Blogg :: heliga tidsdimensionen

Blogg

The Pioneer maser signal anomaly: Possible confirmation of spontaneous photon blueshifting

01.05.2014 09:52

The Pioneer maser signal anomaly:

Possible confirmation of spontaneous photon blueshifting

P. A. LaViolette

April 2005

Physics Essays, volume 18(2), 2005

The Starburst Foundation, 1176 Hedgewood Lane, Niskayuna, NY 12309

Electronic address: gravitics1@aol.com

Abstract

The novel physics methodology of subquantum kinetics predicted in 1980 that photons

should blueshift their frequency at a rate that varies directly with negative gravitational

potential, the rate of blueshifting for photons traveling between Earth and Jupiter having

been estimated to average approximately 1.3 ± 0.65 X 10-18 s-1, or 1.1 ± 0.6 X 10-18 s-1 for

signals traveling a roundtrip distance of 65 AU through the outer solar system. A proposal

was made in 1980 to test this blueshifting effect by transponding a maser signal over a 10

AU round-trip distance between two spacecraft. This blueshift prediction has more recently

been corroborated by observations of maser signals transponded to the Pioneer 10

spacecraft. These measurements indicate a frequency shifting of approximately 2.28 ± 0.4

X 10-18 s-1 which lies within 2σ of the subquantum kinetics prediction and which cannot be

accounted for in terms of known forces acting on the craft. This blueshifting phenomenon

implies the existence of a new source of energy which is able to account for the luminosities

of red dwarf and brown dwarf stars and planets, and their observed sharing of a common

mass-luminosity relation.

Résumé

La nouvelle théorie de la physique du cinétique subquantique avait prévu en 1985 que les photons

devraient se déplacer vers le bleu à un rythme qui varie directement avec le potentiel de la gravité

négative. Le taux de déplacement de photons vers le bleu entre la Terre et Jupiter est estimé être

approximativement (1.3 ± 0.65) X 10-18 s-1, ou de (1.1 ± 0.6) X 10-18 s-1 pour le chemin allerretour

de signaux d'une distance de 65 AU à travers la région extérieure du système solaire. Une

proposition a été faite en 1980 afin de vérifier l'effet du déplacement vers le bleu par un signal

maser de transpondeur sur une distance aller-retour entre deux engins spatiaux. Cette prédiction fut

corroborée par l'observation des signaux maser de transpondeur vers le vaisseau spatial du Pionnier

10. Ces mesures indiquent un décalage de fréquence approximativement de 2.28 ± 0.4 X 10-18 s-1,

qui se trouve en dessous de 2σ de la prévision de la cinétique subquantique et qui n'est pas expliqué

en terme des forces connues agissant sur le vaisseau. Ce phénomène de déplacement vers le bleu

suggère l'existence d'une nouvelle source d'energie qui explique les luminositiés des étoiles naines

rouges et naines brunes, des planètes, et leur partage d'une relation de luminosité masse commune.

_______________________________________________________________________

Key words: time and frequency, planetary and deep space probes, gravitational wave detectors

and experiments, energy conservation violations, subquantum kinetics, nonequilibrium and

irreversible thermodynamics, genic energy, frequency blueshifting, mass-luminosity relation,

planets and stars

1. INTRODUCTION

During the past 30 years, 2.1 GHz maser signals have been transmitted to the Pioneer 10 and

Pioneer 11 spacecraft and coherently transponded back to Earth, the frequency shift of the received

signal being used to determine the recessional velocity of the spacecraft for purposes of navigation.

However, Anderson et al.(1, 2) report that when the computed velocity is compared to the velocity

predicted by orbital models, a discrepancy is found, even after adjustments are made for all known

forces that might act on the spacecraft. They find a frequency blueshift residual that increases

linearly with time, or in direct proportion to the increase in the line-of-sight distance to the

spacecraft.

If interpreted as a Doppler effect, this residual implies the presence of an anomalous force

accelerating the craft toward the Sun which Anderson et al. calculate to be 8.7 ± 1.3 X 10-8 cm/s2.

Although, as is discussed below, when the propulsive effects of on-board thermal radiation sources

are taken into account, this decreases to a residual acceleration of 6.85 ± 1.3 X 10-8 cm/s2. If

interpreted as an anomalous acceleration, the effect is perplexing since most plausible forces, such

as gravity, decrease rapidly with distance whereas the Pioneer apparent acceleration remains

relatively constant with time. Moreover, an anomalous acceleration of similar magnitude does not

appear to be acting on the planets, given that their orbital periods experience no similar secular

change within the accuracy of current determinations.(2)

It is here suggested that this linear blueshifting is instead due to a continual spontaneous

increase in photon frequency which local photons normally undergo, but which until now has

passed unnoticed due to the small size of the effect. For example, the rate of frequency shifting

implied by the Pioneer 10 data, 2.28 ± 0.4 X 10-18 s-1, would be many orders of magnitude smaller

than rates detectable in the laboratory. Over a laboratory photon travel distance of 100 meters this

would amount to a frequency change of one part in 1024, as compared with the U.S. Naval

Observatory hydrogen maser clock system which is stable to only one part in 1015 for a one day

integration time.

This alternative interpretation explains in a straightforward manner the anomalous frequency

shifting of the Pioneer spacecraft signals by means of a phenomenon that has no effect on planet

orbits. But, more importantly, the observed effect was predicted over a decade before the

announced discovery of the Pioneer anomaly, being first mentioned in 1980 and described in later

publications to be a necessary consequence of the subquantum kinetics physics methodology.(3 - 7)

In 1980, the author had proposed an experiment that could test for this blueshifting effect by

transponding a maser signal between two spacecraft separated by a distance of 5 AU (e.g.,

positioned at 1 AU and 6 AU) and the return signal being measured to determine whether its

frequency had increased at the predicted average rate of μ ~ 1.3 ± 0.65 X 10-18 s-1. The beam was

to be modulated with regularly spaced pulses whose period in the return beam could be compared

to the initial pulse period to determine the relative movement of the craft. In this way the Doppler

component of the maser signal's frequency change would be known so that a check could be made

for the presence in the beam of a nonDoppler frequency shift residual.

At that time in 1980, the author had contacted Frank Estabrook at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory

(JPL), one of John Anderson's colleagues, and inquired about the possibility of conducting such a

space-based experiment.(8) But at that time his group was mainly interested in using spacecraft

maser signal residuals as a way of detecting gravity waves and testing the predictions of general

relativity.(9 - 11) Nevertheless this discussion gave assurance that a maser signal traveling over the

course of a 10 AU roundtrip journey would accrue a frequency shift large enough to be marginally

measurable above the background noise that would be present in the return signal due to

disturbance by the solar plasma. A description of this proposed maser signal experiment was

submitted for journal publication in 1980 and was later documented in expositions of subquantum

kinetics published in 1985 and 1994.(3, 4, 6)

Subquantum kinetics predicts that the magnitude of the blueshifting rate varies linearly with the

magnitude of the local ambient gravitational potential. Hence, compared with the value in the Earth's

environs (1.3 X 10-18 s-1), for signals transponded from Earth to a spacecraft such as Pioneer 10

located at 65 AU, it predicts a slightly lower blueshifting rate of μ ~ 1.1 ± 0.6 X 10-18 s-1. This

prediction is strikingly close the observed Pioneer 10 value, being about half of the observed rate.

If the Pioneer spacecraft tracking anomaly remains unexplained by more conventional phenomena,

such as waste heat radiation, then the observed anomalous frequency shift may be a legitimate

verification of this previously documented subquantum kinetics blueshifting prediction.

2. THE PHOTON BLUESHIFTING PREDICTION

Subquantum kinetics postulates that the electric and gravitational field potentials that form

photons, subatomic particles, and zero-point energy fluctuations, arise as inhomogeneities in an

underlying, all-pervading plenum whose constituents engage in well-defined nonequilibrium

reaction-diffusion processes which are represented by a nonlinear equation system; see Ref. [4 - 6]

for a full explanation. The electric field potential solutions of this equation system exhibit

nonconservative as well as conservative behavior depending upon the value of the ambient

gravitational potential, ϕg, relative to a critical potential value ϕgc; see Figure 1.(4, 6) Hence in

subquantum kinetics, perfect energy conservation, photon energy remaining constant with the

passage of time, is the exception rather than the rule, occurring only when this underlying reaction

system operates at its critical threshold. For example, the system would operate at this threshold of

marginal stability in regions of space bounding the fringes of galaxies where the ambient gravity

potential approaches the critical threshold value; i.e., where ϕg = ϕgc. In regions where ϕg < ϕgc,

such as in a galaxy's gravity well, supercritical conditions would prevail, dictating a progressive

increase in photon energy with the passage of time and spontaneous photon blueshifting. In

intergalactic regions of space where gravity potential attains positive values relative to the critical

threshold, ϕg > ϕgc, subcritical conditions would prevail, dictating a progressive decrease in photon

energy with the passage of time and photon redshifting. Photons traveling from distant galaxies

Figure 1. Hypothetical intergalactic gravity potential field and its creation of

supercritical and subcritical regions.

would be subject to predominantly subcritical conditions along their flight path and hence would

undergo a redshift scaling in proportion to their distance or time of travel. This "tired-light" effect

model has been shown to make a good fit to cosmological redshift data on a variety of cosmology

tests.(12 - 14) The nonconservative energy behavior predicted by subquantum kinetics does not

contradict the first law of thermodynamics, since the First Law strictly applies to closed systems,

whereas the nonequilibrium subquantum reactions postulated in subquantum kinetics instead

constitute an open system.

The absolute value of the gravitational potential is important in that as a control factor it

determines not only whether a photon will be in an energy gaining or energy losing mode, but also

the degree to which photons will depart from perfect energy conservation, i.e., the rate at which

photon energy will either increase or decrease. Subquantum kinetics represents the time

dependence of photon energy by the following general relation:

E(t) = E0eμt , (1a)

where μ = -α(ϕg – ϕgc). (1b)

E0 representing the photon's initial energy, E(t) its energy after time t, and μ its rate of energy

change. Coefficient μ varies linearly with the value of the ambient (negative) gravitational potential

ϕg as indicated in (1b), where ϕgc is the critical threshold gravity potential and α is a proportionality

constant having units of time/area (e.g., s/cm2).

In order to simplify the above equation, let us assign a value of zero to the critical threshold ϕgc.

Then, negative gravity potential values (ϕg < 0) relative to the critical threshold zero point dictating

supercritical, energy amplifying conditions and positive values (ϕg > 0) dictating subcritical, energy

damping conditions, but, in addition, ϕg determines the rate at which a photon's energy is expected

to change over time. Alternatively, (1a) may be expressed as:

ν(t) = ν0e-αϕgt , (2)

where ν0 is the photon's initial frequency and ν(t) its frequency at time t. This frequency shifting

effect may also be expressed as:

dν

dt = μν = -αϕgν (3)

Note that this frequency shift is a new effect that is not predicted by standard physics theories

and should therefore not be confused with the better known gravitational frequency shift

phenomenon which arises due to the difference in ambient gravity potential between the region of

photon emission and region of photon reception. The hypothesized phenomenon would occur even

when there is virtually no net change of gravity potential, as in the case of maser signals

transponded over a round-trip path. Also unlike the gravitational redshift, the proposed

phenomenon should have no observable effect on photon emission processes, since many hours are

required before a photon has accumulated a frequency shift large enough to be observed, and even

then the amount is very slight. So, this effect should not be observable in stellar spectra. Over a

distance of 10 kpc, photons traveling from a distant star would accumulate a blueshift of

approximately 0.3 km/s, an amount that would be insignificant in comparison to shifts attributable

to the conventional gravitational frequency shift phenomenon.

To provide a realistic cosmology, the reaction-diffusion system postulated as the basis of

subquantum kinetics must operate very close to its threshold of marginal stability in an initially

subcritical state prevailing during the era prior to the emergence of quanta. This allows the reaction

system to spawn material particles out of the prevailing zero-point energy fluctuation background.

Moreover by designing the reaction system so that the parameter regulating system criticality is

identified with gravity potential, the reaction system is able to generate supercritical conditions in the

vicinity of materialized particles and celestial bodies (i.e., in gravity wells) thereby ensuring that

their forms are sustained over time. As a consequence of this cosmology, photons traveling in

supercritical regions within celestial bodies and in their environs would gradually blueshift. The

manner in which a photon's field potential would evolve over time is specified by (1a) above.

To take the next step and make a quantitative prediction of the rate of photon blueshifting that

would be expected for a given gravity potential value, one must constrain the reaction system model

with observation. Since the subquantum level is inherently unobservable, its variables being hidden

from us, in order to constrain the constants in (1b) we are left to use physical observations such as

bolometric luminosities for the Sun and planets. This may be done by adjusting parameter α and

the value assumed for the galactic gravity background potential, ϕgal, to give a realistic value of μ as

a function of ϕg such that the resulting energy blueshifting rate yields the correct bolometric

luminosities for these celestial bodies. This modeling was done in earlier discussions of the photon

blueshifting effect,(3,5) and is reviewed and updated in the next section. Once this modeling was

done and the subquantum kinetics photon blueshifting prediction was accordingly defined, the

resulting blueshifting rate then emerged as a testable prediction, one that could later be checked

through the proposed maser signal experiment. As is shown below, the Pioneer spacecraft data

later confirmed this prediction.

Understandably, subquantum kinetics takes a different approach than that used in general

relativity. For example, its gravitational effects are not theorized to result from a warping of spacetime.

Rather, effects such as gravitational attraction or repulsion, gravitational time dilation, and the

bending of starlight by celestial bodies are effects that emerge as consequences of the postulated

subquantum reactions.(14) The postulated subquantum reaction processes also predict that electric

and gravitational potential fields should be coupled at all energies, a result that has been verified.(4,

14) Note that the proposal that gravity potential controls the rate of photon energy change, itself

presupposes the existence of a link between gravitational and electric potential fields. Hence

subquantum kinetics qualifies as a unified field theory.

3. EARLY MODELING OF THE AMPLIFICATION COEFFICIENT

Equation (3) predicts that the energy reservoir within a celestial body should spontaneously

generate excess energy ("genic" energy) through this photon blueshifting effect at a rate equal to

the product of the blueshifting rate coefficient μ and the reservoir's total heat capacity, H:

Lg = dE/dt = μH ~ –αϕg

–

T, (4)

where H is given approximately as the product of the body's average specific heat –

C , mass M, and

average internal temperature

–

T.(4, 6) This blueshifting effect is expected to act in the same way on all

photons regardless of their frequency. In this model, heat capacities Hi are estimated for each body

based on the body's mass, and on a reasonable estimate of its average internal temperature and

specific heat. Furthermore, a planet's average internal gravity potential is modeled to be

approximately ϕg = 2 ϕ0 + ϕsun + ϕgal , where ϕ0 is its surface gravity potential, ϕsun is the gravity

potential contribution from the Sun at the planet's heliocentric distance, and ϕgal is an additional

background factor contributed by the Galaxy as a whole relative to the local intergalactic

background potential. When variables α and ϕgal are properly chosen, (4) is found to account for

most or all of the internal energy output observed to come from the interiors of the planets Earth,

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.(5, 6) Genic energy luminosities Lg estimated for the Sun,

planets, and Sirius B are presented in Table I along with the values for ϕ,

–C

, M, and

–

T, for

comparison to observed luminosities. This table is similar to that presented in an earlier publication

of this prediction, Table II of Ref. 5, but with slightly revised values for μ, calculated by assuming α

= 2.62 X 10-32 s/cm2 and ϕgal = -4 X 1013 cm2/s2.

The photon blueshifting predicted for the Earth environs is so small as to be undetectable in the

laboratory, but it should be large enough to be measurable over interplanetary distances. Using the

modeled values for α and ϕgal, it is possible to make a testable prediction of the blueshifting rate

one would expect to find in interplanetary space. That is, expressing (3) as μ = –αϕg = –α(ϕgal +

Table I: Modeling Parameters and Intrinsic Luminosities for the Sun, Planets and Sirius B.

Star or

Planet

(g)

(cm)

ϕ0

(cm2/s2)

(cm)

ϕsun

(cm2/s2)

ϕgal

(cm2/s2)

–μ

(s-1)

–C

(erg/g/°K)

–T

(°K)

(erg/s)

Sun 1.99 (33) 6.96 (10) -1.91 (15) - - - - - - -4.0 (13) 1.00 (-16) 2.1 ± 0.8 (8) 9.5±3 (6) 4.0±2.5 (32) 3.90 (33)

Mercury 3.30 (26) 2.44 (8) -9.02 (10) 6.00 (12) -2.21 (13) -4.0 (13) 1.63 (-18) 1.26±0.5 (7) 2 ± 1 (3) 1.4±0.9 (19) - - -

Venus 4.87 (27) 6.05 (8) -5.37 (11) 1.12 (13) -1.19 (13) -4.0 (13) 1.39 (-18) 1.26±0.5 (7) 2.5±1 (3) 2.1±1.4 (20) - - -

Earth 5.98 (27) 6.38 (8) -6.25 (11) 1.50 (13) -8.87 (12) -4.0 (13) 1.31 (-18) 1.26±0.5 (7) 2.5±1 (3) 2.5± 1.5 (20) 4.0±0.2 (20)

Moon 7.35 (25) 1.74 (8) -2.82 (10) 1.50 (13) -8.87 (12) -4.0 (13) 1.28 (-18) 1.26±0.5 (7) 2 ± 1 (3) 2.4± 1.5 (18) 7.0±0.5 (18)

Mars 6.44 (26) 3.39 (8) -1.27 (11) 2.36 (13) -5.62 (12) -4.0 (13) 1.20 (-18) 1.26±0.5 (7) 2 ± 1 (3) 2.0±1.2 (19) 3 ± 2 (19)

Jupiter 1.90 (30) 6.92 (9) -1.83 (13) 8.06 (13) -1.65 (12) -4.0 (13) 2.05 (-18) 1.18±0.5 (8) 9 ± 5 (3) 4.1±2.6 (24) 3.4±0.3 (24)

Saturn 5.69 (29) 5.73 (9) -6.62 (12) 1.48 (14) -8.99 (11) -4.0 (13) 1.42 (-18) 8.1±3.0 (7) 6 ± 3 (3) 3.9±2.5 (23) 8.6±0.1 (23)

Uranus 8.74 (28) 2.57 (9) -2.27 (12) 2.97 (14) -4.47 (11) -4.0 (13) 1.18 (-18) 3.8 ± 1.5 (7) 4 ± 2 (3) 1.6±1.0 (22) 0.3±0.4 (22)

Neptune 1.03 (29) 2.53 (9) -2.72 (12) 4.65 (14) -2.85 (11) -4.0 (13) 1.17 (-18) 3.6 ± 1.5 (7) 4 ± 2 (3) 1.7± 1.1 (22) 3.3±0.4 (22)

Pluto 6.60 (26) 2.90 (8) -1.52 (11) 4.65 (14) -2.85 (11) -4.0 (13) 1.06 (-18) 1.26±0.5 (7) 2 ± 1 (3) 1.8±0.7 (19) - - -

Sirius B 2.10 (33) 5.6 (8) -2.5 (17) - - - -5.0 (17) -4.0 (13) 1.3 (-14) 3.0 ± 1.5 (6) 1±0.8 (6) 8.3± 5.3 (31) 1 ± 0.2 (32)

a The numbers in brackets represent powers of 10. The values for the model parameters listed in Table I were

determined as follows. For all celestial bodies considered here, the gravity potential is calculated relative to a

background value of ϕgal = -4 × 1013 cm2/s2, which includes the gravity potential contribution of the Galaxy, galaxy

cluster, and supercluster. The average internal gravity potential ϕg for the Sun is estimated to be two times its

surface potential, 2ϕ0 , plus ϕgal , where ϕo = -Mkg/R, kg being the gravitational constant and R being the Sun's

radius. The internal gravity potentials for the planets, including the Earth and Moon, are calculated as:

ϕg = 2ϕo + ϕsun + ϕgal , where ϕsun = -Mkg/r represents the contribution from the Sun's gravity potential field at

the planet's heliocentric distance, r. The ϕg values for the planets are dominated primarily by the Galactic

component. In the case of Sirius B, the potential is calculated to be ϕg = 2ϕ0.

The values for μ– are calculated as μ– = –αϕg, with α = 2.62 × 10-32 s/cm2. The value for α is chosen such that

the calculated genic energy luminosity for the Sun is normalized to 0.1 L, which should be allowable even in light

of the results of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory solar neutrino experiment.

