Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Kevin O'Malley]

Radiation will not be seen in the Mills' arc experiment because an arc that
produces nanoparticles will always result in the formation of a SPP BEC
that will neutralize the nuclear reactions that the spark may produce.
***Excellent point.  So the significance of Ed Storms's "cracks" is that
they produce a V-shaped capacitor that generates an arc.  That's the
missing element of Ed's theory, it is the hole in Mills's experiment, it is
the key to moving forward:  The KEY ELEMENT of LENR is the ARC generation.
Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.  When it happens, LENR is far
more likely to ensue.  Inside of such arcs the physics is so twisted that
the formation of 1Dimensional Luttinger Liquid BECs or SPP BECs is well
within supposition.

We need to look through the literature and apply this supposition to see if
it holds.





On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Radiation will not be seen in the Mills' arc experiment because an arc
> that produces nanoparticles will always result in the formation of a SPP
> BEC that will neutralize the nuclear reactions that the spark may produce.
>
> One has to work very hard to avoid BEC formation in spark discharge so
> that  radioactive isotopes are formed and gammas are made to appear.
>
> Ken Shoulders got a patent for the remediation of radioactive isotopes
> through spark discharge. This means that the remediation effect must both
> be real and must have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the patent
> board.
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>  Jones sez:
>>
>>
>>
>> > And yes, there is no doubt that - especially the seam welder – if it
>>
>> > were tested now with a radiation monitor after a few runs, will be shown
>>
>> > to be activated.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Doubt that we will see detail that published … due of course to the NDA.
>>
>>
>>
>> "No doubt", you say. I admire the certainty of your conviction. But
>> then... maybe not. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> I assume you mean radioactivity will be found emanating from the seam
>> welders. How much radioactivity to you speculate has probably accumulated
>> by now? To possibly dangerous levels? Feel free to use your imagination on
>> this one.
>>
>>
>>
>> As I have previously stated, I prefer to stay agnostic on Mills & BLP. My
>> motto continues to be: "Trust but verify." Nothing would please me more
>> than to get to the bottom line on this "hot" trail. If radioactivity is
>> verified - so be it. Maybe CQM will still survive after countless revisions
>> are made, revisions which are sure to come regardless of what Mr. Spot
>> Welder* has to say on the matter. Or maybe CQM will not survive. In either
>> case, hasn't there been a string of revisions happening to standard QM for
>> decades? Aren't we constantly tweaking it to help make the square pegs fit
>> into round holes? If so, seems to me that CQM is in good company.
>>
>>
>>
>> * In no way am I attempt to infer that the distinguished Mr. Jones is Mr.
>> Spot Welder disguised in a lab coat.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>>
>> svjart.orionworks.com
>>
>> zazzle.com/orionworks
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Kevin O'Malley]

That's news to me.  Can you please provide some documentation?  This would
be an experiment that normal people could perform.


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> "No doubt", you say. I admire the certainty of your
> conviction. But then... maybe not. ;-)
>
> Transmutation is turning up in arc welders at 140 amps, so why not 10,000?
> I
> would agree that the radioactivity could be incidental, but even incidental
> is a huge “cred” problem for Mills. Not that he has much left. He has
> backed
> himself into the “none” corner… and he is most likely wrong… yet again.
>
> http://www.aw-el.com/weld.htm
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Kevin O'Malley]

This is actually a significant paper.  The author discovered NEGATIVE
Coulomb drag resistance.

Discovery of negative one-dimensional Coulomb drag occurring at
high electronic density in the wires


Results concerning the negative Coulomb drag were published as original
work with DL appearing as the rst author (D. Laroche,
et al.
, Nature
Nanotechnol.
6
, 793 (2011).).



However, recent obser-
vation of an unpredicted low-density negative one-dimensional Coulomb drag
signal [19] shows that our understanding of one-dimensional systems, and
espe-
cially of Coulomb drag between one-dimensional systems, is far from complete





First, we have discovered a novel high-
density negative Coulomb drag signal at a speci c 1D subband occupancy in
the wires, in addition to the already reported low-density negative Coulomb
drag signal.




An additional contribution to Coulomb drag
arises from an electron-hole asymmetry in the density of state (and hence a
di erent number of electrons and holes), yielding to a negative Coulomb drag
signal





etc...





On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> A google search for "relative Luttinger Liquid" produces only 1 hit, a PhD
> thesis worth looking at, perhaps applicable to LENR.
>
> Coulomb Drag in Vertically-Integrated
> One-Dimensional Quantum Wires
>
> http://gervaislab.mcgill.ca/Laroche_PhD_Thesis.pdf
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> Okay, then that introduces an interesting concept that I have not seen in
>> the literature.  I keep seeing it postulated here on Vortex that there's a
>> relativity-based theory that explains it.  I do not understand the theory
>> so I haven't spent the cycles to click through and figure it out.
>>
>> But here we have the possibility of a "relative" Luttinger Liquid.  I was
>> thinking that the 1 dimensional Luttinger Liquid pushes into a 1D BEC at
>> certain ABSOLUTE temperatures.  But what if Luttinger Liquids form at
>> RELATIVE temperatures?  Here in this case, it would be when a spark rapidly
>> declines from 20,000C down to 10,000C.  Even though the ABSolute
>> temperature is momentarily high, the field of matter has been exposed to a
>> RELative rapid temperature decrease.   This adds a further complication to
>> the formation of Luttinger Liquids and BECs.
>>
>> I have no idea how to pursue if anyone has investigated this.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Cools is a relative term. The temperature of a spark can reach about
>>> 20,000C.  For example, Palladium vaporizes above 3000C so nanoparticle of
>>> palladium will start to form just under that very high  temperature. Water
>>> will always produce nanoparticles when exposed to a spark.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> wrote:
>>>



 On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> A spark produces a plasma, whenever a plasma cools as it must
> eventually do, at a minimum, it produces nanoparticles out of the 
> vaporized
> electrode material that carried the spark..
>
 ***When a plasma COOLs  That is utterly significant.  It is only
 under "relatively cool" conditions that a BEC forms.  So when the plasma
 cools, it forms a (linear) BEC, atoms come together and fuse sometimes and
 when they do, by the nature of BECs, their output energy is dissipated by
 1/N the number of atoms involved in the BEC.

 On top of that, the spark environment becomes a (linear) accelerator,
 pushing particles such as protons straight into the opposing walls of the
 crack of the metal matrix, thereby generating transmutations, fission,
 nuclear heat from other products.  Perhaps it's even an asymmetrical thrust
 capacitor, as described upthread.  Think about it: A v-shaped "crack" is
 very similar to a capacitor in certain dimensions, and at the extremes of
 those dimensions you'd see very different behavior.

 Ed Storms wanted to move the discussion out from the interior of metal
 hydrydes into the surface "where the laws of conservation of energy no
 longer apply".  But cracks are a weak representation of "laws of Physics"
 no longer applying:  The sparks ACROSS such cracks would be a perfect
 candidate for "weird physics" and "laws of conservation of energy" no
 longer applying, because plasma physics is incredibly weird to begin with.


> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf
>>>
>>> Here is what cavitation is producing.   These are what Ken Shoulders
>>> also produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce
>>> cavitation. Only cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can
>>> be produced.
>>>
>> ***This strikes me as i

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Kevin O'Malley]

A google search for "relative Luttinger Liquid" produces only 1 hit, a PhD
thesis worth looking at, perhaps applicable to LENR.

Coulomb Drag in Vertically-Integrated
One-Dimensional Quantum Wires

http://gervaislab.mcgill.ca/Laroche_PhD_Thesis.pdf


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Okay, then that introduces an interesting concept that I have not seen in
> the literature.  I keep seeing it postulated here on Vortex that there's a
> relativity-based theory that explains it.  I do not understand the theory
> so I haven't spent the cycles to click through and figure it out.
>
> But here we have the possibility of a "relative" Luttinger Liquid.  I was
> thinking that the 1 dimensional Luttinger Liquid pushes into a 1D BEC at
> certain ABSOLUTE temperatures.  But what if Luttinger Liquids form at
> RELATIVE temperatures?  Here in this case, it would be when a spark rapidly
> declines from 20,000C down to 10,000C.  Even though the ABSolute
> temperature is momentarily high, the field of matter has been exposed to a
> RELative rapid temperature decrease.   This adds a further complication to
> the formation of Luttinger Liquids and BECs.
>
> I have no idea how to pursue if anyone has investigated this.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Cools is a relative term. The temperature of a spark can reach about
>> 20,000C.  For example, Palladium vaporizes above 3000C so nanoparticle of
>> palladium will start to form just under that very high  temperature. Water
>> will always produce nanoparticles when exposed to a spark.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 A spark produces a plasma, whenever a plasma cools as it must
 eventually do, at a minimum, it produces nanoparticles out of the vaporized
 electrode material that carried the spark..

>>> ***When a plasma COOLs  That is utterly significant.  It is only
>>> under "relatively cool" conditions that a BEC forms.  So when the plasma
>>> cools, it forms a (linear) BEC, atoms come together and fuse sometimes and
>>> when they do, by the nature of BECs, their output energy is dissipated by
>>> 1/N the number of atoms involved in the BEC.
>>>
>>> On top of that, the spark environment becomes a (linear) accelerator,
>>> pushing particles such as protons straight into the opposing walls of the
>>> crack of the metal matrix, thereby generating transmutations, fission,
>>> nuclear heat from other products.  Perhaps it's even an asymmetrical thrust
>>> capacitor, as described upthread.  Think about it: A v-shaped "crack" is
>>> very similar to a capacitor in certain dimensions, and at the extremes of
>>> those dimensions you'd see very different behavior.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms wanted to move the discussion out from the interior of metal
>>> hydrydes into the surface "where the laws of conservation of energy no
>>> longer apply".  But cracks are a weak representation of "laws of Physics"
>>> no longer applying:  The sparks ACROSS such cracks would be a perfect
>>> candidate for "weird physics" and "laws of conservation of energy" no
>>> longer applying, because plasma physics is incredibly weird to begin with.
>>>
>>>
 On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
 wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf
>>
>> Here is what cavitation is producing.   These are what Ken Shoulders
>> also produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce
>> cavitation. Only cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can
>> be produced.
>>
> ***This strikes me as incredibly important because we've narrowed down
> the focus of discussion to sparks, BECs, gamma ray production and LENR.
> HOW is it that sparks in water always produce cavitation?  Can a linear 
> BEC
> form in gas simpler than in water?  Isn't it possible for a spark to form 
> a
> Luttinger Liquid linear BEC?  And consider the endpoints of such a
> phenomenon:  at each end would be a few microns of solid Ni or Pd
> encapsulating a linear formation of H or D atoms!  The reason it's so hard
> to get our heads around it is that there are 2 kinds of phenomena
> connecting to each other:  A 1dimensional Luttinger Liquid of atoms
> embedded within a matrix connected to a BEC forming inside of a spark
> across (Ed Storms's utterly important) crack or even just a "sphericule".
> The TRANSITION between these 2 uncommon physical forms is completely 
> beyond
> our grasp to describe.
>
>
>
>> Sparks in a gas do not produce gamma because the spark produces
>> nanoparticle aggregations  in which a BEC is carried.
>>
> ***Okay... where do these nanoparticle aggregations come from?  I've
> never heard of them before.  Wh

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Kevin O'Malley]

Okay, then that introduces an interesting concept that I have not seen in
the literature.  I keep seeing it postulated here on Vortex that there's a
relativity-based theory that explains it.  I do not understand the theory
so I haven't spent the cycles to click through and figure it out.

