We analyzed the ALLAN Cycle flows for consistency and changed some flows. The consistent flows were given in a Table in posted on March 28, 2018. We reformat that Table to have same cell sizes for all flows and give it below.

NoDescriptionTemp CPressure barMass Flow Kg/sComments
1Turbine Exhaust72730923none
2Cooled turbine exhaust4329564none
2AAncillary Bypass Flow32.829337.5C1
3Dry CO21729563none
4Compressed CO223100900.5C2
5Circulating CO223100873none
6CO2 from burnt fuel2310027.5C3
7Cold Circulating CO216100873none
8Cold Circulating CO2 part16100683.5none
8A Hot Circulating CO2717100683.5 – X (586)C4
9Hot Circulating CO2717300683.5 – X (586)none
9ATurbine Cooling Flow A548.5100X(97.5)C5
9BTurbine Cooling Flow B548.5300X(97.5)none
10CO2 for adding Oxygen16100189.5none
12Oxygen added CO2299229.5none
12AHot Oxygen added CO271799229.5C6
13Supplemental Oxygen717300229.5none
14Gaseous Fuel26633010none

C1: 923 = 564 + 337.5 + 21.5 of H2O removed from the Recuperator.
C2: 923 – 22.5 H2O from burning CH4 = 900.5
C3: 873 + 27.5 = 900.5
C4: Flow 8A leaves the Recuperator at a temperature of 717 C and a pressure of 100 bar. This low pressure flow is compressed by a specially designed reciprocating pump to a pressure of 300 bar. The quantity is described as the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow’ leaves the entered Flow 8 after 3 stages of the heat exchanger. Flow 8A becomes flow 9 after the compressor.
C5: With Flow 9 at 586 Kg/s, the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow – A’ becomes 683.5 – 586 = 97.5 Kg/s. The ‘Turbine Cooling Flow - A’ varies with load. When the ‘Turbine Cooling Flow - A’ changes, Flow 9 also changes. To clarify this inter dependence between flow 9 and ‘Turbine Cooling Flow - A’ we have used the variable X. The ‘Turbine Cooling Flow – A’ is compressed after it leaves the Recuperator to 300 bar and becomes ‘Turbine Cooling Flow – B’
C6: Flow 12A gets compressed and becomes flow 13.

The above changes could be incorporated in the design of the 300 MWe plant.

Two PCHEs in alternating mode
We investigate the possibility of replacing the first stage of the Recuperator that receives the Turbine Exhaust by two Heatric PCHEs receiving the Turbine Exhaust during alternating periods. In one period the PCHE A receives the Turbine Exhaust and Flow 9, while PCHE B has Turbine Cooling Flow alone passing through it cooling PCHE B. PCHE A heats up the Flow 9 to 717 C at 310 bar such that no deformation occurs in PCHE A.

The time required to diffusion bonding of two plates under pressure is given at This time is dependent on M, A, D, and dC/dx, where M is mass, A is area, D is diffusion coefficient, and dC/dx is the concentration gradient between the two surfaces to be bonded. The bonding time is inversely proportional to D and dC/dx. The diffusion bonding is carried out between 50% - 70% of the absolute melting temperature of the materials. For the steels used in PCHE, 316 and 316L the absolute melting temperature is given as 1375 – 1400 C in Thus a temperature of 717 C is very close to the 50% of the absolute melting temperature of the PCHE material. The pressure applied for bonding is identified now.

From slide 8 of 46 of we find that for diffusion bonding of steel, the temperature and pressure required are about 1150 C and 700 Kg/cm2. As 1 Kg/cm2 is equal to 98.0665 kilo Pascal, the pressure is 700 x 98.0665 kilo Pascal. One kilo Pascal is 0.00986923 bar. Thus the pressure for diffusion is 700 x 98.0665 x 0.00986923 bar = 700 x 0.96784084 bar = 677.49 bar.

The concentration gradient is useful when considering the diffusion bonding of the Heatric PCHE plates. Our concern is to avoid deformation of the flow pipes inside the Heatric PCHE when the flows are 30 bar and 717 C from the Turbine Exhaust and 310 bar and 717 C for flow 9. The pressure of flow 9 is less than 45% of the pressure required for bonding and thus there should be no deformation in the PCHE.

What should be dC/dx to avoid deformation of the flow pipes at 717 C and a pressure of 310 bar? Under deformation, the high pressure flow would push the low pressure flow pipe. Since the temperature is substantially less than the absolute melting temperature, we do not expect any deformation to occur.

We would have no concern if the temperature was 600 C or less in view of the following.
Heatric carried out the following trials under this test programme: 1. Room temperature tensile testing. 2. 100 hour creep and stress rupture testing, at a temperature of 600 C. 3. 1000 hour creep and stress rupture testing, at a temperature of 600 C. … TABLE V Test Duration and % TPS results for 1000 hour creep tests, at a temperature of 600 C and an applied stress of 185.0 N/mm², for welded SA240 (stock codes W1, W2, W3), diffusion-bonded SA240 (stock codes B1, B2, B3), and as received SA240 (stock coded A1, A2, A3). … Again, for each stock code that was creep tested, a further four samples from the same stock code were stress rupture tested. All of these tests were discontinued after 110% of the required test time of 1000 hours, without any failures.

The pressure applied is 185.0 N/mm2, which is 185.0 x 10 bar. As the pressure applied was 1,850 bar about 6 times the 310 bar for the flow 9, the pressure is within range. However, the temperature of flow 9 is 717 C is more than the 600 C tested causing concern.

Alloy 617 is approved for use up to 982 C as reported in the article below. usion_bonded%20compact%20heat%20exchangers.pdf
The design of high temperature heat exchangers will be influenced by the alloy’s physical properties especially thermal conductivity and thermal expansion. Temperature changes within heat exchangers under transient conditions such as start-up and shut-down can generate thermal stresses which may eventually initiate and propagate fatigue cracks. These thermal stresses are generally proportional to the alloy’s thermal expansion coefficients. A suitable heat exchanger material should have a high thermal conductivity and low rate of thermal expansion.

From Table 1, we find that alloy 617 has thermal conductivity of 28.7 W/mK, and coefficient of expansion of 16.3 μm/m C. From Figure 1, we find that the maximum allowable stress decreases from about 145 MPa at about 625 C to about 5 MPa at about 980 C

How does stainless steel compare with alloy 617? From nFire/Steel/StainlessSteel/thermalProperties.htm we find that stainless steel has about 23 W/mK at 700 C and thermal elongation of about 12.5 x 10-3 at 700 C, giving a coefficient of expansion of 17.86 μm/m C. We conclude that stainless steel is comparable to alloy 617.

We cannot use a PCHE made of alloy 617 in ALLAM Cycle, as well as in CAM ALLAM Cycle, because of the following reasons.
Application of the technical nickel-based alloy Inconel 617 as a material for gas tubes in the primary circuit of the high temperature gas-cooled reactor is limited essentially by the chemical reactions of the alloying elements with the impurities (CO, CO2, H2, CH4 and H2O) in the helium coolant. Depending on the temperature and gas composition, carburization or decarburization as well as oxidation occur. … The results demonstrate that the occurrence of the various reactions is determined essentially by temperature. For a standardized helium gas (HHT-He), three temperature regions can be distinguished between. Below a critical temperature (about 1105 K) the presence of CO can cause simultaneous oxidation and carburization. Above about 1105 K, this reaction does not reverse itself. Rather, oxidation by CO2 and H2O takes place which shows, after a transient state, the same kinetics as those observed in undiluted oxygen-containing gases. At temperatures above about 1205 K, decarburization of the alloy accompanied by the production of CO takes place, leading to severe destruction of the carbide microstructure and therefore limiting the applicability of the material.

The temperature of Turbine Exhaust is 717 C or 990 K which is 115 C less than the critical temperature. ALLAM Cycle uses CH4 as fuel. In case the supplied oxygen enriched CO2 is less than required, the partial burning of CH4 might produce CO. We do not know the effect of simultaneous oxidation and carburization of the 617 alloy by the CO on the strength of alloy 617. Thus, it would be prudent to avoid PCHE made using alloy 617 in ALLAM Cycle.