Values adopted for the average specific heats and internal temperatures are the same as those given in reference [4]

with the exception of the temperature for Sirius B. For a reasonable fit to be made to the observed bolometric

luminosity (Li ) for Sirius B, we must choose an average temperature for its interior that is an order of magnitude

lower than temperatures normally modeled for its core. This is permissible if it is assumed to have a deep

convective layer capable of easily conveying heat to its surface. The Li data point for Sirius B is taken from F.

Paerels, et al. Ap. J.329 (1988): 849-862.

MG/r), where M is the Sun's mass, r is the maser photon's heliocentric distance in AU, and G is

the gravitational constant, and choosing α = 2.62 X 10-32 s/cm2 and ϕgal = -4 X 1013 cm2/s2, the

interplanetary blueshifting rate at a given distance r from the Sun is given as:

μ = (1.05 +

0.22

) X 10-18. (5)

According to (5), a maser signal making a round-trip journey between the Earth and a spacecraft

located at 65 AU would blueshift at the average rate of μ ~ 1.05 X 10-18 s-1, the second term in the

equation making a negligible contribution. This falls close to blueshifting rates later observed for

signals transponded back from Pioneer 10 and 11.

Equation (5) predicts that the rate of blueshifting should be greater at times when the maser

signal transponded between the Earth and the spacecraft has a trajectory that takes it near the Sun.

Hence the blueshifting incurred over the round-trip signal path between the Earth and spacecraft

would be expected to fall to a minimum when the spacecraft was at solar opposition and to rise to a

sharp peak when the spacecraft approached solar conjunction, at which point the maser signal

would at one point reach a minimum heliocentric distance of r = 5 X 10-4 AU. The modeled α and

ϕ values predict that this annual effect should cause the cumulative round-trip blueshift to vary by

about ±2%. Anderson et al. do report an annual variation in the magnitude of the Pioneer

spacecraft anomalous acceleration which is similarly strongly peaked at solar conjunction and falls

to a minimum at solar opposition. However, the annual variation they observe is much larger, on the

order of ±30% of the average blueshifting rate; see Figure 1 of Ref. 15 or Figure 14 of Ref. 2.

They propose that this variation may be due to unexplained modeling errors in the Earth's orbital

orientation or in the accuracy of the planetary ephemeris. If such is the case, until they are

corrected, these modeling error uncertainties will mask the annual variation predicted by (5).

Due to the uncertainty in knowing the true value of the Galactic gravity potential in the Sun's

vicinity, ϕgal is used here as a modeling variable whose value, together with that of coefficient α, is

chosen so that (4) makes a best overall fit to the bolometric luminosities of the Sun and planets. In

an earlier paper describing this predicted blueshifting effect,(5) these variables were instead modeled

as α = 5.23 X 10-32 s/cm2 and ϕgal = -2 X 1013 cm2/s2, for their fit to observed luminosity data,

which specified the blueshifting coefficient as μ = (1.05 + 0.46

) X 10-18. The revised values

reflect a fit to new luminosity data which requires a lower genic energy contribution to the Sun's

bolometric luminosity. Nevertheless, at large r these two models make essentially the same

prediction, deviating by < 0.6% at r = 40 AU. Hence in regard to the Pioneer maser data, both

models predict essentially the same average blueshifting rate for μ since this data spans heliocentric

distances ranging from ~20 to 65 AU where the second term is very small. Future space based

experiments carried out in the inner solar system region around 1 AU should determine whether the

second term in (5) is properly modeled.

Note that the earlier published derivation of μ was done with no foreknowledge of the Pioneer

Effect since the latter had not been discovered at that point. Also adjustments of this μ value made

in the present paper were made solely with the intent to arrive at an adequate fit to the solar and

planetary luminosity data. For example, this new fit makes a much lower genic energy prediction

for the Sun, which accords with the updated lower main sequence M-L data discussed below. This

new adjustment of the values of α and ϕgal took into account no consideration of the Pioneer Effect

results. Moreover, as noted above, the earlier and present model predictions for μ make the same

quantitative prediction for the Pioneer data. Hence the subquantum kinetics blueshifting prediction

stands as a valid a priori prediction.

The modeled value of ϕgal = -4 X 1013 cm2/s2 is low compared to what standard theories

predict for the Galactic contribution to the local gravity potential. However, it is nevertheless

consistent with observation. For example, Olling and Merrifield have modeled the Milky Way's

rotation and found that the available data is best fit if the galactocentric distance for the Sun is set at

r0 = 7.1 ± 0.4 kpc with a solar orbital velocity of v0 = 184 ± 8 km/s.(16 - 19) These values are

smaller than those of other Galaxy dynamics models, which assume r0 = 8.5 kpc and v0 = 220

km/s. However, a smaller value for r0 is corroborated by the best primary measurements which

place the galactocentric distance at 7.2 ± 0.7 kpc.(20) Olling and Merrifield estimate a mass for the

Galaxy's central bulge of Mb ~ 8.3 X 109 M, based on a bulge k-band luminosity of Lb ~ 1.5 X

1010 L and a mass-luminosity ratio of 0.55.(19) For a galactocentric distance of r0 = 7.1 kpc, this

would contribute a gravity potential of -5 X 1013 cm2/s2 to the solar vicinity. Gerhard(21) estimates

a larger mass for the galactic bulge of 1.3 X 1010 M which predicts a larger contribution of -7.8 X

1013 cm2/s2. The Galaxy's disc makes a smaller contribution to the local gravitational potential.

Kuijken and Gilmore have determined that the matter column density within 1.1 kpc of the galactic

plane is Σ1.1 kpc = 71± 6 M/pc2 which includes the halo contribution as well.(22) Integrating this

contribution out to a distance of 7 kpc yields a gravity potential contribution to the solar vicinity of

2πrGΣ1.1 kpc = -4.2 ± 0.4 X 1013 cm2/s2. Hence including the larger estimate for the bulge

contribution, the total Galactic gravity potential contribution to the solar vicinity would be Δϕgal ~

-12± 3 X 1013 cm2/s2.

To obtain ϕgal, the Galactic gravity potential contribution Δϕgal must be added to the value of

the intergalactic background potential which according to subquantum kinetics is positive relative to

ϕgc, the zero critical point value; see Figure 1. An average value for the intergalactic background

potential may be obtained from the cosmological redshift as: ϕ–int = H0/α, where H0 is the Hubble

constant expressed in seconds-1. As mentioned earlier, subquantum kinetics interprets the

cosmological redshift as a tired-light effect, a spontaneous loss of energy specified by (1) where ϕg

is in this case positive relative to ϕgc. This yields an average intergalactic background potential that

is approximately the same magnitude as the solar system value except opposite in sign with respect

to the critical threshold zero point value. Taking H0 = 72 ± 10 km/s /Mpc and α = 2.62 X 10-32

s/cm2, we obtain ϕ–int = 8.9 ± 1.2 X 1013 cm2/s2. Adding to this Δϕgal would yield ϕgal = -3 ± 3

X 1013 cm2/s2. which is close to the -4 X 1013 cm2/s2 value we are assuming.

Subquantum kinetics predicts that over great distances the gravity potential field should taper

off to a plateau in intergalactic space, each galaxy's field being effective n its own gravity well

locale.(4, 6). This is similar in many respects to MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) which is

an observationally based approach that allows the plateau in galaxy orbital velocities to be modeled

without introducing assumptions about outlying hidden mass.(23 - 25) In subquantum kinetics,

however, this field tapering emerges as a prediction of the theory itself which requires that potential

fields be slightly nonsolenoidal, that at large r the gravity potential should be less negative than

would be expected from the Newtonian 1/r relation. Translated into more familiar terms, this would

be similar to summing a galaxy's potential at a given point with the potential produced by a

distributed background of "virtual antimatter" which presents a negative mass density (positive ϕg).

At increasing distances from a galaxy, an increasing volume of this negative mass would be

encompassed within the sphere defined by that radial distance and this would have the effect of

increasingly screening the galaxy's positive mass, progressively reducing its potential from what

would normally be predicted by a Newtonian 1/r law. Thus if this distributed background is taken

to be equivalent to a negative mass density of ρ = -10-30 g/cm3, which approximates the negative of

the intergalactic mass density, then a Galaxy of mass 5 X 1010 M would have its gravity field

entirely screened at a galactocentric distance of 3 million light years at which point the gradient of

its potential field would be zero. To satisfy MOND, a more rapid attenuation of the gravity field

would be required, MOND requiring that attenuation of the gravitational force begins to be

noticeable when the field's gravitational acceleration has diminished below a critical threshold of a0

= 10-8 cm/s2.

The idea of a truncated range for gravity is consistent with the observation of Tifft that

neighboring and distant galaxies do not appear to dynamically interact with one another.(26)

Moreover others have argued on theoretical grounds that a range limit to gravity would avoid

problems associated with space having an arbitrarily high or infinite value for its gravity potential

contribution from extragalactic sources.(27) A finite range for gravity would be problematic for

models that predict galaxy formation through gradual accretion of a primordial gas cloud.

However, this is not a problem with nonstandard creation models such as subquantum kinetics

which predict galaxy formation through continuous matter creation in a galaxy's core and gradual

outward growth with later stage formation of spiral arms, a scenario supported by Hubble telescope

observations of distant galaxies.(14)

4. ASTROPHYSICAL CONSEQUENCES OF PHOTON BLUESHIFTING

The existence of photon blueshifting and the resulting production of "genic energy" would have

significant implications for astrophysics in that genic energy would make a major contribution as a

stellar power source, supplementing nuclear fusion and gravitational accretion. For example, (4)

predicts that red dwarfs, brown dwarfs, and planets should be powered exclusively by genic energy

and should share a common mass-luminosity relation of approximately L ∝ M2.7 ± 0.9; see ref. (5)

for details. In fact, the jovian planets are seen to lie along the lower main sequence stellar massluminosity

relation which, using the data of Harris et al.,(22) is of the form L ∝ M2.76 ± 0.15; see

Fig. 2.(5, 6) The brown dwarfs LP 944-20, G 196-3B, and GL 229B(29-32) also are found to lie

close to this line confirming earlier predictions.(4 - 6) These correspondences provide strong

confirmation for the subquantum kinetics blueshifting prediction since on standard theory they

must be passed off as pure coincidence.

Between 0.4 M and 0.6 M (L ≈ 0.025 - 0.05 L), the mass-luminosity relation becomes

somewhat scattered and less well defined. It is in this transition region where the upper main

sequence mass-luminosity relation begins, the M-L relation changing to a steeper slope of L ∝ M4;

(dashed line in Fig. 2). This transition would signify the point where nuclear burning begins to

make a noticeable contribution, supplementing genic energy production. When projected to lower

masses, the upper main sequence M-L relation is found to intersect the lower main sequence M-L

Figure 2. The mass-luminosity coordinates of the jovian planets shown

in relation to the lower main sequence stellar mass-luminosity relation.

The M-L coordinates for the recently discovered brown dwarfs (LP 944-20,

G196-3B, and GL 229B) also are found to lie close to this line.

relation at around 0.4 M. But the lower main sequence relation data trend does not entirely

disappear until a somewhat higher mass is reached, possibly around 0.6 to 0.7 M. The luminosity

gap evident between the lower and upper main sequence relations would indicate the additional

contribution provided by nuclear fusion, nuclear burning providing a progressively larger share of a

star's total radiated energy as stellar mass increases.

In this mass range of 0.2 to 0.5 M, where the lower main sequence transitions to the upper

main sequence, the lower log M-log L relation gradually bends downward to a slightly lower slope.

Figure 3. A nonlinear curve fit to red dwarf mass-luminosity data.

The circle in the upper right hand corner is the indicated value when

the regression is projected up to 1 M.

This may be seen in Figure 3, which plots a nonlinear regression curve fit made to log M and log L

data for red dwarfs in the mass range 0.06 M through 0.6 M. The plotted values are listed in

Table II. In cases where the cited sources list visual magnitudes instead of luminosity values,

bolometric luminosities are calculated using the models of Baraffe, et al. by knowing the spectral

classifications of the respective stars.(33) This downward bend, or "plateau," has also previously

been noted by Henry et al. who have attributed the effect partly to a deepening of a star's convective

region as stellar mass increases.(34)

When extrapolated upward to 1 M, the resulting regression line projects a bolometric

luminosity of 0.16 ± 0.07 L for the Sun. Subquantum kinetics, then, predicts that around 16% of

the Sun's energy should be of non-nuclear genic origin with the remaining majority being supplied

by nuclear fusion.(35) While the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory solar neutrino experiment results

have resolved the mystery as to why other solar neutrino experiments had previously reported low

solar neutrino fluxes, the proposal that fusion may provide only 84± 7 % of the Sun's energy is

nevertheless tolerable in view of the range of uncertainty of stellar fusion models.

If the existence of the photon blueshifting phenomenon is acknowledged, all stellar evolution

models will need to be revised. As described in previous publications, genic energy is also able to

account for high-luminosity white dwarfs and X-ray stars and can explain how certain quasars are

Table II: Masses and Luminosities of Low Mass Stars

Star log M—

log L—

Ref. Star log M—

log L—

Ref.

GL 22 A -0.44 -1.64 [a] GL 747A -0.67 -2.25 [b]

GL 22 C -0.89 -2.57 [a] GL 747B -0.70 -2.32 [b]

GL 65 A -0.99 -2.99 [b] GL 748A -0.42 -1.80 [c]

GL 65 B -1.00 -3.07 [b] GL 748B -0.72 -2.00 [c]

GL 166 C -0.75 -2.20 [a] GL 791.2B -0.90 -3.15 [b]

GL 234 A -0.69 -2.36 [b] GL831 A -0.54 -2.20 [b]

GL 234 B -0.99 -3.08 [b] GL 831 B -0.79 -2.66 [b]

GL 473 A -0.84 -2.91 [b] GL 860 A -0.57 -2.07 [b]

GL 473 B -0.88 -2.91 [b] GL 860 B -0.76 -2.40 [b]

GL 570 B -0.25 -1.30 [b] GL 866 A -0.92 -2.98 [b]

GL 570 C -0.42 -1.52 [b] GL 866 B -0.94 -3.03 [b]

GL 623 A -0.46 -1.71 [a] GL 866 C -1.03 -3.24 [b]

GL 623 B -0.94 -2.64 [a] YY Gem A -0.22 -1.22 [b]

GL 644 A -0.38 -1.63 [b] YY Gem B -0.22 -1.32 [b]

GL 644 Ba -0.46 -1.65 [b] GJ 1245 A -0.89 -2.94 [a]

GL 644 Bb -0.50 -1.77 [b] GJ 1245 C -1.13 -3.44 [a]

GL 661 A -0.42 -1.69 [b] CM Dra a -0.64 -2.25 [b]

GL 661 B -0.43 -1.7 [b] CM Dra b -0.67 -2.29 [b]

LP 944-20 -1.22 -3.80 [d]

[a] T. J. Henry, O. G. Franz, L. H. Wasserman, G. F. Benedict, P. J. Shelus, P. A. Ianna,

J. D. Kirkpatrick, and D. W. McCarthy, Jr., Ap. J. 512, 864 (1999).

[b] X. Delfosse, T. Forveille, D. Ségransan, J.-L. Beuzit, S. Udry, C. Perrier, and M.

Mayor, Astron. Astrophys. 364, 217 (2000).

[c] G. F. Benedict, B. E. McArthur, O. G. Franz, L. H. Wasserman, T. J. Henry, T.

Takato, I. V. Strateva, J. L. Crawford, P. A. Ianna, D. W. McCarthy, et al., A. J. 121,

1607 (2001).

[d] C. G. Tinney, MNRAS 296L, 42 (1998); C. G. Tinney and I. N. Reid, MNRAS 301,

1031 (1998).

able to power themselves in the absence of nearby gas and dust, a recognized problem for black

hole theory.(4 - 6, 14) Moreover genic energy can account for phenomena such as stellar pulsation,

novae, and supernovae. That is, since photon blueshifting can feed back to increase a star's internal

temperature and heat capacity which in turn increases the rate at which energy is produced, this

inherent nonlinearity can ultimately lead to instability.

In an earlier 1985 paper, the author pointed out that the photon blueshifting rate estimated for

photons traveling in the solar system was approximately the same magnitude as the energy

attenuation rate needed to account for the cosmological redshift, but of opposite sign;(4, 6) and more

recently, discoverers of the Pioneer Effect have similarly noted that the blueshifting anomaly has a

magnitude comparable to H0.(2) In fact, the revised estimate of the Pioneer data blueshifting rate

discussed below (2.28 ± 0.4 X 10-18 s-1) is exactly equal in magnitude to the negative Hubble

constant value, the subquantum kinetics prediction being about half this amount. In the context of

subquantum kinetics, this correspondence between the predicted Pioneer maser signal blueshifting

rate and the cosmological redshifting rate would be an indication that the value of the gravitational

potential for regions of space within galaxies does not depart far below the critical threshold, just as

the intergalactic value of the gravitational potential does not depart far above the critical threshold.

This is consistent with the requirement in subquantum kinetics that the underlying subquantum

reaction-diffusion system operates very close to the threshold of marginal stability, and that it had

resided predominantly in a subcritical state during the period preceding the emergence of matter in

supercritical regions. If the subquantum reactions had not initially operated near its critical

threshold, they would have had little chance of spawning material particles out of the zero-point

energy fluctuation background.

5. ADJUSTING THE PIONEER BLUESHIFTING ANOMALY DATA FOR

UNMODELED THERMAL EFFECTS

As mentioned above, the magnitude of the Pioneer anomalous acceleration effect reported by

Anderson et al. should be reduced to 82% of its value to take into account the propulsive effects

due to waste heat radiated from the spacecraft. For example, Scheffer, Katz, and Murphy have

suggested that a portion of the apparent anomalous acceleration acting on the Pioneer spacecraft

may be due to thermal radiation striking the anti-solar side of its antenna coming from the passive

radiators used to cool the spacecraft's electronics, from its RTG power unit, and from various other

sources.(36 - 38) Scheffer's model predicts that the thrust from these thermal sources should have

declined by 11.8% from "Period I" (~10/1988) through "Period III" (~7/1995) due to a decline in

available spacecraft power and changes in the types of experiments being carried out. Instead, a

much smaller rate of decrease in acceleration is seen. The SIGMA WLS values computed for the

anomalous Pioneer 10 acceleration, listed in Table I of Ref. [2], indicate a decrease of 2% from

Period I to Period III, whereas the CHASMP WLS values indicate a decrease of 4.1% over this

same time period. Averaging these two values, it appears that the spacecraft's acceleration decreased

by about 3.05 ± 1% over this period.(39) Consequently, if this 3% decrease is entirely due to the

above unmodeled heating effects, these effects would be responsible for at most

(3.05 ± 1%)/11.8% = 26 ± 9% of the anomalous "acceleration." Although (5) indicates there

should be some degree of decrease in μ as the spacecraft's heliocentric distance progressively

increases, this decline would be very slight, only 0.15% during the above mentioned interval.

Anderson et al., however, maintain that such unmodeled thermal effects account for a much

smaller percentage of the anomalous apparent acceleration,(2,40-42) and include a bias correction of

only -0.55 X 10-8 cm/s2 to take into account the propulsive effect of heat radiated from the RTG

unit; see Table II of Ref. [2]. They find no variation in Pioneer 10's computed acceleration over a

certain period from mid 1992 to mid 1998 and offer this as evidence that the unmodeled thermal

effects play a minor role. However, since their trend line was calculated from data that included the

±30% annual variation described above, their regression line slope will very much depend on which

dates they pick to begin and end their trend-line average. Consequently, a 3% secular decline may

still be present in their data yet be masked by the much larger irregular annual variation. Hence a

negative conclusion in regard to a decline in spacecraft acceleration is unwarranted.

The above discussion of Scheffer's thermal effects model, suggests that the anomalous

acceleration value of 8.7 ± 1.3 X 10-8 cm/s2 reported by Anderson, et al. should be reduced by the

additional amount of 1.86 ± 1.3 X 10-8 cm/s2, i.e., 0.26 × (8.7 + 0.55) × 10-8 -0.55 × 10-8 cm/s2,

to give an unexplained residual of 6.85 ± 1.3 X 10-8 cm/s2. Expressed in terms of photon

blueshifting, this residual would amount to 2.28 ± 0.4 X 10-18 s-1, which comes strikingly close to

the blueshifting rate predicted by subquantum kinetics.