But here we have the possibility of a "relative" Luttinger Liquid.  I was
thinking that the 1 dimensional Luttinger Liquid pushes into a 1D BEC at
certain ABSOLUTE temperatures.  But what if Luttinger Liquids form at
RELATIVE temperatures?  Here in this case, it would be when a spark rapidly
declines from 20,000C down to 10,000C.  Even though the ABSolute
temperature is momentarily high, the field of matter has been exposed to a
RELative rapid temperature decrease.   This adds a further complication to
the formation of Luttinger Liquids and BECs.

I have no idea how to pursue if anyone has investigated this.


On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Cools is a relative term. The temperature of a spark can reach about
> 20,000C.  For example, Palladium vaporizes above 3000C so nanoparticle of
> palladium will start to form just under that very high  temperature. Water
> will always produce nanoparticles when exposed to a spark.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> A spark produces a plasma, whenever a plasma cools as it must eventually
>>> do, at a minimum, it produces nanoparticles out of the vaporized electrode
>>> material that carried the spark..
>>>
>> ***When a plasma COOLs  That is utterly significant.  It is only
>> under "relatively cool" conditions that a BEC forms.  So when the plasma
>> cools, it forms a (linear) BEC, atoms come together and fuse sometimes and
>> when they do, by the nature of BECs, their output energy is dissipated by
>> 1/N the number of atoms involved in the BEC.
>>
>> On top of that, the spark environment becomes a (linear) accelerator,
>> pushing particles such as protons straight into the opposing walls of the
>> crack of the metal matrix, thereby generating transmutations, fission,
>> nuclear heat from other products.  Perhaps it's even an asymmetrical thrust
>> capacitor, as described upthread.  Think about it: A v-shaped "crack" is
>> very similar to a capacitor in certain dimensions, and at the extremes of
>> those dimensions you'd see very different behavior.
>>
>> Ed Storms wanted to move the discussion out from the interior of metal
>> hydrydes into the surface "where the laws of conservation of energy no
>> longer apply".  But cracks are a weak representation of "laws of Physics"
>> no longer applying:  The sparks ACROSS such cracks would be a perfect
>> candidate for "weird physics" and "laws of conservation of energy" no
>> longer applying, because plasma physics is incredibly weird to begin with.
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> wrote:
>>>



 On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf
>
> Here is what cavitation is producing.   These are what Ken Shoulders
> also produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce
> cavitation. Only cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can
> be produced.
>
 ***This strikes me as incredibly important because we've narrowed down
 the focus of discussion to sparks, BECs, gamma ray production and LENR.
 HOW is it that sparks in water always produce cavitation?  Can a linear BEC
 form in gas simpler than in water?  Isn't it possible for a spark to form a
 Luttinger Liquid linear BEC?  And consider the endpoints of such a
 phenomenon:  at each end would be a few microns of solid Ni or Pd
 encapsulating a linear formation of H or D atoms!  The reason it's so hard
 to get our heads around it is that there are 2 kinds of phenomena
 connecting to each other:  A 1dimensional Luttinger Liquid of atoms
 embedded within a matrix connected to a BEC forming inside of a spark
 across (Ed Storms's utterly important) crack or even just a "sphericule".
 The TRANSITION between these 2 uncommon physical forms is completely beyond
 our grasp to describe.



> Sparks in a gas do not produce gamma because the spark produces
> nanoparticle aggregations  in which a BEC is carried.
>
 ***Okay... where do these nanoparticle aggregations come from?  I've
 never heard of them before.  What are they?



>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Roarty, Francis X]

Axil, the V geometry of cracks may even be a better embodiment for a thrust 
capacitor in terms of bias to a specific axis.  Previous experiments by Italian 
researchers  to “stack” Casimir cavities have failed but I don’t think the 
orientation of the cavities was maintained such that stacking may have 
ultimately led to cancellation. The  recent thread about NASA validation of the 
impossible EM drive may be telling us we need to mix our metaphors.. employ 
dual and triple methods in a quest for synergy that escapes the early limits 
that nature so far has deemed to impose upon us. Jones suggestion of magnetic 
fields, Shawyers use of macro geometry and microwave energy, nanopowders with 
heat and physical geometry to induce resonance of phonons on one scale and 
vacuum suppression on another.. My position is that we have enough information 
of diverse methods impinging on these results that we should combine those 
methods in a sort of wildcat survey to flesh out a more robust combination from 
which to compare effects.
Fran


From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 2:50 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD 
systems?

Cools is a relative term. The temperature of a spark can reach about 20,000C.  
For example, Palladium vaporizes above 3000C so nanoparticle of palladium will 
start to form just under that very high  temperature. Water will always produce 
nanoparticles when exposed to a spark.

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Axil Axil 
mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
A spark produces a plasma, whenever a plasma cools as it must eventually do, at 
a minimum, it produces nanoparticles out of the vaporized electrode material 
that carried the spark..
***When a plasma COOLs  That is utterly significant.  It is only under 
"relatively cool" conditions that a BEC forms.  So when the plasma cools, it 
forms a (linear) BEC, atoms come together and fuse sometimes and when they do, 
by the nature of BECs, their output energy is dissipated by 1/N the number of 
atoms involved in the BEC.
On top of that, the spark environment becomes a (linear) accelerator, pushing 
particles such as protons straight into the opposing walls of the crack of the 
metal matrix, thereby generating transmutations, fission, nuclear heat from 
other products.  Perhaps it's even an asymmetrical thrust capacitor, as 
described upthread.  Think about it: A v-shaped "crack" is very similar to a 
capacitor in certain dimensions, and at the extremes of those dimensions you'd 
see very different behavior.
Ed Storms wanted to move the discussion out from the interior of metal hydrydes 
into the surface "where the laws of conservation of energy no longer apply".  
But cracks are a weak representation of "laws of Physics" no longer applying:  
The sparks ACROSS such cracks would be a perfect candidate for "weird physics" 
and "laws of conservation of energy" no longer applying, because plasma physics 
is incredibly weird to begin with.


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil 
mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

Here is what cavitation is producing.   These are what Ken Shoulders also 
produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce cavitation. Only 
cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can be produced.
***This strikes me as incredibly important because we've narrowed down the 
focus of discussion to sparks, BECs, gamma ray production and LENR.  HOW is it 
that sparks in water always produce cavitation?  Can a linear BEC form in gas 
simpler than in water?  Isn't it possible for a spark to form a Luttinger 
Liquid linear BEC?  And consider the endpoints of such a phenomenon:  at each 
end would be a few microns of solid Ni or Pd encapsulating a linear formation 
of H or D atoms!  The reason it's so hard to get our heads around it is that 
there are 2 kinds of phenomena connecting to each other:  A 1dimensional 
Luttinger Liquid of atoms embedded within a matrix connected to a BEC forming 
inside of a spark across (Ed Storms's utterly important) crack or even just a 
"sphericule".  The TRANSITION between these 2 uncommon physical forms is 
completely beyond our grasp to describe.


Sparks in a gas do not produce gamma because the spark produces nanoparticle 
aggregations  in which a BEC is carried.
***Okay... where do these nanoparticle aggregations come from?  I've never 
heard of them before.  What are they?

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Axil Axil]

Cools is a relative term. The temperature of a spark can reach about
20,000C.  For example, Palladium vaporizes above 3000C so nanoparticle of
palladium will start to form just under that very high  temperature. Water
will always produce nanoparticles when exposed to a spark.


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> A spark produces a plasma, whenever a plasma cools as it must eventually
>> do, at a minimum, it produces nanoparticles out of the vaporized electrode
>> material that carried the spark..
>>
> ***When a plasma COOLs  That is utterly significant.  It is only under
> "relatively cool" conditions that a BEC forms.  So when the plasma cools,
> it forms a (linear) BEC, atoms come together and fuse sometimes and when
> they do, by the nature of BECs, their output energy is dissipated by 1/N
> the number of atoms involved in the BEC.
>
> On top of that, the spark environment becomes a (linear) accelerator,
> pushing particles such as protons straight into the opposing walls of the
> crack of the metal matrix, thereby generating transmutations, fission,
> nuclear heat from other products.  Perhaps it's even an asymmetrical thrust
> capacitor, as described upthread.  Think about it: A v-shaped "crack" is
> very similar to a capacitor in certain dimensions, and at the extremes of
> those dimensions you'd see very different behavior.
>
> Ed Storms wanted to move the discussion out from the interior of metal
> hydrydes into the surface "where the laws of conservation of energy no
> longer apply".  But cracks are a weak representation of "laws of Physics"
> no longer applying:  The sparks ACROSS such cracks would be a perfect
> candidate for "weird physics" and "laws of conservation of energy" no
> longer applying, because plasma physics is incredibly weird to begin with.
>
>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

 Here is what cavitation is producing.   These are what Ken Shoulders
 also produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce
 cavitation. Only cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can
 be produced.

>>> ***This strikes me as incredibly important because we've narrowed down
>>> the focus of discussion to sparks, BECs, gamma ray production and LENR.
>>> HOW is it that sparks in water always produce cavitation?  Can a linear BEC
>>> form in gas simpler than in water?  Isn't it possible for a spark to form a
>>> Luttinger Liquid linear BEC?  And consider the endpoints of such a
>>> phenomenon:  at each end would be a few microns of solid Ni or Pd
>>> encapsulating a linear formation of H or D atoms!  The reason it's so hard
>>> to get our heads around it is that there are 2 kinds of phenomena
>>> connecting to each other:  A 1dimensional Luttinger Liquid of atoms
>>> embedded within a matrix connected to a BEC forming inside of a spark
>>> across (Ed Storms's utterly important) crack or even just a "sphericule".
>>> The TRANSITION between these 2 uncommon physical forms is completely beyond
>>> our grasp to describe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Sparks in a gas do not produce gamma because the spark produces
 nanoparticle aggregations  in which a BEC is carried.

