Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Ed's theory requires peer review. The soliton theory of LENR is incompatible with Ed's theory as it stands now but with a little adjustment Ed could be promulgating the correct LENR doctrinaire. Ed is a prominent voice in the LENR community, if Ed can be converted to the truth, then others may follow. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: And you seem to have some strange chip on your shoulder regarding Ed Storms and his theory. If a plasmoid EVO is producing excess heat and transmutation, all fusion theories are wrong, not just Ed's. I don't understand your rant in the slightest. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone who references a plasmoid structure cannot take the theory of Ed Storms seriously. A plasmoid projects the causation of the reaction at a distant from the plasmoid. That negates the premise of Ed's theory because Ed's theory is one where the action of causation is directed inward within the crack. Remote LENR reactions are seen all the time in LENR experimentation. Any such experiment will disprove Eds theory. The plasmoid will project as anapole magnetic field axially in a direction normal to its direction of current rotation. Action at a distance is a key that indicates the reaction causation in projected magnetism. This is a simple concept not a extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, It has been seen in many experiments that I can reference *ad nauseam.* http://www.uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e11.pdf * LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS AND THE LEPTONIC MONOPOLE * Snip Doctor Ivoilov will present in his report some very interesting results for the traces.8 Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental data. (1) The particle, which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is charged, as nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons. (2) The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not be able to pass through *two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black paper.* (3) The particle does not have high energy, as no delta electrons are observed. (4) The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the photosensitive layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV. (5) The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic fields. . On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable * There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC endures but will decay when isolated on its own. The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his experimental explanations. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: picking up and displacing very fine grained material and re-depositing it elsewhere With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the way as an inappropriate analogy. The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of material. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling between appropriate materials.
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
but from my perspective, you always seem to think there is only one way of perceiving/interpreting the evidence. Most LENR theories are based on emergent LENR phenomena that exist far above the primary causation. The Root cause of LENR is a single all encompassing mechanism. The many cause interpretation that you prefer is counterproductive to finding the beating heart at the center of LENR. Only one center is possible and its discovery is the only correct road to understanding LENR. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: I know Ken Shoulders' work Axil. In fact, I've devoted a small section to Ken over at blue-science (amongst many other relevant people from the OU world I've investigated/archived): http://www.blue-science.org/articles/suggested-articles/. His work is an important piece of the next generation of energy propulsion technologies (beyond granting insight into the nature of space-time itself). You are obviously a very intelligent person and I don't disagree with parts of your theoretical framework, but from my perspective, you always seem to think there is only one way of perceiving/interpreting the evidence. This is very convenient for the perpetuation of your particular belief system. Then conversations devolve into pointless polemics over minutia. I just don't really understand the pointless tunnel-vision and lack of self-awareness. You take your loose associations too seriously, insist on their reality, and assume there could be no other plausible explanation/interpretation beside your own. There are many reality tunnels by which truth can be arrived at -- if I prefer Schauberger to Shoulders what does it matter? There is no right or wrong here -- everyone is fishing: http://evgars.com/Shauberger.htm On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *just another wannabe who can't take criticism* If you want to understand the origin, development, and effect of longitudinal waves, then look at the theory and experiments of Ken Shoulders. He observe dark mode vortex production and the resultant projection of a monopole magnetic field a long time ago. I am just reviving the doctrinaire that Ken developed over a long and brilliant career. You want to understand this subject, but stop looking at waves in a river and understand what happens during a spark discharge, there is no slit involved unless you use this as an analogy for the production of nano-particles. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: picking up and displacing very fine grained material and re-depositing it elsewhere With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the way as an inappropriate analogy. The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of material. Axil -- Do I really have to qualify everything I write with a wall of text -- like you for instance? Why don't you ask for clarification instead of calling it conceptual junk? It's a simple analogy. Take it for what it is, or ask for more detail, instead of pissing all over it. I've asked you many clarifying questions in the past when confronted with your baffling ideas -- a courtesy you are unable to reciprocate. I get it -- you have everything figured out, and you're annoyed that I don't agree with you. If you want to convert more people to your extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, run some calculations, put an actual white paper together, start using your actual name, suggest some experiments (in actual LENR systems), and have it subjected to scrutiny. Otherwise you're just another wannabe who can't take criticism. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: picking up and displacing very fine grained material and re-depositing it elsewhere With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the way as an inappropriate analogy. The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of material. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them ion acoustical modes, T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Axil -- You're all over the place. Seriously. Ed's theory has been peer-reviewed by JCMNS, Infinite Energy, and he submitted/presented a white paper at ICCF-18. I'd need a much clearer definition of what the soliton theory of LENR is before I trust that could disprove anything. Do you actually mean your theory? The theory that has never appeared in print (beside a fractured mosaic of message board posts) and has never been subjected to any real scrutiny or test whatsoever? And if you mean Shoulders' theory instead, well that isn't your theory, and like I said it would disprove all fusion models, not just Ed's. You have a preoccupation with Ed because he dared to call you out for being a fuzzy thinker. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed's theory requires peer review. The soliton theory of LENR is incompatible with Ed's theory as it stands now but with a little adjustment Ed could be promulgating the correct LENR doctrinaire. Ed is a prominent voice in the LENR community, if Ed can be converted to the truth, then others may follow. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: And you seem to have some strange chip on your shoulder regarding Ed Storms and his theory. If a plasmoid EVO is producing excess heat and transmutation, all fusion theories are wrong, not just Ed's. I don't understand your rant in the slightest. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone who references a plasmoid structure cannot take the theory of Ed Storms seriously. A plasmoid projects the causation of the reaction at a distant from the plasmoid. That negates the premise of Ed's theory because Ed's theory is one where the action of causation is directed inward within the crack. Remote LENR reactions are seen all the time in LENR experimentation. Any such experiment will disprove Eds theory. The plasmoid will project as anapole magnetic field axially in a direction normal to its direction of current rotation. Action at a distance is a key that indicates the reaction causation in projected magnetism. This is a simple concept not a extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, It has been seen in many experiments that I can reference *ad nauseam.* http://www.uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e11.pdf * LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS AND THE LEPTONIC MONOPOLE * Snip Doctor Ivoilov will present in his report some very interesting results for the traces.8 Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental data. (1) The particle, which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is charged, as nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons. (2) The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not be able to pass through *two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black paper.* (3) The particle does not have high energy, as no delta electrons are observed. (4) The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the photosensitive layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV. (5) The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic fields. . On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable * There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC endures but will decay when isolated on its own. The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his experimental explanations. On Sat, Jul 26,
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
*Seriously. Ed's theory has been peer-reviewed by JCMNS, Infinite Energy, and he submitted/presented a white paper at ICCF-18.* Herein lies the problem with the LENR community. It is mired in the misconceptions of the deuterium/palladium history of LENR that has developed over the last 25 year, with the quest for tritium and the fusion to helium. This is Ed's tradition and is unfortunately a wrong turn in the understanding of LENR. Dr Miley is more on track and Ed derides Miley's ideas. A bad sign, Ed discounts my heroes and the foundation of my thinking. Ed need to be returned to the proper theoretical camp, I owe it to Ed, his position in LENR deserve no less. I am anonymous and as such I avoid the complications and the pitfalls of ego and reputation. Whatever Ed says about me does not stick. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Axil -- You're all over the place. Seriously. Ed's theory has been peer-reviewed by JCMNS, Infinite Energy, and he submitted/presented a white paper at ICCF-18. I'd need a much clearer definition of what the soliton theory of LENR is before I trust that could disprove anything. Do you actually mean your theory? The theory that has never appeared in print (beside a fractured mosaic of message board posts) and has never been subjected to any real scrutiny or test whatsoever? And if you mean Shoulders' theory instead, well that isn't your theory, and like I said it would disprove all fusion models, not just Ed's. You have a preoccupation with Ed because he dared to call you out for being a fuzzy thinker. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed's theory requires peer review. The soliton theory of LENR is incompatible with Ed's theory as it stands now but with a little adjustment Ed could be promulgating the correct LENR doctrinaire. Ed is a prominent voice in the LENR community, if Ed can be converted to the truth, then others may follow. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: And you seem to have some strange chip on your shoulder regarding Ed Storms and his theory. If a plasmoid EVO is producing excess heat and transmutation, all fusion theories are wrong, not just Ed's. I don't understand your rant in the slightest. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone who references a plasmoid structure cannot take the theory of Ed Storms seriously. A plasmoid projects the causation of the reaction at a distant from the plasmoid. That negates the premise of Ed's theory because Ed's theory is one where the action of causation is directed inward within the crack. Remote LENR reactions are seen all the time in LENR experimentation. Any such experiment will disprove Eds theory. The plasmoid will project as anapole magnetic field axially in a direction normal to its direction of current rotation. Action at a distance is a key that indicates the reaction causation in projected magnetism. This is a simple concept not a extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, It has been seen in many experiments that I can reference *ad nauseam.* http://www.uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e11.pdf * LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS AND THE LEPTONIC MONOPOLE * Snip Doctor Ivoilov will present in his report some very interesting results for the traces.8 Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental data. (1) The particle, which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is charged, as nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons. (2) The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not be able to pass through *two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black paper.* (3) The particle does not have high energy, as no delta electrons are observed. (4) The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the photosensitive layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV. (5) The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic fields. . On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable * There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC endures but will decay when isolated on its own. The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases its energy in a collision
Re: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number
Designing a reactor that performs well is a very difficult and time consuming job, Just ask Rossi and DGT. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote: At 1:31 of part 1 of his July 21 demonstration Mills tells us that in order for the Sun Cell to produce 10 megawatts of electricity it will need to create 25 megawatts of light energy, as the PV cells have a 40% conversion ratio. I presume that will leave 15 megawatts to be dissipated as heat (it has to go somewhere, right?) With that much heat wouldn't the reactor itself nearly glow with the intensity of the sun? I'm just a simple country doctor so probably I'm missing something. Steve High