6. GALILEO RANGING MEASUREMENTS.

If the unexplained frequency shift phenomenon is a Doppler shift produced by an anomalous

force acting on the spacecraft, as Anderson et al. have suggested, then one should observe a

corresponding change in the spacecraft's range relative to the Earth. That is, the spacecraft should

be found to be closer than would otherwise be expected. If the frequency shift instead arises

spontaneously as a nonDoppler blueshift affecting only the transponded maser signal, as

subquantum kinetics predicts, then one should expect to find no corresponding change in spacecraft

range. Unfortunately, the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft were not outfitted for ranging

measurements. So Anderson et al. attempted to check for the presence of ranging anomalies by

comparing the ranging and "Doppler shift" data received from the Galileo spacecraft. Ranging

measurements were made by modulating the outgoing maser beam with markers and observing the

time taken for a given marker to be transponded back to Earth. The Doppler shift measurements

were made by comparing the frequencies of the outgoing and incoming maser beams. Anderson et

al. claim that the marker timing measurements showed a decrease in spacecraft range approximating

the amount that would be expected if the anomalous blueshifting they observe in their Doppler shift

data were due to unmodeled forces acting on the spacecraft.(2) Consequently, they concluded that

the data did not favor the alternative explanation of spontaneous frequency blueshifting, which they

alternatively construe as the "time acceleration" hypothesis.

However, there are reasons for doubting their conclusion. For one thing, the data they used was

recorded relatively close to the Sun (1 to 5 AU) while the Galileo spacecraft was traveling from near

the Earth to Jupiter, a region where solar radiation pressure and solar plasma effects dominate the

measurements. By comparison, Anderson et al. began studying the Doppler signal data from the

Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft only after these spacecraft had surpassed a distance of 20 AU, at

which point solar radiation pressure acceleration had decreased to < 5 X 10-8 cm/s2. The same

measure of caution should be applied to the Galileo ranging and Doppler measurements, raising the

question as to the reliability of that data. In fact, Anderson et al. state that the solution they obtained

for the Galileo spacecraft Doppler measurement data was so highly correlated with solar pressure

and so complicated by mid-course orbital maneuvers that a standard null result could not be ruled

out. They also acknowledge that the signal-to-noise ratio on the incoming range signal was small,

requiring long integration times during which time the range of the spacecraft was constantly

changing at a rate of ~6 km/s. Additional uncertainty was introduced because the identification of

the code for the appropriate received ranging signal was inferred, sometimes with great difficulty,

from the orbit determination programs.

Moreover, as mentioned above, Anderson et al. question the accuracy of the solar system

modeling programs they used, speculating that modeling errors in these programs may be the cause

of the large unexplained annual variation observed in residual acceleration. In the case of Pioneer

10 and 11, as the spacecraft progressed from 40 AU to 70 AU, the maser signal path length varied

by a small percentage, about ±2%, due to distance variation arising from the movement of the Earth

about the Sun (±1 AU vs . 55 AU), yet their data charted a large annual variation of ±25%. By

comparison, Galileo's measurements were made 20 times closer to the Sun in the vicinity of 1 - 5

AU where the annual variation of the maser signal path length, relative to the total distance to the

spacecraft, was at least 25 times greater. In this near solar environment, the variable annual

component of the acceleration would have substantially exceeded the nonvarying component

making ranging determinations even more uncertain. Furthermore, when a maser signal passes

through the solar plasma, ranging measurements will experience a time delay, making the calculated

spacecraft distance abnormally large, whereas the transponded return signal used in making the

Doppler frequency comparison will experience a phase advance, making the calculated inferred

spacecraft distance abnormally small.

Although ranging data was also available from the Ulysses spacecraft, those measurements were

considered even less reliable than those from Galileo. In summary, the measurements that

Anderson et al. used to rule out the spontaneous photon blueshifting effect are, by their own

admission, fraught with difficulty. Hence their range change conclusion should be viewed with

caution.

If the Pioneer Effect is in fact due to a spontaneous change in photon energy, as subquantum

kinetics predicts and is not due to an anomalous force acting on the spacecraft, then it will be

necessary to adjust for this effect in Doppler tracking of spacecraft. For example, consider the

anomalous force of 8.7 X 10-8 cm/s2 which Anderson et al. suggest acts on the Pioneer 10

spacecraft. If this is imagined to be real and to have acted on the spacecraft for a full 30 years, then

navigators will place the craft's position 390,000 km closer to the Sun than if the force were believed

to be absent and the blueshifting due to a nonDoppler blueshifting effect. This is about the distance

from the Earth to the Moon, and could result in quite a large error if the nature of the blueshifting is

misjudged.

7. FUTURE EXPERIMENTS AND CONCLUSION

A definitive resolution of the issue of whether Doppler and ranging anomalies really exist may

have to await a future out-of-solar system spacecraft mission such as the Pluto/Kuiper mission

scheduled for launch around 2006 and which includes very sophisticated tracking technology. In

addition, as a result of efforts by Turyshev et al.,(43) the European Space Agency has suggested that

a new spacecraft experiment be launched into the outer solar system around 2015 to exclusively

test the Pioneer Effect. The experiment would be designed to characterize the properties of the

anomaly to an accuracy of at least two orders of magnitude below the anomaly's size.

Another possibility would be to make modifications to the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

(LISA) so that it could detect the predicted effect. LISA, which is due to be launched in 2010,

involves three spacecraft placed in the Earth's solar orbit separated from one another by 5 million

kilometers to form three legs of a triangle with a phase-locked laser beam along each leg.(44)

Although the experiment is planned to be carried out fairly close to the Sun (~1 AU), solar plasma

has little effect on laser beam transmission, hence should not pose a problem. LISA will be able to

detect accelerations of as little as 10-13 cm/s2 (equivalent to a frequency shift rate of ~10-23 s-1),

which is about 105 times smaller than the predicted effect. However, the experiment is currently

being designed primarily for the purpose of detecting low frequency gravity waves in the milli Hz

frequency range and as such is not focused on detecting a "DC" effect similar to that produced by

the Pioneer anomaly, whether it be a constant accelerating force or a constant nonDoppler photon

blueshifting effect.(45)

However, it should be possible to check for the Pioneer effect. At 1 AU from the Sun, the

predicted genic energy effect is expected to blueshift each laser beam at the rate of 1.27 ± 0.7 ×

10-18 s-1, making the beam accumulate a frequency shift of 4.2 X 10-17 by the end of its 107 km

roundtrip. For a beam wavelength of 1 μm, (f = 3 X 1014 Hz), this would amount to a frequency

difference of Δf = 0.0127 Hz. The resulting interference pattern would move through one fringe

cycle every 1/Δf = 79 seconds toward the lower frequency reference laser. This effect would be the

same for each leg of the triangle regardless of each beam's orientation. LISA will be using

photodiode detectors having an interferometer fringe resolution of 4 X 10-5 λ/ Hz which would

allow this net fringe drift to be easily detected.

A nonDoppler frequency shift effect may be distinguished from Doppler shifts arising from

relative drifting of the spacecraft by modulating the laser beam with regularly spaced AM pulses or

polarization shift markers. Any change in the period of these time markers would indicate

exclusively the Doppler component of the frequency shift since the marker period would be

relatively immune to any change in laser frequency. If the laser transponder is instructed to return a

signal that is offset from the original laser frequency by twice the Doppler frequency shift, this

would effectively null out the Doppler component when the transponded signal is received back,

and would leave the photon blueshifting effect to appear in the data coming from each leg as the

primary fringe drift residual. If the Pioneer effect were instead due to an anomalous force pulling

spacecraft toward the Sun, it should accelerate all three LISA spacecraft at approximately the same

rate and hence would be expected to yield no net frequency shift effect.

It is hoped that the necessary design modifications will be made to LISA to allow a test to be

made of this important physical effect. As a follow-up to LISA, a similar experiment could later be

conducted closer to the Sun where the ambient gravity potential is more negative and where

subquantum kinetics predicts that higher blueshifting rates should be observed. Until these

experiments are carried out, the subquantum kinetics blueshifting prediction should provide a useful

alternative to consider in interpreting the Pioneer 10 and 11 tracking anomaly.

References:

[1] J. D. Anderson, P. A. Laing, E. L. Lau, A. S. Liu, M. M. Nieto, and S. G. Turyshev, Phys. Rev.

Lett. 81, 2858 (1998); Eprint arXiv:gr-qc/9808081.

[2] J. D. Anderson, P. A. Laing, E. L. Lau, A. S. Liu, M. M. Nieto, and S. G. Turyshev, Phys. Rev.

D 65, No. 082004 (2002); Eprint arXiv:gr-qc/0104064.

[3] P. A. LaViolette, "Do celestial bodies violate the energy conservation law?," manuscript

submitted in 1979 and 1980 for journal publicaton and later published in revised form in 1992

in Physics Essays; see reference [5].

[4] P. A. LaViolette, Int. J. Gen. Sys. 11, 329 (1985).

[5] P. A. LaViolette, Phys. Essays 5, 536 (1992); erratum: Phys. Essays 6, (1993).

[6] P. A. LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics; The Alchemy of Creation, first edition (Starlane

Publications, Alexandria, VA, 1994), p. 135.

[7] P. A. LaViolette, Beyond the Big Bang (Park Street Press, Rochester, VT, 1995), p. 299.

[8] In their 2002 Physical Review paper [2], Anderson et al. mention that the anomalous

blueshifting effect in the Pioneer data first became noticeable in 1980, however, at that time they

were not sure that it was a real effect. It was not until about 1990, realizing that the anomaly

would not go away, that the JPL team concluded that the data should be more closely examined

[M. Nieto, private communication]. Thereafter the anomaly was mentioned publicly for the first

time at a 1994 conference and in that same year a serious study of the data was begun which

continued through 2002, with journal publications appearing in 1998 and 2002. So, my

communication with JPL suggesting the existence of such a blueshifting effect would predate

even the early stages of the discovery of this effect in the Pioneer maser data. When I contacted

F. Estabrook of JPL in 1980, he had indicated that they were unaware of any persistent

blueshift in spacecraft maser data.

[9] F. B. Estabrook and H. D. Wahlquist, Acta Astronautica 5, 5 (1978).

[10] J. W. Armstrong, R. Woo, and F. B. Estabrook, Ap.J. 230, 570 (1979).

[11] J. D. Anderson and F. B. Estabrook, J. Spacecraft and Rockets 16, 120 (1979).

[12] P. A. LaViolette, Ap. J. 301, 544 (1986).

[13] A. A. Ubachukwu and L. I. Onuora, Astrophys. Space Sci. 209, 169 (1993).

[14] P. A. LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, 2nd edition (Starlane Publications, Alexandria, VA,

2003), Chapter 7.

[15] S.G., Turyshev, J.D. Anderson, P.A. Laing, E.L. Lau, A.S. Liu, and M.M. Nieto, in

Gravitational Waves and Experimental Gravity, Proc. XVIII Moriond Workshop of the

Rencontres de Moriond, edited by J. Dumarchez and J. Tran Thanh Van (World Publishing,

Hanoi, 2000), pp. 481 - 486; Eprint arXiv:gr-qc/9903024.

[16] R.P. Olling and M.R. Merrifield, ASPC 136, 216 (1998); Eprint arXiv:astro-ph/9711157.

[17] R.P. Olling and M.R. Merrifield, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 297, 943 (1998); Eprint

arXiv:astro-ph/9802034.

[18] R.P. Olling and M.R. Merrifield, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 311, 361 (2000); Eprint

arXiv:astro-ph/9907353.

[19] R.P. Olling and M.R. Merrifield, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 326, 164 (2001); Eprint

arXiv:astro-ph/0104465.

[20] M.J. Reid, A.R.A.&A. 31, 345 (1993).

[21] O. Gerhard, Space Science Reviews 100, 129 (2002); Eprint arXiv:astro-ph/0203110.

[22] K. Kuijken and G. Gilmore, Ap.J. 367, L9 (1991).

[23] M. Milgrom, Ap.J. 270, 365 (1983).

[24] M. Milgrom, Ap.J. 270, 371 (1983).

[25] R. Brada and M. Milgrom, MNRAS 276, 453 (1995).

[26] W.G. Tifft, Ap. J. 211, 31 (1977).

[27] S.V.M. Clube, MNRAS 193, 385 (1980).

[28] D.L. Harris III, K.Aa. Strand and C.E. Worley, in Basic Astronomical Data (Univ. Chicago

Press, Chicago, 1963), p. 285.

[29] C.G. Tinney, MNRAS 296L, 42 (1998).

[30] C.G. Tinney and I.N. Reid, MNRAS 301, 1031 (1998).

[31] R. Rebolo, M.R. Zapatero Osario , S. Madruga, V.J.S. Bejar, S. Arribas, and J. Licandro,

Science 282, 1309 (1998).

[32] S.K. Leggett, D.W. Toomey, T.R. Geballe, and R.H. Brown, Ap.J. 517, L139 (1999).

[33] I. Baraffe, G. Chabrier, F. Allard, and P.H. Hauschildt, A&A 337, 403 (1998).

[34] T.J. Henry, O.G. Franz, L.H. Wasserman, G.F. Benedict, P.J. Shelus, P.A. Ianna, J.D.

Kirkpatrick, and D.W. McCarthy, Jr., Ap. J. 512, 864 (1999).

[35] In previous publications [4-7] the lower main sequence M-L relation had been assumed to

have a linear log-log plot in which case its upward projection indicated a luminosity of about

0.58 L. On this basis it had been proposed that ~58% of the Sun's energy was of nonnuclear,

genic energy origin. This has now been revised downward to 16% based on the new

data presented in Table II, which indicates that the relation bends down at its upper end.

[36] E.M. Murphy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1890 (1999); Eprint arXiv:gr-qc/9810015.

[37] J.I. Katz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1892 (1999); Eprint arXiv:gr-qc/9809070.

[38] L.K. Scheffer, 2001. Eprints arXiv:gr-qc/0107092; gr-qc/0108054.

[39] J.D. Anderson, P.A. Laing, E.L. Lau, A.S. Liu, M.M. Nieto, and S.G. Turyshev, Phys. Rev.

Lett. 83, 1893 (1999); Eprint arXiv:gr-qc/9906112.

[40] J.D. Anderson, P.A. Laing, E.L. Lau, A.S. Liu, M.M. Nieto, and S.G. Turyshev, Phys. Rev.

Lett., 83 1891 (1999); Eprint arXiv:gr-qc/9906113.

[41] J.D. Anderson, E.L. Lau, S.G. Turyshev, P.A. Laing, and M.M. Nieto, Mod.Phys.Lett. A17,

875 (2002); Eprint arXiv:gr-qc/0107022.

[42] In the cited references, Anderson et al. propose that the decline in computed acceleration from

interval I to interval III was somehow associated with a change in the spacecraft's spin rate,

although they do not explain how spin rate might induce this effect.

[43] S.G. Turyshev, M.M. Nieto, and J.D. Anderson, paper presented at 35th COSPAR Scientific

Assebly,' July 18-24, 2004, Paris, France; Eprint arXiv:gr-qc/0409117.

[44] (LISA) Laser Interferometer Space Antenna System and Technology Study Report, July 2000;

https://www.srl.caltech.edu/lisa/documents/sts_1.05.pdf.

[45] B.L. Schumaker, LISA team member, personal communication, April 2005.

ENERGY INNOVATIONS SMALL GRANT (EISG) PROGRAM EISG FINAL REPORT CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING OF A HIGH EFFICIENCY SOLAR WATER STILL EISG AWARDEE

01.05.2014 09:43

solarstill.pdf (1,4 MB)

ENERGY INNOVATIONS SMALL GRANT (EISG) PROGRAM

EISG FINAL REPORT

CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING OF A HIGH EFFICIENCY SOLAR WATER STILL

EISG AWARDEE

The Starburst Foundation

Email: starcode@aol.com

AUTHOR

Paul LaViolette, Ph.D., Principal Investigator

Grant Number: 03-07/04

Grant Funding: $74,998

Term: January 2004 – January 31, 2005

PIER Subject Area: Industrial/Agricultural/Water End-Use Efficiency

For EISG PA Use Only -----Do Not Write Below This Line

Did PI call to obtain Format

Instructions briefing?

Report returned to PI or sent out for

TR?

Was an outline submitted to the PA? Is TR evaluation and manual mark-up

consistent with policy

Was receipt of outline

acknowledged by “Next Steps”

memo to PI?

Was Formal comment letter sent to PI

Is proffered report complete, format

and content compliant?

Was Revised final report received?

Legal Notice

This report was prepared as a result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission

(Commission). It does not necessarily represent the views of the Commission, its employees, or

the State of California. The Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors, and

subcontractors make no warranty, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the

information in this report; nor does any party represent that the use of this information will not

infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the

Commission nor has the Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information

in this report.

Inquires related to this final report should be directed to the Awardee (see contact information on

cover page) or the EISG Program Administrator at (619) 594-1049 or email

eisgp@energy.state.ca.us.

I am very grateful to Fred LaViolette, David Zoldoske, Greg Jorgensen, and Raphael Allende

for their interest and help on this project. Also I would like to thank others at the California

Water Institute for their help and support.

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………… 6

Executive Summary…………..…………………………………………………….… 7

Introduction………………………………………………………………………….… 9

Project Objectives………………………………….………………………….……… 10

Project Approach……………………………………………..………………….…… 11

Project Outcomes……………………………………………………..……………… 29

Conclusions…….……………………………………………………..……………… 32

Recommendations……………………………………………………..……………… 33

Public Benefits to California …………………………………………………………33

Development Status Questionnaire ..……………………………………………… 34

Appendix A: Additional Diagrams, Photos, and Tables…………………………… 37

List of Figures

Figure 1. Schematic of a single distillation bay.

Figure 2. Heat recycling in a multi-effect solar still.

Figure 3. The Dune solar still: a) side view, b) end section view, and c) edge detail.

Figure 4. Hypothetical graph of temperature gradients developed along the length of the

evaporator and condenser air ducts.

Figure 5. The Dune solar still with its canopy installed and inflated.

Figure 6. A view showing the canopy wired up with thermocouple leads to measure

temperature at four points along its length.

Figure 7. Depiction of air flow along the length of the still and the approximate locations

of thermocouples measuring water and air temperature.

Figure 8. Temperatures measured in the still at various times of the day (colored data

points) compared with the level of solar insolation (solid black line) for

September 27th, 2004.

Figure 9. Diurnal variation of feedstock water temperature measured at certain distances

along the length of the still on September 27th, 2004.

Figure 10. Diurnal variation of air temperature in the lower air duct measured at certain

distances along the length of the still on September 27th, 2004.

Figure 11. Diurnal variation of air temperature in the upper air duct measured at certain

distances along the length of the still on September 27th, 2004.

Figure 12. Temperature gradients developed along the length of the still in the feedstock

water, lower air duct, and upper air duct.

Figure 13. Water temperature difference between the hot and cold end of the still as a

function of air flow circulation rate through the still.

Figure 14. Distillate production rate as a function of air flow circulation rate through the

still.

Figure 15. Temperature gradients developed along the length of the still at 12 noon on

November 7th with externally heated feedstock water being continuously

circulated through the still.

Figure 16. Temperature gradients developed along the length of the still at 7 PM on

November 7th with externally heated feedstock water being continuously

circulated through the still.

Figure 17. Temperature gradients along the length of the still at 12:07 PM.

Figure 18. Temperature gradients along the length of the still at 5:37 PM.

List of Tables

Table 1. Distillate production by the Dune solar still made with a polyethylene film

canopy.

Table II. Distillate production for the Dune solar still with polyethylene film canopy and

hot feedstock input.

Abstract

The present study tested the feasibility of a new type of solar still which covers an elongated

pool of feedstock water with an inflatable transparent plastic film canopy and uses a fan to blow

air along the length of the pool allowing it to return through an overlying transparent air duct

where it condenses its acquired vapor. A prototype still was built and shown to successfully

distill water. The still was tested to determine whether its rate of daily water production would

exceed the milestone goal of 2.5 gal/m2/day and whether its rate of power consumption per gallon

of water distilled would be less than 4 Wh/gal. Tests showed that the prototype's performance

fell far short of these goals, producing 0.5 gal/m2/day at the end of September with a power

consumption of 47 Wh/gal. The prototype was calculated to have a distillation efficiency of

25%, or 30% if its canopy were fabricated of PFA Teflon film instead of polyethylene. These

results demonstrate that the still operates as a single-effect still, rather than as a multi-effect still,

with an efficiency comparable to that of a conventional greenhouse solar still. If fabricated with a

PFA film canopy, it is projected to produce water at an average cost of $16,400/AF, as compared

with $1,000/AF for a reverse osmosis desalinator. We conclude that this solar desalination

technology is not feasible in comparison with existing desalination technologies.