>>> ***Okay... where do these nanoparticle aggregations come from?  I've
>>> never heard of them before.  What are they?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> A spark produces a plasma, whenever a plasma cools as it must eventually
> do, at a minimum, it produces nanoparticles out of the vaporized electrode
> material that carried the spark..
>
***When a plasma COOLs  That is utterly significant.  It is only under
"relatively cool" conditions that a BEC forms.  So when the plasma cools,
it forms a (linear) BEC, atoms come together and fuse sometimes and when
they do, by the nature of BECs, their output energy is dissipated by 1/N
the number of atoms involved in the BEC.

On top of that, the spark environment becomes a (linear) accelerator,
pushing particles such as protons straight into the opposing walls of the
crack of the metal matrix, thereby generating transmutations, fission,
nuclear heat from other products.  Perhaps it's even an asymmetrical thrust
capacitor, as described upthread.  Think about it: A v-shaped "crack" is
very similar to a capacitor in certain dimensions, and at the extremes of
those dimensions you'd see very different behavior.

Ed Storms wanted to move the discussion out from the interior of metal
hydrydes into the surface "where the laws of conservation of energy no
longer apply".  But cracks are a weak representation of "laws of Physics"
no longer applying:  The sparks ACROSS such cracks would be a perfect
candidate for "weird physics" and "laws of conservation of energy" no
longer applying, because plasma physics is incredibly weird to begin with.


> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf
>>>
>>> Here is what cavitation is producing.   These are what Ken Shoulders
>>> also produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce
>>> cavitation. Only cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can
>>> be produced.
>>>
>> ***This strikes me as incredibly important because we've narrowed down
>> the focus of discussion to sparks, BECs, gamma ray production and LENR.
>> HOW is it that sparks in water always produce cavitation?  Can a linear BEC
>> form in gas simpler than in water?  Isn't it possible for a spark to form a
>> Luttinger Liquid linear BEC?  And consider the endpoints of such a
>> phenomenon:  at each end would be a few microns of solid Ni or Pd
>> encapsulating a linear formation of H or D atoms!  The reason it's so hard
>> to get our heads around it is that there are 2 kinds of phenomena
>> connecting to each other:  A 1dimensional Luttinger Liquid of atoms
>> embedded within a matrix connected to a BEC forming inside of a spark
>> across (Ed Storms's utterly important) crack or even just a "sphericule".
>> The TRANSITION between these 2 uncommon physical forms is completely beyond
>> our grasp to describe.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sparks in a gas do not produce gamma because the spark produces
>>> nanoparticle aggregations  in which a BEC is carried.
>>>
>> ***Okay... where do these nanoparticle aggregations come from?  I've
>> never heard of them before.  What are they?
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Axil Axil]

A spark produces a plasma, whenever a plasma cools as it must eventually
do, at a minimum, it produces nanoparticles out of the vaporized electrode
material that carried the spark..


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf
>>
>> Here is what cavitation is producing.   These are what Ken Shoulders also
>> produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce cavitation.
>> Only cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can be produced.
>>
> ***This strikes me as incredibly important because we've narrowed down the
> focus of discussion to sparks, BECs, gamma ray production and LENR.  HOW is
> it that sparks in water always produce cavitation?  Can a linear BEC form
> in gas simpler than in water?  Isn't it possible for a spark to form a
> Luttinger Liquid linear BEC?  And consider the endpoints of such a
> phenomenon:  at each end would be a few microns of solid Ni or Pd
> encapsulating a linear formation of H or D atoms!  The reason it's so hard
> to get our heads around it is that there are 2 kinds of phenomena
> connecting to each other:  A 1dimensional Luttinger Liquid of atoms
> embedded within a matrix connected to a BEC forming inside of a spark
> across (Ed Storms's utterly important) crack or even just a "sphericule".
> The TRANSITION between these 2 uncommon physical forms is completely beyond
> our grasp to describe.
>
>
>
>> Sparks in a gas do not produce gamma because the spark produces
>> nanoparticle aggregations  in which a BEC is carried.
>>
> ***Okay... where do these nanoparticle aggregations come from?  I've never
> heard of them before.  What are they?
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf
>
> Here is what cavitation is producing.   These are what Ken Shoulders also
> produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce cavitation.
> Only cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can be produced.
>
***This strikes me as incredibly important because we've narrowed down the
focus of discussion to sparks, BECs, gamma ray production and LENR.  HOW is
it that sparks in water always produce cavitation?  Can a linear BEC form
in gas simpler than in water?  Isn't it possible for a spark to form a
Luttinger Liquid linear BEC?  And consider the endpoints of such a
phenomenon:  at each end would be a few microns of solid Ni or Pd
encapsulating a linear formation of H or D atoms!  The reason it's so hard
to get our heads around it is that there are 2 kinds of phenomena
connecting to each other:  A 1dimensional Luttinger Liquid of atoms
embedded within a matrix connected to a BEC forming inside of a spark
across (Ed Storms's utterly important) crack or even just a "sphericule".
The TRANSITION between these 2 uncommon physical forms is completely beyond
our grasp to describe.



> Sparks in a gas do not produce gamma because the spark produces
> nanoparticle aggregations  in which a BEC is carried.
>
***Okay... where do these nanoparticle aggregations come from?  I've never
heard of them before.  What are they?

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Peter Gluck]

Thank you guys for the real stories of ethical problems
in professional life/ Actually it is a great grey area between the good and
evil, honest and dishonest, the immediately useful -harming on long term and
its opposite. I will  publish just now an essay about such problems,
protection against threats for the E-cat.
Re Randy in his case it is valid the old saying of Edison about methods
that do not work. He has to solve an almost impossible technological
problem.
The best we can do, I think is to wish him success.
Peter


On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Quantum Mechanics is not well developed in relation to the explanations
> that it can provide to explain all the vast array of weird things that
> seem to be occurring at and below the atomic level.
>
> Once LENR is taken seriously, I expect it to be a gold mine for research
> into quantum weirdness in which LENR is so blessed.
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>  Axil,
>>
>>
>>
>> You seem to be implying that CQM is essentially religion. You also seem
>> to be implying that BLP is run by the equivalent of another L. Ron Hubbard.
>> It seems to me that one might be able to imply that the same thing has
>> already happened to how standard quantum mechanics seems to be both revered
>> and protected by some of its own cult members. Look at what Wikipedia has
>> had to say about BLP.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will grant you that I do see the beginnings of a cult following
>> gestating nicely over at the SCP. And that worries me. But I wouldn't pin
>> such idiocy at Dr. Mills foot. He strikes me as caring less about being
>> perceived as a cult leader. I think "the doctor" is far more interested in
>> vindicating his CQM theory. If one therefore wants to imply that CQM is Dr.
>> Mills true religion... yes I will not argue the finer points of that, but
>> only to a point. The last time I looked at Dr. Mills' "bible" ...My
>> goodness, I've never seen so many mathematical equations. Long protracted
>> equations. Hey! Where's all the "knowing" and all the "begetting" that
>> should be happening within the pages of a real bible. I see no sacrifices
>> nor any god fearing smoteing going on either. It's just a coincidence that
>> Dr. Mills might seem to bare a slight resemblance to Charlton Heston!
>> Actually, I think Dr. MIlls' text is rather dry. Quite boring if you ask me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pin the folly of wanting to become a cult follower on the stupidity and
>> naivety of the individuals who simply want to become cult follower.
>>
>>
>>
>> Look, I realize I'm not an expert on most matters pertaining to quantum
>> physics. All I can say is that... well, let me put it this way: I find it
>> tantalizing that a theory that some on this discussion group seem to feel
>> is actually a religion attempting to be cloak its true nature under the
>> camouflage of a laboratory coat was nevertheless capable of predicting the
>> accelerated expansion of the universe before astronomy had proven this was
>> actually happening. I'm under the impression that standard quantum
>> mechanics, as it is currently understood, didn't seem have much to say on
>> the matter, for or against.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok... I'm done for the night. Back to the beehive tomorrow.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>>
>> svjart.orionworks.com
>>
>> zazzle.com/orionworks
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Axil Axil]

Quantum Mechanics is not well developed in relation to the explanations
that it can provide to explain all the vast array of weird things that seem
to be occurring at and below the atomic level.

Once LENR is taken seriously, I expect it to be a gold mine for research
into quantum weirdness in which LENR is so blessed.


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  Axil,
>
>
>
> You seem to be implying that CQM is essentially religion. You also seem to
> be implying that BLP is run by the equivalent of another L. Ron Hubbard. It
> seems to me that one might be able to imply that the same thing has already
> happened to how standard quantum mechanics seems to be both revered and
> protected by some of its own cult members. Look at what Wikipedia has had
> to say about BLP.
>
>
>
> I will grant you that I do see the beginnings of a cult following
> gestating nicely over at the SCP. And that worries me. But I wouldn't pin
> such idiocy at Dr. Mills foot. He strikes me as caring less about being
> perceived as a cult leader. I think "the doctor" is far more interested in
> vindicating his CQM theory. If one therefore wants to imply that CQM is Dr.
> Mills true religion... yes I will not argue the finer points of that, but
> only to a point. The last time I looked at Dr. Mills' "bible" ...My
> goodness, I've never seen so many mathematical equations. Long protracted
> equations. Hey! Where's all the "knowing" and all the "begetting" that
> should be happening within the pages of a real bible. I see no sacrifices
> nor any god fearing smoteing going on either. It's just a coincidence that
> Dr. Mills might seem to bare a slight resemblance to Charlton Heston!
> Actually, I think Dr. MIlls' text is rather dry. Quite boring if you ask me.
>
>
>
> Pin the folly of wanting to become a cult follower on the stupidity and
> naivety of the individuals who simply want to become cult follower.
>
>
>
> Look, I realize I'm not an expert on most matters pertaining to quantum
> physics. All I can say is that... well, let me put it this way: I find it
> tantalizing that a theory that some on this discussion group seem to feel
> is actually a religion attempting to be cloak its true nature under the
> camouflage of a laboratory coat was nevertheless capable of predicting the
> accelerated expansion of the universe before astronomy had proven this was
> actually happening. I'm under the impression that standard quantum
> mechanics, as it is currently understood, didn't seem have much to say on
> the matter, for or against.
>
>
>
> Ok... I'm done for the night. Back to the beehive tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Axil Axil]

Radiation will not be seen in the Mills' arc experiment because an arc that
produces nanoparticles will always result in the formation of a SPP BEC
that will neutralize the nuclear reactions that the spark may produce.

One has to work very hard to avoid BEC formation in spark discharge so that
 radioactive isotopes are formed and gammas are made to appear.

Ken Shoulders got a patent for the remediation of radioactive isotopes
through spark discharge. This means that the remediation effect must both
be real and must have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the patent
board.