The start-up and shut-down cycles cause fatigue. We could use two PCHE made of stainless steel and use them alternately. We pass the Turbine Exhaust at 30 bar and 717 C and flow 9 getting heated up to 717 C at 310 bar during one duration to be fixed. During this duration, we pass the Turbine Cooling Flow in the other PCHE cooling the PCHE to about 548.5 C. In the next period, the Turbine Exhaust and flow 9 pass through the cooled PCHE while the Turbine Cooling Flow cools the PCHE that has heated to 717 C. Thus the PCHEs alternate between 548.5 C and 717 C. This change in temperature is not as severe as 25 C and 717 C due to start-up and shut-down cycles. Keeping the duration as high as possible reduces the fatigue but increases the possibility of deforming the channels through which flow 9 passes.

A Google search on – stainless steel diffusion bonding time hours – was made. One of the results was . This result was a lucky break. The term ‘hours’ occurred in the document not because the bonding time was in hours, but that there was a break in the experimental set up of 4 hours. The bonding was performed uniformly for 30 minutes in all the experiments. The bonding between two surfaces of silver coated SS 316 was attempted. The silver was sputter coated. It did not form bond with the stainless steel. After the experiment conducted at 200 C, 300 C, and 400 C diffusion bond between the silver surfaces did not form at 200 C, but were made at 300 C and 400 C. The applied pressure was 1,379 bar. The melting temperature of silver is 1,233 K. The applied temperatures were 38%, 46%, and 55% of the melting temperature of silver.

We are interested in finding out whether passing flow 9 at a pressure of 310 bar at a temperature of 717 C is acceptable. The melting temperature of SS 316 is 1400 C. Thus 717 C is 51% of the melting temperature of SS 316. From we find that the ‘Proof Stress’ of SS 316 is a minimum of 2,000 bar. Thus 310 bar being just 15.5% of the ‘Proof Stress’ we do not expect any deformation of the PCHE due to the flow 9. We plan to subject the PCHE to temperatures between 548.5 C and 717 C and not 25 C and 717 C corresponding to a cold start. Treating the swing from 548.5 C as a hot start, we believe no fatigue would be caused.

For guidance, we consider the start-up and shut-down issues in fossil-fuel base-load power plants.
Few conventional steam plants were designed to follow load, cycle from minimum to full load every day, or shut down and start up daily, as so many plants are called upon to do these days. … The following discussion applies equally to solid fuel–fired steam plants and natural gas–fired combined cycle plants. … The fatigue damage added to an older baseload power plant causes creep fatigue interaction damage, rapid increase in boiler tube failures, and many other component failures, including turbine generator and balance-of-plant early creep fatigue failures. … In our experience, about 60% to 80% of all power plant failures are related to cycling operations.
One approach to reducing cycling damage is to modify the unit’s low-load limit to prevent cycling damage. By reducing the low-load limit on a 750-MW supercritical gas-fired unit from 150 MW to 28 MW at night, it was possible to make the daily cycling load profitable,

[From the figure regarding the different types of starts for a steam turbine, we find:
1. Hot Start – 5 hours or less off line
2. Warm start – 5 hours to 40 hours off line and
3. Cold start – 40 hours or more off line]
Based on our experience with combined cycle plants, we have found that the largest line item on a plant’s operating and maintenance budget is costs related to cycling. … One reason cycling costs are proportionally higher in combined cycles is that turbine inspection and repair intervals are transitioned to being principally based on numbers of starts rather than operating hours. Therefore, the cost to maintain combined cycle availability is high on a per-unit-of-electricity-produced basis. The cost of replacement parts found damaged during overhauls, or “parts fallout” due to cycling, is often a factor of two or more over the plant life compared with baseload operation.
Cycling at the lowest possible ramp rate that satisfies system needs or economics will often reduce the damage rates. … Keep offline time short and the equipment hot to reduce cold starts, especially with the boiler/heat recovery steam generator.

For the base-load power plant designed to run 24/7 we are advised to keep the off line time less than 5 hours so that the restart is a ‘hot start’ causing reduced damage. Thus, we believe keeping 2 Heatric PCHEs and alternating the flows through them would not cause fatigue failures. Such an arrangement avoids using pumps not planned by the team led by Rodney Allam.

Based on the PCHE performance curve of December 12, 2013 we found that safe operation of the PCHE at 310 bar is permitted at a temperature of 630 C and not 717 C. The same performance curve gives the maximum temperature even at atmospheric pressure to be slightly more than 800 C.

In a design article, changers.pdf published during 2008, we find:
Fig. 13 shows ASME VIII allowable stresses for 316 stainless steel. Although the allowable stresses are listed up to a maximum temperature of 550 C, the use of 316 is permitted up to 600 C. Allowable stresses are not quoted by ASME VIII for the range 550 – 600 C, but an in-house programme is in progress at Heatric for design in this temperature range.

It is possible that the performance curve of December 12, 2013 was based on the standards approved possibly in 2012. As on August 2013, we find: et_-_all_datasheets_rev_Aug_2013.pdf
Page 14 of 57
Heat Resistance Good oxidation resistance in intermittent service to 870 C and in continuous service to 925 C. Continuous use of 316 in the 425-860 C range is not recommended if subsequent aqueous corrosion resistance is important.

In the case of ALLAM Cycle, moisture is present in the turbine exhaust only at a pressure of 30 bar and temperature of 717 C. There is no moisture in flow 9 and thus there is no need to worry about subsequent aqueous corrosion. We infer that 316 could be used up to 870 C under intermittent operation. Thus oscillating between 548.5 C and 717 C should cause no difficulty.

In case the performance curve is revised to permit 925 C instead of 811.58 C as given in the 2013 performance curve, the permissible temperature at 310 bar becomes (925/811.58) x 630 = 718 C. Thus, the design by Rodney Allam giving flow 9 to be at 310 bar and 717 C is correct.

We still recommend intermittent operation of two PCHEs in case the perfect performance expected by Rodney Allam does not materialize.

We find the following increasing our anxiety regarding the ‘First Fire’ at La Porte, TX. igW-20170503.pdf
May 3, 2017
Only the turbine and combustor are novel, but the turbine relies on proven technologies from both the gas and steam turbine industries. The combustor, though, did require R&D by 8 Rivers and Toshiba, and it has since been proven at the 5MW scale.

The combustor was tested successfully during July, 2013.
1 Aug, 2013
TOKYO—Toshiba Corporation (TOKYO: 6502) today announced the successful testing of a first-of-its-kind combustor to be used in a breakthrough thermal power generation system that produces low-cost electricity and little-to-no air emissions.

Step-by-step testing of the new combustor was initiated at a facility in California in January 2013, to confirm and demonstrate its operation within the new generation system's required environment: never before demonstrated high operating pressure and temperature, plus a unique combustion mixture of oxygen, natural gas and a high concentration of CO2. In July, the test program broke new scientific ground by confirming stable operation at the system's target pressure of 300 atmospheres, fully confirming Toshiba's design.
The above press release from Toshiba does not mention the power of the combustor. It is inferred from the following quote.

The web page given by has a PDF download link. The download gives the following PDF. We quote from the PDF. 22d64123-3c51-487c-9078-6aee8bd5b82d&acdnat=1523635532_ded0c6d324b1f7f78065f491d 079a3b5
Page 9 of 15
Recent developments in combustors for heavy duty gas turbine have been focused on decreasing NOx emissions. This effort has led to pre-mixed combustion, in which fuel is mixed with air before combustion to enable lower temperature combustion. The disadvantage of pre-mixed combustion, however, is that it causes system vibrations, called dynamics, due to flame instability. In this regard, the present NET Power system is advantageous for combustion because it eliminates NOx while enabling adoption of simpler and more stable diffusion combustion. The system is also able to use proven cooling technology, such as back side convection cooling, due to the moderate temperature of combustion and the high cooling capability and high availability of carbon dioxide. Toshiba is planning to conduct a high pressure rig test of a NET Power combustor, scaled down by 1:5, at the end of 2012. That test system, …, will reveal combustion characteristics during simulations of ignition, load-up and operation in order to confirm combustion stability performance, combustion dynamics, temperature distribution, blow-out and other features.

From August 1, 2013 press release of Toshiba, we understand that the 5 MW combustor is successfully tested. As the La Porte, TX plant is for 25 MW, we need 5 combustors for the single turbine. From the following quote claiming that the La Porte plant is fully built, we know that Toshiba has delivered the combustor, possibly one for 25 MW.
January 16, 2018
The 50-megawatt demonstration from NET Power LLC in La Porte, now fully built after breaking ground two years ago, is the world's largest attempt to use carbon dioxide rather than steam to drive a turbine. … But first, the company has to get through initial testing in the next few months, including firing the demo plant's combustor, powering the turbine and connecting to the Texas grid. … The two biggest areas of concern are whether the combustor and turbine in La Porte will operate as specified and whether the heat exchanger that cools flue gas performs well, he said. Even though similar machinery has been tested elsewhere, it has never been tested exactly in this way, said Herzog. … The combustor being tested in La Porte will be the same one used at scale — there will just be more of them.