Key words: solar, water desalination, still, multi-effect, water re-use

Executive Summary

In certain arid agricultural regions such as the San Joaquin Valley, there is currently a pressing

need to desalinate and recycle irrigation drainage water to lower the water table of saline ground

water and to do this in a way that is economical and that does not require large amounts of

energy. The present study was carried out to test a new type of solar desalination technology to

see if it could provide a viable solution to this problem. The still, called the Dune Solar Still,

consists of a transparent canopy fabricated of light-weight plastic film that covers an elongated

solar heated water basin and which is inflated by a small electric fan. The interior air space is

divided by an additional transparent film into a lower evaporation air duct and an upper

condensation air duct. A fan located within this enclosure circulates air down the lower air duct

where it evaporates water from the pool and allows it to return by passing down the length of the

overlying upper air duct where condensation takes place.

One objective of this project was to construct a Dune Solar Still prototype covering an area

of approximately 10 m2 and to show that it would successfully distill water. Another objective

was to measure temperatures developed within the still and to discover how these varied

according to the time of day and according to the rate at which air was circulated within the still.

Furthermore the project intended to discover how much water the still could desalinate per day

per unit land area and to determine the thermal efficiency with which it used incident solar

radiation to produce distilled water. An additional objective was to discover how many watt

hours the still would consume to produce one gallon of water.

The prototype still was built having a canopy fabricated from 6 mil polyethylene film and

was found to operate properly to distill water. Temperatures were measured within the still and

logged over time to see how temperatures were distributed within the still, how they changed

over time in relation to the level of solar radiation, and how they changed in relation to changes in

the rate of air flow within the still. The polyethylene prototype was found at its best to produce

only 0.5 gallons/m2/day, which failed the minimum goal of 2.5 gallons/m2/day. It was found to

have an efficiency of 25%. By comparison, a conventional greenhouse solar still has an efficiency

of about 30%. The Dune Still is projected to perform somewhat better when fabricated with a

canopy made of PFA Teflon film rather than polyethylene, and is expected to achieve a

distillation efficiency of about 30%.

Testing demonstrated that the Dune Solar Still also performed poorly from an energy saving

standpoint in that it was found to consume electric power at a rate of about 47 watt hours per

gallon of produced distillate, which is equivalent to about 15,300 kilowatt hours per acre foot of

water produced (kWh/AF). This is about 12 times higher than the milestone of 4 watt hours per

gallon (1300 kWh/AF). This is also four times higher than the power consumption rate achieved

by large reverse osmosis desalinator plants. Making the still canopy out of Teflon film would

have lowered its energy consumption per gallon to about 39 Wh/gal (12,800 kWh/AF).

It is concluded that the Dune Solar Still would be more expensive than existing desalination

technologies. A version of the still made with an inflatable PFA Teflon film canopy, producing a

year average output of 0.66 gallons/m2/day in a San Joachin Valley location is projected to

produce distillate at a cost of about $16,400/AF. By comparison, a reverse osmosis desalinator

is expected to produce water at a cost of about $1,000/AF. The cost of water produced by a

conventional greenhouse solar still would be about $12,700/AF.

This project demonstrated that the Dune Solar Still functions to effectively distill water. It

also demonstrated that many aspects of the still's mode of operation had been correctly

anticipated, such as its ability to generate a thermal gradient along the length of its air ducts and

its ability to produce a temperature inversion during daylight hours, with air in the upper

condenser air duct being warmer than air directly below it in the lower evaporator air duct.

However, testing also showed that the initial belief that the Dune Solar Still would function as a

multi-effect solar still was unfounded and that the still instead functions as a single-effect still.

In addition the project examined the performance of the still when heated both by solar

energy and by an external source of heat supplied continuously in the form of hot water. When

continuously supplied with water heated to a temperature of 177° F (80° C), the still's water

production output averaged 2 gallons/m2/day, or about 80% the 2.5 gallons/m2/day milestone.

But its efficiency averaged 25%, less than that of a conventional greenhouse solar still. The

power consumption of this hot feedstock version of the still calculated to be at best about 53

watt hours per gallon (17,300 kWh/AF).

Although the Dune Solar Still would produce considerably more distilled water when fed

continuously with externally heated feedstock water, its cost per gallon would still be almost five

times higher than for reverse osmosis desalination, $4,500/AF as compared with $1,000/AF.

Moreover a conventional greenhouse solar still continuously supplied with externally heated

feedstock water should produce water at a lower cost of $3,000/AF.

A version of the still fabricated with a polycarbonate roof did not perform as well as the

polyethylene film version and hence it also would not be economically competitive with other

desalination technologies. Heated by solar energy alone, its water production output averaged

only about 0.35 gallons/m2/day at the end of August and operated at an efficiency of only about

12%. Its low distillate production was due to its inability to consistently establish a positive

thermal gradient along its length. The power consumption of this design was about 26 watts per

gallon (8,500 kWh/AF).

Computer simulations performed on the Dune Solar Still design by Professor Yong Tao of

Florida International University indicated that there would be no benefit to increasing the length

of the still since water production per unit area decreased slightly with longer still designs.

It would be impractical to use the Dune Solar Still as an alternative to solar pond evaporation

as a way of desalinating irrigation run-off water since the Dune Solar Still (version made with a

PFA Teflon canopy powered by solar heating alone) plus its brine evaporation pond would

require about 9% of the agricultural land area. A conventional solar evaporation pond, on the

other hand, would require slightly more land area, about 10%, but would have a much lower

construction cost.

This study does not recommend that further research be undertaken into this type of solar

still design. If the technology had proven effective, the California public would have benefited

through implementation of an inexpensive means to lower the salinity of fertile agricultural land.

However, since the technology did not prove to be cost effective or energy efficient, there would

be no future benefits to its implementation.

Introduction

The purpose of this project has been to determine the feasibility, performance, and operating

characteristics of a novel, multi-effect solar water still, here termed the Dune Solar Still, which

had been invented in the mid 1970's by the principle investigator Paul LaViolette. When fully

inflated, the Dune still has the shape of an arching tube; see Figure 1. The solar distillation bay

prototype that was constructed and tested measured about 1.17 meters in width, about 8.8

meters in length, with a height of about 0.5 m when inflated. In an actual installation distillation

bays could measure up to 30 meters in length and would be arrayed side by sideto form a solar

distillation "farm" (see Appendix A, Figure A-1). The Dune Solar Still uses solar energy to

evaporate water into a ducted airstream and subsequently condenses water from this airstream to

produce fresh water. Initially, it was theorized that the Dune Solar Still should function as a

multi-effect still, recycling its released heat of condensation to assist evaporation; see Figure 2.

By comparison, a conventional greenhouse solar still is a single effect still, meaning that it uses its

acquired solar heat only once to distill a given amount of feedstock water.*

The project focused on the potential use of this still to the application of desalinating highsalinity

agricultural drainage water for reuse in crop irrigation. Consequently, this research was

appropriate to the Industrial/Agricultural/Water End-Use Efficiency subject area of the EISG

Program. As noted in the PIER website (www.energy.ca.gov/pier/indust/index.html), "the

availability of low-cost clean water is essential to California's economy and continued

prosperity" and that the treatment of large volumes of substandard and saline water relies heavily

Figure 1. Schematic of a single distillation bay.

Figure 2 Heat recycling in a multi-effect solar still.

___________________________

* In a greenhouse still, solar radiation is absorbed by a light-absorbing floor panel and heats an

overlying layer of water (see Appendix A, Figure A-2). The heated water evaporates and its vapor

condenses in droplets on an overlying, cool, inclined window pane. The condensed water droplets run

down this pane and collect in a trough at the side of the still. Such stills are designed to lose heat

through their window pane to the environment so as to encourage vapor condensation. Thus all of

the solar energy they absorb to evaporate water is lost to the environment upon condensation.

on electric power. So if this technology were to prove superior to existing desalination

technologies it could result in substantial savings to California in terms of reduced kilowatt hour

consumption used in the desalination of irrigation drainage water, or in the production of

desalinated water for residential or industry use.

In the past, solar distillation technologies have been considered economically impractical

because their water cost has been high when compared to that of municipal drinking water at

~$460 per acre-foot (AF). The economics for water desalination is more favorable in the San

Joaquin Valley in the application to desalinating irrigation drainage water since drainage water

desalination and reuse is a necessity here independent of the price of irrigation water. For

example, in the San Joaquin Valley soil salinity has become excessive because of failure in the

past to recycle agricultural drainage water. The long time practice of importing irrigation water

has raised the water table in the area due to the presence of an impermeable clay layer which

prevents downward percolation of the water. Fertilizer salts have leached into the ground water

and the resulting salty ground water has risen to root level killing crops. About 2.5 million acres

of productive farmland there are threatened by saline shallow ground water, of which about

750,000 acres have already been lost due to elevated soil salinity. The California Department of

Water Resources (DWR) has implemented a program to address this problem which currently

promotes solar evaporation ponds as a way of dispensing of this water. However, these require

excessive acreage: ~10% of the arable land area for evaporating once-used irrigation water.

Moreover in many regions these ponds pose a threat to bird wildlife due to their high

concentration of toxic metals such as selenium. Consequently, California is interested in

exploring drainage water desalination and reuse as a way of reducing the needed solar evaporation

pond acreage. Furthermore, the California Dept. of Water Resources is interested in exploring

alternatives to reverse osmosis desalination since R.O. by itself does not provide a complete

brine disposal solution. At 10,000 TDS, R.O. desalinators must discharge 25% of the input

stream volume as high-salinity water as compared to only 5% in the case of a solar still such as

the Dune still. Also, as noted below, R.O. consumes large amounts of electricity per acre-foot

(AF) of processed water. Hence if an alternative technology can be found that consumes less

power per AF of water produced, this would be of great benefit to California and the world as a

whole.

Project Objectives

Project objectives were as follows:

1) Hire personnel, set up and prepare the office for the project, purchase equipment and

supplies, and erect an instrument shed and set up a fence around the test site.

2) Prepare a working sketch of the 10 m2 still. Fabricate initial prototype of solar water still

having a polyethylene film canopy.

3) Test the solar still constructed with a polyethylene canopy and demonstrate that it will

produce more than 2.5 gallons per day per square meter of still land area and that it will

consume less than 4 watt-hours per gallon (Whr/gal) on the average under winter season testing

conditions (cloudless sky, 75° F weather) typical of southern California and process

agricultural drainage water of less than 10,000 TDS salinity. Also demonstrate that the

polyethylene prototype still will produce more than 3.5 gallons/m2/day on average and

consume less than 2.5 Whr/gal on average under summer conditions typical of southern

California (100° + weather), while processing agricultural drainage water of less than 10,000

TDS salinity.

4) Fabricate and install a still canopy made of PFA Teflon film.

5) Test the still fitted with a canopy made of PFA Teflon film. Determine whether the still will

produce more than 3.5 gal/m2/ day on average and consume less than 2.5 Whr/gal on average

(< 800 kWh/AF) under winter season testing conditions (cloudless sky, 75° F weather) typical

of southern California and processing agricultural drainage water of less than 10,000 TDS

salinity. Also demonstrate that under summer conditions typical of southern California (100°

+ weather) it will produce more than 5 gallons/m2/day on average and consume less than 1.53

Whr/gal on average, while processing agricultural drainage water of less than 10,000 TDS

salinity.

6) Perform a cost analysis. Show from the data generated in this project that the projected cost

of $113/m2 for building a 173 m2 still module continues to be supported. Show from the data

generated in this project that the projected cost of $490/AF for desalinating drainage water

having a salinity of less than 10,000 TDS continues to be supported.

Project Approach

1. Design and Operation of the Still

The lower part of the still consists of a shallow water filled basin whose floor is covered with

black Hypalon membrane overlying an insulating concrete base. An electric pump fills this basin

to a depth of a few inches with brackish feedstock such as agricultural drainage water, saline river

water, seawater, or high-salinity well water. The still's canopy section is fabricated from several

layers of transparent plastic film heat-sealed together at the edges. This may be made of 4 year

polyethylene film or long life, UV resistant Teflon film such as PFA or FEP which have lifetimes

(> 30 years). One of the canopy's transparent film layers divides the still's interior air space into

a lower evaporating air duct and an upper condensing air duct; see Figure 3. Also two additional

transparent films form the roof of the upper air duct, the double layer helping to prevent heat

loss much as would the thermopane window of a flat plate solar collector. The insulating air

space between these two outer transparent films is inflated with dry air. The edges of the plastic

film canopy are secured to the basin floor of the still by means of film gripping strips. The

canopy may be detached from the basin, allowing the still to be opened for periodic cleaning.

During daylight hours the brackish water pool is heated by solar radiation which passes

through the still's transparent roof and which is absorbed by the still's light-absorbing floor. An

electric fan, similar to a desktop computer cooling fan, is mounted in a partition that rests upright

on the floor of the still at one end of its enclosed air space and beneath the heat exchanger film.

When operating, the fan circulates air in a closed loop within the still. As air is blown down the

length of the lower tubular air duct, it passes over the surface of the heated feedstock water and

becomes humidified. Under steady state conditions a temperature gradient will become

established along the length of the still, the temperature of both the air and water increasing with

increasing distance along the length of the lower air duct. As the air travels forward, its

temperature rises and it accumulates an increasing amount of water vapor.

At the far end of the still, the hot moist air enters the cooler upper tubular air duct through a

hole in the transparent heat transfer film. Here it reverses its direction of flow to travel toward

the fan end of the still. As the air passes down the length of this air duct, it gradually cools due

to heat being lost both upward through the roof of the still and downward through the lower

transparent heat transfer film. Condensation takes place on the wall surfaces of this upper air

duct and especially at the lower edges of the air duct where the heat transfer film directly

Figure 3. The Dune Solar Still: a) side view, b) end section view, and c) edge detail.

contacts the pool of feedstock water allowing efficient transfer of the heat of condensation. At

the fan end of the still the air reenters the lower air duct through a second hole in the transparent

film at a point behind the fan intake. The still is kept pressurized by an outside air vent tube that

terminates in the low pressure region behind the fan.

Throughout a portion of the length of the still, the air in the upper condenser air duct is

expected to be warmer than the air in the lower evaporator air duct. This is due to the time lag

involved in heating the air in the lower air duct and the complementary time lag involved in

cooling air in the upper air duct, as illustrated in the hypothetical diagram shown in Figure 4.

Consequently, heat will conduct and radiate through the plastic film partition from the upper to

the lower air duct. The condensate that collects at the edges of the plastic tube will also be

warmer than the adjacent pool of brackish feedstock water and will transfer heat to this pool

through the heat transfer film.

The Dune still insulates its evaporator chamber better than a greenhouse still by making its

canopy from two transparent films separated by an insulating air space. Rather than encourage

condensation through roof heat loss, as in the conventional greenhouse solar still, the Dune still

seeks to develop its condensation thermal gradient along the length of its enclosure while

minimizing its upward heat loss. It was expected that this would allow the Dune still to achieve

higher interior temperatures than those within a greenhouse solar still. Since a given volume of

air is able to hold far more water vapor at higher temperatures; see Appendix A, Figure A-3.

This would act to favor the operation of the still.

The Dune still could incorporate control circuits to automate its operation. Generally

speaking, higher levels of insolation will require higher fan speeds and greater air flow rates to

maintain optimal distillation rates. Consequently, one control circuit design might utilize a

Figure 4. Hypothetical graph of temperature gradients developed along

the length of the evaporator and condenser air ducts. Actual test data

indicates that the temperature differential between the hot and cold

ends of the still actually is about one fourth as much as shown here.

photovoltaic cell to sense the level of insolation and control the fan speed accordingly. Another

control circuit might use a sensing thermistor to turn on the still's fan when its evaporator

chamber has warmed to a sufficiently high temperature. Control for the feedstock water pumps

could be manual or automatic via a timer. The pump would begin its cycle in the morning before

the still had warmed up. First, the concentrated brine would be pumped out from the basin and

then a new batch of feedstock water would be admitted to the basin. Distillate pumping would

be done at periodic intervals.

2. Construction Phase

a. Construction of the Still Base and Test Site

The project to test the Dune Solar Still prototype was carried out by the Starburst Foundation

on facilities leased from the California Water Institute (CWI) of Fresno, California. The test

site was located at the northwest corner of the California State University Fresno campus.

The first phase of the project was to bring water and electric utilities out to the test site

which was located on a plot of land in an open field adjacent to the CWI building. Trenches were

dug and pipe and conduit was laid down to supply water and 20 amps of line current to the site.

The site was then tractor graded and leveled with the aid of a laser level. A load of sand was

added prior to final leveling. The area was then wetted and compacted with a vibra compactor.

Two-by-four beams were laid out, nailed together, and secured to the ground with cement

stakes to form frames for the bases of two adjacent solar still bays. One bay measured about 28

feet long and the other bay measured about 56 feet long. Each bay was about 46 inches wide.

Trenches were dug at the end of each bay and four PVC pipes were laid to each bay to supply,

feedstock water to the basin, drain brine from the basin, remove freshwater distillate from the

still, and supply air and electrical power to the still interior; see Appendix A, Figures A-4 and A-

5. The frames were aligned and leveled with the aid of strings and a laser level. Next, the frame

was filled with a 3.25" layer of insulating concrete (mixture of Perlite, cement, and aerating agent);

see Appendix A, Figures A-6. The surface was trawled and leveled with a screed. Next, after the

cement had cured, the basin sideboards were nailed on and the cement surface was sanded level;

see Appendix A, Figure A-7. Then, a 36 mil thick Hypalon® membrane was glued to the basin

bottom and side walls; see Appendix A, Figure A-8. The sides of the basin were insulated with

foam insulation. Bowl like drains were formed at the ends of each basin and were plumbed to

underground drain pipes leading to water storage tanks. The basins were filled with water and

found to be to level within 1 centimeter along their lengths. At a later time this basin was to be

covered with a polyethylene film canopy.

Two polyethylene tanks, holding 325 and 510 gallons respectively were installed and

plumbed to the still; see Appendix A, Figure A-9. Four pumps operating on 12 volts DC were

installed on a vertical board near the tanks, two hooked up to each basin. But it was discovered

that the pumps were not self priming, so they were later were moved underground to valve boxes

located at each end of the still bays. For each basin, one pump pumped brine from through the

basin drain and into the top of one of the polyethylene tanks. It was actuated by a float level

switch when water in the basin fell below a certain lower limit; see Appendix A, Figure A-10.

After a set time period during which the bay would be drained of water, a timer relay mounted in

the circuit breaker control box (Appendix A, Figure A-11) would shut off the pump and open a

solenoid valve allowing feedstock water to flow from the bottom of the tank to the bay. The

pump would shut off when the water level in the bay had risen above a set upper limit. In order

to conserve water, the test set up was designed as a closed water circulation system: from the

still to the tank and from the tank back to the still. Another timer relay at set intervals would

cause a second diaphragm pump to turn on and pump distillate from the still into a 15 gallon

distillate holding tank located on top of each of the main storage tanks; see Appendix A, Figure

A-12. The amount of distillate was measured either by siting the tank's level from gradations

marked on its side or by actuating a solenoid valve to empty the tank while measuring the water

flow rate through a data logged water flow meter.

b. Construction of the Polyethylene Canopy Version of the Dune Solar Still

While the test facilities were under construction, a plastic fabricating company was

fabricating the tubular polyethylene canopy. The fabrication involved heat sealing three layers of

clear, 6 mil thick polyethylene film along their edges to form an inflatable tubular enclosure

according to the design shown in Figure 3. The film had an anticondensate coating. The

fabricators were supplied with drawings and with a 1/4 scale model mock up of one end of the

canopy; see Figures A-13 and A-14 (Appendix A). The first canopy they manufactured

unfortunately was flawed. After testing was begun it was discovered that the heat seal along its

long dimension was open in four places. Hence the canopy had to be remanufactured at a

considerable delay to the project.

Meanwhile we experimented with several methods of anchoring the edges of the polyethylene

film canopy to the bottom of the still basin. Various types of film grips were installed along the

edges of the basin and tested for their effectiveness. First, a rubber U channel was installed to

grip both the edge of the canopy and the distillate tube running along the perimeter of its interior,

but the air pressure inflating the canopy pulled the canopy free. Then, cupped flexible

polyethylene strips (Figure A-15) were fastened to the basin perimeter in various orientations,

but these also failed to retain the canopy upon inflation. PVC pipe tees were also tried. Finally,

it was concluded that the canopy would need to be redesigned to include a three inch flap along

its perimeter. This flap was to be secured by aluminum poly-grip fasteners used in securing

greenhouse canopies. A new polyethylene canopy was manufactured and the poly fasteners

were installed (see Figure A-16 of Appendix A). This method was found to successfully hold

down the canopy under inflation.

