Re: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
I am waiting for one of the replicators to do a spectrum of the light coming off the reactor. Does MFMP plan to do this in the future? A good device can be aquired for under $50 but there are many videos out there that show how to build a device from a used CD. This will give an idea of the kind of heat produced. If the reactor type is a mouse the heat could be near monochromatic light. On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:16 AM, AlanG a...@magicsound.us wrote: The final test with the cell unchanged (called retest3) is shown in the graph at http://tinyurl.com/or6ol3o The temp. differential is within 10° C of the initial calibration and converging at the high end. All the test data is available online at http://tinyurl.com/ovg2jdo http://tinyurl.com/ovg2jdo I'll do more analysis including the power calculations when time permits. Alan On 7/2/2015 8:51 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: AlanG To get back to the original topic (the GS3 experiment), in two successive reheat tests with the fuel intact, no excess heat was seen. The final reheat was after 24+ hours of degassing at below 1 torr vacuum. Results of that test are summarized in my report at https://goo.gl/guRhzl Hi, I see mostly references to leakage current in this doc. This is indeed a problem which must be dealt with, and one wonders how Rossi avoided it. Is there another doc which contains data for the final reheat ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
To get back to the original topic (the GS3 experiment), in two successive reheat tests with the fuel intact, no excess heat was seen. The final reheat was after 24+ hours of degassing at below 1 torr vacuum. Results of that test are summarized in my report at https://goo.gl/guRhzl Comments are welcome, of course. Alan Goldwater On 7/1/2015 8:32 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:55:47 -0500: Hi, [snip] On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* James Bowery Ø I must have misunderstood what you just said because hydrinos are ash, not fuel, so the reaction will stop. There is a progressive range of 137 stable fractional levels (Rydberg multiples) which hydrogen electron orbitals can assume, according to Mills’ theory – each one more energetic than the one before. None of them are the functional equivalent of ash, even the last. In the Millsian theory the functional equivalent of ash is context dependent: a catalyst with energy transition equal (to what precision?) to that of the fractional Rydberg state transition. That was the source of my comment about ash. James: Hydrinos can autocatalyze, something Mills calls disproportionation, where one Hydrino expands while another, with which it is in contact, shrinks. The net result is a further energy release. (Though one has to wonder why this wouldn't lead to an explosion.) Jones: While there are 137 Hydrino levels, only the first 24 of them can form a negative ion, the most likely form in which they would be bound in a lattice IMO. Nevertheless, shrinkage to level 24 releases a total of 24^2 x 13.6 eV = 7834 eV per Hydrino. There is of course also magnetic bonding as you suggest, which would be valid for Hydrinos of any size. It's also possible that Hydrinohydride ions get bound to Li ions, as I suggested previously, creating an entity that is either neutral of negatively charged, depending on the number of bound Hydrinohydride ions, and possibly capable of mediating neutron transfer reactions. (However, again one has to wonder why the neutral version wouldn't exit the reactor just like Hydrino molecules.) (Perhaps they catalyze enough neutron transfer reactions before they leave to make it worth while??) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
-Original Message- From: AlanG To get back to the original topic (the GS3 experiment), in two successive reheat tests with the fuel intact, no excess heat was seen. The final reheat was after 24+ hours of degassing at below 1 torr vacuum. Results of that test are summarized in my report at https://goo.gl/guRhzl Hi, I see mostly references to leakage current in this doc. This is indeed a problem which must be dealt with, and one wonders how Rossi avoided it. Is there another doc which contains data for the final reheat ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
The final test with the cell unchanged (called retest3) is shown in the graph at http://tinyurl.com/or6ol3o* *The temp. differential is within 10° C of the initial calibration and converging at the high end. All the test data is available online at http://tinyurl.com/ovg2jdo* *I'll do more analysis including the power calculations when time permits. Alan On 7/2/2015 8:51 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: AlanG To get back to the original topic (the GS3 experiment), in two successive reheat tests with the fuel intact, no excess heat was seen. The final reheat was after 24+ hours of degassing at below 1 torr vacuum. Results of that test are summarized in my report at https://goo.gl/guRhzl Hi, I see mostly references to leakage current in this doc. This is indeed a problem which must be dealt with, and one wonders how Rossi avoided it. Is there another doc which contains data for the final reheat ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