When building a commercial scale 300 MWe plant, if Toshiba plans to use combustors of 25 MW, they need to use more than one combustor in parallel for every turbine. It is our estimate that it would be safe to use one combustor per turbine to avoid problems of matching the pressure of the flame between all compressors connected to a turbine. Toshiba having tested a 5 MW combustor in 2013 has built and delivered a 25 MW combustor before 2018. Thus, if Net Power and Toshiba still insist on abandoning the 25 MWe market and concentrating on the 300 MWe market, Toshiba could build larger combustor so that each turbine is fueled by a single combustor only.

Bright future:
The following quotes indicate that the ALLAM Cycle has a bright future indeed. -funding
Feb 17, 2018
The carbon capture effort comes alongside other research at the EERC intended to make coal and natural gas-fired power plants more efficient using a technological approach known as the Allam Cycle, a method that has carbon capture benefits. Earlier this year, that line of research at UND was awarded a separate $700,000 grant from the DOE.
This story is part of our March/April 2018 Issue
The world is probably stuck with natural gas as one of our primary sources of electricity for the foreseeable future. Cheap and readily available, it now accounts for more than 30 percent of US electricity and 22 percent of world electricity. And although it’s cleaner than coal, it’s still a massive source of carbon emissions. … The company is in the process of commissioning the plant and has begun initial testing. It intends to release results from early evaluations in the months ahead.
=== fight-climate-change-is-becoming-a-reality.html
MARCH 06, 2018
Enter Net Power, a startup with a new carbon-capturing natural gas-fired electricity generation technology. Net Power’s novel “Allam cycle” technology fundamentally redesigns how fossil-fuel electricity generators have traditionally worked in order to avoid the separation challenge and produce an easily separable exhaust of pure carbon dioxide and water. The result should be a power plant that can generate electricity as efficiently as the leading existing gas-fired electricity generators, all while capturing 100 percent of its emissions at zero additional cost. Net Power is currently commissioning its pilot plant near Houston. If it performs as advertised, this technology could smash the idea we need to pay more for clean energy.

Net Power, like all large-scale and complex technologies, will have additional costs for initial projects, but they will go down as the developers learn from each successive project. The tax credits will provide the extra support needed to enable the first full-scale commercial plant to be built and to accelerate subsequent deployment.

All the above quotes indicate that the future for ALLAM Cycle and CAM ALLAM Cycle is bright. It all depends on the successful ‘First Fire’ of the demonstration plant at La Porte, TX. Will it happen?

Credibility on the line:
From our analysis we find that the Heatric PCHE has no flaw. We perceived a flaw because of the old PCHE performance reported in the Heatric web. In our anxiety to learn about the successful ‘First Fire’ we look for reasons of delay. In the absence of possible technical shortcoming, we consider financial aspects now.
January 16, 2018
Overoptimistic or not, Brown said his goal is to have a contract signed by the end of the year to build the full-scale plant, so operations can begin by 2021. … The company has narrowed down sites for that to eight or so around the world, including two in Texas, one in North Dakota, and several in the Middle East and the United Kingdom, said Brown. … NET Power's experiment is being watched closely. … the demonstration received about £7 million pounds from the U.K. government. … The La Porte project is also backed by about $140 million of industry money, including $90 million from energy giant Exelon Corp. and $50 million from engineering firm Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (CB&I).

The La Porte, TX demonstration is for a 50 MWth plant. Already it has raised ₤7 million [ equals 7,000,000 x 1.42 USD on April 11, 2018 = $9.94 million ]. Another $140 million is also included. If ‘First Fire’ succeeds now, we could say, $149.94 million is the cost of a 50 MWth plant using the ALLAM Cycle. Let us say $150 million is the cost of a 25 MWe plant using the ALLAM Cycle. This works out to a rate of $6,000 per KW. We extract the following from .
NoTechnologySize MWYearCost $/KW
1Coal with 90% CCS65020215628
2Advanced combined cycle with CCS34020202175
3Fuel Cell1020207132
4Advanced Nuclear223420225946
5Distributed Generation Base220201553

The demonstration plant with 25 MW capacity costs $6,000 /KW and happens to be the costliest. For comparison, we take the biomass technology that has a capacity of 50 MW and costs just $3,832 /KW. What about the full scale 300 MW ALLAM Cycle plant?
An initial commercial-scale plant could cost $500 million and have higher capital costs than a traditional natural gas plant …
The expected commercial ALLAM Cycle plant would have 300 MWe capacity and would cost $500 million / 300,000 KW = $ 1,667 /KW. The commercial plant compares favorably with ‘Advanced combined cycle with CCS’ at $2,175 /KW and ‘Biomass’ at $3,832/KW. But the commercial plant requires long distance transmission lines which are to be avoided in future. Avoiding the transmission line, the ALLAM Cycle plant with 25 MWe capacity is costlier than biomass unless subsequent installations of the 25 MWe plant could be done at a substantial lower cost. The ALLAM Cycle demonstration plant uses just 5 acres for the plant. For comparison, we consider a biomass plant built by Toshiba in Japan. lant-in-japan
The plant will be fueled with palm kernel shells (PKS), the highly fibrous shell fractions left after extracting oil in palm oil mills. SPAC will import 0.2 million tons of PKS, mainly from Indonesia via Miike port in Omuta. It will be stored in a newly-built roofed yard with the area of about three soccer fields and a storage capacity of 30,000 tons.

Let us find the area of a soccer field.
High school, college and NFL football fields are the same size. A standard football field is 120 yards long. The playing field is 100 yards (300 feet) long, and each end zone is 10 yards (30 feet) deep. The field has a uniform width of 53 1/3 yards (160 feet).

If you calculate the entire area of a football field, including the end zones, it works out to 57,600 square feet (360 x 160). One acre equals 43,560 square feet, so a football field is about 1.32 acres in size.

From the value of 1.32 acres for a soccer field, we find the area of storage in the Toshiba built biomass power plant is 3.96 acres. We would be right if we assumed that the area for a comparable biomass power plant to the demonstration plant at La Porte, TX would be more than 5 acres.

Even though we might pay for more in area, the biomass power plant has no worry about carbon capture and storage and it is definitely superior in environmental benefit. Unless the ‘First Fire’ of the ALLAM Cycle demonstration plant in La Porte, TX is completed successfully soon, world might lose interest in the ALLAM Cycle itself.

Is Net Power waiting for the US Administration to start supporting the construction of commercial ALLAM Cycle power plants? Is it postponing the ‘First Fire’ at La Porte, TX until it hears positively from the current administration? We would like to remind ourselves that in 2016 the general assumption was Hillary would be President and thus Climate Action would have received a strong support from the Federal Administration.
If all goes well, developers are planning to build an additional 300-MW plant that is emissions-free, without polluting smokestacks. … "I am confident that we have created something that will allow the world to meet every climate target without having to pay more for electricity," said CEO Bill Brown in an interview. … Overoptimistic or not, Brown said his goal is to have a contract signed by the end of the year to build the full-scale plant, so operations can begin by 2021. … The company has narrowed down sites for that to eight or so around the world, including two in Texas, one in North Dakota, and several in the Middle East and the United Kingdom, said Brown. … NET Power's experiment is being watched closely. … NET Power has been cited as an example of industry making innovations on its own, considering it did not receive a dime of U.S. government money. Still, Brown said government support could be pivotal in whether a larger plant gets built. … "It would make it a great deal easier," he said

We hope Net Power raises private capital and continue rather than hoping the present administration, which has already started campaigning for the 2020 election, would hurt its fossil fuel lobby and help Net Power. Why? If Net Power succeeds in generating electricity at comparable cost to the best existing fossil fuel plant with 100% CCS, all the current leaders of conventional and costly CCS would lose. Moving forward, after supporting Net Power this administration might not raise enough funds for the 2020 election.

The companies that would benefit from the success of Net Power include Heatric of UK and Toshiba of Japan. The current administration is very sensitive to the trade imbalance as of now. If virtually all the future natural gas plants all over the world would be built following the ALLAM Cycle, most of equipment profits would accrue to UK and Japan. Such a future does not make ‘America Great Again.’ In view of this aspect also, we do not expect this administration to ever give a grant to Net Power.