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  Jones sez:
>
>
>
> > And yes, there is no doubt that - especially the seam welder – if it
>
> > were tested now with a radiation monitor after a few runs, will be shown
>
> > to be activated.
>
> >
>
> > Doubt that we will see detail that published … due of course to the NDA.
>
>
>
> "No doubt", you say. I admire the certainty of your conviction. But
> then... maybe not. ;-)
>
>
>
> I assume you mean radioactivity will be found emanating from the seam
> welders. How much radioactivity to you speculate has probably accumulated
> by now? To possibly dangerous levels? Feel free to use your imagination on
> this one.
>
>
>
> As I have previously stated, I prefer to stay agnostic on Mills & BLP. My
> motto continues to be: "Trust but verify." Nothing would please me more
> than to get to the bottom line on this "hot" trail. If radioactivity is
> verified - so be it. Maybe CQM will still survive after countless revisions
> are made, revisions which are sure to come regardless of what Mr. Spot
> Welder* has to say on the matter. Or maybe CQM will not survive. In either
> case, hasn't there been a string of revisions happening to standard QM for
> decades? Aren't we constantly tweaking it to help make the square pegs fit
> into round holes? If so, seems to me that CQM is in good company.
>
>
>
> * In no way am I attempt to infer that the distinguished Mr. Jones is Mr.
> Spot Welder disguised in a lab coat.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

I find it difficult to understand a situation where a multi-million dollar
> company can exist and prosper for a quarter century without the development
> of a single commercially viable product...
>

Here in California some startups will start out with a round of seed
funding.  They'll go along for a year, two or three and then do some soul
searching, at which point they might "pivot," i.e., take a different tack
or even a new direction.  Typically a startup will not pivot more than
once; possibly they'll pivot twice over the years.  In most cases, within
four years, say, they'll either have established a viable business selling
a real product, or at least have built a real product that is useful to
people, even if it does not yet make money (e.g., Twitter).  The fact that
BLP have pivoted several times over a period of 25 years and keep on going
strongly suggests that they're working under a different set of pressures
than a typical startup, even one that is research-oriented.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Jones Beene]

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 

"No doubt", you say. I admire the certainty of your
conviction. But then... maybe not. ;-)

Transmutation is turning up in arc welders at 140 amps, so why not 10,000? I
would agree that the radioactivity could be incidental, but even incidental
is a huge “cred” problem for Mills. Not that he has much left. He has backed
himself into the “none” corner… and he is most likely wrong… yet again.

http://www.aw-el.com/weld.htm



<>

RE: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Axil,

 

You seem to be implying that CQM is essentially religion. You also seem to be 
implying that BLP is run by the equivalent of another L. Ron Hubbard. It seems 
to me that one might be able to imply that the same thing has already happened 
to how standard quantum mechanics seems to be both revered and protected by 
some of its own cult members. Look at what Wikipedia has had to say about BLP.

 

I will grant you that I do see the beginnings of a cult following gestating 
nicely over at the SCP. And that worries me. But I wouldn't pin such idiocy at 
Dr. Mills foot. He strikes me as caring less about being perceived as a cult 
leader. I think "the doctor" is far more interested in vindicating his CQM 
theory. If one therefore wants to imply that CQM is Dr. Mills true religion... 
yes I will not argue the finer points of that, but only to a point. The last 
time I looked at Dr. Mills' "bible" ...My goodness, I've never seen so many 
mathematical equations. Long protracted equations. Hey! Where's all the 
"knowing" and all the "begetting" that should be happening within the pages of 
a real bible. I see no sacrifices nor any god fearing smoteing going on either. 
It's just a coincidence that Dr. Mills might seem to bare a slight resemblance 
to Charlton Heston! Actually, I think Dr. MIlls' text is rather dry. Quite 
boring if you ask me.

 

Pin the folly of wanting to become a cult follower on the stupidity and naivety 
of the individuals who simply want to become cult follower.

 

Look, I realize I'm not an expert on most matters pertaining to quantum 
physics. All I can say is that... well, let me put it this way: I find it 
tantalizing that a theory that some on this discussion group seem to feel is 
actually a religion attempting to be cloak its true nature under the camouflage 
of a laboratory coat was nevertheless capable of predicting the accelerated 
expansion of the universe before astronomy had proven this was actually 
happening. I'm under the impression that standard quantum mechanics, as it is 
currently understood, didn't seem have much to say on the matter, for or 
against.

 

Ok... I'm done for the night. Back to the beehive tomorrow.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks 

 

RE: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Jones sez:

 

> And yes, there is no doubt that - especially the seam welder – if it

> were tested now with a radiation monitor after a few runs, will be shown

> to be activated. 

> 

> Doubt that we will see detail that published … due of course to the NDA.

 

"No doubt", you say. I admire the certainty of your conviction. But then... 
maybe not. ;-)

 

I assume you mean radioactivity will be found emanating from the seam welders. 
How much radioactivity to you speculate has probably accumulated by now? To 
possibly dangerous levels? Feel free to use your imagination on this one.

 

As I have previously stated, I prefer to stay agnostic on Mills & BLP. My motto 
continues to be: "Trust but verify." Nothing would please me more than to get 
to the bottom line on this "hot" trail. If radioactivity is verified - so be 
it. Maybe CQM will still survive after countless revisions are made, revisions 
which are sure to come regardless of what Mr. Spot Welder* has to say on the 
matter. Or maybe CQM will not survive. In either case, hasn't there been a 
string of revisions happening to standard QM for decades? Aren't we constantly 
tweaking it to help make the square pegs fit into round holes? If so, seems to 
me that CQM is in good company.

 

* In no way am I attempt to infer that the distinguished Mr. Jones is Mr. Spot 
Welder disguised in a lab coat.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Jones Beene]

LOL. Mills is not a shyster per se, since he is a brilliant guy and has made a 
big impression on the theoretical end with many smart people. Mills’ problem is 
in taking an intuitive idea and making it work in the real world. I was a big 
fan for a while, but after a certain level of accumulated disappointment, you 
have to face the fact that he would be more productive as an advisor to Rossi 
or Mizuno.

 

And BTW Kevin – you must attend a church near Stanford, given that at least 
three parishioners have heard of Randell Mills. Most unusual anywhere else 
outside of Joisey. Probably Condi’s favorite, Menlo Pres.

 

I should add that some fool on one of the forums was bragging that he did not 
have to sign an NDA to attend the earlier demo, but it turns out on closer 
inspection that he had already signed one in the past which was still binding. 

 

And yes, there is no doubt that - especially the seam welder – if it were 
tested now with a radiation monitor after a few runs, will be shown to be 
activated. 

 

Doubt that we will see detail that published … due of course to the NDA.

 

From: Kevin O'Malley 

 

You seem to be implying that Dr. Mills is deliberately behaving in a dishonest 
way.

***I didn't pay much attention to Dr. Mills because he had a long string of 
failures but a brilliant career as a theoretician and an ability to attract 
investors.  He's a shyster who's smarter than me and can pull money out of my 
pocket.  

Then  I ran into someone at my church who actually wrote a paper for him
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t 

 
&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacklightpower.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fpapers%2FPayneOHRadical.pdf&ei=vdbeU8aILKbiigL7vYGIBg&usg=AFQjCNEN5eDr2ysFw2Umqm-JFk2oXHpeYA&sig2=nG5qbX99YQZLTomGsu5YCg

and another person at my church who was a Harvard PhD Physics candidate until 
he decided he wanted to make money and went into microprocessor architecture.  
He also thinks Mills's theory is coherent.  

But here on Vortex-L we have Jones Beene, who puts together a convincing case 
of failure after failure and now the gloom-gloom-gloomy prospect that anyone 
who attends one of Dr. Mills's demonstrations must sign an NDA.  In particular, 
the NDA is aimed at not disclosing any indications of Nuclear Ash, which would 
be devastating to his theory.  

so I await the day when nuclear ash is associated with any of these CQM 
experiments tthat Dr. Mills puts together.  

I like the simplicity of Jones Beene's argument.

 

 

Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:

> In short order, my colleague lost his job, was banned, and was never rehired. 
> As a real word

 

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Axil Axil]

I find it difficult to understand a situation where a multi-million dollar
company can exist and prosper for a quarter century without the development
of a single commercially viable product...unless it is the seat of a
technological religion that takes on the guise of a company.

Such a religion has its own bible, messiah, following of the faithful, evil
angles, martyrs, apostles creed, and the road of grace to paradise. What is
central to such an community of faith is the preservation of that faith and
the proselytizing to enhance its membership.

There is nothing wrong with religion, it is an ancient an long venerated
tradition in human history, but it is not the function or the expectation
of religion to advance the understanding of the objective universe.


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  From Axil:
>
>
>
> > In short order, my colleague lost his job, was banned, and was never
> rehired. As a real word
>
> > prerogative and a practical life lessen, when staying in business and
> making money is more
>
> > important than dispensing the truth, the pursuit of truth suffers.
>
>
>
> FWIW:
>
>
>
> Late last year I was deeply involved in an attempt to upgrade our new high
> volume scanning equipment to a new software version. There had been endless
> delays that seemed to hamper our efforts to complete the upgrade process.
> The truth of the matter, the new software upgrade was a POS. At one
> meeting, a meeting which had not been attended by my new supervisor, a new
> supervisor who had been hired only a few months prior, I tried to dispense
> some "truth" of the matter to some of the users who used the scanning
> software. The users already knew the software was a POS. We ALL knew the
> software was a POS. Nevertheless, I asked the user supervisor to give us...
> give me additional time to work out the bugs in the upgrade process.
> However in order to accomplish this we needed to step back and continue
> using current software version for a little while longer. Unfortunately,
> the user supervisor, misinterpreted my suggestion as an attempt to stop the
> upgrade process altogether. No amount of effort on my part could convince
> this user that if we could just back off for a little while longer and
> continue to use the current software version, I would eventually get most
> of the worst bugs worked out. Then we could upgrade. At the end of that
> meeting I was both drained and frustrated. I felt I had failed in my
> efforts to ameliorate my user's quite justified frustrations over the
> on-going software upgrade issues we were all battling with. The meeting
> happened late Friday afternoon. I was glad it was the weekend.
>
>
>
> Monday morning I was called into the office of my new supervisor. He read
> me the riot act. He basically told me that the software conversion was
> going on schedule no matter what I had to say on the matter. What
> dumbfounded me was the fact that my new supervisor, a supervisor who was
> supposed to be in my ball court, had ended up misinterpreting what I had
> said to the user supervisor as well. He, too, thought I was trying to stop
> the upgrade process. He took what the user supervisor had claimed I had
> said and had never bother to ask me what I had actually said at that
> meeting. My supervisor essentially threatened my employment status if I
> didn't shape up very soon. During our little meeting, after I told my
> supervisor what I actually had said, I noticed he immediately pivoted. He
> then accused me of not communicating properly with my users. In other
> words, it was still all my fault.
>
>
>
> It was at that point in my 36+ years career working for the state of
> Wisconsin when I realized it was time for me to start seriously planning my
> exit strategy. When there is that amount of dysfunctional communication
> occurring at the management level, there is no point constantly trying to
> fix things when you, yourself, occasionally become the target of
> management's wrath.
>
>
>
> There is an epilogue to this story: The new software version was, in turn,
> upgraded to an even newer version about six months later. The upgrade was
> done so on urgent request from the software company. They too, knew the
> previous software version was a total POS. The next upgrade was just as
> much a harrowing experience as the previous upgrade had been... and in some
> cases even worse. I lost several sleepless nights. But in the end, after
> the proverbial sh#t had once again hit the fan, and boy did it smell, and
> the guilty parties were finally fingered out I noticed that the same
> supervisor now seemed to be much more pleased with my current job
> performance. Nevertheless, I continue to plan my exit strategy. I have no
> interest in finding out whether Dr. Jekyll might on a moment's notice
> revert back t o Mr. Hyde based on another miscommunication snafu. At least
> I'm lucky in that I still have my

