Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:29:07 -0400: Hi, That makes a lot of sense, except for one thing. Why would BLP want a research group at a University to tell it something it already knew? IOW if the report was never intended for publication, then why commission it at all? Uh good question. You're right, that doesn't seem reasonable. Which leaves me wondering again how it came to pass that it was marked confidential and proprietary. At least in our business, we only do that with reports intended for use by just one other party, who typically has already been NDA'd. I could understand if a third party had commissioned the report, however in that case too, I would have expected a more complete report.
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:02:28 -0400: Hi, answering my own question :) ...unless one of BLP's own backers decided that they wanted someone else to verify the work, so BLP got Rowan to run the tests, then were so pleased with the results that they made it public. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:29:07 -0400: Hi, That makes a lot of sense, except for one thing. Why would BLP want a research group at a University to tell it something it already knew? IOW if the report was never intended for publication, then why commission it at all? Uh good question. You're right, that doesn't seem reasonable. Which leaves me wondering again how it came to pass that it was marked confidential and proprietary. At least in our business, we only do that with reports intended for use by just one other party, who typically has already been NDA'd. I could understand if a third party had commissioned the report, however in that case too, I would have expected a more complete report. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
IOW if the report was never intended for publication, then why commission it at all? You are missing the obvious, guys - ... they fully intended to publish it from the start - since they were pretty sure they finally got the thing to being robust -- BUT nevertheless, they would publish only if it was indeed positive. Rowan was never free to make that decision on their own. Since BLP could not know this for sure in advance, as grad students and professors can occasionally screw up anything -- then to be cautious, BLP insisted that it was to be marked 'proprietary and confidential' and all of the other legalese; so that in the event that it had not turned out to be positive - no one would ever hear about it. This is exactly what the big Drug Companies do when they are sponsoring tests at Hospitals and Universities - consequently - you only hear about the results when they are positive from the perspective of the sponsor. That situation is more sinister, of course, since real harm can follow from silence - and it is why the that industry is under pressure to become slightly more regulated than in the past.
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
- Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:29:07 -0400: Hi, That makes a lot of sense, except for one thing. Why would BLP want a research group at a University to tell it something it already knew? IOW if the report was never intended for publication, then why commission it at all? Easy. BLP is quite busy with arrangements for a major commercialization project as announced in their earlier press release. They funded an off-site parallel test at a reputable nearby university to do a independent replication with a differetn crew. BLP simply released Rowan's report as is, no editing. Critics here at HSG have been demanding independent confirmation, and here it is. Comfirmaltions of BLP effects by other labs have been going on for years, but publication rights belong to those labs, not BLP. Jones Beene has added a point that the work would not be published if it were not positive. Several years ago, a team from Rowan which included Jansson got a grant from NIAC [NASA] to inestigage the possibility of a gas phase reactor as a deep space thruster. Despite hard work, they spent the $75,000 without get a definite result and a Phase 2 award was not made. For a more complete assessment of Jansson, see below. Anticipating cries of not independent enough, I can add some details about Prof. Peter Jansson. He has a website with details about his career and education. Go look at it. Rowan University was formerly Glassboro State Teacher's College until Rowan donated $100 million for an egineering school and naming rights, creating Rowan University. Rowan got his fortune from Inductotherm, a NJ builder of industrial induction heating systems. Jasson was the first graduate student of the enegineering college. For his Master's thesis, he performed a BLP experiment with a Seeback calorimeter lent by BLP. Rowan is about 45 minutes from my house, and I took the trouble to visit the Rowan library and read his thesis, which was well done. I have also conversed with Jansson in his office. Before his graduate work at Rowan, Jansson worked for Atlantic City Electric to evaulate advanced energy devices for possible investment. He recommended BLP and an investment was made. As a courtesy, Jansson was allowed to buy a small stock holding in BLP, whereas normally only wealthy qualified investors were allowed under SEC rules for such a high risk venture. Pictures and diagrams of the calorimeter are on the BLP website. BLP furnishing the raw materials assured replication and avoided blunders such as others have made in attempts to replicate BLP results. The Rowan work satisifies all reasonable requiirments for an independent validation of the BLP process. It produces a burst of energy. Implementing that as a continuous power output for a utility boiler is another problem whose solution BLP is not presently disclosing. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