We repeat, it would be wise for Net Power to successfully complete the ‘First Fire’ at La Porte, TX soon and move ahead with private capital or grant from countries concerned about climate change.

Conclusion: With respect to the Recuperator, if our suggestion to operate two PCHEs in alteration is not feasible, the fourth stage PCHE could be replaced with the time tested shell and pipe heat exchanger. We wish the use of shell and pipe heat exchanger could be avoided.

We understand that as of now none of our suggestions could be implemented at La Porte, TX. To move the pumps that pressurize flows 8 and 12 to pressurize the flows 9 and 13 after the Recuperator would cause major rework in piping. To replace the high temperature PCHE with shell and pipe heat exchanger also would need major reconstruction. So also adding a second Heatric PCHE to operate two PCHEs in alternating mode would cause major rework. Thus none of our suggestions are implementable without causing delay in ‘First Fire.’

To move ahead with the ‘First Fire’, we suggest the engineers of Net Power calculate the transient time within which the high temperature PCHE would remain stable and conduct the ‘First Fire’ for a shorter duration within the safe operating time. Even if the demonstration plant could work for 1 hour successfully, the ‘First Fire’ is a success. The subsequent 25 MWe ALLAM Cycle plants could be designed for 24/7 operation taking advantage of our suggestions.

We hope that Net Power would concentrate on 25 MWe ALLAM Cycle plants and install them in thousands all over the world starting 2018 itself, rather than waiting for 2021 to successfully demonstrate the 300 MWe plant which in any case would be of no use once the transmission lines fail in the next hurricane.

As of now the first-of-a-kind 25 MWe plant at La Porte, TX costs $6,000 / KW. We believe that more implementations of the 25 MWe plants would approach the projected commercial plant cost of $1,670 /KW making the ALLAM Cycle more attractive than even the biomass plant. We conclude by quoting Walker Dimming, Principal of Net Power. igW-20170503.pdf
A first-of-its-kind commercial-scale facility will need to operate commercially in the market in order to be developed, and yet it will be a significantly more expensive project than the second facility of its kind will be. First commercial-scale projects suffer from a number of challenges that are unique to being a first-of-a-kind. Because they are not yet mature technologies with full customer order-books, they will not receive the benefit of a supply chain that has maximized its efficiencies and become fully competitive. Every piece of equipment in the plant is likely to be more expensive than in an “Nth-of-akind” facility; the design of the plant will not yet have been fully optimized; there will be large engineering costs unique to a first-of-a-kind design; and contingencies are typically added across the development process for the increased risk of the project.

We searched on April 16, 2018 to check whether the ‘First Fire’ has happened at La Porte, TX. We found the following indicating that it is yet to happen. t-carbon-removal
02 April 2018
A new power system called the Allam Cycle is also something to watch. The technology makes carbon capture part of the core electricity-generation process. NET Power is using the technology in the first-ever zero-emissions natural gas demonstration plant in La Porte, Texas, which is expected to begin supplying power to the grid in 2018. If it works, the Allam Cycle facility will capture all the carbon dioxide it produces, and is projected to be cost-competitive with conventional natural gas power systems once the technology matures. This demonstration plant could therefore have a transformative effect on the power system, and incentivize investments in critical infrastructure like geological storage, which will ultimately help bring down the cost of carbon removal.
We would appreciate hearing about the ‘First Fire’ of the ALLAM Cycle plant at La Porte, TX.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Username: Mohideen_ibramsha

Registered: 03-2018
Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 - 02:38 pm:   

CAM ALLAM Hydrogen Generator

Edward Chesky
Major (Retd) US Army, USA

Mohideen Ibramsha
1968 Alumni of Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, TN, India
1974 intellectual son of PhD guide Prof. V.Rajaraman & Mrs. Dharma Rajaramn, CS, EE, IIT, Kanpur, UP, India
1991 First HOD of CSE, CEC [now BSAU] Chennai, TN, India
Associate Professor (Retd), Computer Science, Framingham, MA, USA
Consultant R&D, M A M College of Engineering, Trichy, TN, India
Advisor, HyDIGIT Pte Ltd, Singapore

Introduction: ALLAM Cycle uses CH4 as fuel. The supercritical CO2 is the turbine fluid in ALLAM Cycle and thus the CO2 produced by burning CH4 in pure Oxygen is captured without any penalty incurred by other power plants. In order to make the cost of electricity produced to be cheaper than the cost from other fossil fuel plants, the ALLAM Cycle uses a Recuperator made of four Printed Circuit Heat Exchangers (PCHE) manufactured by Heatric of UK.

The demonstration plant built at La Porte, TX, USA is the first plant using supercritical CO2 as the working fluid. The whole world is awaiting the ‘First Fire’ of this plant to exploit the benefits of supercritical CO2 as working fluid. A search on – La Porte TX ALLAM first fire – was done at 11:30 am EDT, April 26, 2018. It located, among other links, the following PDF of ‘Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum’ dated October 2016. In page 12 of 17 of PowerProject-PIRT-Tokyo1016.PDF it is predicted that the ‘First Fire’ would be during Q2 2017. The search produced 10 URLs. None of them reported that the ‘First Fire’ has occurred.

The ‘Allam Cycle Pressure-Enthalpy Diagram’ given in page 6 of the above PDF was exported to the Paint program for analysis. The turbine exhaust at 30 bar is cooled in the heat exchanger. The pixel coordinates of the arrow for this cooling are: (713,416) for tail, and (380, 416) for head. The working fluid is heated at 310 bar in the heat exchanger. The pixel coordinates of the corresponding arrow are: (369, 268) for tail, and (705, 268) for the head. The heat extracted from the working fluid corresponds to 713 – 380 = 333 pixels. The heat supplied to the working fluid is 705 – 369 = 336 pixels. In other words the heat exchanger is expected to work at 100% efficiency.

We analyzed the Recuperator at and found that the design expects the Recuperator to work at the absolute extremes of the material characteristics. Instead of expecting the PCHE to work at extreme limits, we suggest using the heat energy of the turbine exhaust in the high temperature reforming of CH4 to produce Hydrogen.

We add a second combustor and heat exchanger to reheat the working fluid. The high temperature reformation of CH4 produces CO and Hydrogen. To get CO2, we use a water shift reactor to convert the CO to CO2 and produce additional Hydrogen. We describe the ‘CAM ALLAM Enhanced Hydrogen Generator’ in the following sections.

We use the CAM ALLAM Cycle in our design expecting that all ALLAM Cycle plants using CH4 as fuel would be converted to CAM ALLAM Cycle plants using Hydrogen as fuel as soon as the Hydrogen economy is realized. The CAM ALLAM Cycle is described at

Onsite H2 generation: The Hydrogen is currently generated by reforming CH4. Many process industries have their own CH4 reformers so that there is no need to transport Hydrogen from its place of generation to use. We would like to adopt the same strategy of reforming CH4 onsite until we wean away from fossil CH4 for the CAM ALLAM Power plants as well.

Steam Reforming: At high temperature, Hydrogen is produced using the following reaction.
CH4 + H2O ‘gives’ CO + 3H2
Sixteen Kg of CH4 and eighteen Kg of steam produce twenty eight Kg of CO and six Kg of Hydrogen. The CO is oxidized in the water shift reactor using more steam.

Water shift reaction: The water shift reaction follows
CO + H2O ‘gives’ CO2 + H2. Twenty eight Kg of CO and eighteen Kg of steam produce forty four Kg of CO2 and two Kg of Hydrogen.

Pressure Swing Absorption: The final product of forty four Kg of CO2 and eight Kg of Hydrogen is separated using pressure swing absorption that absorbs CO2 leaving Hydrogen as output. The PSA [ Pressure Swing Absorption ] is used to purify a mixed gas of CO2 and H2 with 5.5 Kg of CO2 for every Kg of Hydrogen.

Hydrogen from ALLAM Cycle: Rodney Allam and his co-authors report the fuel consumption for a 500 MWth plant in a paper, the PDF of which is available at 165c0098-719d-487e-9350-4164982585ca&acdnat=1521498004_ab5cafa01614643fb6a654253 69f85d4 . The plant uses 10 Kg/s of CH4. The demonstration plant of 50 MWth would use just 1 Kg/s of CH4. Burning 1 Kg/s of CH4 produces 36/16 = 2.25 Kg/s of steam. The turbine exhaust of 92.3 Kg/s then has 2.25 Kg/s of steam and 90.05 Kg/s of CO2.

