Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 PM, wrote: > It's actually the other way around. Mills came up with the theory first, > then > started looking for ways to realize practical benefits from it. > Ah! Then that is a start on an answer to my request for a chronology stated in my prior response: I guess what might help buy this enough to start diving into the theory more seriously would be a chronology of the genesis of this theory to see to what degree Mills is guilty or innocent of what he accuses others: at hoc over-fitting to achieve these "miracles" of theory and technology.
Re: [Vo]:The Little Engine That Could
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Steve High wrote: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:07:28#SHT_provides_video_of_hydrogen_production_during_TRC_3rd-party_test Note that the nuclear binding energy of oxygen is ~ 7.7 MeV (the amount you would need to separate all of the nucleons). This makes some kind of O → 8 * H2 reaction highly endothermic. In addition, I assume the neutrons will have to beta decay to protons in order to get molecular H2. Each beta decay (one per molecule of H2) will deliver an electron with a max Q ~ 782 keV, whose spectrum will have a peak at around 180 keV. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
In reply to James Bowery's message of Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:07:18 -0500: Hi, [snip] >No of course a Newton, Maxwell, etc comes along once a century or so. > That's not what I'm talking about. Its more like someone accidentally >discovers steam power but can't really reproduce it because Newton's laws >of mechanics had been buried in ad hoc nonsense for a century -- and then >James Watt not only invents the steam engine but comes up with Newtonian >mechanics to make the phenomenon reproducible and commercializable. It's actually the other way around. Mills came up with the theory first, then started looking for ways to realize practical benefits from it. He has been through a whole series of different practical approaches. > > >2) The conflation of not one but two entirely different energy sources -- > >> >either of which would provide the profound technological utility. >> >> This is not a miracle if one enables the other, which in this case is also >> likely. I.e. if Hydrinos are real, then it's highly likely that they will >> lead >> to enhanced nuclear reaction rates, due to enhanced tunneling rates at >> closer >> proximity (hence the conflation). >> > >Really? Given Mills's claims for more tractable mathematical modeling it >seems he should have quantitative predictions about these tunneling events >and should be making the corresponding measurements in his burns. Initially he suggested that nuclear reactions were possible, but practical experience has led him to conclude that they are not happening at any appreciable rate (at least in his own experiments). Personally, I suspect this is because he works primarily with low "p" value Hydrinos, i.e. mostly p = 4. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Whithout any technical knowledge I agree with you Eric. I wonder how they could keep the good spirit in this big organization once Lwerner Brown and Na8sa was the same, was that how much he colored the culture as he was certaily a contrarian. On Jul 31, 2014 8:31 PM, "Eric Walker" wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with >> Poher’s device ... > > > I have to hand it to groups at NASA for being relatively independent of > the opinion of the physics mainstream. Apparently there is a culture of > willingness to look at devices that are long-shots and whose inventors have > not yet established their credibility. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote: NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with > Poher’s device ... I have to hand it to groups at NASA for being relatively independent of the opinion of the physics mainstream. Apparently there is a culture of willingness to look at devices that are long-shots and whose inventors have not yet established their credibility. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Quora : anti Levi&all circus on e-cat test
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > I just wanted to help those uninformed posters to understand LENR, and I > was banned from the Quora forum. > ***No good deed ever goes unpunished.
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Well, since we're talking about NASA & impossible space drives... Excerpt of heavily encrypted PDF file Proposal by Quantum Potential Corporation in response to 2011 NASA http://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf NASA, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force have commissioned a number of interesting yet disjointed studies on asymmetric capacitors with the goal of evaluating their usefulness to propulsion applications. The nature of propulsive forces arising in asymmetric capacitors under high voltage was attributed to mysterious Biefeld–Brown effect, which hinted at new physics. Thorough examination by the aforementioned government agencies have conclusively proved that thrust in atmosphere is definitely due to ionic wind as the magnitude of the observed force closely matches ion transport calculations. Consequently, no thrust was observed in high vacuum. However, propulsive forces were noted when an electric arc jumped between the capacitor electrodes. Because ablation was the only logical conventional explanation, none of the studies pursued the subject further. The 2004 NASA study commissioned by NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Project was the only one to cast a shadow of doubt on the ablation hypothesis: the calculated mass loss was not supported by observations. Clearly, some other hitherto unknown mechanism must be at play. If this mechanism is genuine, it may be a manifestation of “new physics” with far reaching consequences and immediate applications in space propulsion (e.g., purely electromagnetic momentum exchange propellantless propulsion). Because of the potential importance of an unambiguous identification of the nature of the propulsive force arising from an asymmetric capacitor arcing in vacuum, we propose an experiment that will a) accurately measure thrust resulting from the arc (better than 104 N); b) accurately measure material loss due to ablation (better than 104 g); c) account for parasitic effects due to electrostatic/electromagnetic interaction with vacuum chamber walls . To our knowledge no such experiment has been performed. The experiment will be performed in a bell jar vacuum chamber (<105 Torr) using torsion balance similar to the one employed in the 2004 NASA study. Confirmation of thrust without ablation will be a truly significant accomplishment of American science (with significant public benefit) indicating that new and hitherto unrecognized phenomena may be at play. This discovery will have far reaching consequences for science and technology and thus corresponds for high payoff research. We may be only $116,000 dollars away from the next major technological breakthrough. At a very minimum successful confirmation of ablationless propulsive force will lead to development of new generation of propellantless thrusters for near Earth maneuvering and deep space travel that will markedly reduce the cost of space missions and may even solve the space junk problem (see Section 10). Numerous other applications will follow. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: > At 01:16 PM 7/31/2014, you wrote: > >> Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? >> > > They tested the Cannae version (as reported by Wired) -- 40 micronewton at > 28W , but ALSO a "tapered" version, which is an emDrive -- 91 micronewton > at 17W. > > See page 1 of the Nasa paper http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/ > 10.2514/6.2014-4029 >
Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 5:25 PM, wrote: > In reply to James Bowery's message of Tue, 29 Jul 2014 22:10:04 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > >Perhaps I should restate the 2 miracles along a slightly different axis: > > > >1) If one adopts Storms's viewpoint, there is no scientific revolution -- > >merely a different interpretation of accepted theory. So the "miracle" of > >a technology so revolutionary that it reconfigures the origin of human > >social organization (the campsite fire) is not compounded by a revolution > >in accepted theory -- merely revolution in the *interpretation* of > accepted > >theory. Mills is applying Ockham's Razor to surgically remove the > >equivalent of a brain tumor on the body of accepted theory that has grown > >up over the last century, and then reinterpreted what was left to more > >accurately fit facts that were in evidence before the F&P phenomenon. > > Other scientific revolutions were not really this revolutionary, eg. the > >removal of the epicycles by Copernicus, the unification of light, > >electricity and magnetism by Maxwell, the incorporation of momentum into > >the physical state by Newton, etc. provided not nearly such a profound > >reduction of theoretic cancer and weren't even motivated by a great > >technological utility that needed to be explained. The combination of > such > >a technological leap -- not in instrumentation but in useful phenomenon -- > >and such a profound reduction of theoretic cancer is unprecedented. > > I assume you are implying that it's a miracle that a true genius > occasionally > comes along, but I think that it is actually statistically likely. I guess > it > remains to be seen whether or not Mills fits the bill. > No of course a Newton, Maxwell, etc comes along once a century or so. That's not what I'm talking about. Its more like someone accidentally discovers steam power but can't really reproduce it because Newton's laws of mechanics had been buried in ad hoc nonsense for a century -- and then James Watt not only invents the steam engine but comes up with Newtonian mechanics to make the phenomenon reproducible and commercializable. >2) The conflation of not one but two entirely different energy sources -- > >either of which would provide the profound technological utility. > > This is not a miracle if one enables the other, which in this case is also > likely. I.e. if Hydrinos are real, then it's highly likely that they will > lead > to enhanced nuclear reaction rates, due to enhanced tunneling rates at > closer > proximity (hence the conflation). > Really? Given Mills's claims for more tractable mathematical modeling it seems he should have quantitative predictions about these tunneling events and should be making the corresponding measurements in his burns.
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic fields. The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating electrons. The microwave vibrations will induce spin rotation in the matter that fills space and that might include the spins of virtual particles emerging from the vacuum. A household microwave heats water by rotating the water molecules in the food. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial > lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired > article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s > superconductor. > http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf > > NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with > Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google > search. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher > > Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency > > > From: Alain Sepeda > > this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and > with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he > have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is > surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most > reasonable I've heard. > > David Roberson: > > I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that > makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be > shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to > generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and > that is likely the root of the thrust. > > Eric Walker wrote: > > > > http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa > ce-drive > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
At 01:16 PM 7/31/2014, you wrote: Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? They tested the Cannae version (as reported by Wired) -- 40 micronewton at 28W , but ALSO a "tapered" version, which is an emDrive -- 91 micronewton at 17W. See page 1 of the Nasa paper http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029
RE: [Vo]:Heat dissipation is a MINOR engineering issue in the SunCell.
Jones I suspect possess the same affliction that I suffer from: OAIS * * OverActive Imagination Syndrome. It has its advantages and disadvantages. You have my sympathies. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa ce-drive <>
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...) as Ed Storms says in his books, when a phenomenon survive to the change of the measurement setup(shawyer, chinese, nasa), and is similar in different setup(emdirve, qdrive) that share a common thing (resonance, asymmetry, microwave), there is a great chance something real linked to the core technology is happening... and not independent artifacts that conspires independently to fool scientists. however the ideas of shawyer about the theory have no strong reason to be good, so his computation on how to improve it... he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. I don't need no violation of any conservation law... just less unchecked assumption (as for LENR). 2014-07-31 23:45 GMT+02:00 David Roberson : > I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical > of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error > once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large > amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the > root of the thrust. > > Dave > > > -Original Message- > From: leaking pen > To: vortex-l > Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive > > Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker > wrote: > >> See: >> >> >> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive >> >> Eric >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video
In reply to James Bowery's message of Tue, 29 Jul 2014 22:10:04 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Perhaps I should restate the 2 miracles along a slightly different axis: > >1) If one adopts Storms's viewpoint, there is no scientific revolution -- >merely a different interpretation of accepted theory. So the "miracle" of >a technology so revolutionary that it reconfigures the origin of human >social organization (the campsite fire) is not compounded by a revolution >in accepted theory -- merely revolution in the *interpretation* of accepted >theory. Mills is applying Ockham's Razor to surgically remove the >equivalent of a brain tumor on the body of accepted theory that has grown >up over the last century, and then reinterpreted what was left to more >accurately fit facts that were in evidence before the F&P phenomenon. > Other scientific revolutions were not really this revolutionary, eg. the >removal of the epicycles by Copernicus, the unification of light, >electricity and magnetism by Maxwell, the incorporation of momentum into >the physical state by Newton, etc. provided not nearly such a profound >reduction of theoretic cancer and weren't even motivated by a great >technological utility that needed to be explained. The combination of such >a technological leap -- not in instrumentation but in useful phenomenon -- >and such a profound reduction of theoretic cancer is unprecedented. I assume you are implying that it's a miracle that a true genius occasionally comes along, but I think that it is actually statistically likely. I guess it remains to be seen whether or not Mills fits the bill. > >2) The conflation of not one but two entirely different energy sources -- >either of which would provide the profound technological utility. This is not a miracle if one enables the other, which in this case is also likely. I.e. if Hydrinos are real, then it's highly likely that they will lead to enhanced nuclear reaction rates, due to enhanced tunneling rates at closer proximity (hence the conflation). Note that while Mills concentrates on lightly shrunken Hydrinos, severely shrunken ones could get very much closer to a target nucleus, enhancing the reaction rate by very many orders or magnitude as the separation distance appears in the exponent of the tunneling time formula, as I'm sure you are aware. (Assuming the two new energy sources you are referring to are Hydrinos and LENR). > >I guess what might help buy this enough to start diving into the theory >more seriously would be a chronology of the genesis of this theory to see >to what degree Mills is guilty or innocent of what he accuses others: at >hoc over-fitting to achieve these "miracles" of theory and technology. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Axil, Is there any data to backup your "prodigious RF" statement of fact? Spectrum analyzer etc. Ron --On Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:45 PM -0400 Axil Axil wrote: The Ni/H reactor produces prodigious amounts of RF. This level of production could even be increased by adding NMR active materials to the structure of the reactor. This current disadvantage in Ni/H technology might well be turned into an important feature. The Ni/H reaction could provide a direct application of RF propulsion without the need to go to electrical power first. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible -space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Dave, according to teh article they separated the power source and drive to make sure that wasnt teh case. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:45 PM, David Roberson wrote: > I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical > of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error > once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large > amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the > root of the thrust. > > Dave > > > -Original Message- > From: leaking pen > To: vortex-l > Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive > > Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker > wrote: > >> See: >> >> >> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive >> >> Eric >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Dave -Original Message- From: leaking pen To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Of course microwave RF energy is a form of electrical power. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 3:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive The Ni/H reactor produces prodigious amounts of RF. This level of production could even be increased by adding NMR active materials to the structure of the reactor. This current disadvantage in Ni/H technology might well be turned into an important feature. The Ni/H reaction could provide a direct application of RF propulsion without the need to go to electrical power first. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote: See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > See: > > > http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
The Ni/H reactor produces prodigious amounts of RF. This level of production could even be increased by adding NMR active materials to the structure of the reactor. This current disadvantage in Ni/H technology might well be turned into an important feature. The Ni/H reaction could provide a direct application of RF propulsion without the need to go to electrical power first. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > See: > > > http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive > > Eric > >
[Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
RE: [Vo]:Heat dissipation is a MINOR engineering issue in the SunCell.
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson > a Fresnel lens can easily be used to start a fire with one sun (in contrast > to 10,000 suns). If the number is accurate, there may be military > applications. See Blacklight’s June 25, 2014 Second Public Demonstration - > http://vimeo.com/99500674 >From the "Demonstration Day link: …and question and answer sessions with >participation by two validators including a defense company licensee. [Bold >Italics, mine]. Could there be defense applications? In a nutshell, yes. He >was pretty mum about it. The terse response disturbed me. Terse, eh? Military applications, eh? Yes, it is all coming into focus, so to speak, and this could be BLP’s salvation, instead of civilian uses. Hope the questioner was not escorted out of the demo. For a long time, I was convinced that the BLP microwave thruster had made its way into an “unannounced” military program. There was not a huge energy gain in that device, as has been mentioned here - but the potential for improvement seemed to be there and for a particular use. At least that thruster would have put the strategic planners in the Beltway on notice of the capabilities of a new technology (which few can doubt does produces copious amounts of bright photons). Moreover, going back 30 years to Ronnie’s reign, the Pentagon has been obsessed with beam weapons … and for good reason. The strategic planners have realized for a long time that shrinking-chip technology can be employed to direct any weapon far more accurately than the capability of a solid projectile to be steered, so a pulsed beam weapon should be orders of magnitude more deadly, if they could just get enough power into the beam, especially if a sub-second pulse. Wiki has a pretty good entry on the x-ray laser but perhaps a focused, mixed-spectrum beam is as good or better. It’s a short drive from Bethesda, or anywhere in the beltway, to Cranbury. A drone carrying a beam weapon, even if “only” consisting of a lens-focused beam of bright light, possibly made semi-coherent (superradiant) by the arcing process, could be a game changer for weaponry - in such places as the Pak/Afghan border region, and anywhere else for that matter. The collateral damage done by conventional missiles fired by drones has curtailed their use to a very minimum. If the Military could just take-out the terrorist only, and not his 4 wives and 16 children, we could be outta that part of the world in a few months. At least that is the underlying logic, to a strategic planner. Instead of a few missions per month it would be a few per hour. Indeed, this suggestion could be showing my lack of credentials as a wannabe strategic planner, but it would seem that a focused beam would change everything. 10,000 suns for 200 msec sounds about right. Any longer and the lens is destroyed. Any shorter and it is severe sunburn, instead of bar-b-qued frontal cortex. We have seen that individual terrorists can be identified from 5 miles up by an invisible eye-in-the-sky, but not singled out by its weapons... not yet. Many Pakistani officials want to get rid of “only the terrorist” if collateral damage to innocents is eliminated. Al-Qaida is a threat to them, more so than to us. If this speculation is off-base, then as fiction - it is time for a sequel to a movie or two… yet truth is often stranger than fiction. I hate to say it though – the salvation of Mills technology could be RR’s Ray-gun, finally making its way into prime-time.
Re: [Vo]:The Little Engine That Could
And to think all that from a BBQ grill... On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Steve High wrote: > A new video of the SHT hydrogen generator in action. > Scroll Down > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:07:28#SHT_provides_video_of_hydrogen_production_during_TRC_3rd-party_test
[Vo]:The Little Engine That Could
A new video of the SHT hydrogen generator in action. Scroll Down http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:07:28#SHT_provides_video_of_hydrogen_production_during_TRC_3rd-party_test
RE: [Vo]:Heat dissipation is a MINOR engineering issue in the Suncell.
>From Eric: > The intensity of the emitted light sounds dangerous to me. Consider that > a fresnel lense can easily be used to start a fire with one sun (in contrast > to 10,000 suns). If the number is accurate, there may be military > applications. See Blacklight’s June 25, 2014 Second Public Demonstration http://vimeo.com/99500674 >From the "Demonstration Day link: On June 25th, BlackLight performed its second preannounced public demonstration of its breakthrough technology to a group of distinguished attendees that spanned the spectrum of professionals. Specific events included: ignition of H2O-based solid fuel, calorimetric energy balance determination, EUV spectroscopy of the hydrogen transitions to hydrinos, theory, technical, engineering, and commercialization presentations, BlackLight’s Electricity-Generation Demonstration of Automated Ignition System of Vibratory Conveyor-Fed H2O-Based Solid Fuel Powder, BlackLight’s Demonstration of Automated Ignition System of Auger-Fed H2O-Based Solid Fuel Powder that was repeated with Photovoltaic Conversion of Light to Electricity, and question and answer sessions with participation by two validators including a defense company licensee. [Bold Italics, mine]. The response came from one of the two validators answering a question from the audience. Could there be defense applications? In a nutshell, yes. He was pretty mum about it. The terse response disturbed me. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Quora : anti Levi&all circus on e-cat test
yes (my quick answer was dond on my address, not on the vortex reflecto), it is an old news... just some recent void answer ... what is fascinating is the double standard in pinpointing details, beside not understanding the problem of magnitude. it is typical pseudo-science, conspiracy theory, denialism, as some skeptic groups love to name it. They sometime have good arguments, except that they forget to apply to themselves. 2014-07-28 0:00 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell : > 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]:Italian minor, sucess in cold fusion... any more info
basically it is plasma in electrolytic cell, with H2O split by electrolysis, then H2 split by high current creating a plasma, and recombinating befause of high temperature. the question is whether the LENR reaction add some energy to the electric energy provided... it seems easy to make, but the electrodes are destroyed quickly and calorimetry is very hard, and have to be conclusive before the electrodes are destroyed. 2014-07-30 23:40 GMT+02:00 Ken Deboer : > excuse my ignorance, but isn't this just hydrogen burning in oxygen, and > just like the h-cat? ken > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Alain Sepeda > wrote: > >> what is the evidence of cold fusion. I don't see any calorimetry. >> it seems to be Mizuno electrolysis, buthow do they prove LENR ? >> >> gamma (few)? neutrons (normally fewer)? tritium detection ? >> >> >> 2014-07-30 22:12 GMT+02:00 Giovanni Santostasi : >> >>> This is the youtube video: >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WjzYflPYI >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Alain Sepeda >>> wrote: >>> http://iltirreno.gelocal.it/pistoia/cronaca/2014/02/02/news/a-13-anni-riproducono-la-fusione-a-freddo-1.8591445 it seems to be a Mizuno, but very few details... does anyone have better data? --- At 13 reproduce the cold fusion The experiment of three boys in the garage of the home of one of them: "No minor he had succeeded" Pistoia also has its own "via Panisperna boys."Matthew and Ivan are Matteini Perrella, with the collaboration of Julia Ricciardi. Compared to Fermi, Amaldi, Majorana and other eminent physicists, very young, in the thirties of the last century realized in the laboratory, the first nuclear reactor, physicists Pistoia are still young, very young indeed.They have 13 years old and attending the 3rd Q of the school Marconi Via Puccini. Early last month have carried out an experiment in the garage at home, they say confidently documented, "the only juvenile in the world to have succeeded."This is the cold fusion. The cold nuclear fusion, advocated for decades by scientists not only because it would allow to produce nuclear energy without producing temibilissime slag, is a generic name given to the alleged nature of nuclear reactions, which would occur at pressures and temperatures much lower than those needed for obtain nuclear fusion "hot", for which are instead necessary temperatures of the order of one million kelvin and plasma density very high. Many scientists are skeptical: to date, the very existence of these phenomena has not been demonstrated conclusively, on the contrary to the prevailing opinion in the scientific community is that all the evidence proposed to be due to measurement errors or non-nuclear phenomena. The fact is that the boys have done the experiment Pistoia, reproducing, as they called the same guys they shot a video on Youtube, "a star in a jar.""Thanks to my father, an engineer in 'electronic company - says Matthew, who loves physics and experiments since piccolossimo, while Ivan is the computer of the group - and Julius Nesti who supported us in logistics, we could set up the garage at home mine with all the necessary equipment: voltmeter, ammeter, herzometro and what you need to succeed. A basic table for discharge to the ground, otherwise it ran the risk of being electrocuted terrible, or burned by temperatures in the range of 3-4000 degrees or, again, it exploded all over. "The experiment, which took place on January 3, eventually succeeded after twenty black smoke. "The whole thing lasted about half an hour, no more and left us amazed, as well as very satisfied." The first practical and tangible result of the "fusion" describe the boys: "We have produced a soapy liquid that does not produce any toxin and we washed their hands." An effect of the experiment, tell Matthew and others, was to be put out of televisions and mobile phones due to the strong electromagnetic field. At school, classmates and teachers are proud of their young scientists, but would point out the teacher of astronomy, "they did it all by yourself." Francis Albonetti >>> >>> >> >