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Axil -- Yes, I know you have an axe to grind with Ed. That was my point. It's really quite amazing how you can call out Storms' theory for not being peer-reviewed (even though it has been several times as I pointed out) and not see the irony. When can we here on vortex expect a draft of your white paper expounding more on your soliton theory of LENR and TOE? On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:28 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Seriously. Ed's theory has been peer-reviewed by JCMNS, Infinite Energy, and he submitted/presented a white paper at ICCF-18.* Herein lies the problem with the LENR community. It is mired in the misconceptions of the deuterium/palladium history of LENR that has developed over the last 25 year, with the quest for tritium and the fusion to helium. This is Ed's tradition and is unfortunately a wrong turn in the understanding of LENR. Dr Miley is more on track and Ed derides Miley's ideas. A bad sign, Ed discounts my heroes and the foundation of my thinking. Ed need to be returned to the proper theoretical camp, I owe it to Ed, his position in LENR deserve no less. I am anonymous and as such I avoid the complications and the pitfalls of ego and reputation. Whatever Ed says about me does not stick. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Axil -- You're all over the place. Seriously. Ed's theory has been peer-reviewed by JCMNS, Infinite Energy, and he submitted/presented a white paper at ICCF-18. I'd need a much clearer definition of what the soliton theory of LENR is before I trust that could disprove anything. Do you actually mean your theory? The theory that has never appeared in print (beside a fractured mosaic of message board posts) and has never been subjected to any real scrutiny or test whatsoever? And if you mean Shoulders' theory instead, well that isn't your theory, and like I said it would disprove all fusion models, not just Ed's. You have a preoccupation with Ed because he dared to call you out for being a fuzzy thinker. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed's theory requires peer review. The soliton theory of LENR is incompatible with Ed's theory as it stands now but with a little adjustment Ed could be promulgating the correct LENR doctrinaire. Ed is a prominent voice in the LENR community, if Ed can be converted to the truth, then others may follow. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: And you seem to have some strange chip on your shoulder regarding Ed Storms and his theory. If a plasmoid EVO is producing excess heat and transmutation, all fusion theories are wrong, not just Ed's. I don't understand your rant in the slightest. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone who references a plasmoid structure cannot take the theory of Ed Storms seriously. A plasmoid projects the causation of the reaction at a distant from the plasmoid. That negates the premise of Ed's theory because Ed's theory is one where the action of causation is directed inward within the crack. Remote LENR reactions are seen all the time in LENR experimentation. Any such experiment will disprove Eds theory. The plasmoid will project as anapole magnetic field axially in a direction normal to its direction of current rotation. Action at a distance is a key that indicates the reaction causation in projected magnetism. This is a simple concept not a extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, It has been seen in many experiments that I can reference *ad nauseam.* http://www.uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e11.pdf * LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS AND THE LEPTONIC MONOPOLE * Snip Doctor Ivoilov will present in his report some very interesting results for the traces.8 Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental data. (1) The particle, which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is charged, as nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons. (2) The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not be able to pass through *two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black paper.* (3) The particle does not have high energy, as no delta electrons are observed. (4) The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the photosensitive layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV. (5) The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic fields. . On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable * There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within the
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
This is great. Note the accumulated charge of pure, life-enhancing energy ... [radiated] into the environment along a plane perpendicular to the direction of flow. Vortex is the wacky overunity devices study group. I did not expect such things to become a personal hobby, or to take such pleasure in some of the doodads. Eric On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable * There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC endures but will decay when isolated on its own. The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his experimental explanations. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: picking up and displacing very fine grained material and re-depositing it elsewhere With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the way as an inappropriate analogy. The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of material. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them ion acoustical modes, T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and Mallove believed was legitimate. So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite good at picking up and displacing very fine grained material and re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the Aether into our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with the vacuum. All speculation of course. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, he may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their specialization to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, many fields of study must be considered to put all the pieces together. One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification mechanism toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the dimensions of the lattice get below 100 nm, quantum
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Eric -- That Schauberger diagram link is a visual and intellectual feast as far as I'm concerned. That quote you pulled from it is sort of my case-in-point for why I used the analogy. If nanomagnetic vortices, induced by non-linear collective modes, are transducing or transforming vacuum fluctuations (or some deeper scalar field), the question is how/why? I think hydrodynamic systems -- such as helical longitudinal waves interacting in a river -- are nice analogies. And while of course there may be technical differences as you go down and up in scale, I do believe in a self-similarity in nature, and basic processes repeat themselves at all scales. I think this to be one of them. I dare to be naïve. -- John On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: This is great. Note the accumulated charge of pure, life-enhancing energy ... [radiated] into the environment along a plane perpendicular to the direction of flow. Vortex is the wacky overunity devices study group. I did not expect such things to become a personal hobby, or to take such pleasure in some of the doodads. Eric On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable * There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC endures but will decay when isolated on its own. The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his experimental explanations. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: picking up and displacing very fine grained material and re-depositing it elsewhere With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the way as an inappropriate analogy. The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of material. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them ion acoustical modes, T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and Mallove believed was legitimate. So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite good at picking up and displacing very fine grained material and re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the Aether into our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with the vacuum. All speculation of course. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. When
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
And I think the quote along a plane perpendicular to the direction of flow is relevant. I believe this coincides with, say, Moray King's hypothesis of a orthogonal flux of the vacuum energy. Eric Dollard uses almost the exact same terminology in describing his complex (i.e. part imaginary) magneto-dielectric longitudinal waves -- although he still prefers the term Ether. There are actually many linkages between a number of theorists. Here again is a link to a number of articles that I've read over the last couple years that I think all add up to a rough framework for how to achieve OU in electromagnetic systems: http://www.blue-science.org/articles/suggested-articles/ On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: This is great. Note the accumulated charge of pure, life-enhancing energy ... [radiated] into the environment along a plane perpendicular to the direction of flow. Vortex is the wacky overunity devices study group. I did not expect such things to become a personal hobby, or to take such pleasure in some of the doodads. Eric On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable * There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC endures but will decay when isolated on its own. The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his experimental explanations. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: picking up and displacing very fine grained material and re-depositing it elsewhere With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the way as an inappropriate analogy. The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of material. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them ion acoustical modes, T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and Mallove believed was legitimate. So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite good at picking up and displacing very fine grained material and re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the Aether into our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with the vacuum. All speculation of course. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am anonymous and as such I avoid the complications and the pitfalls of ego and reputation. Whatever Ed says about me does not stick. Perhaps you are anonymous. But you have left a trail of breadcrumbs as to your identity for anyone who pays attention. Eric
Re: [Vo]:How Russia uses fossil fuels to influence and corrupt Europe
Being Dutch, I recently got some extra motivation to do the opposite. Op zondag 27 juli 2014 heeft Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: An interesting article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/07/russia_s_corrupt_control_of_europe_how_vladimir_putin_keeps_the_continent.html The author is an American journalist married to the Foreign Minister of Poland. Based on this and various other reports, I expect Putin will oppose cold fusion and do all that he can to prevent it. And he can a lot! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How Russia uses fossil fuels to influence and corrupt Europe
How active is cold fusion research in Russia? On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: An interesting article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/07/russia_s_corrupt_control_of_europe_how_vladimir_putin_keeps_the_continent.html The author is an American journalist married to the Foreign Minister of Poland. Based on this and various other reports, I expect Putin will oppose cold fusion and do all that he can to prevent it. And he can a lot! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How Russia uses fossil fuels to influence and corrupt Europe
From what I see, not very active, but it's a bit tricky due to the language barier. Rarely I see quotations or discussions from Russian forums. I found that Google trends is a good indicator to see where LENR or Cold Fusion is being searched for: https://www.google.nl/trends/explore#q=LENRcmpt=q On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:08 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: How active is cold fusion research in Russia? On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: An interesting article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/07/russia_s_corrupt_control_of_europe_how_vladimir_putin_keeps_the_continent.html The author is an American journalist married to the Foreign Minister of Poland. Based on this and various other reports, I expect Putin will oppose cold fusion and do all that he can to prevent it. And he can a lot! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number
From: Steve High At 1:31 of part 1 of his July 21 demonstration Mills tells us that in order for the Sun Cell to produce 10 megawatts of electricity it will need to create 25 megawatts of light energy, as the PV cells have a 40% conversion ratio. I presume that will leave 15 megawatts to be dissipated as heat (it has to go somewhere, right?) With that much heat wouldn't the reactor itself nearly glow with the intensity of the sun? I'm just a simple country doctor so probably I'm missing something. Steve – You probably do not take this too seriously, so you are not missing the fact that it is not science – it is hucksterism with a dose of sophistication. The “40%” conversion ratio should make it clear to anyone who follows solar cells that Mills is blowing smoke. Affordable cells for use in mass production are below 20% efficiency. The Boeing/Spectrolab triple junction cells which have produced 40% on occasion are not available at reasonable cost. And even if they become available - they are actually rated for 32% continuous and are now extraordinarily expensive – 500 times more than silicon per watt. NASA can pay that but can you? So instead of dissipating 15 megawatts to get 10, less the reprocessing overhead (assuming that it works at all for more than a few days) it would be closer to dissipating 40 MW to get 5… which isn’t bad if it were true. But given Mills’ track record, do not sign a check just yet. If history is an indicator - you will never see it being sold. Mills has raked in a few million more from a few more suckers, in this round of investment, and in 2015 there will be something else. SunCell what? Maybe in a museum some day.
Re: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number
Jones, the tragedy in this is, as you yourself have suggested on several occasions, Mills is probably a genius and effect he is exploring is probably real although not well explained (or maybe it is). His product is still far from ready for prime time. In a sane world the government would see the enormous potential in his work, and provide him with the same support it provides countless other nascent technological ideas that have life-saving potential. He shouldn't have to use sophisticated hucksterism to propel his work forward. Alas this is the same refrain we have spoken of a thousand times already. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Steve High At 1:31 of part 1 of his July 21 demonstration Mills tells us that in order for the Sun Cell to produce 10 megawatts of electricity it will need to create 25 megawatts of light energy, as the PV cells have a 40% conversion ratio. I presume that will leave 15 megawatts to be dissipated as heat (it has to go somewhere, right?) With that much heat wouldn't the reactor itself nearly glow with the intensity of the sun? I'm just a simple country doctor so probably I'm missing something. Steve – You probably do not take this too seriously, so you are not missing the fact that it is not science – it is hucksterism with a dose of sophistication. The “40%” conversion ratio should make it clear to anyone who follows solar cells that Mills is blowing smoke. Affordable cells for use in mass production are below 20% efficiency. The Boeing/Spectrolab triple junction cells which have produced 40% on occasion are not available at reasonable cost. And even if they become available - they are actually rated for 32% continuous and are now extraordinarily expensive – 500 times more than silicon per watt. NASA can pay that but can you? So instead of dissipating 15 megawatts to get 10, less the reprocessing overhead (assuming that it works at all for more than a few days) it would be closer to dissipating 40 MW to get 5… which isn’t bad if it were true. But given Mills’ track record, do not sign a check just yet. If history is an indicator - you will never see it being sold. Mills has raked in a few million more from a few more suckers, in this round of investment, and in 2015 there will be something else. SunCell what? Maybe in a museum some day.