Finally !! Thanks to Ron for digging up this, as it apparently has gone unnoticed on HSG. Executive summary - calibration runs indicate an efficient calorimetry system which does capture and retain 99+% of the heat within the calorimeter (0.54-0.82% loss). Therefore the reliability of the results seems to be good, and believable. [hope they allow other experts in calorimetry to have a close look] In the heat experiments, the reactor generated over 1 megajoule of excess heat - of which only ~10 kilojoules could be accounted for by chemistry. Wow! This is actually better than anything which BLP has reported AFAIK ! Some may quibble about the level of independence since the reactor was provided by BLP. COMMENTARY: So what if they used a loaner? I do not believe Randy was looking over their shoulder. Given that BLP does not want anyone else to know the exact details of this proprietary device, which is not unreasonable - this is fully acceptable so long as there was not other outside influence. The only thing which I wish had been done at this stage is to eliminate (or verify) nuclear reactions: especially LENR Jones IOW is the excess heat the result of hydrogen shrinkage only ? - and therefore there is zero transmutation, zero gammas and zero ash ? Maybe so, maybe not. There is the distinct possibility that the excess heat is deriving ultimately from the nucleus (weak or strong force) in which case there should be some evidence - transmutation products of gammas. I suspect, and predict, that they will find beta decay when they take the time to look ! Especially since sodium is involved, I am trying to imagine a unique reversible nuclear reaction whereby a virtual or pseudo neutron i.e. an extremely low energy nearly neutral particle, made up of highly shrunken hydrogen could participate with 23Na and remain largely undetected (since the reaction is hypothesized to be reversible). 23Na is 100% of natural sodium. 24Na is very unstable with a short half-life and is a beta emitter. It also has a nuclear spin of 4. It has a lot in common with 40K. Potassium is also among the best Mills' catalysts and no one knows that 40K could not be solely responsible for that even (wild guess) despite its low enrichment. ERGO - I will go out on a limb and opine that yes, shrinkage (redundant ground states) are necessary as a precursor - but do not give all (or maybe even most) of the excess heat which is being seen and documented here. I am pretty sure, based on what I have seen in another experiment, that they will eventually observe betas in the range of a 10^5-10^6 eV. Problem is: Mills may not approve of that, so will they be allowed to report it? Jones - Original Message From: Ron Wormus http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/BLPIndependentReport.pdf
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
To clarify one point on what has yet to be shown by Rown: is the excess heat the result of hydrogen shrinkage only ? - and therefore there is zero transmutation, zero gammas and zero ash ? OK - It should be mentioned prominently that 24Mg is the most common isotope of magnesium (about 79%) and therefore if some kind of virtual neutron is involved in this reactor with 23Na, which gives anaomalous energy, and it is followed by a low energy beta decay (an order of magnitude less than expected) then there should be some anomalous magnesium showing up in place of sodium in the reactor. Also hyperfine coupling should be mentioned here as Mills' CQM has fine-structure written all over it g This the weak magnetic interaction between electrons and nuclei. Hyperfine coupling causes the hyperfine splitting of atomic or molecular energy levels and supposedly this would do two things in the context of 23Na- which are to further enhance shrinkage and also lower the half-life for the transmutation into magnesium. Jones
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] To clarify one point on what has yet to be shown by Rown: is the excess heat the result of hydrogen shrinkage only ? - and therefore there is zero transmutation, zero gammas and zero ash ? OK - It should be mentioned prominently that 24Mg is the most common isotope of magnesium (about 79%) and therefore if some kind of virtual neutron is involved in this reactor with 23Na, which gives anaomalous energy, and it is followed by a low energy beta decay (an order of magnitude less than expected) then there should be some anomalous magnesium showing up in place of sodium in the reactor. Also hyperfine coupling should be mentioned here as Mills' CQM has fine-structure written all over it g This the weak magnetic interaction between electrons and nuclei. Hyperfine coupling causes the hyperfine splitting of atomic or molecular energy levels and supposedly this would do two things in the context of 23Na- which are to further enhance shrinkage and also lower