The steam is cooled to water and is discarded by the ALLAM Cycle. Instead of discarding the water we could reheat the water to steam in the Recuperator and use it to reform CH4 to produce Hydrogen. Such a redesign of the ALLAM Cycle with added Hydrogen generation would work with the existing PSA systems.

Because the ‘First Fire’ of the demonstration plant at La Porte, TX has not occurred so far, we consider using the hot turbine exhaust itself for producing Hydrogen assuming that the Recuperator is at fault. In what follows, we consider the CAM ALLAM Cycle.

Hydrogen from CAM ALLAM: In the CAM ALLAM Cycle we burn less Hydrogen in the main Combustor to match the steam produced. As 1 Kg/s of CH4 produces 2.25 Kg/s of steam, the turbine exhaust of 92.3 Kg/s has 2.25 Kg/s of steam and 90.05 Kg/s of CO2.

The LHV of CH4 is 50 MJ/Kg while that of H2 is 120 MJ/Kg. To match the heat produced by 1 Kg/s of CH4 we need 50/120 = 0.4167 Kg/s of H2. As 1 Kg of H2 produces 9 Kg of steam, 50/120 Kg/s of H2 produces 450/120 = 3.75 Kg/s of steam. To supply the same amount of steam to the turbine, we burn 2.25/3.75 x 50/120 Kg/s of H2 in the main Combustor. We burn 0.25 Kg/s of H2 in the main Combustor. We burn the remaining 0.167 Kg/s of H2 in an auxiliary Combustor mixing the appropriate amount of CO2 to match the main Combustor. This CO2 and steam is not sent to the turbine. Instead a part of the 90.05 Kg/s of CO2 is heated through appropriate heat exchanger and supplied to the turbine. We mix CO2 to burn the H2 in the auxiliary Combustor so that the exhaust of the auxiliary Combustor could be added to the exhaust of the turbine for reforming CH4. We defer the calculation except to maintain the same ratio of H2 and CO2 in the auxiliary Combustor as in the main Combustor.

The main Combustor burns 0.25 Kg/s of H2 along with 90.05 Kg/s of CO2. To burn 0.167 Kg/s of H2 we need (50/120 – 0.25)/0.25 x 90.05 Kg/s of CO2. That is we need 60.03 Kg/s of CO2 in the auxiliary Combustor. In total we burn 0.4167 Kg/s of H2 in both the Combustors. The total steam produced is 3.75 Kg/s. The total CO2 is 90.05 + 60.03 = 150.08 Kg/s.

The 3.75 Kg/s of steam is used to reform CH4 following the reaction ‘CH4 + H2O giving CO + 3 H2’. Thus we reform 16 Kg of CH4 using 18 Kg of steam to produce 28 Kg of CO and 6 Kg of Hydrogen. We produce 3.75/18 x 28 Kg/s of CO and 3.75/18 x 6 Kg/s of H2 by adding 3.75/18 x 16 Kg/s of CH4 to the 150.08 Kg/s of CO2. The output of the steam reformer has 150.08 Kg/s of CO2, 5.83 Kg/s of CO and 1.25 Kg/s of H2.

The water shift reaction follows ‘CO + H2O giving CO2 + H2’ . We add 18 Kg of steam for 28 Kg of CO and get 44 Kg of CO2 and 2 Kg of H2. For 3.75/18 x 28 Kg/s of CO we add (3.75/18 x 28)/28 x 18 = 3.75 Kg/s of steam. The Hydrogen produced by the water shift reaction is 2/28 x (3.75/18 x 28) = 7.5/18 = 2.5/6 = 0.4167 Kg/s. The CO2 produced is 44/28 x (3.75/18 x 28) = 44 x 3.75 /18 = 22 x 3.75 / 9 = 22 x 1.25 / 3 = 27.5/3 = 9.167 Kg/s. The output of the water shift reactor has 150.08 + 9.167 = 159.247 Kg/s of CO2 and 1.25 + 0.4167 = 1.6667 Kg/s of H2. The CO2:H2 ratio is 159.247: 1.6667. That is for every Kg/s of H2 we have 95.55 Kg/s of CO2.

The existing PSA systems separate Hydrogen from a mix of 5.5 Kg of CO2 for every Kg of H2. To separate 1 Kg of H2 from 95.55 Kg of CO2 we could pass the output of the water shift reactor through a series of 95.55/5.5 = 17.37 or 18 PSA systems. Even though it is technically feasible, we do not expect this approach to be economically feasible.

Recent developments filtering H2 through porous ceramics offer scope. In particular getting H2 at 0.999 purity from a mixed 20% H2 and 80% CO2 quoted below is very attractive.
16 November 2016
Separation of Hydrogen from Carbon Dioxide through Porous Ceramics

The Al2O3 and YSZ samples were formed into disk shapes 20 mm in diameter and 3 mm in
thickness. The diameter and thickness of the SiC disk sample were 10 and 3 mm, respectively. …
…The fraction of H2 gas through the Al2O3 and YSZ compacts became higher than the mixing ratio of the supplied gas and increased with decreasing pressure gradient, reaching 0.966 at 6.16 MPa/m in Al2O3 and 0.844 at 3.13 MPa/m in YSZ. … the dependence of the H2 fraction on the pressure gradient was also observed for the mixed gases with different inlet gas compositions of 20 vol % H2–80 vol % CO2 and 80 vol % H2–20 vol % CO2. When 80% H2–20% CO2 mixed gas was permeated, the H2 fraction
was 0.976 at 7.61 MPa/m in Al2O3, 0.936 at 3.13 MPa/m in YSZ, and 0.987 at 3.06 MPa/m in SiC, respectively. In the case of 20% H2–80% CO2 mixed gas, the H2 fraction was 0.972 at 6.88 MPa/m in Al2O3, 0.504 at 8.04 MPa/m in YSZ and 0.999 at 3.40 MPa/m in SiC, respectively.
The pressure differential between the input and output of the SIC filter is 3.40 MPa/m. The filter is just 3 mm thick. Thus the actual pressure difference is 3.4 x 3/1000 Mpa = 10.2/1000 Mpa = 0.0102 Mpa = 0.0102 x 10 bar = 0.102 bar. Until the field develops to have reasonable pressure difference between the input and output, these filters could not be used for industrial applications.

We are left with just one option: cool the hot turbine exhaust and Combustor output to collect the steam as water and reheat the collected water to steam in the Recuperator. This CO2 free steam is used for SMR and we use existing industrial equipment to separate the Hydrogen from the CO2. As of now the CO2 is let off.

We consider the optimization of the Steam Methane Reforming process to identify the additional inputs to be given, if any.

Optimization of SMR: Researcher Sinaei Nobandegani and five coauthors have reported on “An Industrial Steam Methane Reformer optimization using response surface methodology” published in the Journal of Natural Gas Science And Engineering 36 (2016) pp 540 – 549 the free PDF of which could be downloaded from eformer_optimization_using_response_surface_methodology
We use the data given in the above PDF in generating the following table.

NoVariableGreater thanLess than or equal
1Tube Wall Temperature 800 K 1100 K
2Input Feed temperature 650 K 815 K
3Input Feed Pressure 23 bar 27 bar
4Steam / Methane in input 3.15 7.00
5Hydrogen / Methane in input 0.15 0.50
6Feed Flow Rate 2800 kmol/hour 9000 kmol/hour

They used the above six parameters as variables to simultaneously optimize the following two objective functions.
1. Minimize CH4
2. Maximize H2
They found the following optimum values for the variables.
NoVariableOptimal valueConstraint limited?
1Tube Wall Temperature 1100 K Upper limited
2Input Feed Temperature 625.12 K No. Less than lower
3Input Feed Pressure 26.32 bar No
4Steam / Methane in input 4.03 No
5Hydrogen / Methane in input 0.15 Lower limited
6Feed Flow rate 2800.07 kmol/hour Lower limited

The Steam Methane Reforming equation is
CH4 + 2 H2O ‘gives’ CO2 + 4H2. In terms of mole fractions, one mole of Methane with two moles of steam produces Hydrogen. The optimization has indicated that we need to supply four moles of steam for one mole of Methane to get just 0.0095 mole of untreated Methane. The input feed pressure of 26.32 bar could be easily supported by the Heatric PCHE.