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Kevin O'Malley]

You seem to be implying that Dr. Mills is deliberately behaving in a
dishonest way.
***I didn't pay much attention to Dr. Mills because he had a long string of
failures but a brilliant career as a theoretician and an ability to attract
investors.  He's a shyster who's smarter than me and can pull money out of
my pocket.

Then  I ran into someone at my church who actually wrote a paper for him
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacklightpower.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fpapers%2FPayneOHRadical.pdf&ei=vdbeU8aILKbiigL7vYGIBg&usg=AFQjCNEN5eDr2ysFw2Umqm-JFk2oXHpeYA&sig2=nG5qbX99YQZLTomGsu5YCg

and another person at my church who was a Harvard PhD Physics candidate
until he decided he wanted to make money and went into microprocessor
architecture.  He also thinks Mills's theory is coherent.

But here on Vortex-L we have Jones Beene, who puts together a convincing
case of failure after failure and now the gloom-gloom-gloomy prospect that
anyone who attends one of Dr. Mills's demonstrations must sign an NDA.  In
particular, the NDA is aimed at not disclosing any indications of Nuclear
Ash, which would be devastating to his theory.

so I await the day when nuclear ash is associated with any of these CQM
experiments tthat Dr. Mills puts together.

I like the simplicity of Jones Beene's argument.


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  From Axil:
>
>
>
> > In short order, my colleague lost his job, was banned, and was never
> rehired. As a real word
>
> > prerogative and a practical life lessen, when staying in business and
> making money is more
>
> > important than dispensing the truth, the pursuit of truth suffers.
>
>
>
> FWIW:
>
>
>
> Late last year I was deeply involved in an attempt to upgrade our new high
> volume scanning equipment to a new software version. There had been endless
> delays that seemed to hamper our efforts to complete the upgrade process.
> The truth of the matter, the new software upgrade was a POS. At one
> meeting, a meeting which had not been attended by my new supervisor, a new
> supervisor who had been hired only a few months prior, I tried to dispense
> some "truth" of the matter to some of the users who used the scanning
> software. The users already knew the software was a POS. We ALL knew the
> software was a POS. Nevertheless, I asked the user supervisor to give us...
> give me additional time to work out the bugs in the upgrade process.
> However in order to accomplish this we needed to step back and continue
> using current software version for a little while longer. Unfortunately,
> the user supervisor, misinterpreted my suggestion as an attempt to stop the
> upgrade process altogether. No amount of effort on my part could convince
> this user that if we could just back off for a little while longer and
> continue to use the current software version, I would eventually get most
> of the worst bugs worked out. Then we could upgrade. At the end of that
> meeting I was both drained and frustrated. I felt I had failed in my
> efforts to ameliorate my user's quite justified frustrations over the
> on-going software upgrade issues we were all battling with. The meeting
> happened late Friday afternoon. I was glad it was the weekend.
>
>
>
> Monday morning I was called into the office of my new supervisor. He read
> me the riot act. He basically told me that the software conversion was
> going on schedule no matter what I had to say on the matter. What
> dumbfounded me was the fact that my new supervisor, a supervisor who was
> supposed to be in my ball court, had ended up misinterpreting what I had
> said to the user supervisor as well. He, too, thought I was trying to stop
> the upgrade process. He took what the user supervisor had claimed I had
> said and had never bother to ask me what I had actually said at that
> meeting. My supervisor essentially threatened my employment status if I
> didn't shape up very soon. During our little meeting, after I told my
> supervisor what I actually had said, I noticed he immediately pivoted. He
> then accused me of not communicating properly with my users. In other
> words, it was still all my fault.
>
>
>
> It was at that point in my 36+ years career working for the state of
> Wisconsin when I realized it was time for me to start seriously planning my
> exit strategy. When there is that amount of dysfunctional communication
> occurring at the management level, there is no point constantly trying to
> fix things when you, yourself, occasionally become the target of
> management's wrath.
>
>
>
> There is an epilogue to this story: The new software version was, in turn,
> upgraded to an even newer version about six months later. The upgrade was
> done so on urgent request from the software company. They too, knew the
> previous software version was a total POS. The next upgrade was just as
> much a har

RE: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Axil:

 

> In short order, my colleague lost his job, was banned, and was never rehired. 
> As a real word

> prerogative and a practical life lessen, when staying in business and making 
> money is more

> important than dispensing the truth, the pursuit of truth suffers.

 

FWIW:

 

Late last year I was deeply involved in an attempt to upgrade our new high 
volume scanning equipment to a new software version. There had been endless 
delays that seemed to hamper our efforts to complete the upgrade process. The 
truth of the matter, the new software upgrade was a POS. At one meeting, a 
meeting which had not been attended by my new supervisor, a new supervisor who 
had been hired only a few months prior, I tried to dispense some "truth" of the 
matter to some of the users who used the scanning software. The users already 
knew the software was a POS. We ALL knew the software was a POS. Nevertheless, 
I asked the user supervisor to give us... give me additional time to work out 
the bugs in the upgrade process. However in order to accomplish this we needed 
to step back and continue using current software version for a little while 
longer. Unfortunately, the user supervisor, misinterpreted my suggestion as an 
attempt to stop the upgrade process altogether. No amount of effort on my part 
could convince this user that if we could just back off for a little while 
longer and continue to use the current software version, I would eventually get 
most of the worst bugs worked out. Then we could upgrade. At the end of that 
meeting I was both drained and frustrated. I felt I had failed in my efforts to 
ameliorate my user's quite justified frustrations over the on-going software 
upgrade issues we were all battling with. The meeting happened late Friday 
afternoon. I was glad it was the weekend.

 

Monday morning I was called into the office of my new supervisor. He read me 
the riot act. He basically told me that the software conversion was going on 
schedule no matter what I had to say on the matter. What dumbfounded me was the 
fact that my new supervisor, a supervisor who was supposed to be in my ball 
court, had ended up misinterpreting what I had said to the user supervisor as 
well. He, too, thought I was trying to stop the upgrade process. He took what 
the user supervisor had claimed I had said and had never bother to ask me what 
I had actually said at that meeting. My supervisor essentially threatened my 
employment status if I didn't shape up very soon. During our little meeting, 
after I told my supervisor what I actually had said, I noticed he immediately 
pivoted. He then accused me of not communicating properly with my users. In 
other words, it was still all my fault. 

 

It was at that point in my 36+ years career working for the state of Wisconsin 
when I realized it was time for me to start seriously planning my exit 
strategy. When there is that amount of dysfunctional communication occurring at 
the management level, there is no point constantly trying to fix things when 
you, yourself, occasionally become the target of management's wrath.

 

There is an epilogue to this story: The new software version was, in turn, 
upgraded to an even newer version about six months later. The upgrade was done 
so on urgent request from the software company. They too, knew the previous 
software version was a total POS. The next upgrade was just as much a harrowing 
experience as the previous upgrade had been... and in some cases even worse. I 
lost several sleepless nights. But in the end, after the proverbial sh#t had 
once again hit the fan, and boy did it smell, and the guilty parties were 
finally fingered out I noticed that the same supervisor now seemed to be much 
more pleased with my current job performance. Nevertheless, I continue to plan 
my exit strategy. I have no interest in finding out whether Dr. Jekyll might on 
a moment's notice revert back t o Mr. Hyde based on another miscommunication 
snafu. At least I'm lucky in that I still have my job. I can continue planning 
my eventual exit strategy in an orderly fashion.

 

So, yes, I sympathize with the plight of your engineering colleague. In my 
experience software engineers can be just as pathologically honest. It's also 
been my experience that management can occasionally act like they don't know 
what they are doing. The means: the truth of the matter often gets shoved down 
the toilet.

 

* * *

 

But what does what you had to say about the unfortunate circumstances 
pertaining to your engineering colleague plus what I had to say about my own 
recent employment predicament have to do with Dr. Mills? You seem to be 
implying that Dr. Mills is deliberately behaving in a dishonest way. If so, 
please elaborate on what it is "the doctor" is deliberately doing that you feel 
is dishonest? It is at least obvious to me that "the doctor" truly believes in 
the truthfulness of CQM theory. Perhaps you don't. If so, it seems to me t

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Axil Axil]

*I see no "demons" in play here. I see very little "dust" either. What CEO
when faced with the realities of a competitive environment, hasn't said the
equivalent of: Accept no other false products other than our own. I think I
read something like that in a book somewhere. *

In real world terms engineers are pathologically honest people. A colleague
of mine told me as story:  he told the customer for whom he was working the
whole truth and nothing but the truth in his dealing with that customer in
contravention to the direct orders that he received from his bean counter
boss. My colleague thought that the customer should know the truth and not
be eventually screwed over.

In short order, my colleague lost his job, was banned, and was never
rehired. As a real word prerogative and a practical life lessen, when
staying in business and making money is more important than dispensing the
truth, the pursuit of truth suffers.