the half-life for the transmutation into magnesium. Jones I am somewhat confused by the Rowan report. To start with they fail to mention how much Na (/or NaOH) was used in either cell. They fail to explain where the Al in reaction 2 on page 10 comes from. In short, I would have expected a full analysis to have specified *exactly* which chemicals and how much of each went into a heat producing cell (including the amount of Hydrogen), and also what was left at the end of the run. That way readers would be free to do their own calculations, rather than relying on the expertise of the Rowan chemistry department, and their judgment of which reactions took place (or could have taken place). Furthermore, given the nature of the purported reactions, I would have expected an accounting of just how much unexplained substance (Hydrino chemicals) was present at the end. However, all that having been said, if we assume that there was indeed excess heat, inexplicable by means of ordinary chemistry, then apart from the nuclear reactions mentioned by Jones, here are a couple of others: Na23 + Hy - Mg24 + 11.7 MeV carried away by a fast electron (no neutron involvement). Na23 + Hy - Ne20 + He4 + 2.37 MeV largely carried away by the alpha particle. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
- Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Ron Wormus [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication Finally !! Thanks to Ron for digging up this, as it apparently has gone unnoticed on HSG. Executive summary - calibration runs indicate an efficient calorimetry system which does capture and retain 99+% of the heat within the calorimeter (0.54-0.82% loss). Therefore the reliability of the results seems to be good, and believable. [hope they allow other experts in calorimetry to have a close look] In the heat experiments, the reactor generated over 1 megajoule of excess heat - of which only ~10 kilojoules could be accounted for by chemistry. Wow! This is actually better than anything which BLP has reported AFAIK ! BLP reported 753 kJ from essentially the same experiment. The difference can be just the amount of 'fuel' used for each run. The energy output scales linearly. Some may quibble about the level of independence since the reactor was provided by BLP. COMMENTARY: So what if they used a loaner? I do not believe Randy was looking over their shoulder. Quite so. The Rowan report lists participants from several departments. Given that BLP does not want anyone else to know the exact details of this proprietary device, which is not unreasonable - this is fully acceptable so long as there was not other outside influence. Not quite so. The paper onthe webiste titled Commercializable. is thick with details of several 'solid fuel' reactions, including NaH. The trick is to study this paper and tease out it the details of the process. Even so, one is left with quesltions whose answers might be obvious to one working in the field. The only thing which I wish had been done at this stage is to eliminate (or verify) nuclear reactions: especially LENR Methinks the path to LENR is though the autocatalyitc reaction involving three hydrogen [or deuterium] atoms. Such may be the heat source in electrolytic and other LENR experiments. The reaction paths for the 'solid fuel' do not go that way as detailes in the above-refrenced paper. Jones IOW is the excess heat the result of hydrogen shrinkage only ? - and therefore there is zero transmutation, zero gammas and zero ash ? Study the Commercializable... paper. The primary reaction gives H[1/3] which quickly reacts with available hydrogen atoms to give H[1/4]. Once a lot of hydrinos have been produced, lots of further reactions are possible. I don't know to what degree BLP has search for them. Maybe so, maybe not. There is the distinct possibility that the excess heat is deriving ultimately from the nucleus (weak or strong force) in which case there should be some evidence - transmutation products of gammas. I suspect, and predict, that they will find beta decay when they take the time to look ! This unexplored territory for which generations of graduate students should be grateful.:-) Especially since sodium is involved, I am trying to imagine a unique reversible nuclear reaction whereby a virtual or pseudo neutron i.e. an extremely low energy nearly neutral particle, made up of highly shrunken hydrogen could participate with 23Na and remain largely undetected (since the reaction is hypothesized to be reversible). 23Na is 100% of natural sodium. 24Na is very unstable with a short half-life and is a beta emitter. It also has a nuclear spin of 4. It has a lot in common with 40K. Potassium is also among the best Mills' catalysts and no one knows that 40K could not be solely responsible for that even (wild guess) despite its low enrichment. ERGO - I will go out on a limb and opine that yes, shrinkage (redundant ground states) are necessary as a precursor - but do not give all (or maybe even most) of the excess heat which is being seen and documented here. I am pretty sure, based on what I have seen in another experiment, that they will eventually observe betas in the range of a 10^5-10^6 eV. Problem is: Mills may not approve of that, so will they be allowed to report it? Rowan will not be the only group to study these reactions. As BLP proceeds toward commercial scale, and the process becomes *real*, lots of people will be studying it. I suggest Jones focus on the energy implications rather than nuclear reactions. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