In reply to James Bowery's message of Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:55:47 -0500: Hi, [snip] On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* James Bowery Ø I must have misunderstood what you just said because hydrinos are ash, not fuel, so the reaction will stop. There is a progressive range of 137 stable fractional levels (Rydberg multiples) which hydrogen electron orbitals can assume, according to Mills theory each one more energetic than the one before. None of them are the functional equivalent of ash, even the last. In the Millsian theory the functional equivalent of ash is context dependent: a catalyst with energy transition equal (to what precision?) to that of the fractional Rydberg state transition. That was the source of my comment about ash. James: Hydrinos can autocatalyze, something Mills calls disproportionation, where one Hydrino expands while another, with which it is in contact, shrinks. The net result is a further energy release. (Though one has to wonder why this wouldn't lead to an explosion.) Jones: While there are 137 Hydrino levels, only the first 24 of them can form a negative ion, the most likely form in which they would be bound in a lattice IMO. Nevertheless, shrinkage to level 24 releases a total of 24^2 x 13.6 eV = 7834 eV per Hydrino. There is of course also magnetic bonding as you suggest, which would be valid for Hydrinos of any size. It's also possible that Hydrinohydride ions get bound to Li ions, as I suggested previously, creating an entity that is either neutral of negatively charged, depending on the number of bound Hydrinohydride ions, and possibly capable of mediating neutron transfer reactions. (However, again one has to wonder why the neutral version wouldn't exit the reactor just like Hydrino molecules.) (Perhaps they catalyze enough neutron transfer reactions before they leave to make it worth while??) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
From: James Bowery Ø I must have misunderstood what you just said because hydrinos are ash, not fuel, so the reaction will stop. There is a progressive range of 137 stable fractional levels (Rydberg multiples) which hydrogen electron orbitals can assume, according to Mills’ theory – each one more energetic than the one before. None of them are the functional equivalent of ash, even the last. Plus – due to inverse square – each state has great magnetic susceptibility, so they will be retained when nickel (ferromagnet) is present. Thus – the retention of lower states provides the phenomenon of “heat after death” or as Rossi and Parkhomov have shown – the re-ignition of an once active tube after a delay. If only electron angular momentum were recovered, there would be a continual energy release until all hydrogen had been reduced to the lowest state. Even then, according to non-Millsean theory – the “virtual neutron” which results from the complete shrinkage is active for real fusion. In practice, real fusion seldom happens as it would produce gamma radiation. Thus a few gammas can be present but far less than needed to account for the heat. Mills theory is available on the BLP website http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/theory/
RE: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
From: James Bowery Ø I must have misunderstood what you just said because hydrinos are ash, not fuel, so the reaction will stop. There is a progressive range of 137 stable fractional levels (Rydberg multiples) which hydrogen electron orbitals can assume, according to Mills’ theory – each one more energetic than the one before. None of them are the functional equivalent of ash, even the last. Plus – due to inverse square – each state has great magnetic susceptibility, so they will be retained when nickel (ferromagnet) is present. Thus – the retention of lower states provides the phenomenon of “heat after death” or as Rossi and Parkhomov have shown – the re-ignition of an once active tube after a delay. If only electron angular momentum were recovered, there would be a continual energy release until all hydrogen had been reduced to the lowest state. Even then, according to non-Millsean theory – the “virtual neutron” which results from the complete shrinkage is active for real fusion. In practice, real fusion seldom happens as it would produce gamma radiation. Thus a few gammas can be present but far less than needed to account for the heat. Mills theory is available on the BLP website http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/theory/
Re: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* James Bowery Ø I must have misunderstood what you just said because hydrinos are ash, not fuel, so the reaction will stop. There is a progressive range of 137 stable fractional levels (Rydberg multiples) which hydrogen electron orbitals can assume, according to Mills’ theory – each one more energetic than the one before. None of them are the functional equivalent of ash, even the last. In the Millsian theory the functional equivalent of ash is context dependent: a catalyst with energy transition equal (to what precision?) to that of the fractional Rydberg state transition. That was the source of my comment about ash.