On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  Axil,
>
>
>
> > This insight into the man does not speak well for this man's desire to
> reveal
>
> > ultimate truth. It sounds like his views of the laws of nature are
> skewed by
>
> > the needs of his ego and his business.
>
>
>
> I tend to disagree with this assumption.
>
>
>
> What do you mean when you play the "...ultimate truth" card? What
> particular flavor of ultimate truth are you speaking of here. Mills?
> LENR's? Yours? Do any of these entities have a lock on the ultimate truth?
>
>
>
> > The ascetic truth seeker is most often grounded into dust by the demons
> of our nature.
>
> > This man seeks to avoid those demons by trading off against the pursuit
> of truth.
>
>
>
> Actually, I'm not quite sure what the point is you are trying to make here.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think it's remarkable that "the Doctor" has been able to
> keep BLP viable for more than 20 years.  I see no "demons" in play here. I
> see very little "dust" either. What CEO when faced with the realities of a
> competitive environment, hasn't said the equivalent of: Accept no other
> false products other than our own. I think I read something like that in a
> book somewhere.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

RE: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Axil,

 

> This insight into the man does not speak well for this man's desire to reveal

> ultimate truth. It sounds like his views of the laws of nature are skewed by

> the needs of his ego and his business. 

 

I tend to disagree with this assumption.

 

What do you mean when you play the "...ultimate truth" card? What particular 
flavor of ultimate truth are you speaking of here. Mills? LENR's? Yours? Do any 
of these entities have a lock on the ultimate truth?

 

> The ascetic truth seeker is most often grounded into dust by the demons of 
> our nature.

> This man seeks to avoid those demons by trading off against the pursuit of 
> truth. 

 

Actually, I'm not quite sure what the point is you are trying to make here.

 

Personally, I think it's remarkable that "the Doctor" has been able to keep BLP 
viable for more than 20 years.  I see no "demons" in play here. I see very 
little "dust" either. What CEO when faced with the realities of a competitive 
environment, hasn't said the equivalent of: Accept no other false products 
other than our own. I think I read something like that in a book somewhere. 

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

I should clarify a couple of things I recently posted:

 

>...Dr. Mills has personally opined that many observers and followers within the

> CF/LENR field behave as if they were a bunch of "cult" admirers hopelessly 

> invested in their own deluded theoretical causes.

 

and

 

> "The Doctor" has already pretty much achieved an equivalent stature of 
> cult-hood,

> of GodHood, given to him by his own growing cabal of admirers. The promotion 

> was accomplished without any assistance or advise from the CANR-LENR group

 

Let me clear on the point that nowhere in the above statements did I mean to 
imply that Dr. Mills is personally trying to build a cult following around 
himself. Quite frankly, he strikes me as being oblivious to the cult that I 
think is beginning to build around him. He doesn't care about cult worship. 
IMHO, what really drives Dr. Mills is vindicating his CQM theory. CQM is what 
Dr. Mills worships. Becoming a cult leader would only be a time-consuming 
distraction that would keep him from attending to his real mistress.

 

Of equal interest to Dr. Mills is making sure his company, BLP, makes a ton of 
money for himself, his hard working staff, and his financial investors. Last of 
all, I think he is sincerely interested in improving the state of the planet. 
But in the end, it all comes down to whether the promised prototypes perform as 
promised. 

 

Regarding recent commentary concerning "ultimate truth"... right now I have 
little interest in anyone's particular brand of "ultimate truth". The only 
"truth" I am currently interested in is verifying whether the recent BLP 
demonstrations reveal valid data. When I watch the recent BLP videos I see a 
lot of crude and awkward looking contraptions running for brief spells. 
Granted, they all intrigue the hell out of me, but none of them are ready for 
prime time.  The crudeness of these contraptions doesn't bother me. All 
prototypes freshly hatched out their shells tend to look very ugly in the 
beginning. Actually, because of their crudeness, I'm less inclined to think I'm 
being fed a dog and pony show. I hope I'm right on that.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 12:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

 

Jed sez:

 

> Some researchers have the odd notion that what they discover "belongs"

> to them in a sense, and they have the privilege of deciding what is it

> is and how it works theoretically.

 

Being afflicted with a God Complex is an equal opportunity employer. Doesn't 
seem to matter whether one is an atheist or not.

 

Personally, I admire what Dr. Mills has been attempting to accomplish over the 
past 20+ years. I honestly hope he succeeds. It certainly would save me the 
embarrassment of having to eat crow for having allowed myself to be deluded. 
What can I say, who doesn't want disposable electricity?

 

For an education of a different sort, I would urge many who are new to Vortex-l 
to browse Dr. Mill's Yahoo [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] group. There you will 
read posts from individuals trying their best to acquire a better grasp of Dr. 
Mills opus CQM theory. Meanwhile, other posters are earnestly trying to acquire 
a better understanding of how the SunCell technology might work out in the real 
world. They really want to help. They are actively looking for potential 
engineering weak points and how best to strengthen them.

 

But these aren't the posts I'm interested in pointing out here. You will also 
notice a plethora of posts from numerous well-wishers and Dr. Mills admirers 
who have already, in their own minds, divided the bear before it has actually 
been killed. Many are also frothing at the bit, wanting to go after all the 
critics, debunkers, and naysayers who made business difficult for BLP for the 
past couple of decades. This, of course, includes skewering Wikipedia. They 
taste revenge. Take no prisoners. The insanity here is that this attitude is 
essentially built on a tenuous foundation of sand. It's all based on 
technological engineering assumptions (backed by an audacious theory) that has 
not yet been fully verified in the form of a prototype that can be 
independently deployed out in the field. IMHO, this is folly of the worst sort. 
It shows the naivety of some of these posters. I wonder how many of them have 
personally experienced how grueling and difficult actual progress in this field 
has turned out to be. I suspect many of them are newcomers to the exotic 
alternate energy field, and as such have no true understanding or appreciation 
of how difficult and tedious it is to remain "faithful" t

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Axil Axil]

This insight into the man does not speak well for this man's desire to
reveal ultimate truth. It sounds like his views of the laws of nature are
skewed by the needs of his ego and his business.

The ascetic truth seeker is most often grounded into dust by the demons
of our nature. This man seeks to avoid those demons by trading off against
the pursuit of truth.


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  
>
>
>
> Many years ago I think it had been speculated that very early in BLP's
> inception, Dr. Mills made both a conscious and strategic decision to
> distance the body of his work from the CF/LENR field as quickly as
> possible. After watching the public skewering of Pons and Fleischmann I
> could see how Dr. Mills would want to make sure nobody would possibly find
> any kind of similarities pertaining to what BLP is trying to accomplish and
> attempt to compare their due diligence with what's been going on within the
> much more federated CANR-LENR field. Of course, it didn't take long for BLP
> to run into its own unique form of banishment from the scientific
> establishment. Dr. Mills' own audacious CQM theory pretty much got him
> black balled. But as many of us realize: From today's clutch of labeled
> misfits, rebels, and outcasts sometimes are hatched the revered heroes of
> tomorrow. Baby birds seldom look attractive when freshly hatched... except
> perhaps to snakes. Clowns? I don't know.
>
>
>
> I believe there has been speculation that both Mills and the LENR field
> may have initially branched out from the trunk of the same tree. For
> example both parties experimented with nickel. Both still do today.
>
>
>
> Today, it seems to me that the same tree of knowledge has many more
> branches and leaves to pick from. Hopefully, the BLP branch may soon bear
> fruit. ...Perhaps a winter harvest if we're lucky, and if the fruit flies
> don't arrive first.
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 03, 2014 1:59 AM
> *To:* VORTEX
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD
> systems?
>
>
>
> Mills himself says NO, hydrinos have nothing to do with LENR.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
> Folks, I am asking this question because I truly do not know the answer
> and clearly, I am not qualified to even begin to answer it.  Maybe those
> who have actually studied Mills GUTCP book can help answer this question.
> (Mike and Robin?  up for some calculations.)
>
>
>
> This is a bounce off the other thread "Mills hydrinos is not LENR" where
> people speculated that hydrinos is probably not LENR.  But it seems to me
> that if we are not so blinded by our own pet theories, that we can properly
> evaluate if Hydrinos H1/4 state really can explain the excess anomalous
> heat we get with NiH and PdD systems.
>
>
>
> Specifically for now, I want to focus on the energy balance and reactions
> rates.  Assuming for now, that hyrdinos are the causative factor, can it
> explain Rossi's high temp results with the Hotcat?
>
>
>
> Consider this scenario for now.  Suppose Nickel nanopowder has a catalytic
> function like Titanium nanopowder.  The Nickel nanopowder would catalyze
> transition to H1/4 state and explode like we've seen in Mills explosion.
> Some of the nanopowder explodes, scatters, melts but still able to catalyze
> further reactions, cause they are still nano powder, albeit a finer nano
> powder like Mills claims.  Hence, you have a continuous recycling of nickel
> nanopowder capable of catalyzing H1/4 transitions.  The Temperature
> controls (for some reason - this is the Miracle in this scenario) the
> catalyzation and reaction rates.  When it reaches a certain point, the
> reaction rates overshoot, runs away and melts the reactor.
>
>
>
> The above scenario would explain a few stubborn facts we know about LENR
> reactions that can never be explained satisfactorily otherwise
>
>
>
> 1.  This would explain the positive feedback and run away reaction in many
> experiments.  Control the temps, otherwise too much hydrino transistions
> occur and KABOOM!
>
>
>
> 2.  This would also explain why there is no hard radiation.
>
>
>
> 3.  This would explain why the reactions continue even at extremely high
> temperatures, enough to melt whatever Nickel nanostructure NAEs and even
> possibly to sublimate some nano

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

Is not the probable energy density of the TIP1 report, well above those
numbers you get from the first hydrino states. Either Rossi
is producing very small hydrinos, or it is nuclear, heck we don't know what
can happen in these low energy nuclear reactions if so,
total mass to energy transformation? Anyway we would know when TIP2
arrives, my bet is on nuclear origin which maybe is catalyzed by
hydrino formations due to probably a very high energy density.