I am delighted to see a independent -- or at least semi-independent -- replication of BLP. Jones Beene wrote: Some may quibble about the level of independence since the reactor was provided by BLP. In my opinion, this does not matter. This is a good first step. Eventually someone should do a more independent replication. It should be in stages. COMMENTARY: So what if they used a loaner? I do not believe Randy was looking over their shoulder. Heck, I wouldn't care if he was looking over their shoulder. I wish that more CF researchers would do that sort of thing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
- Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication snip I am somewhat confused by the Rowan report. To start with they fail to mention how much Na (/or NaOH) was used in either cell. They fail to explain where the Al in reaction 2 on page 10 comes from. In short, I would have expected a full analysis to have specified *exactly* which chemicals and how much of each went into a heat producing cell (including the amount of Hydrogen), and also what was left at the end of the run. That way readers would be free to do their own calculations, rather than relying on the expertise of the Rowan chemistry department, and their judgment of which reactions took place (or could have taken place). MC: The Rowan report could be more detailed, in view of the importance of it. The important thing is that they used the BLP process and were able to get heat yields of the same magnitude. The report presupposes familiarity with the Commercializable paper available on the website. Al is a residual element in the creation of Reynal-Ni. Why it is important is not clear to me. Mills has stated specifically that the only consumeable in the reaction cycle is hydrogen; all other elements are recovered and reused. Exactly how this is done is not clear to me from any report I have seen. Until one has made an effort to study the Commercializable... report, I think it pointless to speculate on what really happens. Furthermore, given the nature of the purported reactions, I would have expected an accounting of just how much unexplained substance (Hydrino chemicals) was present at the end. MC: The refrenced paper specifies that H[1/3] is the primary reaction product, with H[1/4] produced with available H in a secondary reaction. Once the hydrinos are produced, complex catalytic reactions can continue. I have not seen any studies of these. However, all that having been said, if we assume that there was indeed excess heat, inexplicable by means of ordinary chemistry, then apart from the nuclear reactions mentioned by Jones, here are a couple of others: MC: Why speculated about nuclear reactions when hydrinos have been isolated and chjaracterized by BLP? Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:08:07 -0400: Hi, [snip] MC: The Rowan report could be more detailed, in view of the importance of it. The important thing is that they used the BLP process and were able to get heat yields of the same magnitude. The report presupposes familiarity with the Commercializable paper available on the website. Al is a residual element in the creation of Reynal-Ni. Why it is important is not clear to me. Mills has stated specifically that the only consumeable in the reaction cycle is hydrogen; all other elements are recovered and reused. The problem with this is once again that we have only his word for it. The whole point of an independent replication is to get someone else's word for it too. Exactly how this is done is not clear to me from any report I have seen. Until one has made an effort to study the Commercializable... report, I I have made some effort in that direction. think it pointless to speculate on what really happens. Furthermore, given the nature of the purported reactions, I would have expected an accounting of just how much unexplained substance (Hydrino chemicals) was present at the end. MC: The refrenced paper specifies that H[1/3] is the primary reaction product, with H[1/4] produced with available H in a secondary reaction. Once the hydrinos are produced, complex catalytic reactions can continue. I have not seen any studies of these. What I meant was that the Rowan study could at least have said e.g. We were able to identify x grams of conventional chemicals after completion of the process. This left us with y grams that we could not identify. If x = the starting amount, then the Hydrino compounds are either likely distributed around the interior walls of the reaction vessel, or only present as Hydrino molecules. However, all that having been said, if we assume that there was indeed excess heat, inexplicable by means of ordinary chemistry, then apart from the nuclear reactions mentioned by Jones, here are a couple of others: MC: Why speculated about nuclear reactions when hydrinos have been isolated and chjaracterized by BLP? [snip] ...pushing my own barrow? (in part), but also, like Jones, pointing out that LENR remains a possible alternative/associated possible means of heat production, and consequently experimenters should check for potential ionizing radiation. Of course, Mills