Figure 5 shows the solar still canopy inflated and in operation. In this picture a 12 volt hair

dryer fan was being used to inflate the canopy by applying a positive pressure to the vertical air

pipe leading to the interior of the still. By redesigning the air pipe to provide less flow resistance

a low wattage 18 cfm 12 volt (0.14 amp) axial fan was later used to keep the canopy inflated; see

Figure A-17, Appendix A. The metered control panel leaning against the edge of the still was

used to operate the still's fans. The voltage to the fans was controlled by a rheostat. The meters

read out voltage and current flowing to the fans to assess power consumption. A partition

divided the 56 foot long water basin approximately in half to accommodate the still canopy

which measured about 29 feet long.

The lower air duct had a cross sectional area of approximately 1800 cm2 and the upper air

duct had a cross sectional area about 30% larger. When operating the fan blew air down the

length of the bay, evaporating water from the pool of feedstock water. At the other end of the

bay the air would pass through a 12 inch diameter hole into the upper air duct formed within the

canopy and would flow back to the fan end of the still, condensing a portion of its water vapor as

it cooled. Then, the air would pass through another 12 inch diameter hole into the airspace below

the canopy and downstream of the fan inlet to be recirculated once again. Air blown through one

of the vertical PVC pipes helped to keep the canopy inflated. A 3/8" black Norprene tube which

ran along the perimeter of the interior of the canopy can be seen in the photograph. It would

make a complete loop of the perimeter with both of its ends attaching via the T connector to the

distillate suction hose, This hose led to a 12 volt diaphragm pump located in an underground

valve box.

Figure 5. The Dune Solar Still with its canopy installed and inflated.

c) Construction of a System to Externally Heat the Feedstock Water

In November the still design was modified so that hot feedstock water would continuously

circulate through it. One reason this was done was to study the still's performance at a higher

temperature range. Since construction of the Dune Solar Still was delayed, testing did not begin

until after the equinox, and as a result, maximum temperatures achieved in the still were much

lower than they would have been if tested close to the solstice. By artificially heating the

feedstock water with an external heat source, the performance of the still could be examined in

this higher temperature range. A second reason for testing the still with an external heat source

was to simulate the still's performance if it were designed to distill saline geothermal water passed

continuously through the distillation bay from the hot to the cool end of the still. Such water

could be supplied from geothermal water exiting a geothermal power plant and diverted to the

still prior to subterranean reinjection. It could also come from saline produced water, the byproduct

geothermal water discharged from petroleum wells. Often this water comes out of the

ground at moderately high temperatures, 140° F or more, and is costly to dispose of. The

advantage of using geothermally heated water as feedstock water is that the still may be made to

operate continuously, rather than just during daylight hours.

To test the Dune Solar Still modified for receiving a continuous flow of hot water, the output

from the still's drain pump was connected to an insulated rubber hose (Appendix A, Figure A-

20). Feedstock water pumped from the cool end of the still through this hose was conducted

through a water filter and into a Takagi TK-Jr. tankless water heater located at the hot end of the

still; see Figure A-21 (Appendix A).* From there the heated water was discharged through

another insulated hose which emptied into the hot end of the still. The water heater was fueled

with propane tanks which were recharged daily. The ends of the still were covered with pieces

of foam insulation to reduce heat loss from the heated water pool which at these end locations

would otherwise be exposed to the atmosphere (Appendix A, as shown in Figure A-22).

d) Construction of a Version of the Dune Solar Still Made with a Polycarbonate Roof

Another variation of the Dune solar still that was built was one that used clear, polycarbonate

sheet (6 mm thick twin-wall Lexan® containing an insulating air space) to form the roof and end

pieces of the still; see Appendix A, Figure A-23. This replaced the upper two film layers of the

inflatable polyethylene canopy version. The roof was self supporting being a stiff sheet that was

spring loaded against the walls of the basin to form an arch. Cut panels were sealed to the ends

with putty. As in the polyethylene canopy version, a 6 mil polyethylene sheet was used to

divide the upper and lower air ducts. The film was wrapped around the edge of the

polycarbonate sheet and taped to its outside (Figure A-24, Appendix A). The air flow along the

lower air duct would keep this dividing film inflated allowing distillate to collect at the edges of

its upper surface. A fan partition was placed below one end of this film in the same manner as

was done with the polyethylene canopy version of the still. Although the polycarbonate sheet

had an anticondensate coating on its lower side, there was still considerable beading of water

droplets on its surface.

________________________

* Earlier in October several other types of water heaters had been tried, both tank type and tankless,

but were found to be inadequate. It was found that they were not able to take heated water as an

input since as the input temperature approached a certain threshold an internal thermostatic safety

switch would be tripped, preventing the heater from achieving a high enough exit water temperature.

Only the Takagi water heater was found to be suitable. This was able to take heated water as an input

and achieve exit water temperatures as high as 182° F (83° C) regulated to within ±2° C.

3. Instrumentation

Thermocouples were installed in the still and their leads connected to a 16 channel Consort

T851 temperature data logger kept within the instrument cabinet seen on the right hand side of

Figure 6. Temperatures were measured at four points along the length of the still as shown in

Figure 7. Measuring from the cool end of the still where the fan was located, the probes were

positioned at: 0.9 meters, 3.4 meters, 5.8 meters, and 8.3 meters. They were encapsulated within

heat shrink tubing to prevent electrical contact with the water and were wrapped in aluminum foil

to minimize direct solar heating of the thermocouples. Wire mesh arches helped to position the

probes vertically (Appendix A, Figure A-25). One set of probes were attached to the bottom of

the basin to measure water temperature (Channels 1, 4, 9, and 14). A second set were suspended

in the lower air duct air stream to measure air temperature in the lower air duct (Channels 2, 5/6,

10/11, and 15). A third set were passed into the upper air duct to measure air temperature in the

upper air duct (Channels 3, 7/8, 12/13, and 16). In the case of the middle two temperature

locations (3.4 m and 5.8 m), two probes were used to sample the lower air duct temperature and

Figure 6. A view showing the canopy wired up with thermocouple leads to measure

temperature at four points along its length.

Figure 7. Depiction of air flow along the length of the still and the approximate locations of

thermocouples measuring water and air temperature.

two to sample the upper air duct temperature. The readings of the two probes were later

averaged together.

The temperature readings were estimated to have an absolute error of about ±1.5° C. When

comparing one temperature probe to another, their relative error was somewhat lower at about

±0.4° C (see Appendix A, Figure A-26). The vertical scale marks the amount by which the

temperature reading for each of the 16 thermocouple probes deviated from the average bath

temperature measured by three mercury thermometers and plotted against bath temperature on

the horizontal axis.

Air speed in the lower air duct was measured with a rotating vane Extech anemometer placed

upstream of the fan intake (Appendix A, Figure A-27). Initially, air speed was measured at the

hot end of the still at the entrance to the hole between the upper and lower air ducts. But it was

determined that measuring at the fan intake gave a more accurate reading.

Solar insolation levels, ambient air temperature, and wind speed were logged hourly at the

CIMIS (California Irrigation Management Information System) weather station located on the

Fresno State University Campus. This data was accessible from the CIMIS website at

https://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/welcome.jsp .

4. Solar Still Performance Data

a) Dune Solar Still with an Inflatable Polyethylene Film Canopy

Experimentation and testing of the Dune Solar Still with a polyethylene canopy were carried

out from September 16th to October 7th and on October 14th. Figures 8 through 12 plot data

that was logged over a 24 hour period on September 27th. Figure 8 shows the temperatures

measured at four locations along the length of the still by the 16 thermocouples (colored data

points) compared with the level of solar insolation (solid black line). Ambient air temperature on

September 27th ranged from a low of 11° C at 9 AM to a maximum of 33° C at 3 PM. Wind

speed averaged about 2 meters per second. As seen here, temperature in the still reached a

maximum around 3:30 PM, three and a half hours after solar insolation maximum. The dip in

temperatures around 4 PM was due to the shadow from the tops of two tall pine trees near the

southwest corner of the site which shaded about 30% of the still's area until sundown. When the

site was first staked out in mid April, it had been thought that the site had been located

sufficiently northward to avoid these tree shadows. But these measurements were made on a

date that was one month further from solstice when the trees cast longer shadows to the north.

Figures 9, 10, and 11 show the diurnal temperature variations at four locations along the

length of the still in the feedstock water pool, lower air duct, and upper air duct respectively.

Figure 12 plots the temperature gradients measured along the length of the still at 3:02 PM in the

feedstock water pool (blue), lower air duct (red), and upper air duct (yellow). The still's fans

were circulating air through the air ducts at a rate of 140 cfm (cubic feet per minute). Hygrometer

measurements showed that air in the lower air duct at the hot end of the still had a relative

humidity of 96%.

Data on daily distillate production per unit area, fan air flow within the still, and energy

efficiency are presented in Table I. The gained output rate (GOR) energy efficiency is calculated

by taking the volume of distillate produced per square meter, multiplying it by the heat of

evaporation (539 calories per gram), and dividing it by the daily incident solar energy flux per

square meter as measured by the CIMIS weather monitoring station.

At the time when the still achieved its maximum temperature, around 3:02 PM, the feedstock

Figure 8. Temperatures measured in the still at various times of the day (colored data points)

compared with the level of solar insolation (solid black line) for September 27th, 2004.

Figure 9. Diurnal variation of feedstock water temperature measured at

certain distances along the length of the still on September 27th, 2004.

Figure 10. Diurnal variation of air temperature in the lower air duct measured

at certain distances along the length of the still on September 27th, 2004.

Figure 11. Diurnal variation of air temperature in the upper air duct measured

at certain distances along the length of the still on September 27th, 2004.

Figure 12. Temperature gradients developed along the length of

the still in the feedstock water, lower air duct, and upper air duct.

Table I

Distillate Production by the Dune Solar Still Made with a Polyethylene Film Canopy

Date

Water

Produced

(gal/m2/day)

Energy

Effic.

(%)

Air Flow

(cfm)

Water

ΔT

(°C)

Comments

9/16 0.3 110 9 Still down from 9:30 - 10:30 for adjustment

9/17 0.3 Canopy deflated from 12 AM to 4:50 PM

9/18 0.27

9/19 0.27 65 11

9/20 0.48 280 7 Repair/canopy open 1 - 3:15 PM fan end

9/21 0.48 135

9/22 0.48 115 4

9/23 0.38 85 Repair/ hot end open 1:15 PM

9/24 Still not operating

9/25 Still not operating

9/26 - 27 Still began operation 12:50 PM

9/27 - 28 0.5* 24.8* 180 As of 10:40 AM, 9/27

9/28 - 29 " " 160

9/29 - 30 " " 100 - 200 8.3 Until 5:30 PM. Still under repair for 3/4 hr

9/30 0.25 13.3** 70 5.7

10/1 0.3 " 80 6.8

10/2 0.3 " 80

10/3 0.3 " Still under repair

10/4 0.25 " 525 3.7

10/5 0.31 " 200-500

10/6 0.32 " 240 4.7

10/7 Still is operated until 12 noon

10/14 0.35 23.7 225 3

* Average of 9/27 through 9/29 ** Average of 9/30 through 10/6

water achieved a temperature difference of 4.8° C along the length of the still (blue line in Figure

12). The air temperature in the lower evaporator air duct achieved a greater temperature

differentials of 5.6° C while the air temperature in the upper condenser air duct achieved a lower

temperature differential of 3.5° C (red and yellow lines in Figure 12). These gradients were

substantially less or nonexistent during night time and early morning hours.

In general, when the still was at its maximum temperature, the air in the lower air duct

averaged about half a degree cooler than the temperature of the solar heated water that it was in

contact with. Over three fourths of the still's length, the air in the upper air duct was from 0.5 to

1.6° C warmer than the air directly below it in the lower air duct. This indicates that heat of

condensation could be transferred from the upper to the lower air duct indicating that the still

was possibly recuperating some of this heat. Over half of the length of the still the air

temperature in the upper air duct was warmer than the temperature of the water in the feedstock

water pool directly below it. So it is even possible that some of the heat of condensation was

helping to heat this water pool.

It had been initially theorized that due to the fact that air was being advected through the

lower air duct from the cooler to the warmer end of the still and through the upper air duct from

the warmer to the cooler end of the still and because there would be a time lag for this air to

change its temperature, that such a temperature inversion would develop. The observed

temperature gradients confirmed these initial expectations that the air temperature in the upper

air duct would be greater than that in the lower air duct.

As expected, the thermal gradient along the length of the still tended to decline as air flow rate

circulating through the still increased. For example, using the data in Table I, Figure 13 plots the

water pool temperature difference between the hot and cold end of the still as a function of air

flow rate through the upper and lower air ducts. Although there is considerable scatter in the

data, a trend is definitely seen. Figure 14 plots how distillate production was affected by air duct

air flow rate. The production rate appears to be low at both low fan speed and high fan speed,

with a maximum at around 180 cfm.

The distillate production rate of the still at its best averaged 0.5 gallons/m2/day during the

period September 27th to 30th. This fell far below the milestone goal which was set at 2.5

gallons per day per square meter of still area for suboptimal season conditions. The thermal

energy efficiency of the still was also calculated to be very low. The highest efficiency listed in

Table I, about 25%, is low compared to that of a greenhouse solar still which typically has an

efficiency of 30%. The efficiency would have been higher if the canopy had instead been made of

PFA Teflon film, which has a solar transmission of 96% as compared to polyethylene film which

has a transmission of 88%. Transmission through three layers of PFA film would have been 30%

greater than through three layers of polyethylene film, although the PFA film may have produced

more back scattering since it would have had no anticondensate coating. If there had been a

proportional increase in distillate production, the efficiency of the Dune still would have been

boosted to about 32.5%. Although computer simulations performed on the Dune still by Prof.

Yong Tao of Florida International University suggest that distillate production would have

increased only about 18% with use of a PFA film canopy, in which case the Dune still would

have had an overall efficiency of around 30%, essentially the same as a conventional greenhouse

solar still.

The electric power consumption for operating the still was calculated as follows. Power was

needed for the following: a) operating the fan inside the still and the external blower inflating the

canopy, b) operating the diaphragm pump to extract distillate from the canopy, c) operating the

Figure 13. Water temperature difference between the hot and cold end

of the still as a function of air flow circulation rate through the still.

Figure 14. Distillate production rate as a function of air

flow circulation rate through the still.

diaphragm pump to empty brine from the still's basin.

fan (180 cfm): 1.5 amps X 12.6 volts = 18.9 watts X 24 hours = 455 watt-hours

blower: 0.14 amps X 12.6 volts = 1.7 watts X 24 hours = 40 watt-hours

distillate pump: 4 watt-hours per gallon X 5.9 gallons/day = 24 watt-hours

feedstock water pumping: 6 watt-hours per gallon X 1 gallon/day = 6 watt-hours

Total: 525 watt-hours/day

525 watt-hours/day ÷ 5.5 gallons/day = 95 watt-hours/gallon

The circulation fan could be run for 10 hours instead of 24 hours (e.g., 10 AM to 8 PM) without

any decrease in distillate production, in which case the total daily power consumption would

drop to 260 watt-hours for a power consumption of 47 watt-hours per gallon. This exceeds by

over an order of magnitude the desired milestone energy consumption goal of 4 watt-hours per

gallon.

Using the observed distillate production rate per unit area and the power consumption per

gallon, it is possible to estimate a cost per gallon for the water for comparison to other

technologies. The derivation of this cost is presented in Table A-I of Appendix A. Let us

assume that the still produces water with an efficiency of 30% similar to a conventional

greenhouse solar still. This assumes a somewhat higher production rate than would be achieved

with the polyethylene version of the still, but which would be possible if the canopy was

fabricated of PFA Teflon film. Given that the San Joaquin Valley of California has an average

daily insolation of 5.2 kWh/m2, A still operating at 30% efficiency would produce 0.66 gallons

per m2. Hence for a plant producing 143,000 gallons per day (160 acre-feet per year) the Dune

Solar Still farm would need to have a total area of 216,700 m2, or 52.6 acres. Given an estimated

construction cost of $112.5/m2, the total plant cost would be $32,175,000. This would entail an

annual financing cost of $2,224,000. Assuming a power consumption of 39 watt-hours per

gallon, a Dune still producing 143,000 gallons/day would require 2,036,000 kWhr/yr at a cost of

$254,000/yr. Adding in the annual operating cost of $150,000 would bring the total annual cost

to $2,628,000, giving a water cost per acre-foot of $16,400.

By comparison, a conventional greenhouse solar still, which would produce water at

approximately the same rate, would be less expensive to construct and would have essentially no

electrical power cost. So its water cost would be somewhat less at $12,700/AF. A reverse

osmosis desalinator, however, would be far less expensive than either of these alternatives, its

water cost being estimated to be only about $1000/AF.

b) Dune Solar Still with Polyethylene Film Canopy and Continuous Hot Feedstock Water Input

The Dune Solar Still with a polyethylene canopy was modified so that it would be

continuously supplied with externally heated feedstock water, drawn from the cold end of the

still, heated in a tankless water heater, and then discharged at a controlled temperature at the hot

end of the still. Experimentation with and testing of this arrangement was carried out from

November 4th through November 11th. Figures 15 and 16 plot temperature gradients developed

along the length of the still on November 7th at 12 noon and at 7 PM. Water temperature

typically had a temperature differential of 8 to 9° C from the hot to the cold end of the still.

Temperature differentials in the air ducts were lower, by about 5 to 7° C in the lower air duct and

Figure 15. Temperature gradients developed along the length of the still at

12 noon on November 7th with externally heated feedstock water being

continuously circulated through the still. Gradients plotted are for the

feedstock water, lower air duct, and upper air duct.

Figure 16. Temperature gradients developed along the length of the still at 7 PM on

November 7th with externally heated feedstock water being continuously circulated

through the still. Gradients plotted are for the feedstock water, lower air duct, and

upper air duct.

by 3° C in the upper air duct. Unlike the version heated by solar energy alone, air temperature in

the upper air duct was generally less than that in the lower air duct. So a temperature inversion

did not develop and as a result heat would not have been recycled back to the feedstock reservoir.

Solar energy made up a small fraction of the total heat input to the still, with about 90%

coming from the externally heated feedstock water being circulated through the still; see Table II

(last column). In tests where the Dune still was heated exclusively by solar energy, solar energy

Table II

Distillate Production for the Dune Solar Still with Polyethylene Film Canopy and Hot Feedstock Input

Date

Water

Produced

(gal/m2/day)

Energy

Effic.

(%)

Air Flow

(cfm)

Hot Inlet

Water T

(° C)

Outlet

Water T

(° C)

Water

ΔT

(° C)

Water

Flowrate

(lt/min)

Ratio of

solar to

auxiliary

11/4 - 5 1.6 18 230 72.8 60 12.8 7.8 16.5%

11/5- 6 3.2 38.7 220 73.3 / 80.6 60.9/66.7 12.4/13.9 7.7/7.8 11.5%

11/6-7 1.5 20 256 80.5 67.7 12.8 7.8 8.8%

11/ 7-8 2.0 26 140 80.5 67.1 13.4 7.4 4.6%

11/8-9 2.4 26 122 80.7 65.1 15.6 7.3 8.7%

11/9-11 1.4 23 100 80.5 64.2 16.3 4.45 13.2%

Average: 2.0 25.3

absorbed by the polyethylene film canopy could have contributed heat to the upper air passage

and could explain why the upper air duct temperature in those tests had a higher temperature

than the air in the lower air duct. In the present tests, this solar heating contribution would have

been much less significant which could explain why the temperature inversion was not seen here.

Nevertheless solar heating did produce a rise in the still's temperature. Comparing Figures 15 and

16, we see that at noon the still's s water temperature was about 2° C warmer.

By maintaining the water continually hot with a continuous flow through of heated feedstock,

the still was able to distill water both day and night rather than just during midday as would be

the case where the still was operated on solar energy alone. As a result, the still's water

production rate increased considerably, averaging about 2 gal/m2/day; see second column in Table

II. But this was less than the 2.5 gal/m2/day milestone goal set for the Dune Solar Still operating

on solar energy alone. These results dispel earlier hopes that the Dune Solar Still might function

as a multi-effect solar still and that if operated continuously to desalinate geothermal water it

might have been able to produce 20 gallons or more per square meter per day. These tests show

that it in fact produces about an order of magnitude less water than had been hoped.