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  Jed sez:
>
>
>
> > Some researchers have the odd notion that what they discover "belongs"
>
> > to them in a sense, and they have the privilege of deciding what is it
>
> > is and how it works theoretically.
>
>
>
> Being afflicted with a God Complex is an equal opportunity employer.
> Doesn't seem to matter whether one is an atheist or not.
>
>
>
> Personally, I admire what Dr. Mills has been attempting to accomplish over
> the past 20+ years. I honestly hope he succeeds. It certainly would save me
> the embarrassment of having to eat crow for having allowed myself to be
> deluded. What can I say, who doesn't want disposable electricity?
>
>
>
> For an education of a different sort, I would urge many who are new to
> Vortex-l to browse Dr. Mill's Yahoo [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] group.
> There you will read posts from individuals trying their best to acquire a
> better grasp of Dr. Mills opus CQM theory. Meanwhile, other posters are
> earnestly trying to acquire a better understanding of how the SunCell
> technology might work out in the real world. They really want to help. They
> are actively looking for potential engineering weak points and how best to
> strengthen them.
>
>
>
> But these aren't the posts I'm interested in pointing out here. You will
> also notice a plethora of posts from numerous well-wishers and Dr. Mills
> admirers who have already, in their own minds, divided the bear before it
> has actually been killed. Many are also frothing at the bit, wanting to go
> after all the critics, debunkers, and naysayers who made business difficult
> for BLP for the past couple of decades. This, of course, includes skewering
> Wikipedia. They taste revenge. Take no prisoners. The insanity here is that
> this attitude is essentially built on a tenuous foundation of sand. It's
> all based on technological engineering assumptions (backed by an audacious
> theory) that has not yet been fully verified in the form of a prototype
> that can be independently deployed out in the field. IMHO, this is folly of
> the worst sort. It shows the naivety of some of these posters. I wonder how
> many of them have personally experienced how grueling and difficult actual
> progress in this field has turned out to be. I suspect many of them are
> newcomers to the exotic alternate energy field, and as such have no true
> understanding or appreciation of how difficult and tedious it is to remain
> "faithful" to this field year after year without losing hope... dare I say,
> of losing faith. For heaven's sake, step back for a moment, and watch
> what's happening! Things are in motion. We really don't know what's going
> to happen next! There's plenty to watch for. But wait for the prototype.
> Wait for the findings that these field tested prototypes will hopefully
> reveal. You don't have that much longer to wait for a thumbs up or down. If
> positive, then you can give yourself permission to gloat... but NOT BEFORE!
>
>
>
>
> Meanwhile, I've read posts where Dr. Mills has personally opined that many
> observers and followers within the CF/LENR field behave as if they were a
> bunch of "cult" admirers hopelessly invested in their own deluded
> theoretical causes. Granted, there may be an element of truth to some of
> those perceptions, but... The irony here is that, IMO, "The Doctor" has
> already pretty much achieved an equivalent stature of cult-hood, of
> GodHood, given to him by his own growing cabal of admirers. The promotion
> was accomplished without any assistance or advise from the CANR-LENR group.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Peter Gluck]

 it is only one strange thing re the possible connection- it seems
Randy is very silent about deuterinos and tritinos. these could tell about
some link with classic LENR.
In 2011 he rejected the work of Rossi and of Piantelli too. Not possible he
said.
Peter


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Mills himself says NO, hydrinos have nothing to do with LENR.
>>
>
> It makes no difference what he says. Whether it does or it does not have a
> connection to LENR is a fact of nature, to be decided by experiment.
>
> Some researchers have the odd notion that what they discover "belongs" to
> them in a sense, and they have the privilege of deciding what is it is and
> how it works theoretically.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Jed sez:

 

> Some researchers have the odd notion that what they discover "belongs"

> to them in a sense, and they have the privilege of deciding what is it

> is and how it works theoretically.

 

Being afflicted with a God Complex is an equal opportunity employer. Doesn't 
seem to matter whether one is an atheist or not.

 

Personally, I admire what Dr. Mills has been attempting to accomplish over the 
past 20+ years. I honestly hope he succeeds. It certainly would save me the 
embarrassment of having to eat crow for having allowed myself to be deluded. 
What can I say, who doesn't want disposable electricity?

 

For an education of a different sort, I would urge many who are new to Vortex-l 
to browse Dr. Mill's Yahoo [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] group. There you will 
read posts from individuals trying their best to acquire a better grasp of Dr. 
Mills opus CQM theory. Meanwhile, other posters are earnestly trying to acquire 
a better understanding of how the SunCell technology might work out in the real 
world. They really want to help. They are actively looking for potential 
engineering weak points and how best to strengthen them.

 

But these aren't the posts I'm interested in pointing out here. You will also 
notice a plethora of posts from numerous well-wishers and Dr. Mills admirers 
who have already, in their own minds, divided the bear before it has actually 
been killed. Many are also frothing at the bit, wanting to go after all the 
critics, debunkers, and naysayers who made business difficult for BLP for the 
past couple of decades. This, of course, includes skewering Wikipedia. They 
taste revenge. Take no prisoners. The insanity here is that this attitude is 
essentially built on a tenuous foundation of sand. It's all based on 
technological engineering assumptions (backed by an audacious theory) that has 
not yet been fully verified in the form of a prototype that can be 
independently deployed out in the field. IMHO, this is folly of the worst sort. 
It shows the naivety of some of these posters. I wonder how many of them have 
personally experienced how grueling and difficult actual progress in this field 
has turned out to be. I suspect many of them are newcomers to the exotic 
alternate energy field, and as such have no true understanding or appreciation 
of how difficult and tedious it is to remain "faithful" to this field year 
after year without losing hope... dare I say, of losing faith. For heaven's 
sake, step back for a moment, and watch what's happening! Things are in motion. 
We really don't know what's going to happen next! There's plenty to watch for. 
But wait for the prototype. Wait for the findings that these field tested 
prototypes will hopefully reveal. You don't have that much longer to wait for a 
thumbs up or down. If positive, then you can give yourself permission to 
gloat... but NOT BEFORE!  

 

Meanwhile, I've read posts where Dr. Mills has personally opined that many 
observers and followers within the CF/LENR field behave as if they were a bunch 
of "cult" admirers hopelessly invested in their own deluded theoretical causes. 
Granted, there may be an element of truth to some of those perceptions, but... 
The irony here is that, IMO, "The Doctor" has already pretty much achieved an 
equivalent stature of cult-hood, of GodHood, given to him by his own growing 
cabal of admirers. The promotion was accomplished without any assistance or 
advise from the CANR-LENR group.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Mills himself says NO, hydrinos have nothing to do with LENR.
>

It makes no difference what he says. Whether it does or it does not have a
connection to LENR is a fact of nature, to be decided by experiment.

Some researchers have the odd notion that what they discover "belongs" to
them in a sense, and they have the privilege of deciding what is it is and
how it works theoretically.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

 

Many years ago I think it had been speculated that very early in BLP's 
inception, Dr. Mills made both a conscious and strategic decision to distance 
the body of his work from the CF/LENR field as quickly as possible. After 
watching the public skewering of Pons and Fleischmann I could see how Dr. Mills 
would want to make sure nobody would possibly find any kind of similarities 
pertaining to what BLP is trying to accomplish and attempt to compare their due 
diligence with what's been going on within the much more federated CANR-LENR 
field. Of course, it didn't take long for BLP to run into its own unique form 
of banishment from the scientific establishment. Dr. Mills' own audacious CQM 
theory pretty much got him black balled. But as many of us realize: From 
today's clutch of labeled misfits, rebels, and outcasts sometimes are hatched 
the revered heroes of tomorrow. Baby birds seldom look attractive when freshly 
hatched... except perhaps to snakes. Clowns? I don't know.

 

I believe there has been speculation that both Mills and the LENR field may 
have initially branched out from the trunk of the same tree. For example both 
parties experimented with nickel. Both still do today.

 

Today, it seems to me that the same tree of knowledge has many more branches 
and leaves to pick from. Hopefully, the BLP branch may soon bear fruit. 
...Perhaps a winter harvest if we're lucky, and if the fruit flies don't arrive 
first.

 



 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

 

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 1:59 AM
To: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

 

Mills himself says NO, hydrinos have nothing to do with LENR.

Peter

 

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

Folks, I am asking this question because I truly do not know the answer and 
clearly, I am not qualified to even begin to answer it.  Maybe those who have 
actually studied Mills GUTCP book can help answer this question.  (Mike and 
Robin?  up for some calculations.)

 

This is a bounce off the other thread "Mills hydrinos is not LENR" where people 
speculated that hydrinos is probably not LENR.  But it seems to me that if we 
are not so blinded by our own pet theories, that we can properly evaluate if 
Hydrinos H1/4 state really can explain the excess anomalous heat we get with 
NiH and PdD systems.

 

Specifically for now, I want to focus on the energy balance and reactions 
rates.  Assuming for now, that hyrdinos are the causative factor, can it 
explain Rossi's high temp results with the Hotcat?  

 

Consider this scenario for now.  Suppose Nickel nanopowder has a catalytic 
function like Titanium nanopowder.  The Nickel nanopowder would catalyze 
transition to H1/4 state and explode like we've seen in Mills explosion.  Some 
of the nanopowder explodes, scatters, melts but still able to catalyze further 
reactions, cause they are still nano powder, albeit a finer nano powder like 
Mills claims.  Hence, you have a continuous recycling of nickel nanopowder 
capable of catalyzing H1/4 transitions.  The Temperature controls (for some 
reason - this is the Miracle in this scenario) the catalyzation and reaction 
rates.  When it reaches a certain point, the reaction rates overshoot, runs 
away and melts the reactor.  

 

The above scenario would explain a few stubborn facts we know about LENR 
reactions that can never be explained satisfactorily otherwise 

 

1.  This would explain the positive feedback and run away reaction in many 
experiments.  Control the temps, otherwise too much hydrino transistions occur 
and KABOOM!

 

2.  This would also explain why there is no hard radiation.

 

3.  This would explain why the reactions continue even at extremely high 
temperatures, enough to melt whatever Nickel nanostructure NAEs and even 
possibly to sublimate some nanopowders of Nickel itself.  

 

4.  This is certainly a more satisfying explanation than the BEC soliton 
formation at extremely high temps and all the convoluted explanations on how to 
thermalize the gammas or other hard radiation. 

 

5.  This is certainly a more satisfying explanation than BEC "metaphasic" 
shielding protecting the nickel nanostructures from melting.  (Metaphasic 
shielding is another miracle that is added to the repetoire of miracles that 
need to be explained.  It seems our theories require more miracles to explain a 
miracle.  We end up with more miracles to explain than what we began with.)

