Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Grimer Interestingly enough the other night I was watching a programme on Michael Faraday (whose house I pass by every Sunday morning). How inspiring that must be! It will be interesting to find out if anyone else can see what I have seen. Bien sûr! But, do you distinguish among the terms: Beta atm Aether Dirac Sea ZPF BTW, here's a nice cutaway of a magnetron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Magnetron2.jpg
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Grimer In February of 1940, the English researchers tested their first working cavity magnetron. They were amazed to find that it produced over 400 watts of power at the extremely short wavelength of 9.8 cm (about 4 inches). This was nearly a hundred times more power than anyone else had ever produced at that wavelength. A cursory google does not return the COP of a magnetron. Has anyone seen it measured?
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Terry Blanton A cursory google does not return the COP of a magnetron. Has anyone seen it measured? I have found several webpages which say that the microwave conversion efficiency is up to 78%. There's no mention of the heat given off.
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
--- Terry Blanton wrote from Fran Grimers interesting thoughts on the cavity magnetron A cursory google does not return the COP of a magnetron. Has anyone seen it measured? I have seen the figure of 70% eff for the oven-type units, but do not have a handy reference. The main losses are cathode heating and tube heating. Many tubes are heavily finned to dissipate heat. The magnetron was definitely amazing in comparison to radio tubes (valves to the Brits), because normal tubes in the 1940s were around 20-40% eff. while the magnetron was nearly double that. Some of the higher eff. is due to higher power - as all RF tubes get more eff. in general, as they get larger, since the cathode heating losses are less, percentagewise. I suppose that an electric -- electric COP of .8 is possible with a cold cathode magnetron of a kilowatt RF output. Maybe higher for certain uses - as they have been proposed as a way to get solar energy back to earth from orbiting satellites. The ground antenna would be 95% so the net would be ~75% which doesn't sound that good untill you realize that even if copper wires would stretch that far (~22,000 miles), they would likely not do much better. Jones
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Jones Beene I have seen the figure of 70% eff for the oven-type units, but do not have a handy reference. Never mind, I found plenty. Sure seems to be a lot of heat coming from my microwave oven magnetron. I gues no one has really done the calorimetry. BTW, I am struck by the graphic similarity of these two cross sections: http://www.iter.org/what.htm http://home.cvc.org/microwaves/HowMagnetronWorks.htm a nonsensical relationship; but, somehow jungian.
Microwave MAHG?
The following URL is the Marchese rocket engine pdf file, mentioned previously, which may have some relevance to the MAHG (if and when reliable numbers, indicating large OU are forthcoming): engineering.eng.rowan.edu/~marchese/final-niac.pdf The connection to keep in mind is that Microwave input, even at only a few watts, may be a preferable way to achieve the anomalous MAHG effect. Obviously, the present experimental set-up of Naudin, or something close, needs to be replicated first before moving forward to potential improvements. And it goes without saying that as of now, few observers are confident in the numbers which have been published. Consequently, all of these following comments are premised on there being a real anomaly here, which can be replicated. From there on - there are many possibilites for improvement. If indeed only 5 watts of input is being used for the MAHG anomaly, then if applied at the resonant frequency of neutral atomic hydrogen - 1420 MHz (1.42 GHz), this form of microwave energy would seem to offer better coupling to hydrogen than a pulsed tungsten cathode. This would be true, even if the anomaly were a surface effect of the the gas-metal interface - such as is seen in LENR, since a large anode surface can be made available in either situation. Also IF ... the pulsing itself, and the low duty cycle in particualar, are shown to be a necessary parameter for the anomaly, then there is no reason why a magnetron cannot be pulsed to achieve better coupling. Marchese/Mills got surprising results in the rocket engine using a non-resonant frequency (2.45 Ghz) in a non-resonant tube with no surface effect. Had they used the resonant frequency of hydrogen in a correctly dimensioned tube, and they not been reliant on the constant flow of hydrogen at what seems to be too low a pressure, then it concievable that several orders of magnitude better results could be possible. But again, this conclusion is based upon transposing the previous MAHG results, and translating those parameters, which are far from certain (in relaibility), into a new situation. IOW, my feeling is the Mills/Marchese rocket experiment missed optimiztion on almost every parameter - frequency, dimension and pressurization - yet still showed an energy anomaly. This may indicate that a robust source of previously unknown energy is availabe in amny types of Microwave-powered cells, and that may or may not be related back to the hydrino. Since Mills has been at this for 15 years, one would be wise to suspect that his hydrino concept is responsible for both the BLP