Re: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number
Given the powers-that-be that control government decision-making, it could be that gullible investors are humanity's last best hope. Perhaps it would be better to keep quiet about the elephant in the room. A real conundrum On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote: Jones, the tragedy in this is, as you yourself have suggested on several occasions, Mills is probably a genius and effect he is exploring is probably real although not well explained (or maybe it is). His product is still far from ready for prime time. In a sane world the government would see the enormous potential in his work, and provide him with the same support it provides countless other nascent technological ideas that have life-saving potential. He shouldn't have to use sophisticated hucksterism to propel his work forward. Alas this is the same refrain we have spoken of a thousand times already. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Steve High At 1:31 of part 1 of his July 21 demonstration Mills tells us that in order for the Sun Cell to produce 10 megawatts of electricity it will need to create 25 megawatts of light energy, as the PV cells have a 40% conversion ratio. I presume that will leave 15 megawatts to be dissipated as heat (it has to go somewhere, right?) With that much heat wouldn't the reactor itself nearly glow with the intensity of the sun? I'm just a simple country doctor so probably I'm missing something. Steve – You probably do not take this too seriously, so you are not missing the fact that it is not science – it is hucksterism with a dose of sophistication. The “40%” conversion ratio should make it clear to anyone who follows solar cells that Mills is blowing smoke. Affordable cells for use in mass production are below 20% efficiency. The Boeing/Spectrolab triple junction cells which have produced 40% on occasion are not available at reasonable cost. And even if they become available - they are actually rated for 32% continuous and are now extraordinarily expensive – 500 times more than silicon per watt. NASA can pay that but can you? So instead of dissipating 15 megawatts to get 10, less the reprocessing overhead (assuming that it works at all for more than a few days) it would be closer to dissipating 40 MW to get 5… which isn’t bad if it were true. But given Mills’ track record, do not sign a check just yet. If history is an indicator - you will never see it being sold. Mills has raked in a few million more from a few more suckers, in this round of investment, and in 2015 there will be something else. SunCell what? Maybe in a museum some day.
Re: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number
The good news he is helping to prove what doesn't work and might happen upon something that does On Sunday, July 27, 2014, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote: Given the powers-that-be that control government decision-making, it could be that gullible investors are humanity's last best hope. Perhaps it would be better to keep quiet about the elephant in the room. A real conundrum On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','diamondweb...@gmail.com'); wrote: Jones, the tragedy in this is, as you yourself have suggested on several occasions, Mills is probably a genius and effect he is exploring is probably real although not well explained (or maybe it is). His product is still far from ready for prime time. In a sane world the government would see the enormous potential in his work, and provide him with the same support it provides countless other nascent technological ideas that have life-saving potential. He shouldn't have to use sophisticated hucksterism to propel his work forward. Alas this is the same refrain we have spoken of a thousand times already. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jone...@pacbell.net'); wrote: *From:* Steve High At 1:31 of part 1 of his July 21 demonstration Mills tells us that in order for the Sun Cell to produce 10 megawatts of electricity it will need to create 25 megawatts of light energy, as the PV cells have a 40% conversion ratio. I presume that will leave 15 megawatts to be dissipated as heat (it has to go somewhere, right?) With that much heat wouldn't the reactor itself nearly glow with the intensity of the sun? I'm just a simple country doctor so probably I'm missing something. Steve – You probably do not take this too seriously, so you are not missing the fact that it is not science – it is hucksterism with a dose of sophistication. The “40%” conversion ratio should make it clear to anyone who follows solar cells that Mills is blowing smoke. Affordable cells for use in mass production are below 20% efficiency. The Boeing/Spectrolab triple junction cells which have produced 40% on occasion are not available at reasonable cost. And even if they become available - they are actually rated for 32% continuous and are now extraordinarily expensive – 500 times more than silicon per watt. NASA can pay that but can you? So instead of dissipating 15 megawatts to get 10, less the reprocessing overhead (assuming that it works at all for more than a few days) it would be closer to dissipating 40 MW to get 5… which isn’t bad if it were true. But given Mills’ track record, do not sign a check just yet. If history is an indicator - you will never see it being sold. Mills has raked in a few million more from a few more suckers, in this round of investment, and in 2015 there will be something else. SunCell what? Maybe in a museum some day.
RE: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number
Yes that is so true – in a sane world, this technology would have been supported at a respectable, even if far lower level than hot fusion. Few hundred million instead of 10 billion (or 20 down the tubes with nothing to show)/ Take a close look at Janssen’s microwave thruster at Rowan – how could NASA not have jumped on that? Is it because it is proprietary? That never bothered them before. In fact NASA actually replicated and confirmed Mills theory. See the Niedra replication. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf From: Steve High Jones, the tragedy in this is, as you yourself have suggested on several occasions, Mills is probably a genius and effect he is exploring is probably real although not well explained (or maybe it is). His product is still far from ready for prime time. In a sane world the government would see the enormous potential in his work, and provide him with the same support it provides countless other nascent technological ideas that have life-saving potential. He shouldn't have to use sophisticated hucksterism to propel his work forward. Alas this is the same refrain we have spoken of a thousand times already. At 1:31 of part 1 of his July 21 demonstration Mills tells us that in order for the Sun Cell to produce 10 megawatts of electricity it will need to create 25 megawatts of light energy, as the PV cells have a 40% conversion ratio. I presume that will leave 15 megawatts to be dissipated as heat (it has to go somewhere, right?) With that much heat wouldn't the reactor itself nearly glow with the intensity of the sun? I'm just a simple country doctor so probably I'm missing something. Steve – You probably do not take this too seriously, so you are not missing the fact that it is not science – it is hucksterism with a dose of sophistication. The “40%” conversion ratio should make it clear to anyone who follows solar cells that Mills is blowing smoke. Affordable cells for use in mass production are below 20% efficiency. The Boeing/Spectrolab triple junction cells which have produced 40% on occasion are not available at reasonable cost. And even if they become available - they are actually rated for 32% continuous and are now extraordinarily expensive – 500 times more than silicon per watt. NASA can pay that but can you? So instead of dissipating 15 megawatts to get 10, less the reprocessing overhead (assuming that it works at all for more than a few days) it would be closer to dissipating 40 MW to get 5… which isn’t bad if it were true. But given Mills’ track record, do not sign a check just yet. If history is an indicator - you will never see it being sold. Mills has raked in a few million more from a few more suckers, in this round of investment, and in 2015 there will be something else. SunCell what? Maybe in a museum some day. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
I don't think I have ever seen this description of the plasma collision of d-d. I was reading about the nature of the strong force and trying to understand the plasma fusion branches when I developed this mental picture. I don't really understand what you mean by strong Coulomb field in the background. In plasma fusion, I envision the Coulomb field primarily coming from repulsion from the two protons as they approach each other. In this case I envision the center of mass as being between the n and p, but the Coulombic repulsion is between the 2 protons which sets the ion in rotation to try and put the protons on the outside - away from the approaching collision. The speed of approach is so high that the ion has very little time to change its rotation, so it is probably only a small phase change and only a small effect in enhancing the d(d,p)t branch. I think of the strong force, as I said as being an effect that is extremely strong over only a fraction of a diameter of the nucleon. If you think of the nucleon being stuck on contact, but not in its final, minimal energy location within the nucleus, the acceleration on that nucleon is immense due to the extreme force applied by the strong force and light weight of the nucleon. This causes the nucleon to move extremely quickly to its final position, where it would need to stop with high acceleration as well. This makes me wonder about Bremsstrahlung in this case, only the transit time for the stuck nucleon from starting to final position may be much shorter than the period of an x-ray. Bob On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: When you speak of the plasma fusion output channels, I like to think of it in a Bohr-sian way. Presuming plasma, you have isolated deuterium nuclei, with each nucleus spinning around random vectors. When a pair approaches with a trajectory alignment that the collision will result in fusion, the relative rotation between the nuclei is still random. After thinking about this more, I kind of like your description for the three dd branches. Is it something you heard or read about somewhere, or just what made sense to you? The strong force is like fly paper - it is so short range (fraction of a nucleon diameter), you have to essentially touch before sticking. So you end up with 3 possibilities of this close approach: 1) proton is closest and hits and sticks first, 2) neutron is closest and hits and sticks first, and 3) the proton and neutron hit just right so that they both hit at the same time and stick in an interlocking fashion. When 1) happens, a neutron is released and you get 3He. When 2 happens, a proton is released and you get tritium, and when 3) happens you get 4He and a gamma. Another possible interpretation of this is that in the d(d,p)t and d(d,n)3He branches, the two d's do not fully tunnel into a compound nucleus. Instead, the individual nucleons (p in one case, and n in the other) tunnel across the potential barrier along the lines of the Oppenheimer-Phillips process and are stripped off of the d that once held them. Preceding the scattering, there may or may not be reorientation of the d's to account for Coulomb repulsion from the proton in the oncoming d. This would predict that 1) and 2) would be fairly common and 3) would be very rare. However, because of the Coulomb field, as the deuterium nuclei approach each other, it would push the protons apart, making the neutrons more likely to face each other, but this only happens at the last minute. Because of this, 2) may be slightly more favored. A different prediction would be that the strong Coulomb field in the background orients the d's so that the constituent p's are facing out away along the gradient towards less charge. So the incident d's would look like this: Coulomb field + n n | - - | p p In this scenario, the two d's collide in parallel instead of oriented at random or in tandem. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I wrote: The timeline for these video 1 is: 0:00 - 0:37 Mills theory blather. 0:37 - 1:11 Demonstrations. Much more background noise. 1:12 - 1:20 Mills business blather. Kind of ridiculous, in my opinion. . . . I sound judgemental here. Let me say that I have no objection to theory blather. I do not understand it, so I skipped over most of it. However, while I do not object to theory, I think there is a time and place for it, and this ain't it. David French said you should not include theory in a patent. I say you should not include it in a demo. No theory, no business strategy -- just do the demo. I say this because audience has a limited amount of time and attention. Sitting in chairs while you listen to physics lectures and observed experiments is *exhausting*. I have done it enough times. After the first hour you lose focus. Here are some pointers for demo. This is also good advice for teaching a technical course or showing customers how to use a product. This is the kind of advice you read in textbooks on teaching: Keep the message short, and focused. It should fit into a 1-paragraph abstract. Tell them what you are going to say, then tell them what you have to say, and then tell them again again what you just said. Do not wander off the topic or ad lib. Do not make many wisecracks. A few witticisms may help lighten the mood. Do not say anything controversial about some subject unrelated to the topic, such as politics. This will distract the audience. Start on time and stick to your schedule. If you are given 20 minutes, then make sure ahead of time that your entire demo will fit into 20 minutes. One of the amateur mistakes Defkalion made at ICCF18 was to spend all of their allotted time getting ready and blathering. Practice ahead of time, for crying out loud! Pay attention to production values. By that I mean, make sure your slides are large enough that everyone can read them. Use enough lighting so that everyone can see the equipment, including people seeing the video. Speak loudly and slowly. In a noisy environment (such as this one), used a noise-cancelling microphone, and have it connect directly to the audio track when you make a video. Consider adding some voice-over to the video later on, and perhaps some slides directly to video. A brilliant demo that no one can see or hear will do no good. I think Mills ignored several of these suggestions, so the demo did not work for me. If I had been him I would have: 1. Spent 10 minutes introducing the demo. Explain the instruments and what they will show. (What you hope they will show if it works.) Explain the expected results; i.e., there will be an explosion. The bomb calorimeter will show output energy. It will exceed input energy, and we know this is not from a chemical reaction for thus and such reasons. Show some slides of the equipment configuration. 2. Do the demo. Get right to it and keep the pace moving rapidly. Repeat the points made in step 1 as you perform steps. This is the bomb calorimeter shown in Slide 3. You say as you display the slide and point to to the equipment. Zoom in the camera and point to the components. 3. After you finish, display the data from this test, and point to the interesting parts that indicate excess energy. Repeat the gist of the explanation. If you have lots more time that day, take a long coffee break, give the audience time to pee (always important!) and then reconvene for a session of theory blather, which you can relate back to the data they just saw collected. Do not keep people in their chairs for two hours. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The “40%” conversion ratio should make it clear to anyone who follows solar cells that Mills is blowing smoke. Affordable cells for use in mass production are below 20% efficiency. On average, about 15% according to Forbes last year: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/07/16/as-solar-panel-efficiencies-keep-improving-its-time-to-adopt-some-new-metrics/ If you look at the cost to produce solar cells, they are hardly cost-effective *when the source energy is free (the sun).* That and the idea of using fiber optics to remove the cells from the source of the intense plasma shock is concertedly ludicrous in this learned engineer's opinion. In order to take pulsed energy and convert it into something you can feed into the grid, other expensive systems are involved. First off, you must level the energy. Such leveling devices for large sources of energy are, in themselves, not cost-effective in many cases. The preferred methods are batteries or supercapacitors. We all know the state of the art there. Once you level that energy, you must condition it for grid insertion. Inverter technology has come a long way but remains expensive. And, without considerable subsidies, PV systems for your home are not yet cost-effective when all these necessary subsystems are included.