We use a PSA [Pressure Swing Adsorption] to collect Hydrogen at 99.999% purity with 0.001% contaminant as water as described at

The excess two moles of steam supplied for every mole of CH4 is recovered as water and reused for further reforming. This excess two moles of water is supplied just once and thus all steam produced by the CAM ALLAM Power Plant is used in producing Hydrogen.

Conclusion: Steam from 50 MWth CAM ALLAM Power Plant was calculated as 3.75 Kg/s earlier. From this 3.75 Kg/s of steam we produce 3.75 x 8/36 Kg/s of Hydrogen as 36 Kg of steam produces 8 Kg of Hydrogen by CH4 + 2 H2O ‘gives’ CO2 + 4H2. Thus the steam from the 50 MWth CAM ALLAM Power Plant produces 0.83 Kg/s of H2. To produce 3.75 Kg/s of steam we burn 3.75/9 = 0.4167 Kg/s of H2. Thus a 50 MWth CAM ALLAM Power Plant produces an additional 0.4167 Kg/s of H2 for every 0.4167 Kg/s of H2 consumed. We conclude that every CAM ALLAM Power Plant produces in excess the same amount of Hydrogen consumed when the required CH4 is reformed.

If we use fossil CH4, the resulting CO2 is a green house gas. However we could use CH4 from biomass ensuring that the production of Hydrogen is Carbon neutral.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Username: Mohideen_ibramsha

Registered: 03-2018
Posted on Monday, May 21, 2018 - 03:19 pm:   

Independent Generation of Hydrogen using Hydrogen as fuel

Mohideen Ibramsha
1968 Alumni of Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, TN, India
1974 intellectual son of PhD guide Prof. V.Rajaraman & Mrs. Dharma Rajaramn, CS, EE, IIT, Kanpur, UP, India
1991 First HOD of CSE, CEC [now BSAU] Chennai, TN, India
Associate Professor (Retd), Computer Science, Framingham, MA, USA
Consultant R&D, M A M College of Engineering, Trichy, TN, India
Advisor, HyDIGIT Pte Ltd, Singapore

Introduction: In we found that every CAM ALLAM Power Plant produces in excess the same amount of Hydrogen consumed when the required CH4 is reformed. Thus restricting Hydrogen production using CAM ALLAM Power Plant alone expects that the Hydrogen required for electricity generation must equal the Hydrogen required for all other uses. Such a constraint on use of Hydrogen in the Hydrogen economy should be avoided. We investigate independent production of Hydrogen using Hydrogen as fuel to produce the required steam for reforming CH4 here.

Optimal Reformer: In the article, CAM ALLAM Hydrogen Generator, the link of which is given above, we supplied CH4 and H2O at 625 K (252 C) possibly with additional fuel to the reformer. The chemical equation is
CH4 + 4H2O ‘gives’ CO2 + 4H2 + 2H2O. The reforming is an endothermic operation. The amount of additional fuel supplied to the reformer is not known. Being conservative, we assume that the input at the highest permitted temperature would require no additional fuel and thus we estimate the heat energy corresponding to the highest temperature of the feed. The highest temperature of the feed is 815 K (542 C).

Feed amounts: We are interested in finding out that fraction of the Hydrogen produced that needs to be burnt for the reforming process. We use 16 Kg of CH4 and 72 Kg of steam as input getting 44 Kg of CO2, 8 Kg of Hydrogen and 36 Kg of water vapor. We ignore the heat energy in the output so that the Hydrogen fuel would be decidedly less than the calculated amount.

Heating 16 Kg of CH4 to 815 K: We need to heat the Methane from atmospheric temperature of 300 K to 815 K. The specific heat of Methane is a function of its temperature. We use the values given at in the following table.

NoTemperature range KSpecific heat KJ/(Kg x K)Heat supplied KJ/KgCumulative heat KJ/Kg
1300 – 325 2.22655.65055.650
2325 – 350 2.29357.325112.975
3350 – 375 2.36559.125172.100
4375 – 400 2.44261.050233.150
5400 – 450 2.525126.250359.400
6450 – 500 2.703135.150494.550
7500 – 550 2.889144.450639.000
8550 – 600 3.074153.700792.700
9600 – 650 3.256162.800955.500
10650 – 700 3.432171.6001127.100
11700 – 750 3.602180.1001307.200
12750 – 800 3.765188.2501495.450
13800 – 815 3.92357.3451552.795

For 16 Kg of CH4 we supply 1552.795 x 16 = 24844.72 KJ of heat.

Heat for 72 Kg of steam: For calculating the heat required for supplying 72 Kg of team at 815 K, we use latent heat of evaporation at 373 K to be 2030 KJ/(Kg x K); and the specific heat of steam above 373 K as 1.996 KJ/(Kg x K) as given at . To calculate the heating of water from 300 K to 373 K we use the specific heat values given in the table below extracted from .

Heat for raising water temperature from 300 K to 373 K is calculated in the table below.

NoTemperature KSpecific heat KJ/(Kg x K0Heat supplied KJ/KgCumulative heat KJ/Kg
1273 – 283 4.219942.199042.1990
2283 – 293 4.195541.955084.1540
3293 – 298 4.184420.9220105.9760
4298 – 303 4.181620.9080125.9840
5303 – 313 4.180141.8010167.7850
6313 – 323 4.179641.7960209.5810
7323 – 333 4.181541.8150251.3960
8333 – 343 4.185141.8510293.2470
9343 – 353 4.190241.9020335.1490
10353 – 363 4.196941.9690377.1180
11363 – 373 4.205342.0530419.1710

To 419.1710 KJ we add 2030 KJ of latent heat and 1.996 x (815 – 373) to get the heat supplied to generate 1 Kg of steam. The heat supplied to generate 1 Kg of steam is 419.171 + 2030 + 882.232 = 3331.403 KJ. To produce 72 Kg of steam, we supply 3331.403 x 72 = 239861.016 KJ.

Total heat used for inputs: Adding the heat supplied to CH4 and steam, we get the total heat supplied as 264705.736 KJ. With 1 Kg of Hydrogen giving 120 MJ of heat, the Hydrogen used to heat the inputs to the reformer is 2.2059 Kg. We ignore the heat content of the output of 8 Kg of Hydrogen, 44 Kg of CO2 and 36 Kg of steam. By using properly designed heat exchanger to heat the input using the heat content of the output, the Hydrogen required to heat the input could be appreciably reduced. For simplicity, we ignore this benefit.

Conclusion: In a Hydrogen economy we would use Hydrogen itself to supply CH4 and steam for the steam methane reformer. We get 5.7941 Kg of Hydrogen for every 16 Kg of CH4. In other words, for every Kg of Methane used, we get 0.3621 Kg of Hydrogen. This amount could be increased substantially by using heat exchangers to preheat the input using the heat content of the output of the reformer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Username: Mohideen_ibramsha

Registered: 03-2018
Posted on Sunday, June 03, 2018 - 06:27 pm:   

Enhancing the yield of Hydrogen using Hydrogen for heat
Using Heat Exchangers to recover waste heat

Mohideen Ibramsha
1968 Alumni of Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, TN, India
1974 intellectual son of PhD guide Prof. V.Rajaraman & Mrs. Dharma Rajaramn, CS, EE, IIT, Kanpur, UP, India
1991 First HOD of CSE, CEC [now BSAU] Chennai, TN, India
Associate Professor (Retd), Computer Science, Framingham, MA, USA
Consultant R&D, M A M College of Engineering, Trichy, TN, India
Advisor, HyDIGIT Pte Ltd, Singapore

Introduction: We found that Steam Methane Reforming of 1 Kg of CH4 gives 0.3621 Kg of Hydrogen when we burn 0.1379 Kg of Hydrogen to heat the CH4 and H2O in . We ignored the heat in the output of the reforming reactor. Instead of wasting the heat in the output, we could reduce the Hydrogen fuel by recovering the heat using heat exchangers. We investigate this aspect now.

Heat Exchanger Efficiency: In the ALLAM Cycle demonstration plant at La Porte, TX which achieved ‘First Fire’ of its 50 MWth combustor on May 30, 2018 as reported in s-first-fire/?pagenum=2 the Printed Circuit Heat Exchangers made by Heatric are used.

From we find that Heatric designs the exchangers to match the customer specifications with 99% efficiency. To find out the amount of heat that could be recovered, without getting into intricate details of the specifications of the heat exchangers to be used, we calculate the heat energy of the output of the Optimal Steam Methane Reformer and deduce that the difference between the heat of the input and output is available for recovery using heat exchangers. As the actual design of the Printed Circuit Heat Exchangers are not attempted now, we ignore the 1% inefficiency of the heat exchanger and treat the heat content of the output to be recovered fully.