The third column in Table II lists the still's distillation efficiency. This averaged about 25%,

about the same result as when the still was powered by solar energy alone. Again this may be

compared with the efficiency of a passive greenhouse solar still which is about 30% efficient.

This test determined that even when operating at higher temperatures the still's efficiency did not

improve, and that it continued to function as a single-effect still, rather than as a multi-effect still,

without any sign of recuperating and reusing its heat of condensation.

The efficiency of the still was calculated by taking the heat of vaporization of the distilled

water that was produced in a given day and dividing it by the total thermal energy that entered

the still during that time. In this case the total thermal energy input would include both the solar

radiation incident on the still and the heat entering the still through recirculation and heating of its

feedstock water. Solar radiation falling on the still was estimated from the CIMIS weather

station data with the radiation values from noon until sunset being reduced by 50% to take into

account the effect of shading on the still by two pine trees at the southwest corner of the test

site. Shading was substantially more than for the tests carried out a month earlier. Heat entering

the still from the heated feedstock water was calculated by measuring the rate at which feedstock

water was circulated through the external heater, multiplying by the water's heat capacity and by

its temperature difference, the temperature entering the still minus temperature exiting the still.

This version of the Dune Solar Still is estimated to consume 53 whrs per gallon, which is over

ten times higher than the milestone goal of 4 whrs per gallon. The blower for inflating the canopy

consumed 1.8 watts, the fan circulating air in the still consumed 9.2 watts, and the feedstock

pump circulating water through the water heater consumed 31 watts, giving a total consumption

of 42 watts or 1008 watt hours per day. Dividing this by the average distillate production of

about 19 gallons per day gives 53 whrs/gal. Energy for heating the feedstock water is not

included since it is assumed that this is a free resource (e.g., geothermally heated water). In the

event that the still could be designed to use gravity flow for its feedstock water throughput, the

total energy consumption would drop to 14 whrs/gal, which is still several times higher than the

milestone goal.

Table A-II of Appendix A derives the water cost for the case in which the Dune Solar Still is

designed to desalinate geothermal water on a continuous 24 hour operation. Feedstock water is

assumed to flow through the still without the need for pumps. In this case the water cost

calculates to be $4,500/AF which is still more expensive than the reverse osmosis alternative of

$1,000/AF and slightly more expensive than the passive solar still alternative of $3,000/AF.

c) Dune Solar Still with a Polycarbonate Roof

Experimentation and testing of the Dune Solar Still with a polycarbonate roof were carried

out from August 19th to 30th. Figures A-28 through A-30 of Appendix A show the diurnal

temperature variations at four locations along the length of the still measured on August 25th,

measured in the feedstock water pool (Figure A-28), lower air duct (Figure A-29), and upper air

duct (Figure A-30). These curves may be compared with the level of solar insolation marked by

the x's. Ambient air temperature on August 25th ranged from a low of 16° C at 6 AM to a

maximum of 31° C at 4 PM. Wind speed averaged about 1 meter per second. The still's fans

were circulating air through the air ducts at a rate of 60 cfm.

Figures 17 and 18 plot the temperature gradients measured along the length of the still at

12:07 PM and 5:37 PM. Gradients are marked as follows: the feedstock water pool temperature

(blue), lower air duct temperature (red), and upper air duct temperature (yellow). Note that at

12:07 PM there is no gradient in the feedstock pool and the gradient in the lower and upper air

ducts are negative, that is air moving down the lower air duct would cool rather than warm and

Figure 17. Temperature gradients along the length of the still at 12:07 PM.

Figure 18. Temperature gradients along the length of the still at 5:37 PM.

hence would not evaporate water. Later in the day, as the still warms up further, these gradients

become positive. But still they are rather modest. At 5:37 PM the feedstock water achieved a

temperature difference of only about 1.7° C along the length of the still. The air temperature in

the lower and upper air ducts showed a similar temperature differential with the exception of a

strong drop in the upper air duct temperature at the cool end of the still. Without being able to

generate a substantial positive temperature gradient along its length, this version of the still

understandably performed poorer than the version with the inflatable polyethylene canopy.

Between August 21st and 25th, the polycarbonate version produced an average of 0.35

gal/m2/day.

The power consumption per gallon of water produced by this version of the Dune still is

estimated to be 26 watt-hours per gallon:

fan (62 cfm): 0.5 amps X 6.4 volts = 3.2 watts X 24 hours = 77 watt-hours

distillate pump: 4 watt-hours per gallon X 3.6 gallons/day = 14.4 watt-hours

feedstock water pumping: 6 watt-hours per gallon X 0.6 gallon/day = 3.6 watt-hours

Total: 95 watt-hours/day

95 watt-hours/day ÷ 3.6 gallons/day = 26 watt-hours/gallon

A study of the temperature variation of this polycarbonate version of the Dune Solar Still

showed that its air ducts developed negative temperature gradients during a relatively large

percentage of its diurnal cycle, as compared to what was observed for the polyethylene canopy

version of the still. For example, taking the degree Centegrade temperature difference for the two

ends of the upper air duct and summing up these temperature differences for the minutes when

the gradient was positive, gives a total of 1440 °C-minutes. Summing up the total when the

gradient was negative gives a total of -840 °C-minutes, hence a positive-to-negative ratio of 1.7:1.

If we do the same for the Dune Solar Still operating with a polyethylene canopy, we get 3600

°C-minutes for the sum of the positive gradients and -90 °C-minutes for the sum of the negative

gradients, giving a positive-to-negative ratio of 40:1. So the polyethylene version of the still

established favorable conditions for desalination over a much longer period of its diurnal cycle

and this would explain the difference in performance of the two still constructions.

Increasing the fan speed made matters worse. For example, on October 30th, the fan speed

was increased from 62 to 115 cfm. At 11 AM the upper air duct was observed to have a negative

thermal gradient of a few tenths of a degree, 48.6° C at the fan end and 48.2° C at the opposite

end. At 3 PM the thermal gradient was still negative with 57.3° C at the fan end and 57.0° C at

the opposite end. At 10:20 AM on September 1st the gradient was again relatively flat with

38.0° C at the fan end and 38.1° C at the opposite end.

It is not clear why the polycarbonate version had negative temperature gradients so much of

the time. Perhaps it is because its roof reflected more sunlight due to droplet formation on the

inner polycarbonate surface, or perhaps it is because the polycarbonate absorbed more energy

than the polyethylene film and added this energy to the upper air duct. For example note that

when the gradient is negative, the temperature in the water pool is substantially cooler than in the

air ducts, whereas when the gradient is positive, the water pool is instead warmer than the air

duct temperature. Comparing to Figure 12 which shows strong positive temperature gradients

for the polyethylene version of the still, we see that the feedstock water temperature is slightly

warmer than the air duct temperature, although at the cooler end of the still the upper air duct

temperature slightly exceeds its temperature, which is good.

The distillation efficiency of the polycarbonate version of the Dune Solar Still was calculated

to be only 11.7%, or almost one third of that of a greenhouse solar still. Solar insolation during

this period averaged about 7,000 watt hours/m2/day, and since the still had a footprint area of

10.3 m2, the total daily solar energy input calculates to 6.3 X 107 calories. Comparing this with

an average distillate production of 3.6 gallons per day, or a heat of vaporization of 7.4 X 106

calories, gives an efficiency of 11.7%. So, we find no advantage to pursuing this polycarbonate

roof design over the polyethylene film design.

Project Outcomes

Project outcomes were as follows:

1) Initially, the Starburst Foundation was based in upstate New York. But to carry out this

research project an adequate test site in an arid southwestern U.S. location had to be found.

Efforts were begun in January to locate an adequate site for the project. Sites in New Mexico,

Arizona, and California were investigated. Finally, in early February, discussions were begun

with representatives of the California Water Institute in Fresno, California subcontract their

facilities for the research project and to provide needed personnel. It was not until June that a

contract was signed specifying the relationship between the Starburst Foundation and

CWI/California State University Fresno Foundation.

The Starburst Foundation hired only one person for the project, the project's principle

investigator. All other personnel working on the project at the CWI test site were employees

of CWI. They were scheduled to work on the project at times when their help was needed,

particularly during the first five or six weeks during which time the test site and still were

being constructed. California Water Institute provided office space in the office building

adjacent to the test site. This was occupied in mid June. Supplies for the project were being

purchased as early as April and continued throughout the course of the project.

The entire site was enclosed within a rented chain link fence. Instead of erecting a shed at

the test site, the Foundation instead purchased a used RV trailer for a comparable price. This

had the advantage of being easily moved at the end of the project. It also provided excellent

facilities to store the instruments and tools as well as space to work in out of the sun for doing

shop work. Its stove and sink facilities were also useful for carrying out thermistor calibration

operations. Moreover its battery provided an excellent source of 12 volt DC power for

running the solar still.

2) Working sketches of the Dune Solar Still were prepared. A scale model was prepared of one

end of the still's polyethylene film canopy and a plastic film fabricating company was

subcontracted to fabricate a prototype canopy. The canopy consisted of three layers of

polyethylene film about 5' X 29' heat sealed together to form an elongated bag. When tests

were begun on the still at the end of July, it was discovered that the canopy's heat seals had

come apart in four places. So the subcontractor had to fabricate a new canopy. This was

redesigned to include edge flaps for fastening the canopy to the bottom of the still's basin.

While the canopy was being fabricated, the base of the solar still was constructed along

with its solar absorbing lining. Adjoining pump and tank equipment needed to operate the still

was also constructed. Due to delays in securing a contract agreement with California Water

Institute for use of their test facilities, construction on the project did not begin until mid June

and the still was not assembled with its canopy and ready for testing until late July, which

was a month and a half past the targeted completion date of mid June. At that point problems

emerged with an effective method to anchor the canopy and with separation of the canopy's

heat seals. Then there were further delays in getting a new canopy fabricated by the

subcontractor. So actual testing of the polyethylene canopy version of the still was not able

to begin until the middle of September, three months past the targeted date.

3) As a result of the project delays mentioned above, testing began almost three months after the

solstice. So we were not able to evaluate the still's performance under summer season

conditions when it would have yielded its best performance. Even so, the still did not perform

nearly as well as had been expected. Its daily distillate production was not found to meet the

suboptimal season milestone. Production measured in late September (9/27 - 9/30) with the

still heated solely by solar energy was found to average about 0.5 gallons/m2/day, or five times

lower than the suboptimal season milestone goal. By using solar insolation data for Fresno,

California, it was possible to translate the water production rate into a gained output rate

(GOR) efficiency for the still. This was calculated to average around 25%. This may be

compared to a conventional single effect solar still which has an efficiency typically of 30%.

The still also failed to meet the energy consumption milestone for power consumed per

gallon of distillate produced. Daily power consumption of the still was measured, as was the

daily amount of distillate that was produced. In cases where the still was heated solely by

solar energy, in one example this ratio was found to be approximately 47 watt-hours per gallon

of produced distillate, which is equivalent to about 15,300 kilowatt hours per acre-foot of

water produced (kWh/AF). This is about 12 times higher than the milestone of 4 watt hours

per gallon (1300 kWh/AF). By comparison, a 50,000 AF/yr reverse osmosis plant would

consume about 3,600 kWh/AF and a 5 AF/yr R.O. would plant consume about 13,000

kWh/AF. If fabricated with a PFA film canopy, this power consumption per gallon is

projected to drop about 20% to 39 watt-hours per gallon.

Replacing the fresh feedstock water with saline feedstock water would not have changed the

still's performance efficiency. So, since the still had failed its milestone goals, it was decided

not to carry out additional tests using saline feedstock water.

4) Since the polyethylene version of the Dune still failed to meet the water production and energy

consumption goals, it was determined that it would be pointless to proceed further on the

project to fabricate a PFA Teflon film canopy for the still. Pyroheliometer tests were carried

out on solar transmission through 3 layers of 6 mil polyethylene film for comparison to solar

transmission through 3 layers of 2 mil PFA Teflon film. It was determined that the latter

transmitted about 30% more solar energy. But even if the still were to produce 30% more

water as a result of receiving more solar energy, its daily water production rate and energy

consumption per gallon would nevertheless again have fallen well below the suboptimal season

milestones set for the polyethylene version.

5) A PFA film version of the canopy was not fabricated for the reason stated in 4) above, so tests

that had been planned for this version of the still were canceled.

6) We determined that our initial solar still design was functional and that a still built according to

this design would function properly to distill water. Hence we do not see any reason to

change our initial estimate of the square meter construction cost of $113/m2. However, since

the water production per square meter fell far below our previous expectations, our projected

cost of $490 per acre-foot of produced distillate is no longer supported. The projected output

of 0.66 gallons per square meter per day for the Dune Solar Still outfitted with a PFA Teflon

film canopy and its high power consumption of 39 watt-hours per gallon, implies a very high

cost per gallon of distillate of about $16,400/AF, far in excess of our original cost goal.

7) Tests were also carried out in which a version of the Dune Solar Still was built with a twinwall

polycarbonate sheet roof instead of a polyethylene film roof. However, this did not

prove to be an effective design. Its performance was distinctly poorer than the polyethylene

film canopy design. The still was unable to generate a temperature difference along the length

of its evaporator and condenser air ducts, the temperature difference being either nonexistent

or in some cases the reverse of what it should have been. Although this solar still design did

have a vertical temperature gradient such that its upper condenser air duct was cooler than its

lower evaporator air duct. As a result of its nonexistent lengthwise thermal gradient, the still

had a relatively low water production output, averaging about 0.35 gallons/m2/day at the end

of August. This was over 7 times lower than the suboptimal season milestone. Power

consumption was 26 watts per gallon (8,500 kWh/AF) which was almost 7 times higher than

the set milestone goal. The distillation efficiency of the polycarbonate version was calculated

to be very low, about 12%.

8) Tests were also carried out in which the Dune Solar Still prototype with a polyethylene

canopy was continually supplied with feedstock water from an external heat source. This

allowed the performance of the still to be checked in the instance where it would receive its

saline feedstock water from a geothermal water source and also allowed the performance of the

still to be checked at higher water temperatures such as those that might be achieved during

mid summer months. When continuously supplied with water at a temperature of 177° F (80°

C), the still's water production output increased dramatically, averaging a daily production rate

of 2 gallons/m2/day, or about 80% of the 2.5 gallons/m2/day milestone. But its efficiency

averaged about 25%, indicating that its thermal efficiency was somewhat less than that of a

conventional greenhouse solar still. The average distillation efficiency of the Dune still

boosted with externally heated feedstock water was about the same as that of the Dune still

operating on solar energy alone.

The power consumption of this hot feedstock version of the still calculated to be about 53

watt hours per gallon (17,300 kWh/AF). This value is higher than in the version heated by

solar energy alone because feedstock must be continuously circulated through the still from the

external heat source. If this pumping requirement could be eliminated by use of gravity flow

through the still the power requirement would drop to about 14 watt hours per gallon (4600

kWh/AF) which still would exceed the set milestone target by over three fold.

9) Additional information about the Dune Solar Still design were discovered through computer

simulations of the Dune Solar Still design performed by Professor Yong Tao of Florida

International University. These indicated that there would be no benefit to increasing the

length of the still. For example, simulations showed that, compared with an 8.77 meter long

still, a 20 meter long still had a 1.3% lower condensation rate per meter area. Also simulations

showed that increasing the upper air duct cross section to produce a 50% reduction in air flow

velocity resulted in about a 1% increase in condensation rate per unit still area. Simulations

also confirmed that at times of low insolation a lower fan speed will result in slightly higher

distillation rates. For example an increase from 150 to 350 cfm at 5 PM resulted in a 2%

decline in distillation rate.

Conclusions

1) The project successfully located a test site, set up an office space, and erected an instrument

trailer and surrounding fencing. It also successfully found adequate personnel for construction

and testing of the still, and purchased the needed equipment and supplies to carry out the

project.

2) The project successfully prepared working sketches of the still and fabricated an operational

prototype solar water still having a polyethylene film canopy.

3) The project successfully tested the Dune Solar Still constructed with a polyethylene film

canopy. However, it is concluded from these tests that the still performed poorly in comparison

with existing desalination technologies in that both its water production rate per unit area

and energy consumption per gallon of distillate were much lower than the milestone goals.

4) Fabrication of a version of the Dune Solar Still using a PFA Teflon film canopy was not

justified since its rate of water distillation would have been only about 20% greater than that

of the tested prototype which used a polyethylene canopy. So, a PFA version of the still

would have failed to meet the milestone goals for water production and energy consumption.

5) It was decided that it was not worth testing the Dune Solar Still fabricated with a PFA Teflon

film canopy for the reasons stated in 4) above.

6) The Dune Solar Still is not cost competitive in comparison with other desalination

technologies. The cost per gallon of distillate produced by a Dune Solar Still made with a PFA

film would be about $16,800/AF, which is high compared with the cost of water produced by

a reverse osmosis desalinator ($1,000/AF) or by a conventional greenhouse solar still

($12,700/AF).

7) A version of the Dune Solar Still built with a twin-wall polycarbonate sheet roof did not

perform as well as the version of the Dune Solar Still built with a polyethylene film canopy.

Hence this version also is not cost competitive in comparison with other desalination

technologies.

8) When continually supplied with feedstock water from an external heat source, the Dune Solar

Still prototype with a polyethylene canopy was found to increase its water production output

per unit area by about four fold in comparison to the case where the still's feedstock water was

heated by solar energy alone. However, the cost per gallon of water would be almost five

times higher than for reverse osmosis desalination, $4,500/AF as compared with $1,000/AF.

Moreover a conventional greenhouse solar still continuously supplied with externally heated

feedstock water could have about an 80% higher water production output as the Dune Solar

Still, and without the fan and blower power expense. So it would produce water at a

somewhat lower cost of $3,000/AF.

9) In overview, the initial belief that the Dune Solar Still would function as a multi-effect solar

still was unfounded. If constructed with a high transparency film, such as PFA, it would have

functioned no more efficiently than a conventional single-effect greenhouse solar still.

10) It would also be impractical to use the Dune Solar Still as an alternative to solar pond

evaporation as a way of desalinating irrigation run-off water since the Dune Solar Still

(version made with a PFA Teflon canopy powered by solar heating alone) plus its brine

evaporation pond would consume about 9% of the agricultural land area. A conventional

solar evaporation pond, on the other hand, would require slightly more land area, about 10%,

but would have a much lower construction cost.

Recommendations

This study does not recommend that further research be undertaken into this type of solar

still design.

Public Benefits to California

No public benefits to California are seen for further development of the Dune Solar Still

design.

California Energy Commission

Energy Innovations Small Grant (EISG) Program

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STATUS

Questionnaire

Answer each question below and provide brief comments where appropriate to clarify status. If

you are filling out this form in MS Word the comment block will expand to accommodate

inserted text.

Please Identify yourself, and your project: PI Name ___________________Grant # ___________

Overall Status

Questions Comments:

1) Do you consider that this research project

proved the feasibility of your concept?

Briefly state why.

No. The research shows that the still's daily water

output per unit area was only a fraction of the desired

milestone goal. Also its electric power consumption per

gallon of water produced was over 10 times higher

than the desired milestone goal.

2) Do you intend to continue this development

effort towards commercialization?

If NO, indicate why and answer only those questions

below that are still relevant.

No, due to the inefficiency of the still, its low daily

water output per unit area and high power

consumption, the cost per gallon of its distilled water

would be considerably higher than that of other

desalination technologies. So there would be no market

for this type of still.

Engineering/Technical

3) What are the key remaining technical or

engineering obstacles that prevent product

demonstration?

4) Have you defined a development path from

where you are to product demonstration?

5) How many years are required to complete

product development and demonstration?

6) How much money is required to complete

engineering development and demonstration?

Do not include commercialization costs such as

tooling.

7) Do you have an engineering requirements

specification for your potential product?

This specification details engineering and

manufacturing needs such as tolerances, materials,

cost, stress etc. If NO indicate when you expect to

have it completed.

Marketing

8) What market does your concept serve? Residential, commercial, industrial, other.

9) Is there a proven market need? If YES, what sources did you use to determine market

need?

10) Have you surveyed potential end users for

interest in your product?

If YES, the results of the survey should be discussed

in the Final Report.

11) Have you performed a market analysis that

takes external factors into consideration?

External factors include potential actions by

competitors, other new technologies, or changes in

regulations or laws that can impact market acceptance

of your product?

12) Have you compared your product with the

competition in terms of cost, function,

maintenance etc.?

Yes, based on this research, this desalination

approach would be more costly than competing

desalination technologies.