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I didn't have the patience required to view the whole thing so I may have missed where he described how he metered energy in and energy out. Did he even bother? On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: The timeline for these video 1 is: 0:00 - 0:37 Mills theory blather. 0:37 - 1:11 Demonstrations. Much more background noise. 1:12 - 1:20 Mills business blather. Kind of ridiculous, in my opinion. . . . I sound judgemental here. Let me say that I have no objection to theory blather. I do not understand it, so I skipped over most of it. However, while I do not object to theory, I think there is a time and place for it, and this ain't it. David French said you should not include theory in a patent. I say you should not include it in a demo. No theory, no business strategy -- just do the demo. I say this because audience has a limited amount of time and attention. Sitting in chairs while you listen to physics lectures and observed experiments is *exhausting*. I have done it enough times. After the first hour you lose focus. Here are some pointers for demo. This is also good advice for teaching a technical course or showing customers how to use a product. This is the kind of advice you read in textbooks on teaching: Keep the message short, and focused. It should fit into a 1-paragraph abstract. Tell them what you are going to say, then tell them what you have to say, and then tell them again again what you just said. Do not wander off the topic or ad lib. Do not make many wisecracks. A few witticisms may help lighten the mood. Do not say anything controversial about some subject unrelated to the topic, such as politics. This will distract the audience. Start on time and stick to your schedule. If you are given 20 minutes, then make sure ahead of time that your entire demo will fit into 20 minutes. One of the amateur mistakes Defkalion made at ICCF18 was to spend all of their allotted time getting ready and blathering. Practice ahead of time, for crying out loud! Pay attention to production values. By that I mean, make sure your slides are large enough that everyone can read them. Use enough lighting so that everyone can see the equipment, including people seeing the video. Speak loudly and slowly. In a noisy environment (such as this one), used a noise-cancelling microphone, and have it connect directly to the audio track when you make a video. Consider adding some voice-over to the video later on, and perhaps some slides directly to video. A brilliant demo that no one can see or hear will do no good. I think Mills ignored several of these suggestions, so the demo did not work for me. If I had been him I would have: 1. Spent 10 minutes introducing the demo. Explain the instruments and what they will show. (What you hope they will show if it works.) Explain the expected results; i.e., there will be an explosion. The bomb calorimeter will show output energy. It will exceed input energy, and we know this is not from a chemical reaction for thus and such reasons. Show some slides of the equipment configuration. 2. Do the demo. Get right to it and keep the pace moving rapidly. Repeat the points made in step 1 as you perform steps. This is the bomb calorimeter shown in Slide 3. You say as you display the slide and point to to the equipment. Zoom in the camera and point to the components. 3. After you finish, display the data from this test, and point to the interesting parts that indicate excess energy. Repeat the gist of the explanation. If you have lots more time that day, take a long coffee break, give the audience time to pee (always important!) and then reconvene for a session of theory blather, which you can relate back to the data they just saw collected. Do not keep people in their chairs for two hours. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:51, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I don't really understand what you mean by strong Coulomb field in the background. I'm thinking of a gradient of Coulomb charge off to the side of the oncoming d's which is sufficient to polarize them as they approach one another in the center of mass frame. It would be provided by the heavy nuclei that make up the lattice sites in the metal (each of which will have a large number of protons). I am not thinking of relativistic velocities, and my hunch is that the d's will have time to orient in relation these gradients. In plasma fusion, I envision the Coulomb field primarily coming from repulsion from the two protons as they approach each other. Agreed. In a plasma, I doubt the positive charge density (or any charge density) in the background would be much, if anything. This is one of the details that I suspect makes cold fusion possible or not possible. Eric
[Vo]:The source of the sky's X-ray glow
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-source-sky-x-ray.html *The source of the sky's X-ray glow* The sky is full of x-rays. There is a 50 year old mystery to be solved; where do all those x-rays come from? New research shows that the major source of the x-rays seen brightly in our skies originate in the local volume of space that the solar system swims in. The findings confirm the existence of a local hot bubble as the x-ray source, the space that encloses the solar system out to a distance of a few hundred light years from earth. There are no energetic stars within our bubble of space to produce all that energy. The next step for science is to find out how that power is produced and what generates it. We have an advantage in our understanding of such things. It is LENR pervasive throughout the interstellar medium providing us with our share of the dark matter and dark energy that fills the universe and it is the LENR that brightens our skies with all those x-rays.
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Excellent recommendations, Jed. That's what I was looking for. I agree, discussing theory may be interesting to some but probably not crucial for most. I'd think most investors just want to be assured that the data collected from the demonstrations is accurate because that immediately translates to big dollar signs for them. It should be obvious that spending a lot of setup time explaining a controversial theory means there will be less time spent observing the actual demonstration themselves. A cynic (no names given here!) might think that may have been deliberate on Mills' part because perhaps he may not actually have all that much to demonstrate. Again, my goal is to I remain agnostic until further notice. And as you have already noted, after theory has been discussed ad nauseum how many are beginning to wonder when they might be allowed to take a pee break. BTY it's much easier to hear Mills talk in the latest July 21 demonstrations. Part 1: http://youtu.be/GxuoMzm2HNE - Mills blathers* then demonstrations are perform. Part 2: http://youtu.be/8TKgrOjac6Y - QA * I like some of the blather They turned off the noisy blowers during as much of the talk as possible The blowers were only turned on during actual demonstration time. Personal observation: I must confess the fact that, for me, receiving some theory did present an extra air of legitimacy to the follow-up demonstrations regardless of whether such legitimacy is warranted or not. Observing Mills once again introduce his theory and the data he claims BLP has collected, it is very evident to me that Mills has given this spiel many MANY times in the past. Much of the initial July 21 talk is an exact carbon copy of what Mills stated in the previous June 25 talk. THIS IS TO BE EXPECTED, nor it is a criticism. One last comment: It looked to me as if Mills spent far more time gazing off straight ahead... above the heads of his audience... as compared to attempting to make actual eye-contact. This strikes me as what happens when someone is much more interested in explaining their own personal theory as compared to trying to make actual eye-contact with the target audience. More of a nuts-and-bolts kind of guy. Not really a people person. Again, not really a criticism. Just an interesting quirk. Believe it or not, I'm an introvert. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number
curiously, From my Sunday Paper: Growing number of solar panels a concern for Wisconsin utilities http://www.jsonline.com/business/growing-number-of-solar-panels-a-concern-for-wisconsin-utilities-b99295581z1-265066971.html Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:New spongelike structure converts solar energy into steam
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140724213957.htm Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Summary: A new material structure generates steam by soaking up the sun. The structure -- a layer of graphite flakes and an underlying carbon foam -- is a porous, insulating material structure that floats on water. When sunlight hits the structure's surface, it creates a hotspot in the graphite, drawing water up through the material's pores, where it evaporates as steam. The brighter the light, the more steam is generated.
