Re: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes
I agree that the patent is written to confuse. By carefully selecting a few sentences and paragraphs from the patent I think it is possible to find a rather neat semi-continuous flow version of an intersting development of the Graneau water arc system, which is consistent with the rather sketchy diagrams that they have shown. I wonder... Nigel On 21/01/2014 18:29, Axil Axil wrote: Re from the patent: The current may be AC, DC or an AC-DC mixture. In an embodiment, comprising a magnetohydrodynamic plasma to electric power converter, the current is DC such that a DC magnetic field is produced by the current. The MHD converter is not developed yet so the demo will require external power. By the way. the patent is written to confuse and it is successful. The patent defines every voltage, amperage, pulse rate and arc duration, and every chemical that exists. In short, it says everything and its says nothing. On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net mailto:jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer The components of the demo don't look to me to be much like, for example the Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition Electrochemical Cell, so I was trying to work out what what we know about this configuration. For example, the energizing electrodes that are mentioned. Do we have an idea of what voltages might be involved and exactly how the electrodes energize the water? In some respects this setup seems oddly familiar. Nigel, Well - I do not profess to know what will be shown - but if this demo is not clearly self-powering (no battery or external PS) then it will be a disaster. It will not be sufficient to extrapolate. At this point in time, Mills must show a self-running device IMHO. Based on the history of LENR, as early as 1990 (if not 1989) it was suggested that the obvious thing to do with an electrolysis cell which is overunity, like the PF cell - is to connect the gas output to a PEM fuel cell and thereby to self-loop the two. However, in the case of Pd-D the net gain is in thermal energy, and not in excess gas - so self-power cannot be accomplished easily that way. However, it is possible in the case of plasma electrolysis of water - for the excess energy to be in the form of excess hydrogen and oxygen, and this is my hope for the BLP demo - even if we are only in the 100 watt range of power which is being circulated. At one time it looked like Mizuno could pull this off with his glow discharge cell - but he never did. This demo will be a success if there is looped system (fully self-powering) in the 100 watt range, even if there is no usable excess. That is because no one has really done it before in a 3rd party demo. (there are numerous claims and reports of looping having been accomplished for short periods, but not in a robust, on-demand way or by a reputable inventor who is prepared to show it to independent third parties). Therefore - It is safe to say for the record that there is no independently proved self-powering energy device as of 2014 - and if Mills can pull that off - hats off to him. He will steal most of Rossi's thunder. Jones
RE: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes
Erik, Yes, you got it about patent strategy. There is no malice in this. If a guy claims a blue box in a patent and another claims a red box with the dame function, he should not get a patent if the color is not of the essence. The BLP paper “Solid fuels that make HOH catalyst” clarifies the matter. The BLP device handles pellets of solid fuel at high speed. They are apparently conductive. Within perhaps milliseconds a pellet has to be raised to the activation temperature by a burst of current inducing the hydrino transition. The actual *power* may be modest, but substantial voltage and current for, say, a millisecond, must be available. As far as the hydrino state, Mills has years of experimental evidence with many tests and modes to prove their physical existence. It is there in many publications, but acceptance is slow because such is counter to ‘received opinion’ that many physicist regard as sacred. Mike Carrell From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: By the way. the patent is written to confuse and it is successful. The patent defines every voltage, amperage, pulse rate and arc duration, and every chemical that exists. In short, it says everything and its says nothing. That is consistent with what Mike Carrel was saying. I am beginning to draw a similar conclusion about hydrinos. I suspect the theory is a red herring to distract people and make it harder to copy. The whole theory introduces as many problems as, and perhaps more than, the ones it seeks to resolve (namely, excess heat). One almost gets the impression we are being teased with it -- see how much you will believe if we tell you what you want to hear? The only reason I continue to suspend disbelief on it is because Robin and Jones are willing to entertain modified versions of it, but I suspect they are being overly generous. I'm reminded of a quote about forged paintings from one of the main characters in American Hustle, a movie that recently came out -- People believe what they want to believe because the guy who made this was so good that it's real to everybody. Now who's the master, the painter or the forger? Eric This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes
History of Water Arc Explosions : The unusual strength of explosions caused by a pulsed current flowing through water plasma was first noticed in 1907 by Trowbridge. in his early high voltage laboratory at Harvard University. When he passed an arc through a spray of water, the resulting explosion was louder than in ordinary laboratory air. During the second world war, Frungel measured the strength of water arc explosions and published his results in 1948. He concluded that they were not caused by heat and steam and freely admitted that he was unable to explain the phenomenon. Soon after Frungel's publications, water arc explosions found applications in electrohydraulic metal forming and underwater pulse echo sounding. In 1969, the US Bureau of Mines issued a long report on their investigation into using water arc explosions for rock fragmentation. In one experiment the investigators at the Twin City Mining Research Center noticed that the energy output was apparently 156% of the input. Not until the mid-1980s was the scientific basis of the puzzling explosions more extensively researched. At MIT. It was shown that the discharge of 3.6 kJ of stored capacitor energy would create pressures in excess of 20.000 atm. In 7 ml of water. 3.6 gm of water was ejected from an accelerator barrel at a velocity of the order of 1000m/s, sufficient to penetrate a ¼ thick aluminium plate. Joe Papp has a patent on this process. One story involvine this process was filmed and witnessed by a handful of impartial observers; that story dealt with his cannon and goes as follows: Papp decided to add a cannon to his collection of hardware to show all those that were interested in what he could really do. So on one early crisp sunny Sunday fall morning in October 1968, Papp trooped out to the desert with six or eight engineers from the Navy and TRW with a homemade cannon, powered by his invention. For this show, Papp decided to pull out all the stops that usually kept his engines docile and well controlled in the engine application and scaled up his technology to its maximum power potential. The barrel was four feet long, four inches in diameter, made of a three foot length of 3-inch schedule 50 stainless steel pipe (0.6 inch wall thickness) anchored and totally encased in a heavy one-foot thick reinforced concrete containment block. The breech was loaded with just 10cc’s of Papp’s inert water vapor/noble gas mix. For the breech, he used a spare cylinder head from one of his engines; for a projectile, he machined a piece of steel. Papp filled the cylinder head with his gas mix from five separate flasks and hooked up the power. Then Papp hit the start button. We heard this tremendous explosion. It was a low rumble, like a bass sound, one witness there said. The projectile jammed halfway up the barrel and ripped the cannon in half. The back of the gun flared open like a stainless steel tulip strewn with 5/8 inch thick metal fragments. The concrete containment was mostly blasted into the air as a cloud reduced to rubble and dust. It also punched a crater about 3-feet in diameter and about 3-feet deep into the rocky desert hardpan and the 1-foot thick platform of plywood and 2x8 planks upon which all rested was reduced to a shower of splinters. This cannon and everything that Papp did was patented. These Patents are an official validation of a LERN technology that is unprecedented. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I agree that the patent is written to confuse. By carefully selecting a few sentences and paragraphs from the patent I think it is possible to find a rather neat semi-continuous flow version of an intersting development of the Graneau water arc system, which is consistent with the rather sketchy diagrams that they have shown. I wonder... Nigel On 21/01/2014 18:29, Axil Axil wrote: Re from the patent: The current may be AC, DC or an AC-DC mixture. In an embodiment, comprising a magnetohydrodynamic plasma to electric power converter, the current is DC such that a DC magnetic field is produced by the current. The MHD converter is not developed yet so the demo will require external power. By the way. the patent is written to confuse and it is successful. The patent defines every voltage, amperage, pulse rate and arc duration, and every chemical that exists. In short, it says everything and its says nothing. On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer The components of the demo don't look to me to be much like, for example the Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition Electrochemical Cell, so I was trying to work out what what we know about this configuration. For example, the energizing electrodes that are mentioned. Do we have an idea of what voltages might be involved and exactly how the electrodes energize the water?