13) Have you identified any regulatory,

institutional or legal barriers to product

acceptance?

If YES, how do you plan to overcome these barriers?

14) What is the size of the potential market in

California?

Identify the sources used to assess market size.

15) Have you clearly identified the technology

that can be patented?

If NO, how do you propose to protect your intellectual

property?

16) Have you performed a patent search? If YES, was it a self-search or professional search and

did you determine if your product infringes or appears

to infringe on any other active or expired patent?

17) Have you applied for patents? If YES, provide the number of applications.

Yes, but the applications were abandoned after it

became clear that this solar still design fell short of

initial expectations.

18) Have you secured any patents? If YES, provide the patent numbers assigned and

indicate if they are generic or application patents.

19) Have you published any paper or publicly

disclosed your concept in any way that would

limit your ability to seek patent protection?

If YES, is it your intent to put the intellectual property

into the public domain?

Commercialization Path

20) Can your organization develop and produce

your product without partnering with another

organization?

If YES, indicate how you would accomplish that.

If NO, indicate who would be the logical partners for

development and manufacture of the product.

21) Has an industrial or commercial company

expressed interest in helping you take your

technology to the market?

If YES, are they a major player in the marketplace for

your product?

22) Have you developed a commercialization

plan?

If yes, has it been updated since completing your grant

work?

23) What are the commercialization risks? Risks are those factors particular to your concept that

may delay or block commercialization.

Financial Plan

24) If you plan to continue development of your

concept, do you have a plan for the required

funding?

25) Have you identified funding requirements for

each of the development and commercialization

phases?

26) Have you received any follow-on funding or

commitments to fund the follow-on work to this

grant?

If YES, indicate the sources and the amount.

If NO, indicate any potential sources of follow-on

funding.

27) Have you identified milestones or key go/no

go decision points in your financial plan?

28) What are the financial risks?

29) Have you developed a comprehensive

business plan that incorporates the information

requested in this questionnaire?

If YES, can you attach a non-proprietary version of that

plan to your final report?

Public Benefits

30) What sectors will receive the greatest

benefits as a result of your concept?

Residential, commercial, industrial, the environment,

other.

31) Identify the relevant savings to California in

terms of kWh, cost, reliability, safety,

environment etc.

Show all assumptions used in calculations.

32) Does the proposed technology impact

emissions from power generation?

If YES, calculate the quantity in total tons per year or

tons per year per relevant unit. Show all assumptions

used in calculations.

33) Are there any potential negative effects

from the application of this technology with

regard to public safety, environment etc.?

If YES, please specify.

Competitive Analysis

34) Identify the primary strengths of your

technology with regard to the marketplace.

Identify top 3.

35) Identify the primary weaknesses of your

technology with regard to the marketplace.

Identify top 3.

36) What characteristics (function,

performance, cost etc.) distinguishes your

product from that of your competitors?

Development Assistance

The EISG Program may in the future provide follow-on services to selected Awardees that would assist them

in obtaining follow-on funding from the full range of funding sources (i.e. Partners, PIER, NSF, SBIR, DOE etc.).

The types of services offered could include: (1) intellectual property assessment; (2) market assessment; (3)

business plan development etc.

37) If selected, would you be interested in

receiving development assistance?

If YES, indicate the type of assistance that you believe

would be most useful in attracting follow-on funding.

Appendix A. Additional Diagrams, Photos, and Tables

Figure A-1. Solar still farm for distilled water production.

Figure A-2. A conventional greenhouse solar still.

Figure A-3. Concentration of water vapor in saturated air

showing a nonlinear increase with air temperature.

Figure A-4. Trenches are dug and pipe is laid to communicate with the bays of the still.

Figure A-5. Wooden frame aligned, secured and ready for concrete.

Figure A-6. Insulating concrete being trawled into the forms.

Figure A-7. Floor of still being sanded level after basin walls were installed.

Figure A-8. The still basins completed and lined with 36 mil Hypalon® membrane.

Dish depressions at one end of each basin contain drains plumbed to drain pipes.

Vertical pipe seen in the foreground is one of two used to blow air into the still

enclosure for inflating the still's transparent canopy. The 1/2 inch polyethylene

tubes protruding from the PVC pipes will connect to Norprene tubes for

evacuating distillate from the still's canopy.

Figure A-9. Water storage tanks and pump panel.

Figure A-10. Float switch positioned near drain well. Its (SPST)

contacts close when the water level falls below its lower set point and

open when the level rises above its upper set point 3 inches higher.

Figure A-11. Circuit breaker control box with its pump control

relays. Lower left is the distillate water flow data logger and to the

right are meters that measure the voltage and current to the pumps.

Figure A-12. The 15 gallon distillate measuring tank

shown perched on top of the main water holding tank.

Figure A-13. Top view of a quarter scale model mock up of

the polyethylene canopy. The foam arch inside the canopy

simulates the partition for holding the still's air circulation fan.

Figure A-14. Side view of the canopy mock up mounted in

a cardboard enclosure simulating the still's basin enclosure.

Figure A-15. Polyethylene film grip strips being

attached to the edge of the basin.

Figure A-16. Aluminum snap-on strips along the basin

sidewall are used to secure the canopy by gripping a

polyethylene film flap running along the canopy's perimeter.

Figure A-17. Fan used to keep canopy inflated.

Figure A-18. Fan end of still with canopy in place and inflated.

Figure A-19. The poly canopy pulled back to show the fan

partition secured beneath the canopy at the still's cooler end.

Figure A-20. Feedstock water from the cool end of the still is pumped

through the insulated rubber hose shown exiting the underground pump box.

Figure A-21. Feedstock water is heated in the Takagi tankless water heater

(left) and is discharged into the hot end of the still.

Figure A-22. Edges of the still bay where feedstock water is

exposed to the open air are insulated by pieces of foam insulation.

Figure A-23. The Dune Solar Still made with a twin wall polycarbonate sheet roof.

Figure A-24. Cross sectional view of one edge of the still.

Figure A-25. Thermocouple leads and their wire mesh positioning support.

Figure A-26. Thermocouple calibration run done on September 12th on a

temperature bath held at various temperatures between 0° C and 100° C.

Figure A-27. Anemometer probe placed near the

fan intake to measure air speed.

Figure A-28. Diurnal variation of feedstock water temperature

along the length of the still made with a polycarbonate roof.

Figure A-29. Diurnal variation of lower air duct temperature along

the length of the still made with a polycarbonate roof.

Figure A-30. Diurnal variation of upper air duct temperature along

the length of the still made with a polycarbonate roof.

Table A-I

Water Cost for a 160 AF/yr Agricultural Drainage Water Desalting Plant (143,000 gallons/day)

(Size sufficient to reclaim irrigation run off from 640 acres of farm land; 30,000 TDS salinity is assumed)

Reverse Osmosis Process

Dune Solar Still

(entirely solar heated)

Conventional Solar Still

(greenhouse type)

1) Capital cost of plant $715,000 $32,175,000(b) $27,170,000(b)

2) Amortization

30 year @ 5.6%/yr $49,300 /yr (a) $2,224,000/yr. $1,878,000/yr.

3) Still land requirement

Pond land requirement

Total land requirement(d)

Still: (400 m2)

Pond: 22 acres (90,600 m2)

Total: 22 acres (91,000 m2)

Still: 52.6 acres (286,000 m2)

Pond: 5.7 acres (23,500 m2)

Total: 58.3 acres (309.500 m2)

Still: 52.6 acres (286,000 m2)

Pond: 5.7 acres (23,500 m2)

Total: 58.3 acres (309,500 m2)

4) Power requirement 70 kw peak

570,000 kWhr/yr (e)

400 kw peak

2,036,000 kWhr/yr

None

5) Power cost(f) $71,300/yr @ 12.5 ¢/kwhr $254,000/yr @ 12.5 ¢/kwhr None

6) Other operating costs $35,200/yr(g) $150,000 (includes $110,000

for replacement of 10% of still

over 30 years)

$150,000 (includes $100,000

for replacement of 10% of still

over 30 years)

7) Distillate production cost

lines (2)+(5)+(6)

$156,000/yr $2,628,000/yr. $2,028,000/yr.

8) Total annual cost

per acre foot of distillate

$625/AF not including

pretreatment costs

$1000/AF including pretreatment(h) $16,400/AF @ 0.66 gpd/m2 $12,700/AF @ 0.66 gpd/m2

9) Solid waste disposal(i) Yes, Pretreatment sludge waste

disposal problem, plus:

16 metric tons/day of salt

16 metric tons/day of salt 16 metric tons/day of salt

Notes to Table A-I:

a) We assume an R. O. plant construction cost of $5/gal/day or $4465/AF/yr, similar to that stated

for a 56,000 AF/yr seawater reverse osmosis plant proposed for Carlsbad, CA which uses power plant

waste heat to boost productivity (source: J. Faria, California Dept. Water Resources, San Joaquin

District). This is a very conservative estimate since we consider here a plant 350 times smaller, and

R.O. plant costs are known to increase with decreasing plant size. But, since we consider water that is

here three times less salty, the R.O. plant in the agricultural application should operate at a higher

efficiency and not consume as much electrical power. So this cost figure should be fair for this

comparison. F. Lopez (San Diego County Water Authority) says that amortization over 30 years at

5.6% is common. Using this rate, the finance charge would be $308/AF/yr. If instead amortized

over 25 years at 6%, this would incur a higher finance charge of $345/AF/yr.

b) This assumes a solar still construction cost of $112.5/m2 (see Table III) and a still productivity of

0.66 gallons per day per m2 (30% GOR efficiency for a San Joaquin Valley location).

c) This assumes a solar still construction cost of $95/m2 and a productivity of 0.66 gallons per day

per m2 of still area (30% GOR efficiency for a San Joaquin Valley location)..

d) The cost of land was not included in this estimate since the cost of land is low compared to the

cost of constructing the desalinators. For example, land in the Red Rock Ranch area of California

presently sells for about $2,800/acre.

e) This assumes a power consumption for R.O. desalination of 2.9 kWhr/m3 (3600 kwhr/AF) (source:

J. Faria, California Department of Water Resources San Joaquin District).

f) While a $0.08/kw-hr may be available to industry, when comparing to alternative green

technologies which help to alleviate California's energy crisis it is better to compare to the power

cost that a consumer would typically pay which is $0.125/kw-hr.

g) This includes the cost for R.O. element replacement ($80/AF) and the cost for chemicals, labor,

and services ($140/AF) (source: J. Faria, California Dept. Water Resources, San Joaquin District).

h) Here we add $375/AF for R.O. water pretreatment costs to prevent membrane scaling and bio

fowling. Some have quoted higher pretreatment costs. For example, based on an evaluation of the

performance of an R.O. desalinator located in the San Joaquin Valley at Los Banos, CA, Hanna, et al.

concluded that pretreatment costs added more than $1000/AF to the cost of water treatment in the

case where the brine waste could be disposed of in Class II (nontoxic) evaporation ponds. Quinn, et

al. estimate a cost of $560/AF for disposal of the waste brine coming from the Los Banos R.O.

desalinator. Summarizing some of the above problems, the Evaporation Ponds report quotes Hanna,

et al. who conclude: "the high cost of pretreatment, equipment, maintenance, power, and waste

disposal makes [reverse osmosis] desalinization an unlikely option."

i) Regardless of which technology alternative is chosen, 16 metric tons per day of salt sludge will

need to be disposed of. The cost of removing the salt from the evaporation pond, transporting it,

and disposing of it is not included in the cost comparison. Just the transportation cost alone,

trucking the salt 100 miles, would probably cost about $300 per day or $110,000/yr. However, it is

possible that this waste could generate a revenue if used as fertilizer. Being rich in boron and

selenium, some have suggested that it could be used to fertilize crops requiring these elements in areas

where the soil is deficient in boron or selenium. It has also been suggested that, being rich in sodium

sulfate, this waste could be used as a raw material for glass making.

Table A-II

Water Cost for 160 AF/yr Solar/Geothermal Desalination Plant Version (143,000 gallons/day)

Reverse Osmosis Process

Dune Solar Still

(multi-effect, advective)

Conventional Solar Still

(greenhouse type)

1) Capital cost of plant $715,000 $8,040,000 $5,548,000

2) Amortization

30 year @ 5.6%/yr $49,300/yr(a) $553,000/yr. $381,700/yr.

3) Still land requirement

Pond land requirement

Total land requirement(d)

Still: (400 m2)

Pond: 22 acres (90,600 m2)

Total: 22 acres (91,000 m2)

Still: 17.3 acres (71,500 m2)

Pond: 9.6 acres (40,000 m2)

Total: 23.7 acres (98,000 m2)

Still: 14.1 acres (58,400 m2)

Pond: 9.6 acres (40,000 m2)

Total: 23.7 acres (98,000 m2)

4) Power requirement 70 kw peak

570,000 kWhr/yr (e)

150 kw peak

730,000 kWhr/yr

5) Power cost(f) $71,300/yr @ 12.5 ¢/kwhr $91,000/yr @ 12.5 ¢/kwhr

6) Other operating costs $35,200/yr(g) $80,000 (includes $30,000

for replacement of 10% of still

over 30 years)

$100,000 (includes $70,000

for replacement of 10% of still

over 30 years)

7) Distillate production cost

lines (2)+(5)+(6)

$156,000/yr $724,000/yr. $481,700/yr.

8) Total annual cost

per acre foot of distillate

$625/AF not including

pretreatment costs

$1000/AF including pretreatment(j) $4,500/AF @ 2 gpd/m2 $3,000/AF @ 2.45 gpd/m2

9) Solid waste disposal(k) Yes, Pretreatment sludge waste

disposal problem, plus:

16 metric tons/day of salt

16 metric tons/day of salt 16 metric tons/day of salt

solarstill.pdf (1,4 MB)

SUBQUANTUM KINETICS: EXPLORING THE CRACK IN THE FIRST LAW

01.05.2014 09:34

SUBQUANTUM KINETICS EXPLORING THE CRACK IN THE FIRST LAW.pdf (178 kB)

Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991

SUBQUANTUM KINETICS: EXPLORING THE CRACK IN THE FIRST LAW

Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.D.

The Starburst Foundation

1176 Hedgewood Lane

Schenectady, NY 12309

ABSTRACT

Astrophysical observations of the cosmological

redshift and stellar mass-luminosity relation

suggest that small violations in energy

conservation take place on a regular basis. This

evidence supports the "open system" physics of

subquantum kinetics which suggests that photons

progressively lose energy in intergalactic space

and progressively gain energy in the vicinity of

galaxies. NonDoppler photon blueshifting, occurring

at a rate 108 fold below rates measurable in the

laboratory, is able to account for all the energy

output from red dwarf stars and from Jupiter,

Saturn, and Uranus. It also accounts for about twothirds

of the Sun's output. Consequently

geothermal, solar, and fossil fuel energy sources,

to a large extent, could be sources of "free energy"

generated in violation of the First Law. These

considerations suggest the necessity of taking a

more lenient interpretation of the First Law and

acknowledging the possibility that free energy

devices could operate at efficiencies exceeding

100%. Several ways of generating free energy are

evaluated in the context of subquantum kinetics

genic energy (photon blueshifting), zero-point

energy fluctuations, Ampere law forces, and

electrogravitic gravity field manipulation.

INTRODUCTION

Twentieth century physics presumes that energy,

as a rule, is strictly conserved.

Thermodynamicists have enshrined this principle as

their First Law of Thermodynamics which states:

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only

converted from one form into another. The First

Law has long been used by patent office examiners

to judge the reasonableness of new ideas proposed

in patent applications. Any application that

proposes a device capable of generating energy

without consuming an equivalent amount of fuel or

converting an equivalent amount of energy from

some known source is quickly labeled as a

"perpetual motion machine" hoax and placed in the

rejection box.

Nevertheless, an increasing number of innovators

claim to have built and successfully operated such

"free energy"* machines or "over-unity" devices,

as they are sometimes called. Some working

models have been shown to operate at fantastic

efficiencies, with output-to-input power ratios

exceeding a thousand percent. Even U.S. federal

agencies have begun closet programs actively

researching such nonconventional power systems,

although their work has not been publicized.

If the First Law is incorrect in maintaining that

energy is always perfectly conserved, then our

government, educational and business institutions

are performing a great disservice to the public by

insisting that funds for research into new energy

and transportation systems must be allocated only

to projects that obey this dictum. Such a practice,

then, would unnecessarily restrict research to the

well-tried conventional paths of the past at a time

when, more than ever, we must strive to develop

ways of tapping unlimited supplies of ecologically

safe, "cool" energy that does not increase the

Earth's burden of greenhouse gases.

Is there evidence that nature does not always obey

the First Law? If so, is there a physics which can

accomodate such "violations" of this principle and

which can provide a theoretical basis for

understanding the operation of some of these free

energy devices? Let us consider the first question.

DOES NATURE VIOLATE THE FIRST LAW?

The First Law, in its strict form of proclaiming

perfect energy conservation, is actually an

untested hypothesis. From an observational point

of view, one can reasonably claim only that energy

* Here the word "free" is used in a different sense

than it is conventionally used in thermodynamics.

Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991

is conserved to within certain experimentally

verifiable limits. Even Maxwell allowed for the

possibility that radiant energy might exhibit

nonconservative behavior. His original

electromagnetic wave equation contained the

energy damping term, σ ομ ο•∂ϕ /∂t, where σ o

represented the electric conductivity of background

space [1].

Upper limits on the validity of the First Law may be

determined in the laboratory by checking the

energy constancy of a photon beam by means of

laser interferometery. Given that the frequency of

a beam emitted from an iodine-stabilized He-Ne

laser is stable to about one part in 3 X 1013 over a

105 second sample integration time, a null result

from interferometric measurements made on such a

beam travelling a distance of 100 meters would

establish only that its photon energy was constant

to one part in 107 per second.

Such an assurance level, while sufficient for

adhering to the energy conservation assumption

when considering physical phenomena observed in a

laboratory, is insufficient where astronomical

phenomena are concerned. The cosmological

redshift offers one example. In the past, this

effect has been widely interpreted as being

evidence of galactic recession. However several

cosmological studies [2- 5] suggest, to the

contrary, that extragalactic redshifts are more

likely due to a "tired-light effect" in which photons

progressively lose energy in the course of their

long journey through a nonexpanding universe [4,6-

11]. That is, if photons from a distant galaxy were

to lose just 3.4 X 10-18 of their total energy each

second, a 10.7% energy loss for every billion light

years travelled, their wavelength would lengthen

by an amount sufficient to explain the cosmological

redshift effect. Thermodynamicists would be

entirely unaware of the presence of this energy

loss rate since it is some 10 orders of magnitude

smaller than loss rates potentially observable in

the laboratory.

Conservation law violations of comparable

magnitude but of opposite sign could provide a

substantial portion of the energy radiated from

stars. Consider the Sun for example. Given the

low flux of neutrinos observed to come from the

Sun, which has averaged about 25±12 percent of

the expected amount in 37Cl detectors [12] and

46±3 of the expected amount in the Kamiokande-II

neutrino detector [13], we may conclude that

fusion energy supplies only about one third of the

Sun's total energy output. Thermodynamicists

would have no grounds to deny that the remaining

two-thirds is supplied by an ongoing photon energy

amplification process, since the required rate of

photon nonDoppler blueshifting is eight orders of

magnitude smaller than the smallest energy change

detectable with laboratory instrumentation. Taking

the Sun's total thermal energy content to be H =

C•M•T = 4.5 x 1048 ergs, (given an average heat

capacity C = 2.09 x 108 ergs/g/K, a solar mass

M= 2 x 1033 g, and average internal temperature

T = 9.5 x 108 K), the Sun's entire luminosity of 3.9

x 1033 ergs sec-1 could be explained if solar

photons were increasing their individual energies at

a rate of just 10-15 sec-1.

In considering possible First Law violations in

astrophysical processes, we must not overlook one

of the most significant of phenomena—the origin of

the universe. Conventional physics fails to provide

a reasonable explanation, for it does not permit

new energy (or matter) to be created out of the

presumed vacuum of space. This is especially

embarrassing because physicists embrace the big

bang theory as their preferred cosmology. So not

only must this matter/energy be created, it must

be created all at once in what appears to be the

biggest First Law violation of all time. But, there

is no antecedent state from which the primordial

quantum could have emerged, space/time and

existence itself all being supposed to have emerged

for the first time with the occurrence of this

primordial event. Armchair acrobatics aimed at

explaining away the Creation by attributing it to a

fluke of nature seem to be desperate attempts made

by physicsists and cosmologists to free themselves

from their tight corner.