RE: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number
-Original Message- From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson curiously, From my Sunday Paper: Growing number of solar panels a concern for Wisconsin utilities http://www.jsonline.com/business/growing-number-of-solar-panels-a-concern-for-wisconsin-utilities-b99295581z1-265066971.html More from those pesky Koch headz? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solar-energy.html?_r=0
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
http://www.ladir.cnrs.fr/pages/fillaux/157_PAC_2007_1023.pdf *Proton transfer across hydrogen bonds: From reaction path to Schrödinger’s cat* Why does the LENR electrolysis process benefit from and usually require a potassium bicarbonate catalyst to amplify the LENR reaction? Potassium bicarbonate as well as the carbonate provides a proton based molecular pairing that joins hydrogen atoms in a zero spin configuration. It is a superconductor type of crystal arrangement. The failure to achieve zero nuclear spin in molecular hydrogen whether that isotope be protium or deuterium is one of the primary reasons why electrolysis in LENR experimentation is so hard to achieve . On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:51, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I don't really understand what you mean by strong Coulomb field in the background. I'm thinking of a gradient of Coulomb charge off to the side of the oncoming d's which is sufficient to polarize them as they approach one another in the center of mass frame. It would be provided by the heavy nuclei that make up the lattice sites in the metal (each of which will have a large number of protons). I am not thinking of relativistic velocities, and my hunch is that the d's will have time to orient in relation these gradients. In plasma fusion, I envision the Coulomb field primarily coming from repulsion from the two protons as they approach each other. Agreed. In a plasma, I doubt the positive charge density (or any charge density) in the background would be much, if anything. This is one of the details that I suspect makes cold fusion possible or not possible. Eric
Re: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number
I wonder if there is an efficiency price to be paid in the solar cells when they are exposed to a huge pulse source of light? Do the solar cell network capture all the light blast at maximum luminosity? Can that light blast be distributed evenly among N numbers of solar cells? Can any optical distribution system survive of 20 megawatt blast where the instantaneous power pulse is in the gigawatts? The sun provides a continuous source of light, no huge peak power is involved. In addition, do solar cells have a latency (startup and/or shutdown) energy cost to overcome? If so, what is the scope of that inefficiency? There is also an inefficiency and a cost in the leveling of the huge power pulse from the solar cell via capacitor buffering and associated circuitry. The devil is in the details. One unanswered unknown can destroy the concept of the system. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The “40%” conversion ratio should make it clear to anyone who follows solar cells that Mills is blowing smoke. Affordable cells for use in mass production are below 20% efficiency. On average, about 15% according to Forbes last year: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/07/16/as-solar-panel-efficiencies-keep-improving-its-time-to-adopt-some-new-metrics/ If you look at the cost to produce solar cells, they are hardly cost-effective *when the source energy is free (the sun).* That and the idea of using fiber optics to remove the cells from the source of the intense plasma shock is concertedly ludicrous in this learned engineer's opinion. In order to take pulsed energy and convert it into something you can feed into the grid, other expensive systems are involved. First off, you must level the energy. Such leveling devices for large sources of energy are, in themselves, not cost-effective in many cases. The preferred methods are batteries or supercapacitors. We all know the state of the art there. Once you level that energy, you must condition it for grid insertion. Inverter technology has come a long way but remains expensive. And, without considerable subsidies, PV systems for your home are not yet cost-effective when all these necessary subsystems are included.
RE: [Vo]:The source of the sky's X-ray glow
This is such a poorly written article that one has to dig a bit deeper to find important details – such as the radiation signature - and there are two bands of interest, according to this http://www.physics.miami.edu/~galeazzi/x-rays/dxb.html They would be at ¼ keV and ¾ keV which is 250 eV and 750 eV. Both could be Rydberg values associated with fractional hydrogen - f/H – originating in the solar corona. Of interest for the possibility of “local” dark matter is the red-shifted emission line at 3.5 keV but it is probably too energetic for what is seen. Instead a better candidate is the Oort cloud/ Kuiper Belt. We calculate that the Oort contains megatons of iron-nickel (5 Earth mass equivalents) since so many meteors containing these metals originate there. They are Rydberg catalysts, not unlike mu metal. The Oort cloud is a good candidate for the source of x-rays at ¼ and ¾ keV in a role of forming deeper levels of f/H from solar wind as the feedstock. Not to mention that the Chelyabinsk meteor of last year, which originated in the Oort cloud, could have “reignited” a portion of its f/H on entry into the atmosphere. From: Axil Axil http://phys.org/news/2014-07-source-sky-x-ray.html The source of the sky's X-ray glow The sky is full of x-rays. There is a 50 year old mystery to be solved; where do all those x-rays come from? attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I thing that Jed is off base in his understanding of the audience dynamics involved. It seems to me that Mills theory is more like a religion whose recitation of its doctrinaire is very pleasurable to the Church audience. Consider the hours long religious services conducted in the large megachurches. A *megachurch* is a Protestant church having 2,000 or more people in average weekend attendance. Such services provide a spiritual uplifting to all who attend and the congregation is well pleased after the service. Contribution to the maintenance and evangelization of the church is substantial and the church prospers. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Excellent recommendations, Jed. That's what I was looking for. I agree, discussing theory may be interesting to some but probably not crucial for most. I'd think most investors just want to be assured that the data collected from the demonstrations is accurate because that immediately translates to big dollar signs for them. It should be obvious that spending a lot of setup time explaining a controversial theory means there will be less time spent observing the actual demonstration themselves. A cynic (no names given here!) might think that may have been deliberate on Mills' part because perhaps he may not actually have all that much to demonstrate. Again, my goal is to I remain agnostic until further notice. And as you have already noted, after theory has been discussed ad nauseum how many are beginning to wonder when they might be allowed to take a pee break. BTY it's much easier to hear Mills talk in the latest July 21 demonstrations. Part 1: http://youtu.be/GxuoMzm2HNE - Mills blathers* then demonstrations are perform. Part 2: http://youtu.be/8TKgrOjac6Y - QA * I like some of the blather They turned off the noisy blowers during as much of the talk as possible The blowers were only turned on during actual demonstration time. Personal observation: I must confess the fact that, for me, receiving some theory did present an extra air of legitimacy to the follow-up demonstrations regardless of whether such legitimacy is warranted or not. Observing Mills once again introduce his theory and the data he claims BLP has collected, it is very evident to me that Mills has given this spiel many MANY times in the past. Much of the initial July 21 talk is an exact carbon copy of what Mills stated in the previous June 25 talk. THIS IS TO BE EXPECTED, nor it is a criticism. One last comment: It looked to me as if Mills spent far more time gazing off straight ahead... above the heads of his audience... as compared to attempting to make actual eye-contact. This strikes me as what happens when someone is much more interested in explaining their own personal theory as compared to trying to make actual eye-contact with the target audience. More of a nuts-and-bolts kind of guy. Not really a people person. Again, not really a criticism. Just an interesting quirk. Believe it or not, I'm an introvert. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New spongelike structure converts solar energy into steam
Can this system support supercritical steam generation. How hot are the hot spots? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_steam_generator On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Frank roarty fr...@roarty.biz wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140724213957.htm *Source:* Massachusetts Institute of Technology *Summary:* A new material structure generates steam by soaking up the sun. The structure -- a layer of graphite flakes and an underlying carbon foam -- is a porous, insulating material structure that floats on water. When sunlight hits the structure's surface, it creates a hotspot in the graphite, drawing water up through the material's pores, where it evaporates as steam. The brighter the light, the more steam is generated.
Re: [Vo]:New spongelike structure converts solar energy into steam
Surely it would make a steam punk fans day. On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Can this system support supercritical steam generation. How hot are the hot spots? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_steam_generator On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Frank roarty fr...@roarty.biz wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140724213957.htm *Source:* Massachusetts Institute of Technology *Summary:* A new material structure generates steam by soaking up the sun. The structure -- a layer of graphite flakes and an underlying carbon foam -- is a porous, insulating material structure that floats on water. When sunlight hits the structure's surface, it creates a hotspot in the graphite, drawing water up through the material's pores, where it evaporates as steam. The brighter the light, the more steam is generated.
[Vo]:Quora : anti Leviall circus on e-cat test
http://www.quora.com/Physics/What-if-anything-is-wrong-or-incorrect-about-the-recent-2013-news-about-Andrea-Rossis-energy-catalyzer-device-that-has-undergone-limited-peer-review when they see the tree that hide the forrest
Re: [Vo]:Quora : anti Leviall circus on e-cat test
That guy writes like a complete putz. There's no way that a thermal imaging camera is off by a factor of 10. I use them sometimes at work. He's saying that if I point it at a wall at room temperature, it could read 240 degrees C or minus 200 degrees C. What a crock of shit. The heat at this magnitude is strong enough that you can place your hand a foot away and say, yup, that's hot, like a stove. That aint off by a factor of 10. Also, the fact that thermal imaging cameras were used rather than calorimetry was that there were so many ridiculous criticisms of calorimetry that using such a regularly-available approach was preferable. These guys aint happy when you use calorimetry, nor are they happy when you use off-the-shelf thermal cameras. What a crock of shit. It's very likely in my opinion that all of the heat generated is coming from the externally-powered resistor coils. ***Again, what a crock of shit. The team opened up a device and took the nickel out. Then they ran the same set of tests. They didn't see anywhere near as much heat generated, the kind of heat you'd see if it was simply generated by the externally powered resistor coils. This skeptopath is so full of shit that he's basically lying and scamming his readers. Rossi appears to have found a group of people who are either gullible, complicit, or incompetent enough to help him raise funding for his fake product. ***He's one of the perfect candidates for my proposed Betmoose contract http://intrade.freeforums.org/betmoose-is-taking-over-where-intrade-left-off-t59.html I have a strong desire to make money off of these assholes. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quora.com/Physics/What-if-anything-is-wrong-or-incorrect-about-the-recent-2013-news-about-Andrea-Rossis-energy-catalyzer-device-that-has-undergone-limited-peer-review when they see the tree that hide the forrest
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Jones: I get the impression that Mills has been sitting on his hind quarters for at least a decade. He's brilliant. He knows how to attract investors to pie-in-the-sky projects that in the end, do not pan out. Now he's seeing Rossi with his demos, promises, $20M engagement with Industrial Heat, INDEPENDENT third party submission... Mills is in scramble mode. He got beat by Rossi and he either goes after all his supposedly superior prior solutions or he gets ready for the patent war that is to come. Mills will be a patent warrior and nothing more. None of his fun experiments will come to fruition in the industrial/commercial nor consumer market. You have stated that if anyone finds nuclear ash in Mills's experiments, it's a death blow to his theory. With the money that will soon be attracted to this sector of industry, I predict that multiple death blows will be dealt to his theory. Maybe half of such death blows will have real data rather than contrived data, but it will be enough to relegate Mills to the fringes of History. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Steven reported that massive amounts of info from the BLP demo is now online. I wish it was better organized. The most hyped up doc is here : http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons tration-Abbreviated.pdf I have not found time to wade through all of this yet, at least not with any confidence, but here are first impressions of what seems to be going on. These could be inaccurate. 1) There is good evidence of Pout exceeding Pin by a significant margin 2) COP of 5 has been mentioned as the net gain from photocell conversion 3) COP of 100-200 is claimed as the reaction gain, less catalyst rejuvenation and loses 4) Titanium seems to be the preferred catalyst (but knowing Mills he has a better one under wraps) 5) He says but does not prove that the catalyst can be rejuvenated in line with the reaction. This is the key. Anyone can burn Ti for gain, it is a great fuel. 6) In short, everything hinges on rejuvenation of the catalyst, which is still under wraps, or else I missed it. 7) Even if the gain is substantial, this is basically oxidation (combustion) of a catalyst, but with gain over and above the chemical gain. Even a gain of 200:1 does not insure commercialization! (except for Military uses) To be explained. 8) Ferro-titanium is not expensive, but nano-titanium powder is. The difference is 5000:1 since ingots go for $5 pound but pure powder costs much more. 9) Titanium is expensive to rejuvenate (reduce), but there is probably a secret catalyst which is easier and which is a trade secret. There is no doubt it is oxidized in the 10) Bottom line - this technology could be great - or a bust for the general public, depending on the cost of catalyst rejuvenation. I am not impressed with the level of openness here. 11) If the best catalyst is nano-titanium, then this stage show is basically a delusion for the alternative energy crowd - economically . This turned up on one of the forums. Past public claims by Mills/BLP: 1999: Will commercialize a hydrino power generator within a year. 1000 W, within 4 months. 2005: Only months away from commercialization. 2008: 5 W, within 12 to 18 months. 2009: Commercialization within 1 year to 18 months. 2012: 100 W by the end of 2012, 1500 W 2013 2014: 10 W in 16 to 18 weeks. If history is an indicator, this was little more than a horse-and-pony show put on to raise capital but done so that investors would not notice how contrived the whole thing is. However, there could be significant military aerospace uses which will carry the project. This is not an answer to the energy crisis as it stands now. The most interest should come from NASA and the Pentagon. I could see this as a fabulous solid fuel rocket engine. I hope all of those investors can stand a loss, because this technology is most likely not ready for prime time in the commercial arena, and there could be allegations of actual fraud this time around, if Mills does not have a commercial device in 2015. If his ace-in-the-hole is the Pentagon, then he will dodge a bullet by that tactic. IMO - there is no chance of a commercial device in 2015 for the general public or for Grid usage, if nano-titanium is required. This is not what we have been looking for as an affordable alternative to fossil fuel. Yet in the end - power could cost 10 times more than fossil fuel - and yet it would be great for weaponry. Admitting that from the start, however, does not bring enough investors to the table.