results and the MAHG, but neither should anyone rule out the prospect that some other modality is at work. It is too bad that more detailed results, like the Marchese experiment, are not available from BLP. As mentioned in a previous posting, the interesting thing about the 1420 MHz frequency in the overall analysis of MAHG, is that this seems to be very close to the exact collision rate of the atoms in the present MAHG device. IOW, if you figure the MFP of the hydrogen molecules at the particular temperature which is necessary to provide the delta-t which is claimed, and at the claimed fill of 80 torr. then the kinetic collision rate per molecule per second is very close to 1,420,000,000. Of course a kinetic collision rate and frequency of EM radiation are NOT normally related in any form that could be said to be causal. Perhaps this is only coincidental and unrelated ... that is, if you believe in coincidence. Jones
[OT] Bedtime for Gonzo
Hunter S. Thompson's last wishes honored: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4168266.stm
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 06:12 pm 20/08/2005 +0200, you wrote: Grimer wrote: You could have added Casimir pressure for good measure. 8-) My preferred term is Beta-atmosphere since I find the analogy with atmospheric pressure useful - and it arises naturally if one starts one's analysis with sands and clays which are held together by Alpha-atmospheric pressure in the case of coarse sands (pF 15 psi) and Beta-atmospheric pressure in the case of clays, say. (pF 15 psi). Moin Frank, So, you are basically changing the baseline for pressure to 15psi, but you do still agree with the majority of the scientific community, that all pressure is positive with relation to no pressure, and that there is no such thing as negative pressure with relation to no pressure. Knuke No, no, no, noo! My fault - I'm afraid I expressed things badly. pF is a log scale of suction, of negative pressure taking atmospheric pressure as datum. Normally people think of -15psi as zero pressure (stress) and anything lower than that they think of in terms of tension. I am saying that tension is only the absence of some unappreciated pressure (the Beta-atmosphere pressure in the case of macro material). Since for me, tension - action at a distance - is a negation the words pressure and stress are interchangeable. In the case of steel for example, tension is a reduction in the EXTERNAL Beta-atmosphere pressure which holds the steel together in an analogous way to air pressure holds an evacuated plastic bag of table-tennis balls together. If you really want to get things straightened out you need to read the three key publications listed below. which are all available as .jpeg page scans on various Yahoo sites. The ideas are very easy to follow, albeit difficult to accept because of their obvious far reaching implications. The ideas are certainly not in danger of straining *your* brain. g Jones and Horace seemed to manage OK. = REFERENCES = GRIMER, F.J. and R.E.HEWITT. The form of the stress-strain curve of concrete interpreted with a di-phase concept of material behaviour. Structure, Solid Mechanics and Engineering Design. Proceedings of the Southampton 1969 Civil Engineering Conference. (M.Te'eni, Ed.), Wiley Interscience, pp 681 - 691, 1972. CLAYTON, N and F.J.GRIMER. A General Approach to the Strength of Materials. Speculations in Science and Technology, Vol.1, No.1, pp5 - 13, 1978. CLAYTON, N and F.J.GRIMER. The di-phase concept with particular reference to concrete. Developments in Concrete Technology, Vol.1, F.D.Lydon, ed, Applied Science Publishers, England pp.283-318. Cheers Frank
Re: Letter to Congress
Terry, Can you tell me more about these requests off line? What they look like? Any ideas where they are coming from? May I can help. Thanks, Steve At 02:28 PM 8/19/2005, you wrote: Vorts, I have had a number of requests lately for a form letter which could be used to write Congress on the idiocy of the DOE and failure to support LENR research. Has anyone done one lately? TIA, Terry
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Grimer wrote: The ideas are certainly not in danger of straining *your* brain. g Jones and Horace seemed to manage OK. Yeah Ok, I usually strain my noodle about a minute after it comes to a boil, then I recall the exhortations of my parents to use it, and I reluctantly attempt to do so. I think that even though we are both quite fluent in English, we are talking two different languages, but that is OK. I never understood what my parents were telling me either. My background in vacuum technologies comes from my work on large refrigeration systems and desalinization gear. The gauges go down to zero (1 atm), and then start reading in Inches of Mercury. As far as I know, no one has ever achieved a perfect vacuum, nor has anyone managed to suck beyond that point (although Halliburton and the legal department of Microsoft are competing intensely for that honor). I have had some training and practical experience in structural engineering, but not that much. I have done very little work with concrete, but I have done more than a bit with steel. I will root around for your papers, try and shift into your language set, and see if they make any sense to me. Hopefully, visualizing concepts that I have always applied to gas technologies to solid material will not require the use of psychedelics. Knuke PS Jones and Horace are geniuses. So are Fred and Bill. I have to stop several times and start over when counting my toes. Ask anybody.
Re: Letter to Congress
From: Steven Krivit Can you tell me more about these requests off line? What they look like? Any ideas where they are coming from? May I can help. Yes. It's mostly friends and coworkers who have listened to me about peak oil. They range from professionals to burger flippers. Of course, they already knew I was a crackpot about exotic hydrogen energy. :-) Seems they have begun their own research re: Hubbert Peak and the truth about our oil supply and are realizing that they will never see $2/gal gas again. Many are dumping their SUVs and pickups. In a company gathering I stood up to speak and mentioned that rapid transit and commuter rail will (our business) will prosper in two years when gas hits $5/gal . . . well, you can guess the reaction. I started writing a form letter and found it difficult not to come off acerbic. You know me, I'm not the type to write the kind of letter a Senator's aide will actually read. I was using phrases like national emergency and manhattan project and too many web references. Come up with something good (or several) and post it on your web site. Nothing like a good letter writing campaign to get Congress' attention. It has damned sure worked against those who say we should adopt the same nutrient supplement laws which have recently passed in Germany. Regards, Terry
Re: Microwave MAHG?
Jones Sez: ... As mentioned in a previous posting, the interesting thing about the 1420 MHz frequency in the overall analysis of MAHG, is that this seems to be very close to the exact collision rate of the atoms in the present MAHG device. IOW, if you figure the MFP of the hydrogen molecules at the particular temperature which is necessary to provide the delta-t which is claimed, and at the claimed fill of 80 torr. then the kinetic collision rate per molecule per second is very close to 1,420,000,000. Of course a kinetic collision rate and frequency of EM radiation are NOT normally related in any form that could be said to be causal. If there is a correlation between 80 torr and the collision rate, wouldn't it imply that if the pressure were increased the collision rate would rise as well? Hypothetically speaking, the MHz frequency should therefore increase as well, wouldn't it? And if so, would it be advantageous to increase the frequency - assuming there is a correlation? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: Microwave MAHG?
--- OrionWorks wrote: If there is a correlation between 80 torr and the collision rate, wouldn't it imply that if the pressure were increased the collision rate would rise as well? Yes. Hypothetically speaking, the MHz frequency should therefore increase as well, wouldn't it? Yes. And if so, would it be advantageous to increase the frequency - assuming there is a correlation? Probably not, assuming you mean advantageous to increase the collision frequency above the resonance level, which is where the anomaly occurs. But are you confusing the two phenomena? Even though a kinetic collision rate and a EM frequency are separate dynamic processes and supposedly minimally or unrelated (at least nothing has turned up yet in the literature to indicate a huge connection), it would be interesting to see if there was synergy between the two, since in MAHG there is this coincidental linkage. But even if not - the most efficient way to get the kinetic rate up to the level where the anomaly occurs would seem to be resonant microwaves. Presently, the cathode is doing the heating of the bulk of gas by convection with some radiation at IR and higher frequencies), which is not as efficient compared to coupling to a resonant EM wave. I cannot believe that the present 50 Hz rate is a variable which improves anything, although the low duty cycle is an intriguing variable. BTW the reason that water and fat heat up fast in a microwave oven is that the OH radical, in H-OH and present in all fats, has a resonance which is a harmonic of 2.45 GHz which is the oven frequency. Actually 1.42 GHz is also close to being a harmonic, which is why the Marchese hydrino rocket engine works. The idea of matching up photon resonance with kinetic resonance is something which I expected to find some direct prior research on. Google returns 325 hits on photon-phonon resonance but so far no experiment looks comparable. That apparent lack of a direct experimental validation could mean that there is no benefit, or else nobody has really thought to to do this exact thing. The no benefit is probably the right answer. In prior posts to vortex, the LENR rate and the phonon frequency of a Pd electrode was speculated to be improved if stimulated by a terahertz laser which matched that kinetic rate (which is obviously higher by a factor of 1000 than the MAHG). The older speculation, of course, is likely where this present idea originated in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right, but thus far neither idea has been shown to be wrong or right, so you can add this to the long list of experiments which we wish had been done previously. Jones
Re: Microwave MAHG?
From: Jones Beene . . .it would be interesting to see if there was synergy between the two, since in MAHG there is this coincidental linkage. What the honorable Jones intended to say, I sure, is that there appears to be such a linkage. We don't know for sure what the density of the H2 is. The most honorable Fred based his calculation, er, the GSU webpage calculation, on an assumed density based on what Naudin said the pressure was inside the tube. It is a trivial thing to measure the presence of a 1.42 GHz signal in the MAHG tube whose intended resonance *is* 2.45 GHz, which close to a 1/3 subharmonic of the resonant frequency of water, 7.533 GHz.
Re: Letter to Congress
Terry, Very interesting. Thanks for the local news report from your neck of the wood. I think I can best help at the moment by continuing to focus my time on providing original research and investigative reports/interviews which others can hopefully use as reference. JohhnyC - Do you have any interest in the form letter Terry's talking about? I'll provide support for you if you can take the lead on it. Steve
Krivit Presentation/Paper for ICENES 2005, 26 August
http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2005KrivitS-HowCanItBeReal-Paper.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2005KrivitS-HowCanItBeReal-Presentation.pdf
Peak Oil
Seems they have begun their own research re: Hubbert Peak and the truth about our oil supply and are realizing that they will never see $2/gal gas again. Many are dumping their SUVs and pickups. In a company gathering I stood up to speak and mentioned that rapid transit and commuter rail will (our business) will prosper in two years when gas hits $5/gal . . . well, you can guess the reaction. Terry, any idea how they are tuned into Hubbert's Peak / Peak Oil? I'm not seeing much in the way of coverage, though my head's so deep in cf, I could easily miss it. Thanks, Steve
Re: Peak Oil
From: Steven Krivit Terry, any idea how they are tuned into Hubbert's Peak / Peak Oil? http://tinyurl.com/ax8yn 42,300 I'm not seeing much in the way of coverage, though my head's so deep in cf, I could easily miss it. Does 'cf' have multiple meanings? Thanks for the offer. Don't worry about it. I'll handle it. It's only a couple of hundred people. Thanks again, Terry
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Since the Beta-atmosphere is a doppelganger of the Alpha-atmosphere there is no reason why one should not construct a cavity magnetron equivalent for the Alpha-atmosphere using air - or even a cavity magnetron equivalent for the Alpha-Beta overlap using water. Immediately one thinks along these lines it becomes bloody obvious what the real secret of the cavity magnetron is. Do you remember the water based vacuum pumps one used in chemistry class - the ones where a constrained jet of water passes though and sucks air out of the connected vacuum apparatus. Well, the Beta-atmosphere stream as manifested by the electron swirl passing over the magnetron cavity openings is acting just like that jet of water. The Beta-atmosphere is being sucked out of the cavities which are consequently at a sustained reduced Beta-aether pressure. No wonder Randall Hopkirk (Deceased) got such a shock at the 100fold increase in power. Increasing differential B-a pressure must be analogous, say, to increasing differential temperature in the Carnot Cycle. My goodness me! It's so obvious when you can see it. What a laugh! 8-) Presumably that's why the walls of the cavity have to be so chunky. If they were thin the cavities would be crushed by the difference in Beta-atmosphere pressure. Mmm... And I thought I was going to have to persuade people to investigate the mild steel cup and cone cavity as described in the Infinite Energy paper (Issue 46, pp. 28-33). The cavity magnetron is a much sexier option, eh! Now the interesting question is, what happens if you introduce deuterium into the reduced Beta-atmosphere pressure cavities? Be careful lads - I don't want you blowing yourselves up. g Cheers, Frank Grimer [I wonder if the MIB look at these posts. Nah! they are far too stupid. Mind you, if they do read 'em, they'll soon be coming for you, boys, so make sure all your affairs are in order. 8-) ]