Re: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 29 Jun 2015 07:00:42 -0700: Hi, Jones is quite possibly correct. However it may depend on the relative quantities of bound to free Hydrinos. If most of them exist as free molecules, then they would probably degas along with the Hydrogen. Nevertheless it's also possible that a significant number will be bound to the metal. All of which unfortunately leaves the situation a bit vague. IT WILL NOT to the extent that f/H is involved. Of course, if the gain disappears after degassing, then f/H was not involved in the anomaly and this reinforces their original conclusion, and also eliminates f/H as the active element. Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
Over the many hours that the MFMP reactor was heated its pressure of hydrogen first increased rapidly as the hydride degased and then the pressure of the gas in the envelope stabilized. But as the hours of the reactor heatup pased, the pressure of the gas steadily decreased. This behavior looks like a cycle where a hydride solid first turned to a gas then gradually reverted by into a solid form as the temperature of the reactor reached it maximum temperature. That high temperature solid form of hydrogen is maximized at a temperature just over 1000C. There is no theory of hydrino formation that predicts the formation of high temperature hydrino formation into a solid form. If there is a rebirth of the LENR reaction after a reburn of the reactor, it is produced by this unknow form of solid hydrogen that remains as a residual fraction in the reactor's ash. On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The 47-hour live test by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project on their Glow reactor has shown (apparent) excess heat - not conclusive but interesting, since there is also a growing divergence between the fueled and unfueled reactors, which is increasing during the run. Exactly what is expected of a gainful situation. The conclusion of a thermal anomaly is to be furthered by a “post-test calibration run”… “planned where there will be a run with the hydrogen removed from the fueled reactor. The data from that post-test will be as important as the data from the fueled test.” COMMENT: HUGE POTENTIAL MISTAKE! … yet of course, if the gain does not continue, then there is no mistake but … there is the likelihood that some gain will continue. The post calibration test can be deceptive, and in fact the interpretation of those results will be extremely counterproductive - in the likely circumstance that reduced but still anomalous thermal gain continues. If this reaction depends on a population of fractional hydrogen or f/H – which is “below ground state hydrogen” often called the hydrino state, and which is a very strong contender for the gain which is witnessed – then that active material will remain in the reactor after pumping away H2. It will have become magnetically bound to the nickel- even when all the gaseous hydrogen is removed from the reactor. Thus, thermal gain will continue – which will lead MFMP to assume that their calibration was in error – when in fact the error is simply in the assumption that eliminating hydrogen gas will de-fuel the reactor. IT WILL NOT to the extent that f/H is involved. Of course, if the gain d isappears after degassing, then f/H was not involved in the anomaly and this reinforces their original conclusion, and also eliminates f/H as the active element. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:26:55 -0400: Hi, Over the many hours that the MFMP reactor was heated its pressure of hydrogen first increased rapidly as the hydride degased and then the pressure of the gas in the envelope stabilized. But as the hours of the reactor heatup pased, the pressure of the gas steadily decreased. This behavior looks like a cycle where a hydride solid first turned to a gas then gradually reverted by into a solid form as the temperature of the reactor reached it maximum temperature. That high temperature solid form of hydrogen is maximized at a temperature just over 1000C. There is no theory of hydrino formation that predicts the formation of high temperature hydrino formation into a solid form. Jones just gave you one! [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
What Jones has given is a disproof of the Hydrino systems that are perported to exist. I course in disclaimer, I do not know hydrino theory as well as I should. What page in that 2000 page theory book are we talking about? On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:27 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:26:55 -0400: Hi, Over the many hours that the MFMP reactor was heated its pressure of hydrogen first increased rapidly as the hydride degased and then the pressure of the gas in the envelope stabilized. But as the hours of the reactor heatup pased, the pressure of the gas steadily decreased. This behavior looks like a cycle where a hydride solid first turned to a gas then gradually reverted by into a solid form as the temperature of the reactor reached it maximum temperature. That high temperature solid form of hydrogen is maximized at a temperature just over 1000C. There is no theory of hydrino formation that predicts the formation of high temperature hydrino formation into a solid form. Jones just gave you one! [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:26:55 -0400: Hi, Over the many hours that the MFMP reactor was heated its pressure of hydrogen first increased rapidly as the hydride degased and then the pressure of the gas in the envelope stabilized. But as the hours of the reactor heatup pased, the pressure of the gas steadily decreased. This behavior looks like a cycle where a hydride solid first turned to a gas then gradually reverted by into a solid form as the temperature of the reactor reached it maximum temperature. That high temperature solid form of hydrogen is maximized at a temperature just over 1000C. There is no theory of hydrino formation that predicts the formation of high temperature hydrino formation into a solid form. PS - You are assuming it's in solid form. It's also possible that the small hydrino molecules are simply leaking out of the container through interstitial spaces in the matrix of the wall material. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Comment on MFMP retest
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ...If this reaction depends on a population of fractional hydrogen or f/H – which is “below ground state hydrogen” often called the hydrino state, and which is a very strong contender for the gain which is witnessed – then that active material will remain in the reactor after pumping away H2. It will have become magnetically bound to the nickel- even when all the gaseous hydrogen is removed from the reactor. Thus, thermal gain will continue – which will lead MFMP to assume that their calibration was in error – when in fact the error is simply in the assumption that eliminating hydrogen gas will de-fuel the reactor. I must have misunderstood what you just said because hydrinos are ash, not fuel, so the reaction will stop.