Re: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes
More... from a post here on vortex back on 12/31/12 to vortex-l I looked at the Papp cannon video again. At 3:00 in, Papp is filling the cannon from one of the flasks. It has a sizable amount of clear liquid at the bottom of that flask. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2tuk31pS2Mfeature=player_embedded Is that liquid clorinated water is see? On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: History of Water Arc Explosions : The unusual strength of explosions caused by a pulsed current flowing through water plasma was first noticed in 1907 by Trowbridge. in his early high voltage laboratory at Harvard University. When he passed an arc through a spray of water, the resulting explosion was louder than in ordinary laboratory air. During the second world war, Frungel measured the strength of water arc explosions and published his results in 1948. He concluded that they were not caused by heat and steam and freely admitted that he was unable to explain the phenomenon. Soon after Frungel's publications, water arc explosions found applications in electrohydraulic metal forming and underwater pulse echo sounding. In 1969, the US Bureau of Mines issued a long report on their investigation into using water arc explosions for rock fragmentation. In one experiment the investigators at the Twin City Mining Research Center noticed that the energy output was apparently 156% of the input. Not until the mid-1980s was the scientific basis of the puzzling explosions more extensively researched. At MIT. It was shown that the discharge of 3.6 kJ of stored capacitor energy would create pressures in excess of 20.000 atm. In 7 ml of water. 3.6 gm of water was ejected from an accelerator barrel at a velocity of the order of 1000m/s, sufficient to penetrate a ¼ thick aluminium plate. Joe Papp has a patent on this process. One story involvine this process was filmed and witnessed by a handful of impartial observers; that story dealt with his cannon and goes as follows: Papp decided to add a cannon to his collection of hardware to show all those that were interested in what he could really do. So on one early crisp sunny Sunday fall morning in October 1968, Papp trooped out to the desert with six or eight engineers from the Navy and TRW with a homemade cannon, powered by his invention. For this show, Papp decided to pull out all the stops that usually kept his engines docile and well controlled in the engine application and scaled up his technology to its maximum power potential. The barrel was four feet long, four inches in diameter, made of a three foot length of 3-inch schedule 50 stainless steel pipe (0.6 inch wall thickness) anchored and totally encased in a heavy one-foot thick reinforced concrete containment block. The breech was loaded with just 10cc’s of Papp’s inert water vapor/noble gas mix. For the breech, he used a spare cylinder head from one of his engines; for a projectile, he machined a piece of steel. Papp filled the cylinder head with his gas mix from five separate flasks and hooked up the power. Then Papp hit the start button. We heard this tremendous explosion. It was a low rumble, like a bass sound, one witness there said. The projectile jammed halfway up the barrel and ripped the cannon in half. The back of the gun flared open like a stainless steel tulip strewn with 5/8 inch thick metal fragments. The concrete containment was mostly blasted into the air as a cloud reduced to rubble and dust. It also punched a crater about 3-feet in diameter and about 3-feet deep into the rocky desert hardpan and the 1-foot thick platform of plywood and 2x8 planks upon which all rested was reduced to a shower of splinters. This cannon and everything that Papp did was patented. These Patents are an official validation of a LERN technology that is unprecedented. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I agree that the patent is written to confuse. By carefully selecting a few sentences and paragraphs from the patent I think it is possible to find a rather neat semi-continuous flow version of an intersting development of the Graneau water arc system, which is consistent with the rather sketchy diagrams that they have shown. I wonder... Nigel On 21/01/2014 18:29, Axil Axil wrote: Re from the patent: The current may be AC, DC or an AC-DC mixture. In an embodiment, comprising a magnetohydrodynamic plasma to electric power converter, the current is DC such that a DC magnetic field is produced by the current. The MHD converter is not developed yet so the demo will require external power. By the way. the patent is written to confuse and it is successful. The patent defines every voltage, amperage, pulse rate and arc duration, and every chemical that exists. In short, it says everything and its says nothing. On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at
Re: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes
Just re-read the patent. One embodiment involves a voltage of less than about 10V, and another involves a voltage of at least 2kV. That covers first and third base. The high voltage option would be interesting. I guess we wait and see if there are any clues at the demo itself. Nigel On 21/01/2014 17:16, Nigel Dyer wrote: The components of the demo don't look to me to be much like, for example the Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition Electrochemical Cell, so I was trying to work out what what we know about this configuration. For example, the energizing electrodes that are mentioned. Do we haev an idea of what voltages might be involved and exactly how the electrodes energize the water? In some respects this setup seems oddly familiar. Nigel
RE: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes
-Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer The components of the demo don't look to me to be much like, for example the Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition Electrochemical Cell, so I was trying to work out what what we know about this configuration. For example, the energizing electrodes that are mentioned. Do we have an idea of what voltages might be involved and exactly how the electrodes energize the water? In some respects this setup seems oddly familiar. Nigel, Well - I do not profess to know what will be shown - but if this demo is not clearly self-powering (no battery or external PS) then it will be a disaster. It will not be sufficient to extrapolate. At this point in time, Mills must show a self-running device IMHO. Based on the history of LENR, as early as 1990 (if not 1989) it was suggested that the obvious thing to do with an electrolysis cell which is overunity, like the PF cell - is to connect the gas output to a PEM fuel cell and thereby to self-loop the two. However, in the case of Pd-D the net gain is in thermal energy, and not in excess gas - so self-power cannot be accomplished easily that way. However, it is possible in the case of plasma electrolysis of water - for the excess energy to be in the form of excess hydrogen and oxygen, and this is my hope for the BLP demo - even if we are only in the 100 watt range of power which is being circulated. At one time it looked like Mizuno could pull this off with his glow discharge cell - but he never did. This demo will be a success if there is looped system (fully self-powering) in the 100 watt range, even if there is no usable excess. That is because no one has really done it before in a 3rd party demo. (there are numerous claims and reports of looping having been accomplished for short periods, but not in a robust, on-demand way or by a reputable inventor who is prepared to show it to independent third parties). Therefore - It is safe to say for the record that there is no independently proved self-powering energy device as of 2014 - and if Mills can pull that off - hats off to him. He will steal most of Rossi's thunder. Jones
Re: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes
Re from the patent: The current may be AC, DC or an AC-DC mixture. In an embodiment, comprising a magnetohydrodynamic plasma to electric power converter, the current is DC such that a DC magnetic field is produced by the current. The MHD converter is not developed yet so the demo will require external power. By the way. the patent is written to confuse and it is successful. The patent defines every voltage, amperage, pulse rate and arc duration, and every chemical that exists. In short, it says everything and its says nothing. On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer The components of the demo don't look to me to be much like, for example the Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition Electrochemical Cell, so I was trying to work out what what we know about this configuration. For example, the energizing electrodes that are mentioned. Do we have an idea of what voltages might be involved and exactly how the electrodes energize the water? In some respects this setup seems oddly familiar. Nigel, Well - I do not profess to know what will be shown - but if this demo is not clearly self-powering (no battery or external PS) then it will be a disaster. It will not be sufficient to extrapolate. At this point in time, Mills must show a self-running device IMHO. Based on the history of LENR, as early as 1990 (if not 1989) it was suggested that the obvious thing to do with an electrolysis cell which is overunity, like the PF cell - is to connect the gas output to a PEM fuel cell and thereby to self-loop the two. However, in the case of Pd-D the net gain is in thermal energy, and not in excess gas - so self-power cannot be accomplished easily that way. However, it is possible in the case of plasma electrolysis of water - for the excess energy to be in the form of excess hydrogen and oxygen, and this is my hope for the BLP demo - even if we are only in the 100 watt range of power which is being circulated. At one time it looked like Mizuno could pull this off with his glow discharge cell - but he never did. This demo will be a success if there is looped system (fully self-powering) in the 100 watt range, even if there is no usable excess. That is because no one has really done it before in a 3rd party demo. (there are numerous claims and reports of looping having been accomplished for short periods, but not in a robust, on-demand way or by a reputable inventor who is prepared to show it to independent third parties). Therefore - It is safe to say for the record that there is no independently proved self-powering energy device as of 2014 - and if Mills can pull that off - hats off to him. He will steal most of Rossi's thunder. Jones
Re: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This demo will be a success if there is looped system (fully self-powering) in the 100 watt range, even if there is no usable excess. Do you honestly think that there is the slightest possibility that Mills will present a self-powering device?
Re: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes
It is difficult to show an over unity capability when the devise uses external power. Papp did it by starting his engine with a battery, then he removed the battery, and the engine continued to run for all long time. That was a good demo because it was easy to understand. Mills might prove his point by referring to lots of numbers and measurements, but this method has no emotional impact and is open to interpretation. . On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This demo will be a success if there is looped system (fully self-powering) in the 100 watt range, even if there is no usable excess. Do you honestly think that there is the slightest possibility that Mills will present a self-powering device?
RE: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton This demo will be a success if there is looped system (fully self-powering) in the 100 watt range, even if there is no usable excess. Do you honestly think that there is the slightest possibility that Mills will present a self-powering device? Uh... uh... well, maybe. Actually, given the big claims and the megabucks expended, there should be a self-powering device from Mills by now, and he is wasting our time otherwise. He has talked about gains of 100:1 for a decade. The Capstone Micro-turbine was supposedly a self-runner way-back-when. Stand and Deliver !
Re: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: By the way. the patent is written to confuse and it is successful. The patent defines every voltage, amperage, pulse rate and arc duration, and every chemical that exists. In short, it says everything and its says nothing. That is consistent with what Mike Carrel was saying. I am beginning to draw a similar conclusion about hydrinos. I suspect the theory is a red herring to distract people and make it harder to copy. The whole theory introduces as many problems as, and perhaps more than, the ones it seeks to resolve (namely, excess heat). One almost gets the impression we are being teased with it -- see how much you will believe if we tell you what you want to hear? The only reason I continue to suspend disbelief on it is because Robin and Jones are willing to entertain modified versions of it, but I suspect they are being overly generous. I'm reminded of a quote about forged paintings from one of the main characters in American Hustle, a movie that recently came out -- People believe what they want to believe because the guy who made this was so good that it's real to everybody. Now who's the master, the painter or the forger? Eric
