Speaking of the Naudin website... in all its glory and
amazing diversity (and about the only thing in life which,
at my age is an item of lust anymore - IOW wouldn't it be
great to have such a web-site -along with an Edisonian-type
staff to keep it going, but...all-in-all, it should be a
consortium put together with a bit less gullibility shall
we say
and since we are already knee-deep in pathological
science...
You may remember this poser from a year ago:
Which is hotter -
a.) burning hydrogen in oxygen, or
b.) burning hydrogen in hydrogen?
Well, once again Naudin has managed to provide an answer, of
sorts - this time in conjunction with the equally
controversial Alex Frolov. See:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/mahg1.htm
Which is a fairly elaborate experiment, apparently built by
Frolov in Russia to the specs of one Nicholas Moller
(probably part of the Naudin collective) and claimed to be
showing a steady-state OU of 130% (COP =1.3) and higher on
startup. It is based on the experiments of Langmuir, the
inventor of a hydrogen torch as well as being the author
of the most famous derogatory putdown imaginable to us
perpmos, that being the one known far and wide as
pathological science.
Anyway, here is the inconclusive answer to the poser above,
from a previous post. I hope to revise this post soon, in
light of the implications of electronium (so you can set
your spam filter accordingly), anyway from last year:
If you answered b) then you may be thinking about the
hydrino, OR are already aware of an energy anomaly
discovered almost 90 years ago, but is it overunity?
Ironically, Nobel chemist Irving Langmuir (1881-1957) was in
the habit of giving cautionary talks on pathological
science, saying There are cases where there is no
dishonesty involved, but where people are tricked into false
results by a lack of understanding about what human beings
can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by
subjective effects, wishful thinking, or threshold
interactions. These are examples of pathological science.
Apparently, he failed to issue a reciprocal warning for
pathological obedience to instituionalized orthodoxy, and
indeed he may have deliberately overlooked one of the first
well-recorded instances of overunity - and in his own work!
What should it be called, pathological tunnel vision or
pathological neo-cecity (for those who appreciate 'le mot
juste') ?
The old anomaly in question involves the thermal
dissociation of hydrogen in an electric arc, and it was
discovered by none other than Irving Langmuir himself. He
noticed that dissociation of H2 in an electric arc led to a
much higher dissociation rate than one might expect on the
basis of known thermodynamics. He invented a cutting torch
based on this discovery, which is seldom used today because
of another consideration (hydrogen embrittlement of steel).
Here is a picture of the torch.
http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html
Despite the risk of promoting even more of the dreaded
pathological science (at the expense of old Irv), there is a
good case to be made for OU in this device.
The textbook binding energy of the hydrogen molecule is
4.52 eV. If one compares the ratio of the dissociated
molecules to that of nondissociated molecules in Langmuir's
torch, it turns out that the effective binding energy works
out to only a little over 1 eV for a substantial population
of the molecules involved. Of course, the distribution is
Maxwellian and we are only looking at that population on
Boltzman's tail, but so what? The population of temporarily
free protons is large (as much as a third, depending on
assumptions) and the dissociation energy-deficit is so
substantial that a gateway may exist for OU may here.
Unfortunately, most of Langmuir's old articles like: The
Dissociation of Hydrogen Into Atoms, Journal of American
Chemical Society 37, 417 (1915) are not available online.
Apologists for this kind of energy deficit effect often use
the term borrowed to explain it, but that explanation
involves time-reversal which is only slightly more palatable
to orthodoxy than is overunity.
There is a lot of questionable information online about OU
hydrogen plasmas like Professor Chernetskii's device (Hal
Puthoff apparently visited Chernetskii in 1991 to witness
the device maybe working, maybe not) and we all know about
the Correa's abnormal glow but this is not intended to be
a defense of that - only to offer a *non-hydrino*
explanation, if any of these hydrogen plasma things ever
turns out to be rock-solid proof of OU.
The Langmuir torch suggests that the dissociation of the
hydrogen molecule occurs with an outside or free-energy
input of about 3.4 eV for a substantial percentage of the
hydrogen molecules involved. This is a mass/energy level
that keeps popping up over and over in reported free-energy
anomalies, and it is related to a very real QM phenomenon -
the energy of virtual pairs.
However, we know that even for the