Re: [Vo]:Quora : anti Leviall circus on e-cat test
Years ago I would have responded by pointing out that they confirmed the IR camera with a thermocouple; that the circuit cannot supply enough electricity to make the cell incandescent; and so on. Now I no longer have the gumption. Not many people will read this sort of thing anyway. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S8_O2_Cook.pdf If you have nothing better to do this weekend, here is a 71 page paper which Rossi says gives a correct explanation of gain with Ni-H. I do not have the time, so the hope is to entice someone else to chop wood (Van Morrison fans will appreciate this metaphor) I am happy to take one for the team in this instance. These are interesting slides in which Norman D. Cook [1] gives an overview of the argument for his FCC nuclear structure model. He describes a nuclear structure in which the nucleons arrange in an FCC lattice, with layers of protons and neutrons sandwiched together, and, in larger nuclei, forming a diamond-like structure (see slide 46). Cook suggests his model does away with the need for long-range effective forces between nucleons and allows the nucleus to be understood entirely in terms of interactions between nearest neighbors. I do not know anything about Cook, but he appears to have published in some reputable journals. The slides were connected with ICCF 15, which looks like it took place in Rome in 2009. Cook contrasts his model with the independent particle model, the liquid drop model and the lattice model of the nucleus. There is almost no obvious connection to LENR. A slide at the very end suggests that his model explains why symmetrical daughters are produced in the fission of palladium at low energies, and at an earlier point he seems to be saying that there is a ~ 3 MeV magnetic attractive force between nearest neighbor nucleons. To be honest, I don't see an obvious connection to LENR, possibly apart from the magnetism bit. I'm not sure how Rossi feels himself to be in a position to assess the merit of Cook's theory or how it relates to LENR. Eric [1] http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/
[Vo]:SunCell is probably not a Titanium burner (Copper or Silver more likely)
Regarding my own personal cliff notes of watching the July 21 BLP demo: Note, these notes are not all-inclusive. They simply reflect some of my personal observations and what I was able to jot down. http://youtu.be/GxuoMzm2HNE * * * * * * * Starting at: 1:02:00 - Mills begins discussion on the blinding light produced, then goes into discussing the regenerative procedure of the solid fuel. 1:06:36 - focuses on the regeneration system 1:06:50 Mills claims they have been regenerating the solid fuel through many cycles Mills quote: So, if you were going to run today, it's been run many cycles. You can regenerate it just by adding water. 1:08:10 - Dog and Pony animation also presented. Mills interacts with animation to explain specific functions. 1:10:15 Conclusion of the prototype design. After 1:10:15 several additional videos showing early generation prototype components exploding the solid fuel in rapid succession. 1:16:55 - 1:19:50 - Calorimetric demos shown (bomb calorimeter) used. 1:23:00 - Optical Fuel distribution system. How BLP intends to redistribute the generated light to better harness it more efficient with available PV cells. 1:23:30 - 1:28:26 - Mills launches into additional information on the solid fuel surly used. Some very interesting engineering appears to be going on here. Mills describes the evolution of some of the engineering dynamics involved in detail. 1:28:28 - 1:31:06 - Mills once again discusses the optical distribution system in more graphic detail. 1:31.08 - 1:37:00 - Parameters discussed, including the physical size of the box needed in order to produce megawatts of usable electricity. 1:36:57 - 1:40:00 - Several graphics showing various power extraction abilities of different PV technologies 1:40:00 - Specs on different commercial PV cells currently available. Super expensive (triple junction) as well as super cheap PV cells, being a tenth as expensive. Includes exploiting the use of infrared PV cells as well. 1:43:25 Mills discusses 3rd generation (iteration) SunCell technology. 1:46:48 - 1:51:40 - Mills makes the comment that the 3rd gen demo was using reused fuel, used multiple, multliple times. Mills comments that this version shows accumulation of exploded fuel on the sides of the container box due to the fact that they haven't yet introduced additional components to rinse clean the chamber. Reported explosion rate was around 33 hz - a hundred times slower than what they hope to achieve commercially. One demo shows fast 33 hz explosion occurring within a chamber filled with argon gas. Nothing to oxidize. 1:51:41 - Actual blast using argon enclosed chamber. Mills claims they will run the commercial using an inert gas like argon. Also stated solid fuel metals they plan on using are likely to be copper and/or silver because they have no reactivity with water. Greater durability in commercial application. Reportedly to be extremely stable. Nickel was briefly mentioned as not being terribly reactive with water. Titanium was also mentioned as a metal they have experimented with. Mills claims reaction with water happens but reaction is extremely slow. Ti ok to use for experimental spectral analysis but over the duration of commercial application product would accumulate oxigen (oxidation) therefore Ti not best choice for commercial application. 1:55:15 Mills claims industry says the PV cells are rated for 20-25 years at high light concentration, at 1000 suns. Meaning they can use them for their SunCell technology. 1:57:00 actual argon based demo showed running at approx 33 hz. 2:00:00 Mills says 16-18 weeks turnaround time for contracted engineering firm to deliver a 100 kW field testable unit. Cost 30 - 50 thousand for a one of a kind custom built system. * * * * * Personal thoughts. Again, Mills seems to state the fuel content is easy to regenerate. One assumes this means the regeneration of the fuel is not an energy hog. It sounds to me as if the anticipated commercialization of SunCell technology might possibly end up using copper or silver as the solid fuel component. The ignition will take place within an inert gas filled chamber, possibly argon. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number
COP was from 1.06 to 1.68. No wonder they never pursued it. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Yes that is so true – in a sane world, this technology would have been supported at a respectable, even if far lower level than hot fusion. Few hundred million instead of 10 billion (or 20 down the tubes with nothing to show)/ Take a close look at Janssen’s microwave thruster at Rowan – how could NASA not have jumped on that? Is it because it is proprietary? That never bothered them before. In fact NASA actually replicated and confirmed Mills theory. See the Niedra replication. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf From: Steve High Jones, the tragedy in this is, as you yourself have suggested on several occasions, Mills is probably a genius and effect he is exploring is probably real although not well explained (or maybe it is). His product is still far from ready for prime time. In a sane world the government would see the enormous potential in his work, and provide him with the same support it provides countless other nascent technological ideas that have life-saving potential. He shouldn't have to use sophisticated hucksterism to propel his work forward. Alas this is the same refrain we have spoken of a thousand times already. At 1:31 of part 1 of his July 21 demonstration Mills tells us that in order for the Sun Cell to produce 10 megawatts of electricity it will need to create 25 megawatts of light energy, as the PV cells have a 40% conversion ratio. I presume that will leave 15 megawatts to be dissipated as heat (it has to go somewhere, right?) With that much heat wouldn't the reactor itself nearly glow with the intensity of the sun? I'm just a simple country doctor so probably I'm missing something. Steve – You probably do not take this too seriously, so you are not missing the fact that it is not science – it is hucksterism with a dose of sophistication. The “40%” conversion ratio should make it clear to anyone who follows solar cells that Mills is blowing smoke. Affordable cells for use in mass production are below 20% efficiency. The Boeing/Spectrolab triple junction cells which have produced 40% on occasion are not available at reasonable cost. And even if they become available - they are actually rated for 32% continuous and are now extraordinarily expensive – 500 times more than silicon per watt. NASA can pay that but can you? So instead of dissipating 15 megawatts to get 10, less the reprocessing overhead (assuming that it works at all for more than a few days) it would be closer to dissipating 40 MW to get 5… which isn’t bad if it were true. But given Mills’ track record, do not sign a check just yet. If history is an indicator - you will never see it being sold. Mills has raked in a few million more from a few more suckers, in this round of investment, and in 2015 there will be something else. SunCell what? Maybe in a museum some day.