Output of Optimal Steam Methane Reformer: The Reformer uses 4 moles of H2O for every mole of CH4. The output has 2 moles of H2O, one mole of CO2 and 4 moles of H2. Eventually all the output is cooled to atmospheric temperature of 25 C. In terms of weight, for 16 Kg of CH4 and 72 Kg of steam, we get 44 Kg of CO2, 36 Kg of H2O and 8 Kg of Hydrogen. In we calculated the heat input starting with the initial temperature of 25 C. Accordingly the heat content of the above quantities of CO2, H2O, and H2 is zero. The heat of reaction of the Steam Methane Reformer of the two reactions is lost in the process of reforming. Hence we need to calculate the Hydrogen required to supply the heat of reaction only when the waste heat is fully recovered by the heat exchanger.

Heat of reaction: The heat of reaction for CH4 + 2H2O ‘giving’ CO2 + 4H2 is given as 29% of the energy (HHV) of CH4 in . The HHV of CH4 is given as 55.50 MJ/Kg in . Thus the heat of reaction of Steam Methane Reforming is 0.29 x 55.5 MJ/Kg = 16.095 MJ for 1 Kg of Methane. Thus for 16 Kg of Methane producing 8 Kg of Hydrogen, the heat of reaction is 16.095 x 16 = 257.52 MJ.

Hydrogen for the heat of reaction: The HHV of Hydrogen is 141.80 MJ/Kg. To supply 257.52 MJ we need 257.52/141.8 = 1.816 Kg of Hydrogen. When we burn Hydrogen in pure oxygen we get steam only. The burning of 1.816 Kg of Hydrogen produces 16.344 Kg of steam. This steam is part of the 72 Kg of steam supplied to the optimal Steam Methane Reformer.

Net Hydrogen: The Steam Methane Reformer supplies 8 Kg of Hydrogen, of which 1.816 Kg is used to supply the heat of reaction. Since we have used the HHV of Hydrogen, the steam from burning of Hydrogen is also part of the 72 Kg of steam used in . Heating the inputs by Hydrogen and recovering the heat from the products of Steam Methane Reformer gives 6.184 Kg of Hydrogen for every 16 Kg of Methane. Thus we get 0.3865 Kg of Hydrogen for every Kg of Methane when we use heat exchangers to recover the heat from the products of the Steam Methane Reformer.

Conclusion: We found that we get 0.3621 Kg of Hydrogen for every Kg of Methane ignoring the heat content of the output of the Steam Methane Reformer in . Now we find that using heat exchangers to recover the heat from the output of the Steam Methane Reformer we get 0.3865 Kg of Hydrogen for every Kg of Methane. The improvement is just 6.738% compared to not recovering the heat using heat exchangers. It looks like the additional effort needed in recovering the heat from the output of the Steam Methane Reformer might not be financially justified.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Username: Mohideen_ibramsha

Registered: 03-2018
Posted on Wednesday, June 06, 2018 - 10:05 am:   

Enhanced Hydrogen Generation
Using Printed Circuit Heat Exchangers
When CH4 supplies the heat of reaction

Mohideen Ibramsha
1968 Alumni of Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, TN, India
1974 intellectual son of PhD guide Prof. V.Rajaraman & Mrs. Dharma Rajaramn, CS, EE, IIT, Kanpur, UP, India
1991 First HOD of CSE, CEC [now BSAU] Chennai, TN, India
Associate Professor (Retd), Computer Science, Framingham, MA, USA
Consultant R&D, M A M College of Engineering, Trichy, TN, India
Advisor, HyDIGIT Pte Ltd, Singapore

Introduction: In we found that supplying the ‘heat of reaction’ by Hydrogen yields 0.3865 Kg of Hydrogen for every Kg of Methane. Here we consider the Hydrogen yield when the ‘heat of reaction’ is supplied by Methane.

Heat of reaction: The heat of reaction for CH4 + 2H2O ‘giving’ CO2 + 4H2 is given as 29% of the energy (HHV) of CH4 in . In view of this fact, we have the following equations.

Equations of reaction: The main SMR equation is CH4 + 2H2O ‘gives’ CO2 + 4H2. In words, 16 Kg of Methane and 36 Kg of steam produce 44 Kg of CO2 and 8 Kg of Hydrogen.

The ‘heat of reaction’ is given by CH4 + 2O2 ‘giving’ CO2 + 2H2O. Since 29% of Methane is the ‘heat of reaction’ we write this equation as 0.29 CH4 + 0.29 x 2 H2O ‘ gives’ 0.29 CO2 + 0.29 x 2 H2O.

The total Methane used is 1.29 CH4, corresponding to 1.29 x 16 Kg of Methane. The total Hydrogen produced is 8 Kg. Thus we get 8/(1.29 x 16) Kg of Hydrogen for every Kg of Methane. That is, 0.3876 Kg of Hydrogen for every Kg of Methane.

Conclusion: Using Hydrogen to supply the ‘heat of reaction’ produced 0.3865 Kg of Hydrogen for every Kg of Methane. Methane as the fuel for the ‘heat of reaction’ gives 0.3876 Kg of Hydrogen for every Kg of Methane which is 100.28% of 0.3865. Instead of working out the actual amount of Hydrogen produced when X% of the ‘heat of reaction’ is from Hydrogen and (100 - X)% is from Methane which might be 0.3876 – ((X/100) x 0.0013) Kg of Hydrogen per one Kg of Methane, we treat the Hydrogen produced to be 0.3865 Kg of Hydrogen per one Kg of Methane irrespective of whether Hydrogen alone, or Methane alone, or a mix of Hydrogen and Methane is used to supply the ‘heat of reaction.’
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Username: Mohideen_ibramsha

Registered: 03-2018
Posted on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 - 04:57 pm:   

Hydrogen Hydrogen Everywhere
Not a drop to harm

Mohideen Ibramsha
1968 Alumni of Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, TN, India
1974 intellectual son of PhD guide Prof. V.Rajaraman & Mrs. Dharma Rajaramn, CS, EE, IIT, Kanpur, UP, India
1991 First HOD of CSE, CEC [now BSAU] Chennai, TN, India
Associate Professor (Retd), Computer Science, Framingham, MA, USA
Consultant R&D, M A M College of Engineering, Trichy, TN, India
Advisor, HyDIGIT Pte Ltd, Singapore

Introduction: Mankind is moving towards the Hydrogen economy. To avoid further pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere renewable sources of energy are preferred. The attempts by two companies to store the renewable energy are analyzed here. Electrochaea GMBH is located in Munich, Germany. Hydrogenious Technologies, GMBH is located in Erlangen, Germany.

Electrochaea concept: This Company uses stranded power and CO2 to produce CH4 and store the energy in CH4 as mentioned at .
The biocatalyst used is methanogenic archaea that is tolerant to Oxygen.

Excess power generated by wind power stations and solar power stations are stranded power. Instead of storing the CH4 locally this company aims to inject the CH4 to the existing CH4 grid taking advantage of the world wide storage facilities of CH4. Even though stranded power could be solar or wind energy, the solar plants could be easily controlled to avoid generating excess power. It is difficult to control wind mills to avoid generating excess power. We feel P2G, the concept of Power To Gas implemented by this company would be useful to convert the excess wind power to gas..

Hydrogenious Technologies concept: Stranded gas could be used. A Catalytic Methane Decomposition (CMD technique could be used to extract the Hydrogen from CH4 with the carbon getting deposited. The liberated Hydrogen could be stored in a Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC) which could be treated like petrol and stored for long periods without any loss of energy.

The theory behind the above statements regarding Hydrogenious Technologies is found in a paper the abstract of which is available at . From a preprint version of the paper we discuss the technology.

We know about liquid Hydrogen used as a rocket fuel indicating that the highest energy density of Hydrogen is as a liquid. Stefan Durr and his co-authors of the above paper have possibly used an iron based catalyst for their experiments. As the catalysis proceeds the Carbon from the decomposed Methane deposits on the catalyst and leads to eventual deactivation of the catalyst. It is proposed that the deactivated catalyst be sold to steel industries. The decomposition was not complete and thus Methane and hydrogen were present in the output of decomposition. They used a LOHC to capture the Hydrogen from the mixture. This aspect of LOHC capturing Hydrogen is the basis of the company’s successful industry.