This egg-without-a-chicken problem would be

avoided by a physics that presumes the

preexistence of a subquantum medium, from which

matter and energy later emerge. The ideal physics

would prescribe a creation process that would

unfold over an extended period of time, so that it

would not involve a substantial deviation from the

dictates of the First Law. Let us now investigate a

physics methodology that proceeds along these

lines.

SUBQUANTUM KINETICS

For a long time now, there has been a split between

physics and the life sciences. Physics, which

historically developed within a mechanistic

framework, chooses to view its basic systems—

Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991

particles and fields—as closed systems requiring no

ongoing sustenance for their continued existence.

Biological systems, on the other hand, are

thermodynamically open. They require a continuous

flux of their constituent subsystem components in

order to maintain their ordered states. The same is

true of a wide variety of other living systems,

such as social, economic, and psychological

systems. All are describable by the same general

laws and mathematics.

Unlike quantum structures, living systems are

easily accessible to direct investigation. So could

it be that, because they necessarily operate in an

obscure realm, physicists have failed to realize the

true nature of microphysical systems and are

wrong in believing that they are fundamentally

different from other natural systems?

The subquantum kinetics physics methodology [8–

10,14,15] was developed with the conviction that

nature operates in fundamentally the same way at

all levels of its system hierarchy. It conceives

quantum structures to be concentration patterns

that emerge from a primordial reaction-diffusion

medium in much the same way that concentration

patterns emerge in the Brusselator [16] or in the

Belousov-Zhabotinskii chemical reaction [17],

namely as epiphenomena of open reaction-diffusion

processes. It is baseed on the general theory of

open systems, whose development in recent years

has been aided by developments in the fields of

general system theory, nonequilibrium

thermodynamics, nonlinear chemical kinetics, and

chaos theory. Thus subquantum kinetics brings us a

step closer to realizing the vision of a unified

science.

Subquantum kinetics adopts a theoretical approach

very different from conventional physics.

Physicists have traditionally begun with sets of

observational data describing various kinds of

physical phenomena and have attempted to

construct explanatory theories for each. Because

these various theories were usually developed in

isolation from one another, it is not surprising to

find that they sometimes turn out to be mutually

contradictory, as is the case for quantum field

theory and general relativity. This leaves

physicists struggling to sew together their

theoretical patchwork quilt in hopes of achieving

the long sought goal of a unified field theory.

Subquantum kinetics, on the other hand, takes a

modelling approach. It begins with theory and ends

with observation, rather than vice versa. It

postulates an appropriate set of inherently

unobservable subquantum reaction-diffusion

processes and then checks to see if the

spatiotemporal patterns, which these processes

produce, reproduce observed microphysical

phenomena. Thus subquantum kinetics attempts to

extend the well-tested concepts of the general

theory of open systems to the realm of physics.

Subquantum kinetics has several advantages over

standard physics. It provides a commonsense

model of subatomic matter that avoids the pitfalls

of the infinite field-energy absurdity, wave-packet

spreading problem, cosmological constant

conundrum, wave-particle dualism, and fieldsource

dualism, all of which plague conventional

theory. Moreover it is a unified field theory. The

energy fields that make up the core of a subatomic

particle, as well as those composing the electric

(magnetic), gravitational, and nuclear binding fields

that extend about the particle, all emerge in a

unitary fashion from a single set of nonlinear

equations describing the ether reaction processes.

In addition, subquantum kinetics provides a fertile

theoretical grounding for interpreting

nonconventional technologies such as Tesla's "sound

wave" model of radiant energy [18] and the

electrogravitic (antigravity) effects first reported

by Townsend Brown [19].

Conventional physics restricts itself to the

positivist doctrine of recognizing only the

measurable as having a real existence. Subquantum

kinetics, on the other hand, also recognizes the

existence of an unobservable subquantum realm. In

fact, it proposes that processes occurring at this

unobservable level hold the key to explaining the

existence of our observable world. As in mystical

traditions, the observable world emerges as an

epiphenonmenon of this unseen realm. Thus not only

does subquantum kinetics eliminate the gap between

the physical and life sciences, it also heals the age

old division between modern science and religion.

Subquantum kinetics avoids many of the problems

modern cosmology has created for itself. It

predicts a cosmologically static universe, rather

than an expanding one. Matter arises in "fertile"

pockets scattered throughout the universe through

a gradual process of continuous creation, rather

than all at once in a single Big Bang. This static

universe cosmology makes a better fit to

cosmological test data than does the big bang theory

[ 4 ] .

Probably most significant from the standpoint of

Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991

Figure 1. Photons become blueshifted in

regions near galaxies and redshifted in

intergalactic space.

energy conversion engineering is the theory's

prediction that electromagnetic energy is not

strictly conserved. Electromagnetic energy

potentials are able to gradually decrease over time

or increase over time, depending upon whether the

subquantum reactions are s u b c r i t i c a l or

supercritical, the criticality of the reactions being

determined by the value of the gravitational

potential, ϕg. Thus subquantum kinetics predicts

that EM waves will gradually lose energy (become

redshifted) in intergalactic space where ϕ g is

relatively high and will gradually gain energy

(become blueshifted) in the vicinity of galaxies,

where ϕg becomes most negative; see Figure 1.

Perfect conservation of wave energy occurs only

at the interface of these regions where the

subquantum reactions operate at their critical

threshold.

The energy spontaneously generated by the

blueshifting of photons is termed genic energy.

Genic energy may be considered to be a kind of

"free" energy since it arises spontaneously and not

from another prior form of physical energy. There

is no mystery as to where genic energy comes

from. its source may be traced to the subtle

nonphysical motive forces that drive the underlying

subquantum reactions.

But, accounting for the ultimate source of genic

energy is a small matter. The real question

physicists should be asking, in the context of

subquantum kinetics, is what energy source

sustains the entire physical universe. Subatomic

particles and energy waves are ordered forms,

dissipative structures that have formed out of a

subquantum continuum filling all space. If the

subquantum reactions were to cease, the universe

would turn into a closed system; and as we know

from the Second Law of Thermodynamics (whose

validity we do not question), in a closed system

ordered states inevitably decay. Quantum

structures would begin to homogenize and would

eventually vanish from the observable world. So in

this dissipative, open system model of the physical

universe, the status quo is maintained by the

throughput of a tremendous subquantum flux.

The rate of genic energy production is estimated at

[ 1 0 ] :

dE/dt = α ϕg E , (1)

where E is the photon's initial energy, ϕg is the

value of the ambient gravity potential, and α = 5.23

X 10-32 sec cm-2 .* Photons would gradually

blueshift in an earth-based laboratory, but the

process would occur so slowly as to lie well below

the threshold of detection. Nevertheless it would

make a significant contribution to the energetics of

planets and stars. The heat stored in a celestial

body would spontaneously evolve "genic" energy at

the rate:

Lg = dE/dt = α ϕg C M T, ( 2 )

where C, M, and T are the specific heat, mass, and

temperature.

Relation (2) leads to a stellar mass-luminosity

relation of the form Lg ∝ Mx, where x ~ 2.7 ± 0.9

[20]. This is quite reasonable, considering that the

mass-luminosity relation for lower main sequence

red dwarf stars M < 0.45 M has a slope of x =

2.76 ± 0.15 ; see Figure 2 [20]. So all red dwarfs

could be powered entirely by genic energy.

Genic energy would also explain why the massluminosity

coordinates for the jovian planets,

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune fall close to

this line. Formerly the excess heat radiated from

these planets was thought to come from a

primordial heat reservoir in their interiors.

However, the conformance of both planets and low

mass stars to a common relation rules out both

primordial heat and nuclear energy as a possible

cause, nuclear fusion being unable to occur in jovian

planets and primordial heat being insufficient to

sustain the energy output of low mass stars. Genic

energy, on the other hand, is able to adequately

explain the output from objects at both ends of this

mass range.

* The value suggested for α is sufficiently small

that photons travelling through the Galaxy would

accrue blueshifts of less than 3 X 10-6 (1 km/sec)

over a distance of 105 light years. Hence the

effect would be undetectable in the spectra of stars

within our Galaxy.

Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991

Figure 2. The lower main sequence stellar

mass-luminosity relation compared to the

mass-luminosity coordinates of several

planets.

M: one solar mass, L: one solar luminosity.

In addition, if we project this "planetary-stellar

mass-luminosity relation" upward to one solar

mass, we find that genic energy accounts for about

60% of the Sun's output. This explains why fusion

energy makes up only about one third of the Sun's

total energy flux, as judged from the Sun's

subnormal neutrino output. For stars more massive

than the Sun, fusion would make a progressively

greater contribution. However, since the majority

of stars in the universe are less massive than the

Sun, subquantum kinetics predicts that, for the

most part, the universe is powered by genic

energy.

Genic energy also effectively accounts for X-ray

emitting white dwarfs, X-ray stars, stellar

pulsation, novae, supernovae, and galactic core

explosions [10]. Conventional astrophysical theory

runs into problems in explaining many of these. For

example, it fails to explain why β Cephei stars

pulsate, why supernovae occur in hot blue giant

stars, what energy source powers supernovae and

galactic core explosions (some of the more

powerful active galaxies being unexplained even by

blackhole models).

Genic energy, by itself, cannot account for the

large power outputs observed from free energy

devices. But, if minor violations of the First Law

are the rule, rather than the exception in nature,

perhaps physics should reevaluate its assumption

that such violations are an impossibility. The

uncertain status of the First Law gives us

reassurance that theoretically it may be possible to

build devices that produce energy conservation law

violations substantially larger than the fractional

amounts we have been discussing.

VARIETIES OF FREE ENERGY

It appears that free energy can arise in many ways.

We will discuss some of these ways, examine them

in the context of subquantum kinetics, and assess

their applicability to commercial power generation.

Genic energy. As was said earlier, subquantum

kinetics proposes that nonDoppler photon

blueshifting occurs naturally in and near all

galaxies. It predicts that approximately three–

fourths of the Earth's geothermal heat flux arises

from genic energy, the remaining quarter being

attributed to crustal radioactivity. If so, this

suggests that geothermal power plants may be

tapping free energy, at least in part. Also since at

least two thirds of the Sun's energy may be of

genic origin, power plants running on solar energy

or fossil fuels (stored solar energy) would be

running mostly on free energy. However,

laboratory-sized heat reservoirs evolve genic

energy at far too small a rate to be applicable to

commercial power generation.

Zero-point energy fluctuations. The zero-point

energy concept developed as an outgrowth of

quantum field theory which proposes that material

particles exert forces on each other by emitting

and absorbing "virtual" subatomic particles.

However, the virtual particle concept suffers from

the problem that it requires subatomic particles to

have infinite masses [21]. Nevertheless, this

concept has been taken in another direction with the

suggestion that throughout space particleProceedings

of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991

antiparticle pairs continuously materialize from the

vacuum and soon after disappear by mutual

annihilation. This sea of potential energy

fluctuations is theorized to persist even at absolute

zero. Some suggest that by inducing these

fluctuations to arise in a coherent manner, it might

be possible to extract energy from this "Dirac sea"

[22].

Subquantum kinetics takes a different view of the

zero-point energy concept. It proposes that random

concentration fluctuations continuously arise in its

various ether substrates as a result of the

statistical nature of the subquantum ether reaction

and diffusion processes. These appear as random

pulses of gravitational or electric potential energy.

However, these fluctuations are millions of times

smaller than virtual particle fluctuations, each

pulse comprising a very small fraction of a quantum

of action. Moreover these fluctuations do not arise

as plus/minus pairs; being concentration

deviations, they are always positive valued.

Despite their small size, these fluctuations play a

key role in the subquantum kinetics matter creation

process. Under supercritical conditions, a

sufficiently large fluctuation can grow in size and

eventually turn into a subatomic particle.

However, as in photon blueshifting, this growth

process occurs very slowly. So, according to

subquantum kinetics, it is unlikely that this

phenomenon could provide a commercially

exploitable source of energy.

Ampere law forces. Several experiments have

shown that magnetic forces are best described by

the Ampere law, rather than the Biot-Savart law

[23-28]. The Biot-Savart law errs in that it fails

to predict forces between parts of a circuit having

different charge mobilities, such as longitudinal

forces exerted in the vicinity of a spark gap. In

particular, as Pappas has shown [29], the Ampere

law predicts that like charges moving in the same

direction will exert attractive magnetic forces on

one another. The net interplay of Coulomb repulsion

and Ampere law attraction turns out to be noncon–

servative. Above a certain speed Ampere

attraction is strong enough to overcome Coulomb

repulsion, thereby propelling the particles into a

run away collision which, upon impact, allows

Coulomb repulsion to dominate once again. He

suggests that such a mechanism may be responsible

for producing both fusion and excess free energy in

cold fusion experiments.

Ampere electrodynamics may also account for the

excess energy produced by free energy machines

such as the N machine and other magnetic devices.

Although these devices might operate in a variety

of different ways, in general, their ability to

produce free energy suggests that fields do not

always behave in an energy conserving fashion.

The open system field theory presented in

subquantum kinetics has the advantage that it is not

unnecessarily restricted by the First Law.

Gravity field manipulation. In the mid 1920's

Townsend Brown discovered that by applying highvoltage

charge to a capacitor, he could generate a

gravitational field which induced the capacitor to

move toward its positive pole [19,30]. His

research led him to produce an electrogravitic

device capable of self-levitation [31]. This soon

led to a major effort by the defense department and

major aircraft corporations to develop antigravity

aircraft for military use [32- 35]. In one of his

other ex–periments, Brown arranged capacitors on

the periphery of a rotor to form an electrogravitic

motor capable of running at high speeds even in a

vacuum. This demonstrated that it is possible to

generate an artificial gravitational vortex and to

extract free energy from that vortex via a central

rotor turning in perpetual free fall.

Coupling between electrostatic and gravitational

fields is predicted neither by general relativity,

nor by conven–tional field theory. However, it is

predicted by subquan–tum kinetics. According to

subquantum kinetics, protons generate gravitational

potential sinks and electrons generate slightly

lesser gravitational potential sources. In neutral

matter these two opposing effects add up to

produce a net gravitational sink—an attractive

gravi–tational field. However, when the charges

are sepa–rated, as in a charged capacitor, they

establish a gravity potential gradient that proceeds

from the negatively charged side down to the

positively charged side.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

We are entering an era in which physics theories of

the past are increasingly fallling behind in their

ability to explain adequately the emerging energy

technologies. There is now a pressing need to

investigate new theoretical approaches in which

spontaneous energy creation is the rule, rather

than the exception. Subquantum kinetics may be

one such approach worthy of consideration.

Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991

REFERENCES

[ 1 ] J. C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and

Magnetism. Vol. II. Reprint of 1891 edition. (Dover,

New York, 1954), p.431.

[2] E. Hubble, "Effects of red shifts on the distribution

of nebulae." Ap.J. 84 (1936):517.

[3] T. Jaakkola, M. Moles, and J.-P. Vigier, Astron. Nachr.

300 (1979):229.

[4] P. A. LaViolette, "Is the universe really expanding?"

Ap.J. 301 (1986):544-553; "New study questions

expanding universe." Astronomy, Aug. 1986, p. 64.

[5] F. L. Walker, "A contradiction in the theory of

universal expansion." Apeiron 5 (1989):1-6.

[6] W. von Nernst, The Structure of the Universe in

Light of our Research (Jules Springer, Germany,

1921), p. 40;

[7] --------. Zeitschrift fur Physik 106 (1938):633.

[8] P. A. LaViolette, "An introduction to subquantum

kinetics: I. An overview of the methodology."

Special Issue on Systems Thinking in Physics, Intl. J.

Gen. Sys. 11 (1985):281-293.

[9] --------. "An introduction to subquantum kinetics: II.

An open systems description of particles and fields."

Intl. J. Gen. Sys. 11 (1985):295-328.

[ 1 0 ] --------. "An introduction to subquantum kinetics:

III. The cosmology of subquantum kinetics." Intl. J.

Gen. Sys. 11 (1985):329-345.

[ 1 1 ] R. Monti, in Problems in Quantum Physics; Gdansk

'87 (World Scientific, Teaneck, New Jersey, 1988).

[ 1 2 ] J. N. Bahcall and R. K. Ulrich, "Solar models,

neutrino experiments, and helioseismology." Rev.

Mod. Phys. 60 (1988):297-372.

[ 1 3 ] K. S. Hirata et al., "Observation of 8 B solar

neutrinos in the Kamiokande-II dectector." Phys.

Rev. Lett. 63 (1989):16-19.

[ 1 4 ] P. A. LaViolette, "An open system approach to

energy wave propagation." Proc. of the 34th

annual meeting of the Intl. Soc. for Systems

Science, Portland, Oregon 1990, pp. 1119 - 1126.

[ 1 5 ] P. A. LaViolette, "A Tesla wave physics for a free

energy universe." Proc. of the 1990 Intl. Tesla

Symposium, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

[ 1 6 ] I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis, and A. Babloyantz,

"Thermodynamics of evolution." Physics Today

25(12) (1972):38.

[ 1 7 ] A. M. Zaikin and A. M. Zhabotinskii, "Concentration

wave propagation in two-dimensional liquid-phase

self-oscillating system." Nature 225 (1970):535-

537.

[ 1 8 ] N. Tesla, New York Herald Tribune, Sept. 11, 1932;

New York Times, April 8, 1934, p. 9.

[ 1 9 ] T. T. Brown, "How I control gravity." Science and

Invention Magazine, August 1929.

[ 2 0 ] P. A. LaViolette, "The planetary-stellar massluminosity

relation: Possible evidence of energy

nonconservation?" 1991 in preparation.

[ 2 1 ] F. Capra, The Tao of Physics. NY: Bantam, 1977.

[ 2 2 ] M. B. King, Tapping the Zero-point Energy. Provo,

Utah: Paraclete Publishing, 1989.

[ 2 3 ] P. Graneau, "Amperian recoil and the efficiency of

railguns." J. Appl. Phys. 62 (1987):3006-3009.

[ 2 4 ] --------. "First indication of Ampere tension in solid

electric conductors." Phys. Lett. 97A (1983): 253-

55.

[ 2 5 ] P. Graneau and P. N. Graneau, "Electrodynamic

explosions in liquids." Appl. Phys. Lett. 4 6

(1985):468-470.

[ 2 6 ] P. T. Pappas, "The original Ampere force and Biot-

Savart and Lorentz forces." Il Nuovo Cimento 76B

(1983): 189-197.

[ 2 7 ] --------. "The non-equivalence of the Ampere and

Lorentz/Grassmann force laws and longitudinal

contact interactions." Phys. Essays 3 (1990):15-

23.

[ 2 8 ] P. T. Pappas and T. Vaughan "Forces on a stigma

antenna." Phys.Essays 3 (1990): 211-216.

[ 2 9 ] P. T. Pappas "Excess free energy and cold nuclear

fusion." Twenty-First Cen. Tech., Jan.-Feb.

(1990):11-12.

[ 3 0 ] G. Burridge, "Another step toward anti-gravity."

The American Mercury 86 (1958):77-82.

[ 3 1 ] T. T. Brown, Letter dated Feb. 9, 1982.

[ 3 2 ] Electrogravitics Systems: An examination of

electrostatic motion, dynamic counterbary and

barycentric control. Report No. 13. Aviation

Studies (International) Ltd., Special Weapons

Study Unit, London, February 1956. (Library of

Congress No. 3,1401,00034,5879; Call No.

TL565.A9; Obtainable from Wright-Patterson Air

Force Base Technical Library in Dayton, Ohio).

[ 3 3 ] "Electrogravitics: Science or daydream? Product

Engineering, Dec. 30, 1957, p. 12.

[ 3 4 ] "How to 'fall' into space." Business Week, Feb. 8,

1958, pp. 51-53.

[ 3 5 ] P. A. LaViolette "Electrogravitics: An energyefficient

means of spacecraft propulsion."

Submission to the 1990 NASA Space Exploration

Outreach Program.

SUBQUANTUM KINETICS EXPLORING THE CRACK IN THE FIRST LAW.pdf (178 kB)

Alla artiklar

Objekt: 58 - 60 av 85

<< < 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 > >>

Blogg

The Pioneer maser signal anomaly: Possible confirmation of spontaneous photon blueshifting

ENERGY INNOVATIONS SMALL GRANT (EISG) PROGRAM EISG FINAL REPORT CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING OF A HIGH EFFICIENCY SOLAR WATER STILL EISG AWARDEE

SUBQUANTUM KINETICS: EXPLORING THE CRACK IN THE FIRST LAW

Sök på hemsidan

Kontakt