can be counted on not to do this, because he doesn't want to find it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] To clarify one point on what has yet to be shown by Rown: is the excess heat the result of hydrogen shrinkage only ? - and therefore there is zero transmutation, zero gammas and zero ash ? OK - It should be mentioned prominently that 24Mg is the most common isotope of magnesium (about 79%) and therefore if some kind of virtual neutron is involved in this reactor with 23Na, which gives anaomalous energy, and it is followed by a low energy beta decay (an order of magnitude less than expected) then there should be some anomalous magnesium showing up in place of sodium in the reactor. Also hyperfine coupling should be mentioned here as Mills' CQM has fine-structure written all over it g This the weak magnetic interaction between electrons and nuclei. Hyperfine coupling causes the hyperfine splitting of atomic or molecular energy levels and supposedly this would do two things in the context of 23Na- which are to further enhance shrinkage and also lower the half-life for the transmutation into magnesium. Jones I am somewhat confused by the Rowan report. To start with they fail to mention how much Na (/or NaOH) was used in either cell. They fail to explain where the Al in reaction 2 on page 10 comes from. In short, I would have expected a full analysis to have specified *exactly* which chemicals and how much of each ... Please note that the report was apparently not formatted as a formal paper intended for publication. One thing about papers intended for publication in a journal: They do *not* say Confidential and Proprietary at the bottom of every page! But this paper does. Ergo, this must have been done as a report *to* *BLP* by the group at Rowan University. The intended audience may, in fact, have known exactly what the parameters to the experiments were, and hence a lot of space devoted to that was not necessary; the results and measurements were what they were interested in, and those are laid out pretty clearly, I think. Apparently, after receiving the report BLP decided to publish it on their site. While that would have been done with the permission and knowledge of the Rowan researchers it still might not have been something either group planned on in advance. Had the Rowan folks written this up for publication, they might have done some things a little differently, and included more details on the experimental setup.
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:29:07 -0400: Hi, That makes a lot of sense, except for one thing. Why would BLP want a research group at a University to tell it something it already knew? IOW if the report was never intended for publication, then why commission it at all? I could understand if a third party had commissioned the report, however in that case too, I would have expected a more complete report. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] To clarify one point on what has yet to be shown by Rown: is the excess heat the result of hydrogen shrinkage only ? - and therefore there is zero transmutation, zero gammas and zero ash ? OK - It should be mentioned prominently that 24Mg is the most common isotope of magnesium (about 79%) and therefore if some kind of virtual neutron is involved in this reactor with 23Na, which gives anaomalous energy, and it is followed by a low energy beta decay (an order of magnitude less than expected) then there should be some anomalous magnesium showing up in place of sodium in the reactor. Also hyperfine coupling should be mentioned here as Mills' CQM has fine-structure written all over it g This the weak magnetic interaction between electrons and nuclei. Hyperfine coupling causes the hyperfine splitting of atomic or molecular energy levels and supposedly this would do two things in the context of 23Na- which are to further enhance shrinkage and also lower the half-life for the transmutation into magnesium. Jones I am somewhat confused by the Rowan report. To start with they fail to mention how much Na (/or NaOH) was used in either cell. They fail to explain where the Al in reaction 2 on page 10 comes from. In short, I would have expected a full analysis to have specified *exactly* which chemicals and how much of each ... Please note that the report was apparently not formatted as a formal paper intended for publication. One thing about papers intended for publication in a journal: They do *not* say Confidential and Proprietary at the bottom of every page! But this paper does. Ergo, this must have been done as a report *to* *BLP* by the group at Rowan University. The intended audience may, in fact, have known exactly what the parameters to the experiments were, and hence a lot of space devoted to that was not necessary; the results and measurements were what they were interested in, and those are laid out pretty clearly, I think. Apparently, after receiving the report BLP decided to publish it on their site. While that would have been done with the permission and knowledge of the Rowan researchers it still might not have been something either group planned on in advance. Had the Rowan folks written this up for publication, they might have done some things a little differently, and included more details on the experimental setup. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