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
If you miniaturize that down to a few atoms, perhaps a spark across one of Storms's favored cracks, then you have a great visual depiction of a 1Dimensional Luttinger Liquid BEC but with a spin component that I have not accounted for so far. as an example: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91401.html V1DLLBEC On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable * There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC endures but will decay when isolated on its own. The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his experimental explanations. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: picking up and displacing very fine grained material and re-depositing it elsewhere With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along the way as an inappropriate analogy. The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of material. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them ion acoustical modes, T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and Mallove believed was legitimate. So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite good at picking up and displacing very fine grained material and re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the Aether into our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with the vacuum. All speculation of course. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, he may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their specialization to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, many fields of study must be considered to put all the pieces together. One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification mechanism toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the dimensions of the lattice get below 100 nm, quantum
Re: [Vo]:Quora : anti Leviall circus on e-cat test
Sounds like yer gettin' old and need a designated disciple replacement. How old are you? Maybe it is the case that not many currently READ it, but in the future MANY, MANY millions WILL read it. You need to replace your dissipated vision with a bushy-tailed trainee who sees the forest for the trees as well as the way out of the forest. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Years ago I would have responded by pointing out that they confirmed the IR camera with a thermocouple; that the circuit cannot supply enough electricity to make the cell incandescent; and so on. Now I no longer have the gumption. Not many people will read this sort of thing anyway. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:new paper atpublished on Ego Out
Let's get right down to the study of antennas and *Antenna Basics*. Suppose one day you're walking down the street and a kind but impatient person runs up and asks you to design an antenna for them. Sure, you quickly reply, adding what is the desired frequency, gain, bandwidth, impedance, and polarization? Or perhaps you have never heard of (or are a little rusty) on the above parameters. Before we can design an antenna or discuss antenna types, we must understand the basics of antennas, which are the fundamental parameters that characterize an antenna. Ed Storms uses the design methodology of random chance. Ed says that if we can produce enough plasmon antennas, some of them will work just on the weight of the numbers of antennae produced. Rossi on the other hand spent six months of intensive experimental effort working day and night to design his antennae by blind trial and error. At the end of that experimental sequence, Rossi came up with the design of his plasmonic antenna that was the best that he could find and did the job for him. Both design methods are equally valid if that method works. There is a flaw in Ed storms method that takes his method out of the LENR design toolbox. From time to time, the numbers of his randomized antennas are not numerous enough to get to the takeoff point where the LENR reaction can be sustained on randomized antenna production. Rossi’s fixed design can get his system to the point where his plasmonic antennae can be produced in sufficient numbers to increase the LENR reactivity of the NiH reaction. In analogy, the first stage of Ed Storms antenna rocket in not powerful enough to get him into space on a regular basis. Sometimes it gets into orbit but sometimes this system falls into the ocean. In other words it fails to take off from time to time. Rossi’s first stage is strong enough to get him into orbit every time because he kept at the antenna design process until his fixed antenna structure worked every time for him. But to Rossi’s dismay, sometimes randomized antenna production goes too far and his reactor melts down. There will be a time that the analytical and scientific design of plasmonic antennae will be routinely applied to LENR reactor design, but until awareness of that method grows, lesser design methods will have to do. In closing, I find it ironic that Ed Storms does not accept the principle of dynamic NAE generation as applicable to what LENR experimentation shows, but then he advocates this randomized antenna production process as the keystone of his method. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, Good answers are still rare in the field of LENR. so let's try with good questions: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/07/lenr-theories-or-principles.html Is this good? It is used to confront an answer to the question How does LENR work?- diven by Ed Storns. Ed wanted his new theory thoroughly discussed It is very probable that positive opinions will prevail therefore what I say here will have not much impact. It will be just an opportunity for reinforcing the theory. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
In video 1, Randy shows a bomb calorimeter measurement of an explosion. It was clear from the reading of the temperature rise that the output of that single explosion was 623J (I think, don't remember exactly). So, it appears incontrovertible that the output is around 700J as Mills claims. Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration. Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP. In this case, it appears to be 100. I am not sure where the controversy is. COP appears to be clearly overunity. Jojo - Original Message - From: Kevin O'Malley To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? Jones: I get the impression that Mills has been sitting on his hind quarters for at least a decade. He's brilliant. He knows how to attract investors to pie-in-the-sky projects that in the end, do not pan out. Now he's seeing Rossi with his demos, promises, $20M engagement with Industrial Heat, INDEPENDENT third party submission... Mills is in scramble mode. He got beat by Rossi and he either goes after all his supposedly superior prior solutions or he gets ready for the patent war that is to come. Mills will be a patent warrior and nothing more. None of his fun experiments will come to fruition in the industrial/commercial nor consumer market. You have stated that if anyone finds nuclear ash in Mills's experiments, it's a death blow to his theory. With the money that will soon be attracted to this sector of industry, I predict that multiple death blows will be dealt to his theory. Maybe half of such death blows will have real data rather than contrived data, but it will be enough to relegate Mills to the fringes of History. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Steven reported that massive amounts of info from the BLP demo is now online. I wish it was better organized. The most hyped up doc is here : http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons tration-Abbreviated.pdf I have not found time to wade through all of this yet, at least not with any confidence, but here are first impressions of what seems to be going on. These could be inaccurate. 1) There is good evidence of Pout exceeding Pin by a significant margin 2) COP of 5 has been mentioned as the net gain from photocell conversion 3) COP of 100-200 is claimed as the reaction gain, less catalyst rejuvenation and loses 4) Titanium seems to be the preferred catalyst (but knowing Mills he has a better one under wraps) 5) He says but does not prove that the catalyst can be rejuvenated in line with the reaction. This is the key. Anyone can burn Ti for gain, it is a great fuel. 6) In short, everything hinges on rejuvenation of the catalyst, which is still under wraps, or else I missed it. 7) Even if the gain is substantial, this is basically oxidation (combustion) of a catalyst, but with gain over and above the chemical gain. Even a gain of 200:1 does not insure commercialization! (except for Military uses) To be explained. 8) Ferro-titanium is not expensive, but nano-titanium powder is. The difference is 5000:1 since ingots go for $5 pound but pure powder costs much more. 9) Titanium is expensive to rejuvenate (reduce), but there is probably a secret catalyst which is easier and which is a trade secret. There is no doubt it is oxidized in the 10) Bottom line - this technology could be great - or a bust for the general public, depending on the cost of catalyst rejuvenation. I am not impressed with the level of openness here. 11) If the best catalyst is nano-titanium, then this stage show is basically a delusion for the alternative energy crowd - economically . This turned up on one of the forums. Past public claims by Mills/BLP: 1999: Will commercialize a hydrino power generator within a year. 1000 W, within 4 months. 2005: Only months away from commercialization. 2008: 5 W, within 12 to 18 months. 2009: Commercialization within 1 year to 18 months. 2012: 100 W by the end of 2012, 1500 W 2013 2014: 10 W in 16 to 18 weeks. If history is an indicator, this was little more than a horse-and-pony show put on to raise capital but done so that investors would not notice how contrived the whole thing is. However, there could be significant military aerospace uses which will carry the project. This is not an answer to the energy crisis as it stands now. The most interest should come from NASA and the Pentagon. I could see this as a fabulous solid fuel rocket engine. I hope all of those investors can stand a loss, because this technology is most likely not ready for prime time
[Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
Part two, July 21 2014 BLP demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TKgrOjac6Yfeature=youtu.be Of particular interest to me was... Timeline: 00:09:15 - 00:10:53 Someone in the audience asks Mils about the recycling of the fuel, what's all involved. Mills responds (these are not exact quotes, but close): They are using multiple regenerated fuel. Uses metal powder plus inorganic compound with magnesium chloride hexahydrate. The exploded powder is ...literally was rinsed off the chamber [walls]... and then the extra water was drained off... just sedimentation drained off the water, and then we reused it. That's it. All you have to do is re-wet it. Timeline 00:12:05 - 00:12:40 Follow-up question: someone asks whether we're seeing the fuel regeneration happening in some of the demos. Mills states the current recycling setup is very new and not all the recycling systems are installed. Just had the trough full of wetted fuel and the water lines hooked up. I believe Mills states the next BLP demonstration (not yet scheduled) will show a more sophisticated automated recycling of the fuel in real time. Sounds like the next demo, if they can stay in the timeline, will include rinse-down capability and recyclability of the solid fuel. Timeline 00:33:54 Again, someone asks Mills about the recycling of the fuel, what state is it in during the explosion and the reclamation process. Mills response (not exact quotes) The metal powder doesn't change. It's a very high surface area nano-powder. Actually works better after you detonate it because the surface area goes up... absorbs more water. absorbs more quickly and it ignites more. It just carries more current. seems to work better. ... [metal powder] It is not consumed. Reaction will occur in an argon enclosed chamber. Can't be consumed. If the metal powder gets hot enough to melt it still stays the size of tiny powder particles. [doesn't clump up, or condense like water - svj] powder size: sub-micron size, maybe fifty nanometers. ... stays like that. The blasts just constantly makes it very very fine powder. magnesium chloride stays magnesium chloride. [doesn't get destroyed] My conclusions: If Mills is telling the truth, the recycling of the fuel does not appear to be that big of an energy hog. Seems to be pretty easy to physically recycle the powder. Mills said there is still some engineering that will be needed in order to optimize the best recycling process, ie. the rinsing procedure, positioning of the water jets. Low tech stuff. At the moment, based on what I have viewed, it does not appear to me that the doctor is lying. We shall see. Perhaps at the next demo. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
Can the recycling process function properly at 2000 cycles a second? Can a rinse cycle clear the powder from the walls in 5 micro seconds? Will the rinse cycle be a bottle neck in the overall firing rate? On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: *Part two, July 21 2014 BLP demonstration:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TKgrOjac6Yfeature=youtu.be Of particular interest to me was... *Timeline:* 00:09:15 - 00:10:53 Someone in the audience asks Mils about the recycling of the fuel, what's all involved. Mills responds (these are not exact quotes, but close): They are using multiple regenerated fuel. Uses metal powder plus inorganic compound with magnesium chloride hexahydrate. The exploded powder is ...literally was rinsed off the chamber [walls]... and then the extra water was drained off... just sedimentation drained off the water, and then we reused it. That's it. All you have to do is re-wet it. *Timeline* 00:12:05 - 00:12:40 Follow-up question: someone asks whether we're seeing the fuel regeneration happening in some of the demos. Mills states the current recycling setup is very new and not all the recycling systems are installed. Just had the trough full of wetted fuel and the water lines hooked up. I believe Mills states the next BLP demonstration (not yet scheduled) will show a more sophisticated automated recycling of the fuel in real time. Sounds like the next demo, if they can stay in the timeline, will include rinse-down capability and recyclability of the solid fuel. *Timeline* 00:33:54 Again, someone asks Mills about the recycling of the fuel, what state is it in during the explosion and the reclamation process. Mills response (not exact quotes) The metal powder doesn't change. It's a very high surface area nano-powder. Actually works better after you detonate it because the surface area goes up... absorbs more water. absorbs more quickly and it ignites more. It just carries more current. seems to work better. ... [metal powder] It is not consumed. Reaction will occur in an argon enclosed chamber. Can't be consumed. If the metal powder gets hot enough to melt it still stays the size of tiny powder particles. [doesn't clump up, or condense like water - svj] powder size: sub-micron size, maybe fifty nanometers. ... stays like that. The blasts just constantly makes it very very fine powder. magnesium chloride stays magnesium chloride. [doesn't get destroyed] *My conclusions:* If Mills is telling the truth, the recycling of the fuel does not appear to be that big of an energy hog. Seems to be pretty easy to physically recycle the powder. Mills said there is still some engineering that will be needed in order to optimize the best recycling process, ie. the rinsing procedure, positioning of the water jets. Low tech stuff. At the moment, based on what I have viewed, it does not appear to me that the doctor is lying. We shall see. Perhaps at the next demo. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