From we find that the unloaded LOHC is dibenzyltoluene with greater than 99% purity and the loaded LOHC is perhydro-dibenzyltoluene with more than 95% hydrogenation. Loading the LOHC at 16 liters per hour produces 9 KWh of heat per hour. Unloading the LOHC at a rate of 8 liters per hour consumes 4.5 KWh of heat. Thus the loading and unloading combined do not consume any heat energy.

Hydrogenious Technologies business activity: Even though Catalytic Methane Decomposition was used in the research published, the company has avoided the cumbersome process in developing its business. We quote: ress_release_english-1.pdf
Erlangen 29.01.2016 … Various innovative next-generation technologies are implemented in the first commercial LOHC systems by Hydrogenious Technologies. A Siemens PEM Electrolyzer generates hydrogen using solar power. The hydrogen is then stored in LOHC by means of the Hydrogenious StorageBOX. The liquid can then be stored in ordinary storage tanks without any losses or boil-off effects for extended periods of time. About 57 kg hydrogen can be stored in one cubic meter of the liquid. That equals approximately 1.9 MWh of energy. The ReleaseBOX by Hydrogenious Technologies can release hydrogen from LOHC and supply the gas to a fuel cell.

Hydrogenious Technologies are opening Hydrogen refueling stations in Germany and neighboring European countries. The data regarding the refueling stations are displayed at . This web site was accessed on June 26, 2018 and the data for Germany are: 43 are open; 7 are in commissioning and trial operation; 16 are in execution phase; 14 are under approval process; and 11 are in planning.

Hydrogen in LOHC: We extract the following information from Table 1 of the publication referred earlier.

No Energy Source Energy Density KWh/Liter
1Fossil Gasoline8.6
2Fossil Diesel9.8
3Fossil Heavy oil10.7
4Fossil Natural Gas2.4
5Hydrogen (1 bar)0.003
6Compressed Hydrogen Gas (700 bar)1.3
7Liquefied Hydrogen2.4
8Hydrogenated LOHC1.87

From the above table we find that the Hydrogenated LOHC carries 77.92% of the energy carried by liquid Hydrogen and thus Hydrogenated LOHC could be considered for rocket fuel as well if appropriate technology for down sizing the ReleaseBOX to fit inside a rocket is done.

Electrochaea Business Activity: In contrast to the La Porte, TX demonstration plant of ALLAM Cycle that is yet to produce electricity from CH4, Electrochaea with partners ran the demonstration plant at Avedore, Denmark for eight months until December 22, 2016. We quote: nal_report_p2g_biocat.pdf
Pages 12 and 13 of 34
The BioCat P2G system is a commercial-scale 1MW capacity power-to-gas facility connected to both power and gas grids, providing direct grid interconnection from power to gas. The system operated for 8 months during the project, including commissioning. During the project, the system used 42,193 Nm3 biogas, 170 m3 water and 708,215 kWh electricity for system operations and to produce 129,290 Nm3 hydrogen for methanation of ~16,000 Nm3 CO2 from the the biogas and making available ~15,000 Nm3 renewable methane and 85,000kWh heat for use at Avedøre’s facility. The system operated at variable loads and was used intermittently through 3 seasons until December 22, 2016.

Subtracting the 85,000 kWh of heat produced by the methanation process, the plant used 623,215 kWh of energy to produce renewable CH4. The CH4 produced is claimed to be renewable as the CO2 used that would have been released to the atmosphere from waste water treatment plant was stored in the CH4 to be released when the CH4 is used elsewhere. Thus the technology used by Electrochaea is green using renewable electricity for electrolysis of water to produce Hydrogen.

Financial aspect of Electrochaea process: We ignore the cost of capital in analyzing the financial aspects of the P2G system. The demonstration plant used 623,215 kWh of energy. From figure 2 in page 15 of 20 of nex_3_p2g_biocat_-_market_analysis_report.pdf
we find that the price of electricity used by the demonstration plant varies from a low of 404 DKK/MWh during low demand for electricity in Denmark to a high of 450 DKK/MWh during peak demand in Denmark. We expect the P2G facility to consume power during low demand and thus to have paid 623.215 x DKK 404 = 251,778.86 DKK.

The demonstration plant produced 15,000 Nm3 of renewable CH4. From page 15 of nex_3_p2g_biocat_-_market_analysis_report.pdf we find:
HMN is grid operator in the area and HMN informs that the expected grid injection payment is 0.6 DKK/Nm3 biomethane (Rousing, 2014). It corresponds to 50 DKK/MWh upper calorific value.
Thus the gas injection cost is 0.6 x 15,000 DKK = 9,000 DKK. Including the cost of electricity, the total payment by the demonstration plant was 260,778.86 DKK.

From the Table 1 in page 15 of 20 of the above PDF, we find that a plant similar to the demonstration plant would have received a subsidy of 342 DKK/MWh during 2014. As the demonstration plant operated in 2016, one component of the subsidy gets reduced by 2 DKK/MWh and thus the subsidy is 340 DKK/MWh.

We assume that the bioreactor is not pressurized and thus the Methane produced by the bioreactor is 15,000 Nm3 at atmospheric pressure. The temperature of the bioreactor is 65 C. We find the weight of 15,000 Nm3 Methane produced at 65 C and 1.013 bar.
What matters for climate change is methane mass (kg or tonne). Normally, volume (m3 ) or flow rate (m3 /h) is measured using some measurement device or instrument, and these volume values are converted to mass (kg or kg/h). An intermediate step usually involves adjusting the measured volume by measured pressures and temperatures to volumes at standard conditions (0 C and 1 atm, equal to 1.013 bar). The resulting volume (called Nm3 ) is then converted to mass using the density at these conditions = 0.716 kg/m3 ).

We know that PV = RT is true and thus P1xV1 = P2 x V2 = RT. One Nm3 of CH4 at 0 C weighs 0.716 Kg. When we increase the temperature from 0 C to 65 C, the volume increases from 1 Nm3 to (273 + 65) / 273 Nm3 = 1.2381 Nm3. Accordingly, we calculate the weight of 15,000 Nm3 of CH4 to be 15,000/1.2381 x 0.716 Kg = 8674.62 Kg. One Kg of CH4 produces 50 MJ and thus 8674.62 Kg of CH4 produces 50 x 8674.62 MJ = 433,730.77 MWseconds = 120.48 MWh. We have used the LHV of CH4 instead of the HHV. It is felt that using HHV would not make the P2G process profitable. Thus we continue with the LHV of CH4.

The subsidy is 120.48 x 340 DKK = 40,963.46 DKK.

The cost incurred in producing 8,674.62 Kg of CH4 is 260,778.86 – 40,963.46 = 219,815.40 DKK. What about the sale proceeds of this CH4? denmark/
This statistic shows the natural gas prices for household end users in Denmark semi-annually from 2010 to 2016. In the first half of 2016, the average natural gas price for households was 7.17 euro cents per kWh.

We have used the gas price paid by the consumer and not the gas price paid to the producer. As the price paid to the producer is invariably less than the consumer price, recalculation is not attempted as the P2G makes loss even now.

One DKK is 0.13 Euro and thus the CH4 price in DKK = (7.17/100) / 0.13 = 0.551538 DKK per kWh. It is 551.54 DKK per MWh.

The demonstration plant produced 120.48 MWh. Hence the income from selling the CH4 for the demonstration plant is 120.48 x 551.54 DKK = 66449.54 DKK.

The cost incurred in producing the CH4 being 219,815.40 DKK, the demonstration plant incurred a loss of 153365.86 DKK. Even with substantial subsidies, the P2G incurs loss.

Conclusion: To convert the stranded power to gas is not economically viable. Electrochaea has invented the process to convert Hydrogen and CO2 to CH4. As Hydrogenious Technologies abandoned the stranded gas and evolved a business model we suggest Electrochaea also abandon the P2G and evolve a business model dumping the stranded power.

Storing Hydrogen as Hydrogenated LOHC is about 20% as dense as gasoline. In contrast to the numerous climate negative effects of gasoline, Hydrogenated LOHC is safe and is also green. We hope the world would move to storing Hydrogen as Hydrogenated LOHC and thus enjoy Hydrogen Everywhere with no harm whatsoever.

Also see additional posts by Mohideen Ibramsha:

This just in: Hydrogen Economy Now - A Road Map By Mohideen Ibramsha et al. (10 October 2018)

Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration