Re: [Vo]:vortex mass
see the following for tha anapole theory of dark matter http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2013/06/dark-matter/ See the following for the Bec theory of dark matter http://scitechdaily.com/reinterpretation-cold-dark-matter-bose-einstein-condensate On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-nanovortices.html > > Nanovortices have mass. This has profound implications for the > characterization of cosmic LENR. There is evidence that space is filled > with excited hydrogen and helium. These vast areas between galaxies form > dusty plasma that produce extreme ultraviolet light and soft x-rays to the > tune of 400% above any possible celestial body source. The dark matter > inside galaxies behave as if this strange stuff was coherent and exist in a > huge galaxy wide BEC. > > I had conjectured that Cosmic LENR had mass and it was in fact the source > of the mass attributed to dark matter. Well here is the experiment that > shows that nano vortices which includes LENR associated vertices have mass. >
[Vo]:vortex mass
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-nanovortices.html Nanovortices have mass. This has profound implications for the characterization of cosmic LENR. There is evidence that space is filled with excited hydrogen and helium. These vast areas between galaxies form dusty plasma that produce extreme ultraviolet light and soft x-rays to the tune of 400% above any possible celestial body source. The dark matter inside galaxies behave as if this strange stuff was coherent and exist in a huge galaxy wide BEC. I had conjectured that Cosmic LENR had mass and it was in fact the source of the mass attributed to dark matter. Well here is the experiment that shows that nano vortices which includes LENR associated vertices have mass.
RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
Steven, Let me jump in here & make a comment: I disagree that a self running prototype is what he needs. Why bother? It would just generate more distracting controversy much as Rossi's tests have done. Like Rossi Mills thinks the best way is to commercialize a product. Waiting also has the advantage of avoiding competition which would surely be stimulated by a self running model. I agree with Peter. If Mill's has hydrino hydride compounds why have they not been characterized by their chemical properties; density, melting point, etc. that would be proof positive of his discovery. He has done a lot of good experimental work over the years but getting the power density up to a decent level is daunting. For his suncell he needs to switch kilo amps at micro second frequencies and have it be durable, which from an engineering standpoint, will likely be difficult. And that is just one of many challenges he faces like recycling the catalysts etc. Ron --On Monday, February 02, 2015 1:18 PM -0600 Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Jed, I was wondering if you might find reason to complain about Mills current development strategy. All I can say is that I pretty much agree. I still don't buy Mills' contention that... "A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to being a commercial device." When I read that claim I, too, thought about the first transistor and Wright's first self-powered aircraft. I hope Mills knows what he is doing. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
I wrote: > In 2003 an expert pilot with far more experience than Orville Wright had > in 1903 tried to fly a replica of this airplane at Kitty Hawk. He could not > get it off the ground. > Orville Wright had experience flying gliders. Nobody had experience flying airplanes in 1903! Actually making four flights with that particular airplane in high, gusty winds at the beach in December was an astounding accomplishment in its own right -- never mind inventing an airplane. Wilbur later said that after they become experienced pilots they would never think of hazarding a test with a new aircraft in such weather. After the fourth test, a gust of wind blew the airplane over and wrecked it. I have witnessed similar reckless tests of cold fusion, such as with an open beaker of boiling toxic electrolyte. The Wrights were superb athletes. They were the first in a long line of death-defying aviators described by Tom Wolfe. Orville was nearly killed playing hockey, when his teeth were bashed out. The two of them used to race bicycles at high speed on dirt roads after sunset. In the 1930s Orville drove a souped-up luxury car at high speeds. Legend has it that the Dayton police were told to look the other way and not issue many speeding tickets. They were also brilliant engineers, and well-versed in physics, similar to Neil Armstrong. (Armstrong was one of the go-to experts about the Wrights: he read their papers; he knew several people who knew them; and he wrote the Forward to the book by H. Combs.) > A mass-produced commercial device can be used by an ordinary consumer > without much training. The model T Ford was the first automobile that > really fit this description. The Apple Computer was the first consumer > computer of this type. > I should say "a mass-produced *consumer* commercial device . . ." Some mass-produced devices can only be used by experts, such Boeing 747s and gas fired electric power plants. A cold fusion device will be a consumer device, I hope. It would not be of much use to the world if only experts could use it. I suppose it might be the core of a gigawatt electric power generator. > Mills has not even passed the first test, as far as I know. He has not > produced irrefutable proof of existence. > I realize he claims that he has. I do not understand this proof. I do not think it would be difficult for him to provide proof that I do understand. Doing a clear demonstration does not seem to be a priority for him. Or for Rossi. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
wrote: > I would compare the system R.Mills is building with an refrigerator or an > airconditioner. > The proof of principle that compressed air that expands > cools down is not to difficult to demonstrate. > Let a compressed spray expand into open air. You see freezing of the > expanding liquid. > But to make a system that regenerates the expanded liquid and compresses > it again in a > continous loop is much more complicated. > That's a good example. Sometimes the early example of a machine is quite different from the modern version. Some of the early heat engines (steam engines) worked in ways that we would never think of today. For example, they did the mechanical work when the steam condensed, pulling the piston in, instead of pushing it out. There were many interesting approaches to refrigeration. They were invented earlier than people realize. There were commercial ice-making machines manufactured in France and elsewhere in the 1860s. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
Jed, I was wondering if you might find reason to complain about Mills current development strategy. All I can say is that I pretty much agree. I still don't buy Mills' contention that... "A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to being a commercial device." When I read that claim I, too, thought about the first transistor and Wright's first self-powered aircraft. I hope Mills knows what he is doing. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
Jones, Jones, you give me the impression that you perceive Mills as remaining stalwart in his actions while bravely staying at the helm of a mortally wounded ship he knows is sinking. To me is actions strike me more like that of a political campaign manager who feels the need to constantly beat back a storm of threatening waves - doing his best to make sure his ship remains afloat. As we all know, Mills has had to do a lot of bailing for decades. Granted, it's understandable that many observers, perhaps you as well, find the bailing behavior less convincing these days. I get that. At present I'm still willing to cut BLP some slack here. I want to see how the yet to be proven SunCell technology might possibly develop within the next year or two of intense R&D effort. I thought the 2014 December delivery date of a commercial prototype was unrealistic. The fact that it has come and gone concerns me little. I've learned to be a patient man. Often, Mills standard response against skepticism of his claims can be found in the following comments recently posted: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /messages/4660 "We have plenty of POC demonstrations such as calorimetry by multiple manufacturers and academics on commercial instruments. We have plenty of proof of hydrino with 12 analytical tests run at multiple labs, EUV continuum spectroscopy , and astrophysical data. We have plenty of theory confirmation on predictions of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, mass of the top quark, muonic hydrogen Lamb shift, absence of time dilation in highly redshifted quasars, double slit mechanism, identity of dark matter, analytical solutions of molecules with match to AFM imaging, etc." I think Mills has repeated such claims many times in the past. If one is willing to dig through some of the recent You Tube videos BLP posted last summer for the interested, we appear to see some credible individuals residing in universities or labs confirming some of these controversial energy findings. I'm not in a position to judge the veracity of such claims. Perhaps others on this list can. In the meantime I see no reason to doubt these alleged independent findings, not without hard evidence to suggest deliberate cheating was occurring. So far, I see none. My beef with Mills, a beef that Jed also appears to have expressed, is that BLP has contracted out to engineering firms with a goal to build a commercial prototype before first suggesting said firms might first want to assemble a more forgiving self-running experimental prototype - a prototype whose only goal would be to prove the fact that SunCell technology can run on its own and generate excess electricity without the need of an external power source. The prototype does not have to run long... just long enough to prove their point. I think it is unwise of BLP not to have taken this intermediate step. I have said so over at SCP. Apparently, Mills disagrees. So, that's where it stands for me. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:LENR is certain, LENR+ will prevail
I have published this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/02/lenr-hot-cat-and-opposites-around-it.html more serious than it seems, there are problems here. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:RE: Dogbone temperature control using adjustable mirrors
From: hhe...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Subject: Dogbone temperature control using adjustable mirrors Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:46:08 + Hi all,I am newcomer, name is Hauke Hein. I just read Daves contribution about type 2 and 3 dogbones in vortex-l date 01.02..Had some ideas about terrestrial or space application of lenr devices see below:Instead of heat insulation one could use adjustable aluminium mirror segmentsin order to reflect heat back to the dogbone and regulating the generatet heatautomatically by rotating the mirrorsegments in and out of the radiation pathunder computer controlassuming a relatively cool background like space or ambient temperature likeroom heater application. The use of polished aluminium would have the avantage of safety: in case of a beginningrun -away condition or just before that the aluminium would melt opening the radiation-path to the cool surroundings of the reactor(type 2)and so preventing a total meltdown.At a certain distance from the core one would have the right temperature for that. A simple mirror arrangment would be 2 slotted aluminium cylinders one slightly smallerthan the other sitting inside the biggerone having lets say 8 open segments each so the dogbonethat is in the center of this arrangment would"see" depending of the position of the segmentsa total reflection or gradually changing to 50% transmission/reflection
[Vo]:Re: Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
Jed I would compare the system R.Mills is building with an refrigerator or an airconditioner. The proof of principle that compressed air that expands cools down is not to difficult to demonstrate. Let a compressed spray expand into open air. You see freezing of the expanding liquid. But to make a system that regenerates the expanded liquid and compresses it again in a continous loop is much more complicated. If you managed to do that you almost have a equivalent of a commercial device . Peter v Noorden From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 4:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement Randy Mills said: "A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to being a commercial device." I do not like to be dismissive, but that is ridiculous. That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Here is a famous photo of the first transistor: http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/images/transistor1.jpg Does that look like it has the sophistication equivalent to a commercial device? Here is the first airplane flight in history. The machine barely got off the ground, and was incredibly unstable and difficult to fly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer#mediaviewer/File:First_flight2.jpg In 2003 an expert pilot with far more experience than Orville Wright had in 1903 tried to fly a replica of this airplane at Kitty Hawk. He could not get it off the ground. Here is the same machine three days earlier, after an unsuccessful attempt to fly: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Wilbur_Wright_after_unsuccessful_flight_trial.jpg Does that look like a commercial device to Mills? There are several stages to developing a commercial product: Proof of existence. A device proves that an effect is real. Any cold fusion reactor that produces measurable anomalous heat does this. Proof of principle. A device proves that in principle the effect can be useful. A cold fusion device that produces high temperatures and high power density does this. A cold fusion device that produces three times input power, or output with no input power, proves that in principle you might generate electricity with cold fusion. Further proof of principle. A cold fusion device powering a thermoelectric device is additional proof of principle that cold fusion generators are possible. This is true even when the cold fusion device consumes more power than the thermoelectric device outputs. Prototype. For space heating applications, this would be a device that actually produces fairly stable palpable heat. Note that the smallest space heaters produce about 500 W. For electric power this would be a device that produces electricity with no external input power (a self powered unit). This may be a crude prototype similar to the first transistor, which could not possibly be of any practical use. It is a step beyond "proof of principle" because it actually does the full application. Commercial prototype. A device that can be mass-produced in principle, and that can be submitted to safety agencies for testing. Commercial device. Something that has actually been produced in some reasonable quantity, such as 100 units, and that has passed safety licensing and inspection. It may require intense handholding and babysitting by the company that manufactures it. The first commercial computers were like this. The first 100 Tesla automobiles probably fit this description. They were very expensive and impractical for most people. Mass-produced commercial device. Something that can be made in the thousands or millions, and that can be sold for a profit. A mass-produced commercial device can be used by an ordinary consumer without much training. The model T Ford was the first automobile that really fit this description. The Apple Computer was the first consumer computer of this type. Mills has not even passed the first test, as far as I know. He has not produced irrefutable proof of existence. Between the first proof of existence and the initial proof of principle devices, all the way up to a mass-produced commercial device, you may have to spend billions of dollars. The first hybrid automobiles were made around 1912. The first practical commercial hybrid automobile was the Toyota Prius, which cost about $1 billion for R&D. Compared to cold fusion this was a minor incremental improvement to an existing technology. I expect the first commercial cold fusion device of any type will also cost about $1 billion, or more. It will cost huge sums just to ensure the thing is perfectly safe. Modern society demands very high levels of assurance that a product is safe before it can be used. We demand that a new product be far safer than the older product it replaces. I expect that self driving automobiles will have to pass far more rigorous safety standards than human driven cars do. This is not rational,
[Vo]:Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity (for 99cents)
http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Antigravity-Znidarsic-Science-ebook/dp/B00AD6ARD6/ref=pd_sxp_f_i Sent from my iPad
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
Randy Mills said: > "*A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to > being a commercial device.*" > I do not like to be dismissive, but that is ridiculous. That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Here is a famous photo of the first transistor: http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/images/transistor1.jpg Does that look like it has the sophistication equivalent to a commercial device? Here is the first airplane flight in history. The machine barely got off the ground, and was incredibly unstable and difficult to fly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer#mediaviewer/File:First_flight2.jpg In 2003 an expert pilot with far more experience than Orville Wright had in 1903 tried to fly a replica of this airplane at Kitty Hawk. He could not get it off the ground. Here is the same machine three days earlier, after an unsuccessful attempt to fly: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Wilbur_Wright_after_unsuccessful_flight_trial.jpg Does that look like a commercial device to Mills? There are several stages to developing a commercial product: Proof of existence. A device proves that an effect is real. Any cold fusion reactor that produces measurable anomalous heat does this. Proof of principle. A device proves that in principle the effect can be useful. A cold fusion device that produces high temperatures and high power density does this. A cold fusion device that produces three times input power, or output with no input power, proves that in principle you might generate electricity with cold fusion. Further proof of principle. A cold fusion device powering a thermoelectric device is additional proof of principle that cold fusion generators are possible. This is true even when the cold fusion device consumes more power than the thermoelectric device outputs. Prototype. For space heating applications, this would be a device that actually produces fairly stable palpable heat. Note that the smallest space heaters produce about 500 W. For electric power this would be a device that produces electricity with no external input power (a self powered unit). This may be a crude prototype similar to the first transistor, which could not possibly be of any practical use. It is a step beyond "proof of principle" because it actually does the full application. Commercial prototype. A device that can be mass-produced in principle, and that can be submitted to safety agencies for testing. Commercial device. Something that has actually been produced in some reasonable quantity, such as 100 units, and that has passed safety licensing and inspection. It may require intense handholding and babysitting by the company that manufactures it. The first commercial computers were like this. The first 100 Tesla automobiles probably fit this description. They were very expensive and impractical for most people. Mass-produced commercial device. Something that can be made in the thousands or millions, and that can be sold for a profit. A mass-produced commercial device can be used by an ordinary consumer without much training. The model T Ford was the first automobile that really fit this description. The Apple Computer was the first consumer computer of this type. Mills has not even passed the first test, as far as I know. He has not produced irrefutable proof of existence. Between the first proof of existence and the initial proof of principle devices, all the way up to a mass-produced commercial device, you may have to spend billions of dollars. The first hybrid automobiles were made around 1912. The first practical commercial hybrid automobile was the Toyota Prius, which cost about $1 billion for R&D. Compared to cold fusion this was a minor incremental improvement to an existing technology. I expect the first commercial cold fusion device of any type will also cost about $1 billion, or more. It will cost huge sums just to ensure the thing is perfectly safe. Modern society demands very high levels of assurance that a product is safe before it can be used. We demand that a new product be far safer than the older product it replaces. I expect that self driving automobiles will have to pass far more rigorous safety standards than human driven cars do. This is not rational, but it is what society demands. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov Reactro Type 2 or 3 Thermal Feedback System with Insulation
Axil said [snip] I would like to see Parkhomov add a small amount of insulation in steps to see how the device works over temperature at each level of insulation. That should reveal the transition between type 1 and type 2 operation. I am hoping that it will be possible to obtain a true type 2 device instead of finding that the geometry is not capable of preventing a direct change from type 1 to type 3.[/snip] Axil, Could heat sinking be applied in a similar manner? A long dog bone fueled, powered and with sensors the entire length sitting in a trough of water where one end is fully submerged and the opposite end fully above the water. The interim length would represent an entire matrix of different thermal slew rates – perhaps the old claims of reactors being cooled after use exhibiting life after death by evaporating water in a bucket and even exploding were examples of type 3 run away. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 7:10 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov Reactro Type 2 or 3 Thermal Feedback System with Insulation Remember by using far less input power, a periodic input power cycle with a duty cycle of 25 percent will multiply the 2.5 COP that the Russian system is producing by a factor of 4 or COP equal to 10. The Russian system ran for 7 minutes without power. That is great for COP. On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:47 PM, David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote: A lot depends upon the feedback type, whether 1,2, or 3 which is very design related. A type 1 system is limited in COP to a significant extent according to my simulations. It will be difficult to achieve a net of 6 at best without enough thermal feedback. It is a fine line between a type 2 and type 3 design. If he is able to achieve a consistent type 2 mode then he can run it in either a constant or pulsed manner that you speak of with fine performance. Unfortunately, if it creeps into a type 3 device, then he will loose control of it to a great extent. Whether he uses pulses or constant drive the device will continue to heat up until it self destructs or, if properly designed, reaches a temperature where it latches. This may not be such a bad thing if it latches below the level at which it destructs since the COP will be infinite until some external force comes into play to begin a cool down trajectory. The work being performed by Parkhomov at this time is going to be valuable to all of us in many ways. Rossi must have already explored these modes of operation and is keeping that information secret. I suspect that he intentionally gave the independant testers a type 1 system that demonstrates a modest COP just to prove that his Hotcats work, but not to reveal how well they can be adjusted to work with enough fuel. Remember, the more fuel you insert, the greater will be the positive thermal feedback. I would like to see Parkhomov add a small amount of insulation in steps to see how the device works over temperature at each level of insulation. That should reveal the transition between type 1 and type 2 operation. I am hoping that it will be possible to obtain a true type 2 device instead of finding that the geometry is not capable of preventing a direct change from type 1 to type 3. To achieve a solid type 2 Hotcat, it is necessary for the heat being radiated, convected, and conducted away to overpower the heat being generated before device destruction occurs. And, to make that turnaround in power extraction fast enough may be more difficult than I can hope for. Rossi may yet have plenty of tricks up his sleeve. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> Sent: Sun, Feb 1, 2015 4:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov Reactro Type 2 or 3 Thermal Feedback System with Insulation The Lugano replicators want to run their reactors with constant power input because this is what the Lugano testers had done. The first third party test used periodic input power, the natural mode of Hot-Cat input power drive. The Russian might not get into the burnup condition if he uses periodic input power application. On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote: The latest report from the Alexander Parkhomov reactor testing contains one very important bit of information that should not be overlooked. I had determined that his original device without the insulating blanket was operating as a type 1 positive feedback thermal system. A device operating in that mode is stable regardless of the amount of input drive applied to it in the form of electrical heating. I have simulations that demonstrate this behavior and so far I have not seen data or experimental reports which indicate operation beyond that level of performance. The Hotcat testing by the independent scientists appeared to be restricted to this