Find a way to keep the powder suspended in the chamber magnetically like Joe Papp did. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Can the recycling process function properly at 2000 cycles a second? Can a rinse cycle clear the powder from the walls in 5 micro seconds? Will the rinse cycle be a bottle neck in the overall firing rate? On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: *Part two, July 21 2014 BLP demonstration:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TKgrOjac6Yfeature=youtu.be Of particular interest to me was... *Timeline:* 00:09:15 - 00:10:53 Someone in the audience asks Mils about the recycling of the fuel, what's all involved. Mills responds (these are not exact quotes, but close): They are using multiple regenerated fuel. Uses metal powder plus inorganic compound with magnesium chloride hexahydrate. The exploded powder is ...literally was rinsed off the chamber [walls]... and then the extra water was drained off... just sedimentation drained off the water, and then we reused it. That's it. All you have to do is re-wet it. *Timeline* 00:12:05 - 00:12:40 Follow-up question: someone asks whether we're seeing the fuel regeneration happening in some of the demos. Mills states the current recycling setup is very new and not all the recycling systems are installed. Just had the trough full of wetted fuel and the water lines hooked up. I believe Mills states the next BLP demonstration (not yet scheduled) will show a more sophisticated automated recycling of the fuel in real time. Sounds like the next demo, if they can stay in the timeline, will include rinse-down capability and recyclability of the solid fuel. *Timeline* 00:33:54 Again, someone asks Mills about the recycling of the fuel, what state is it in during the explosion and the reclamation process. Mills response (not exact quotes) The metal powder doesn't change. It's a very high surface area nano-powder. Actually works better after you detonate it because the surface area goes up... absorbs more water. absorbs more quickly and it ignites more. It just carries more current. seems to work better. ... [metal powder] It is not consumed. Reaction will occur in an argon enclosed chamber. Can't be consumed. If the metal powder gets hot enough to melt it still stays the size of tiny powder particles. [doesn't clump up, or condense like water - svj] powder size: sub-micron size, maybe fifty nanometers. ... stays like that. The blasts just constantly makes it very very fine powder. magnesium chloride stays magnesium chloride. [doesn't get destroyed] *My conclusions:* If Mills is telling the truth, the recycling of the fuel does not appear to be that big of an energy hog. Seems to be pretty easy to physically recycle the powder. Mills said there is still some engineering that will be needed in order to optimize the best recycling process, ie. the rinsing procedure, positioning of the water jets. Low tech stuff. At the moment, based on what I have viewed, it does not appear to me that the doctor is lying. We shall see. Perhaps at the next demo. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
More... If there is 15 megawatts of waste heat to get rid up per cycle, water will only exist as super heated steam. Washing the walls of the reaction chamber with liquid water will not be possible. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Find a way to keep the powder suspended in the chamber magnetically like Joe Papp did. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Can the recycling process function properly at 2000 cycles a second? Can a rinse cycle clear the powder from the walls in 5 micro seconds? Will the rinse cycle be a bottle neck in the overall firing rate? On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: *Part two, July 21 2014 BLP demonstration:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TKgrOjac6Yfeature=youtu.be Of particular interest to me was... *Timeline:* 00:09:15 - 00:10:53 Someone in the audience asks Mils about the recycling of the fuel, what's all involved. Mills responds (these are not exact quotes, but close): They are using multiple regenerated fuel. Uses metal powder plus inorganic compound with magnesium chloride hexahydrate. The exploded powder is ...literally was rinsed off the chamber [walls]... and then the extra water was drained off... just sedimentation drained off the water, and then we reused it. That's it. All you have to do is re-wet it. *Timeline* 00:12:05 - 00:12:40 Follow-up question: someone asks whether we're seeing the fuel regeneration happening in some of the demos. Mills states the current recycling setup is very new and not all the recycling systems are installed. Just had the trough full of wetted fuel and the water lines hooked up. I believe Mills states the next BLP demonstration (not yet scheduled) will show a more sophisticated automated recycling of the fuel in real time. Sounds like the next demo, if they can stay in the timeline, will include rinse-down capability and recyclability of the solid fuel. *Timeline* 00:33:54 Again, someone asks Mills about the recycling of the fuel, what state is it in during the explosion and the reclamation process. Mills response (not exact quotes) The metal powder doesn't change. It's a very high surface area nano-powder. Actually works better after you detonate it because the surface area goes up... absorbs more water. absorbs more quickly and it ignites more. It just carries more current. seems to work better. ... [metal powder] It is not consumed. Reaction will occur in an argon enclosed chamber. Can't be consumed. If the metal powder gets hot enough to melt it still stays the size of tiny powder particles. [doesn't clump up, or condense like water - svj] powder size: sub-micron size, maybe fifty nanometers. ... stays like that. The blasts just constantly makes it very very fine powder. magnesium chloride stays magnesium chloride. [doesn't get destroyed] *My conclusions:* If Mills is telling the truth, the recycling of the fuel does not appear to be that big of an energy hog. Seems to be pretty easy to physically recycle the powder. Mills said there is still some engineering that will be needed in order to optimize the best recycling process, ie. the rinsing procedure, positioning of the water jets. Low tech stuff. At the moment, based on what I have viewed, it does not appear to me that the doctor is lying. We shall see. Perhaps at the next demo. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:28:42 -0400: Hi, [snip] Can the recycling process function properly at 2000 cycles a second? Can a rinse cycle clear the powder from the walls in 5 micro seconds? Will the rinse cycle be a bottle neck in the overall firing rate? Personally, I've always had my doubts about the 2000 cycles /sec number, however even if he can only manage 2 cycles per second, the power output would be 10 kW iso 10MW, and I would consider that a very nice number for a home power unit. The price would be a bit higher, but I doubt that would make the waiting queue any shorter. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
They should try for no cycling. I makes for a better system. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:38 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:28:42 -0400: Hi, [snip] Can the recycling process function properly at 2000 cycles a second? Can a rinse cycle clear the powder from the walls in 5 micro seconds? Will the rinse cycle be a bottle neck in the overall firing rate? Personally, I've always had my doubts about the 2000 cycles /sec number, however even if he can only manage 2 cycles per second, the power output would be 10 kW iso 10MW, and I would consider that a very nice number for a home power unit. The price would be a bit higher, but I doubt that would make the waiting queue any shorter. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
MAYBE there is a MW, but for microsecons. From the videos on the PDF, it seems that the electrodes get oxidized in seconds. I really doubt they can keep the machine functioning longer than a few minutes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
I don't get it. Why do people think Mills is relevant when, if he has made any energy in vs energy out measurements at all, they are so buried in other material that any reasonable man would give up long before finding them? On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:38 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:28:42 -0400: Hi, [snip] Can the recycling process function properly at 2000 cycles a second? Can a rinse cycle clear the powder from the walls in 5 micro seconds? Will the rinse cycle be a bottle neck in the overall firing rate? Personally, I've always had my doubts about the 2000 cycles /sec number, however even if he can only manage 2 cycles per second, the power output would be 10 kW iso 10MW, and I would consider that a very nice number for a home power unit. The price would be a bit higher, but I doubt that would make the waiting queue any shorter. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
If you place your bet on Miills, you put it on someone with an incredibly lousy history. Period. On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: In video 1, Randy shows a bomb calorimeter measurement of an explosion. It was clear from the reading of the temperature rise that the output of that single explosion was 623J (I think, don't remember exactly). So, it appears incontrovertible that the output is around 700J as Mills claims. Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration. Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP. In this case, it appears to be 100. I am not sure where the controversy is. COP appears to be clearly overunity. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 5:59 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? Jones: I get the impression that Mills has been sitting on his hind quarters for at least a decade. He's brilliant. He knows how to attract investors to pie-in-the-sky projects that in the end, do not pan out. Now he's seeing Rossi with his demos, promises, $20M engagement with Industrial Heat, INDEPENDENT third party submission... Mills is in scramble mode. He got beat by Rossi and he either goes after all his supposedly superior prior solutions or he gets ready for the patent war that is to come. Mills will be a patent warrior and nothing more. None of his fun experiments will come to fruition in the industrial/commercial nor consumer market. You have stated that if anyone finds nuclear ash in Mills's experiments, it's a death blow to his theory. With the money that will soon be attracted to this sector of industry, I predict that multiple death blows will be dealt to his theory. Maybe half of such death blows will have real data rather than contrived data, but it will be enough to relegate Mills to the fringes of History. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Steven reported that massive amounts of info from the BLP demo is now online. I wish it was better organized. The most hyped up doc is here : http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons tration-Abbreviated.pdf I have not found time to wade through all of this yet, at least not with any confidence, but here are first impressions of what seems to be going on. These could be inaccurate. 1) There is good evidence of Pout exceeding Pin by a significant margin 2) COP of 5 has been mentioned as the net gain from photocell conversion 3) COP of 100-200 is claimed as the reaction gain, less catalyst rejuvenation and loses 4) Titanium seems to be the preferred catalyst (but knowing Mills he has a better one under wraps) 5) He says but does not prove that the catalyst can be rejuvenated in line with the reaction. This is the key. Anyone can burn Ti for gain, it is a great fuel. 6) In short, everything hinges on rejuvenation of the catalyst, which is still under wraps, or else I missed it. 7) Even if the gain is substantial, this is basically oxidation (combustion) of a catalyst, but with gain over and above the chemical gain. Even a gain of 200:1 does not insure commercialization! (except for Military uses) To be explained. 8) Ferro-titanium is not expensive, but nano-titanium powder is. The difference is 5000:1 since ingots go for $5 pound but pure powder costs much more. 9) Titanium is expensive to rejuvenate (reduce), but there is probably a secret catalyst which is easier and which is a trade secret. There is no doubt it is oxidized in the 10) Bottom line - this technology could be great - or a bust for the general public, depending on the cost of catalyst rejuvenation. I am not impressed with the level of openness here. 11) If the best catalyst is nano-titanium, then this stage show is basically a delusion for the alternative energy crowd - economically . This turned up on one of the forums. Past public claims by Mills/BLP: 1999: Will commercialize a hydrino power generator within a year. 1000 W, within 4 months. 2005: Only months away from commercialization. 2008: 5 W, within 12 to 18 months. 2009: Commercialization within 1 year to 18 months. 2012: 100 W by the end of 2012, 1500 W 2013 2014: 10 W in 16 to 18 weeks. If history is an indicator, this was little more than a horse-and-pony show put on to raise capital but done so that investors would not notice how contrived the whole thing is. However, there could be significant military aerospace uses which will carry the project. This is not an answer to the energy crisis as it stands now. The most interest should come from NASA and the Pentagon. I could see this as a fabulous solid fuel rocket engine. I hope all of those investors can stand a loss,