 

6.  (This next point is speculation so may not be a valid point.)   This is 
certainly a more satisfying explanation to the continued presence of NAE to 
cause reactions to continue up to the runaway melting point of the reactor.   
It seems to me that once the reactor has melted, the inside environment would 
have been exposed to o

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Peter Gluck]

Mills himself says NO, hydrinos have nothing to do with LENR.
Peter


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Folks, I am asking this question because I truly do not know the answer
> and clearly, I am not qualified to even begin to answer it.  Maybe those
> who have actually studied Mills GUTCP book can help answer this question.
> (Mike and Robin?  up for some calculations.)
>
> This is a bounce off the other thread "Mills hydrinos is not LENR" where
> people speculated that hydrinos is probably not LENR.  But it seems to me
> that if we are not so blinded by our own pet theories, that we can properly
> evaluate if Hydrinos H1/4 state really can explain the excess anomalous
> heat we get with NiH and PdD systems.
>
> Specifically for now, I want to focus on the energy balance and reactions
> rates.  Assuming for now, that hyrdinos are the causative factor, can it
> explain Rossi's high temp results with the Hotcat?
>
> Consider this scenario for now.  Suppose Nickel nanopowder has a catalytic
> function like Titanium nanopowder.  The Nickel nanopowder would catalyze
> transition to H1/4 state and explode like we've seen in Mills explosion.
> Some of the nanopowder explodes, scatters, melts but still able to catalyze
> further reactions, cause they are still nano powder, albeit a finer nano
> powder like Mills claims.  Hence, you have a continuous recycling of nickel
> nanopowder capable of catalyzing H1/4 transitions.  The Temperature
> controls (for some reason - this is the Miracle in this scenario) the
> catalyzation and reaction rates.  When it reaches a certain point, the
> reaction rates overshoot, runs away and melts the reactor.
>
> The above scenario would explain a few stubborn facts we know about LENR
> reactions that can never be explained satisfactorily otherwise
>
> 1.  This would explain the positive feedback and run away reaction in many
> experiments.  Control the temps, otherwise too much hydrino transistions
> occur and KABOOM!
>
> 2.  This would also explain why there is no hard radiation.
>
> 3.  This would explain why the reactions continue even at extremely high
> temperatures, enough to melt whatever Nickel nanostructure NAEs and even
> possibly to sublimate some nanopowders of Nickel itself.
>
> 4.  This is certainly a more satisfying explanation than the BEC soliton
> formation at extremely high temps and all the convoluted explanations on
> how to thermalize the gammas or other hard radiation.
>
> 5.  This is certainly a more satisfying explanation than BEC "metaphasic"
> shielding protecting the nickel nanostructures from melting.  (Metaphasic
> shielding is another miracle that is added to the repetoire of miracles
> that need to be explained.  It seems our theories require more miracles to
> explain a miracle.  We end up with more miracles to explain than what we
> began with.)
>
> 6.  (This next point is speculation so may not be a valid point.)   This
> is certainly a more satisfying explanation to the continued presence of NAE
> to cause reactions to continue up to the runaway melting point of the
> reactor.   It seems to me that once the reactor has melted, the inside
> environment would have been exposed to outside air hence should have
> quenched the BEC or solitons or whatever it is,   It seems that a tiny hole
> in the reactor would have quickly quenched the BEC, soltions, etc reaction
> before it creates a bigger hole.  Tell me if I am wrong on this?  Didn't
> the Levi first Hotcat totally melt?  This tells me that the reaction
> continued even after the inside was exposed to outside air.
>
>
>
>
> If you are knowledgeable enough and understand Hydrinos enough, please
> help me do the calculations of the energy balance.
>
> Can the hydrino transition even be catalyzed by high temps instead of high
> currents like in the Suncell?
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Axil Axil]

It just dawned on me that cavitation produced by a pump will produce gamma,
whereas cavitation produced by a spark does not produce gamma. Cavitation
produced by a pump does not have the power to produce nano particles, but
an arc is hot and energetic enough to produce nano particles from plasma
condensation.


On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf
>
> Here is what cavitation is producing.   These are what Ken Shoulders also
> produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce cavitation.
> Only cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can be produced.
> Sparks in a gas do not produce gamma because the spark produces
> nanoparticle aggregations  in which a BEC is carried.
>

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[mixent]

In reply to  Jojo Iznart's message of Sun, 3 Aug 2014 05:23:47 +0800:
Hi,

Shrinkage to H[n=1/4] yields 204 eV / atom (starting out from an H atom in the
"ground state"). If you can find out how much energy was produced, and how much
Hydrogen was consumed, you can work out for yourself whether or not it is
reasonable.


>Folks, I am asking this question because I truly do not know the answer and 
>clearly, I am not qualified to even begin to answer it.  Maybe those who have 
>actually studied Mills GUTCP book can help answer this question.  (Mike and 
>Robin?  up for some calculations.)
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Axil Axil]

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

Here is what cavitation is producing.   These are what Ken Shoulders also
produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce cavitation.
Only cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can be produced.
Sparks in a gas do not produce gamma because the spark produces
nanoparticle aggregations  in which a BEC is carried.

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Jojo Iznart]

By cavitation, I presume you mean that the cavitation would cause Deuterium to 
slam to each other and fuse ala Hot fusion?

If so, where are the gammas?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 5:26 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?


  Most Pd/D systems produce heat through cavitation.



  On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

Folks, I am asking this question because I truly do not know the answer and 
clearly, I am not qualified to even begin to answer it.  Maybe those who have 
actually studied Mills GUTCP book can help answer this question.  (Mike and 
Robin?  up for some calculations.)

This is a bounce off the other thread "Mills hydrinos is not LENR" where 
people speculated that hydrinos is probably not LENR.  But it seems to me that 
if we are not so blinded by our own pet theories, that we can properly evaluate 
if Hydrinos H1/4 state really can explain the excess anomalous heat we get with 
NiH and PdD systems.

Specifically for now, I want to focus on the energy balance and reactions 
rates.  Assuming for now, that hyrdinos are the causative factor, can it 
explain Rossi's high temp results with the Hotcat?  

Consider this scenario for now.  Suppose Nickel nanopowder has a catalytic 
function like Titanium nanopowder.  The Nickel nanopowder would catalyze 
transition to H1/4 state and explode like we've seen in Mills explosion.  Some 
of the nanopowder explodes, scatters, melts but still able to catalyze further 
reactions, cause they are still nano powder, albeit a finer nano powder like 
Mills claims.  Hence, you have a continuous recycling of nickel nanopowder 
capable of catalyzing H1/4 transitions.  The Temperature controls (for some 
reason - this is the Miracle in this scenario) the catalyzation and reaction 
rates.  When it reaches a certain point, the reaction rates overshoot, runs 
away and melts the reactor.  

The above scenario would explain a few stubborn facts we know about LENR 
reactions that can never be explained satisfactorily otherwise 

1.  This would explain the positive feedback and run away reaction in many 
experiments.  Control the temps, otherwise too much hydrino transistions occur 
and KABOOM!

2.  This would also explain why there is no hard radiation.

3.  This would explain why the reactions continue even at extremely high 
temperatures, enough to melt whatever Nickel nanostructure NAEs and even 
possibly to sublimate some nanopowders of Nickel itself.  

4.  This is certainly a more satisfying explanation than the BEC soliton 
formation at extremely high temps and all the convoluted explanations on how to 
thermalize the gammas or other hard radiation. 

5.  This is certainly a more satisfying explanation than BEC "metaphasic" 
shielding protecting the nickel nanostructures from melting.  (Metaphasic 
shielding is another miracle that is added to the repetoire of miracles that 
need to be explained.  It seems our theories require more miracles to explain a 
miracle.  We end up with more miracles to explain than what we began with.)

6.  (This next point is speculation so may not be a valid point.)   This is 
certainly a more satisfying explanation to the continued presence of NAE to 
cause reactions to continue up to the runaway melting point of the reactor.   
It seems to me that once the reactor has melted, the inside environment would 
have been exposed to outside air hence should have quenched the BEC or solitons 
or whatever it is,   It seems that a tiny hole in the reactor would have 
quickly quenched the BEC, soltions, etc reaction before it creates a bigger 
hole.  Tell me if I am wrong on this?  Didn't the Levi first Hotcat totally 
melt?  This tells me that the reaction continued even after the inside was 
exposed to outside air.




If you are knowledgeable enough and understand Hydrinos enough, please help 
me do the calculations of the energy balance.   

Can the hydrino transition even be catalyzed by high temps instead of high 
currents like in the Suncell?



Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?

[Axil Axil]

Most Pd/D systems produce heat through cavitation.


On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Folks, I am asking this question because I truly do not know the answer
> and clearly, I am not qualified to even begin to answer it.  Maybe those
> who have actually studied Mills GUTCP book can help answer this question.
> (Mike and Robin?  up for some calculations.)
>
> This is a bounce off the other thread "Mills hydrinos is not LENR" where
> people speculated that hydrinos is probably not LENR.  But it seems to me
> that if we are not so blinded by our own pet theories, that we can properly
> evaluate if Hydrinos H1/4 state really can explain the excess anomalous
> heat we get with NiH and PdD systems.
>
> Specifically for now, I want to focus on the energy balance and reactions
> rates.  Assuming for now, that hyrdinos are the causative factor, can it
> explain Rossi's high temp results with the Hotcat?
>
> Consider this scenario for now.  Suppose Nickel nanopowder has a catalytic
> function like Titanium nanopowder.  The Nickel nanopowder would catalyze
> transition to H1/4 state and explode like we've seen in Mills explosion.
> Some of the nanopowder explodes, scatters, melts but still able to catalyze
> further reactions, cause they are still nano powder, albeit a finer nano
> powder like Mills claims.  Hence, you have a continuous recycling of nickel
> nanopowder capable of catalyzing H1/4 transitions.  The Temperature
> controls (for some reason - this is the Miracle in this scenario) the
> catalyzation and reaction rates.  When it reaches a certain point, the
> reaction rates overshoot, runs away and melts the reactor.
>
> The above scenario would explain a few stubborn facts we know about LENR
> reactions that can never be explained satisfactorily otherwise
>
> 1.  This would explain the positive feedback and run away reaction in many
> experiments.  Control the temps, otherwise too much hydrino transistions
> occur and KABOOM!
>
> 2.  This would also explain why there is no hard radiation.
>
> 3.  This would explain why the reactions continue even at extremely high
> temperatures, enough to melt whatever Nickel nanostructure NAEs and even
> possibly to sublimate some nanopowders of Nickel itself.
>
> 4.  This is certainly a more satisfying explanation than the BEC soliton
> formation at extremely high temps and all the convoluted explanations on
> how to thermalize the gammas or other hard radiation.
>
> 5.  This is certainly a more satisfying explanation than BEC "metaphasic"
> shielding protecting the nickel nanostructures from melting.  (Metaphasic
> shielding is another miracle that is added to the repetoire of miracles
> that need to be explained.  It seems our theories require more miracles to
> explain a miracle.  We end up with more miracles to explain than what we
> began with.)
>
> 6.  (This next point is speculation so may not be a valid point.)   This
> is certainly a more satisfying explanation to the continued presence of NAE
> to cause reactions to continue up to the runaway melting point of the
> reactor.   It seems to me that once the reactor has melted, the inside
> environment would have been exposed to outside air hence should have
> quenched the BEC or solitons or whatever it is,   It seems that a tiny hole
> in the reactor would have quickly quenched the BEC, soltions, etc reaction
> before it creates a bigger hole.  Tell me if I am wrong on this?  Didn't
> the Levi first Hotcat totally melt?  This tells me that the reaction
> continued even after the inside was exposed to outside air.
>
>
>
>
> If you are knowledgeable enough and understand Hydrinos enough, please
> help me do the calculations of the energy balance.
>
> Can the hydrino transition even be catalyzed by high temps instead of high
> currents like in the Suncell?
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
>