Steve et al. > We all remember Genesis World Energy, right? I've seen another website > recently about an NGO that seems to really have their heart in the right > place - but there's something weird about it, I can't quite put my finger > on it. www.gifnet.org .
Please! Do not confuse this company in any way with GWE. I have had some long talks with Nicholas Moller about the MAHG and find him to be extremely insightful and dedicated, and far away from the kind of scam that GWE has tried to perpetrate. Unfortunately the gifnet logo needs some work, as it gives the cheesy impression of new age utopia, which is not the case. That may be what you are trying to put your finger on, but I think that you have met Nicholas in France and may have forgotten it. This will be a big breakthrough when he gets it a little further along (self-powered). I posted this about Moller back in October before having the opportunity to talk to him. I believe that he has real OU now, but it is in the form of heat and his device is not yet self-powered. But there are indications that he has improved the device way over the performance listed online and that self-powered performance (to erase any doubt among skeptics) will be feasible. He had numerous problems with Frolov (do not !! have your prototype made by him) and in getting the machine out of Russia, but that should have been taken care of, hopefully. I hope to travel to Europe soon and take a look (don't we all!) but there is some open and fairly thorough work presented online, for anyone to see. [From an earlier posting edited, about the MAGH of Moller, as it appears on Naudin's site] You may remember this poser from a year ago: "Which is hotter - a.) burning hydrogen in oxygen, or b.) burning hydrogen in hydrogen?" Well, once again Naudin has managed to provide an answer, of sorts - this time in conjunction with the equally controversial Alex Frolov. See: http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/mahg1.htm Which is a fairly elaborate experiment, apparently built by A. Frolov in Russia to the specs of Nicholas Moller, and showing a steady-state OU of 130% (COP =1.3) and higher on startup. Improvements are expected. It is based on the experiments of Langmuir, the inventor of a hydrogen "torch" as well as being the author of the most famous derogatory putdown imaginable to us perpmos, that being the one known far and wide as "pathological science." If you answered b) then you may be thinking about the hydrino, OR are already aware of an energy "anomaly" discovered almost 90 years ago, but is it overunity? Ironically, Nobel chemist Irving Langmuir (1881-1957) was in the habit of giving cautionary talks on "pathological science", saying "There are cases where there is no dishonesty involved, but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking, or threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological science." Apparently, he failed to issue a reciprocal warning for pathological obedience to instituionalized orthodoxy, and indeed he may have deliberately overlooked one of the first well-recorded instances of overunity - and in his own work! What should it be called, "pathological tunnel vision" or "pathological neo-cecity" (for those who appreciate 'le mot juste') ? The old anomaly in question involves the thermal dissociation of hydrogen in an electric arc, and it was discovered by none other than Irving Langmuir himself. He noticed that dissociation of H2 in an electric arc led to a much higher dissociation rate than one might expect on the basis of known thermodynamics. He invented a cutting torch based on this discovery, which is seldom used today because of another consideration (hydrogen embrittlement of steel). Here is a picture of the torch. http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html Despite the risk of promoting even more of the dreaded pathological science (at the expense of old Irv), there is a good case to be made for OU in this device. The "textbook" binding energy of the hydrogen molecule is 4.52 eV. If one compares the ratio of the dissociated molecules to that of non-dissociated molecules in Langmuir's torch, it turns out that the effective binding energy works out to only a little over 1 eV for a substantial population of the molecules involved. Of course, the distribution is Maxwellian and we are only looking at that population on Boltzman's tail, but so what? The population of temporarily free protons is large (as much as a third, depending on assumptions) and the dissociation energy-deficit is so substantial that a "gateway" may exist for OU may here. Unfortunately, most of Langmuir's old articles like: "The Dissociation of Hydrogen Into Atoms," Journal of American Chemical Society 37, 417 (1915) are not available online. Apologists for this kind of energy deficit effect often use the term "borrowed" to explain it, but that explanation involves time-reversal which is only slightly more palatable to orthodoxy than is overunity. There is a lot of questionable information online about OU hydrogen plasmas like Professor Chernetskii's device (Hal Puthoff apparently visited Chernetskii in 1991 to witness the device maybe working, maybe not) and we all know about the Correa's "abnormal glow" but this is not intended to be a defense of that - only to offer a *non-hydrino* explanation, if any of these hydrogen plasma things ever turns out to be rock-solid proof of OU. The Langmuir torch suggests that the dissociation of the hydrogen molecule occurs with an "outside" or free-energy input of about 3.4 eV for a substantial percentage of the hydrogen molecules involved. This is a mass/energy level that keeps popping up over and over in reported free-energy anomalies, and it is related to a very real QM phenomenon - the energy of "virtual pairs". However, we know that even for the surprisingly long-lived virtual-pair molecule: positronium (Ps), the prospect of capturing positron free-energy from the vacuum seems pretty hopeless. Although this is true for the molecule itself, Heisenberg's door may be cracked open just far enough to admit, not the positron itself but its "wake". i.e. its 6.8 eV binding energy. This binding energy is but a tiny fraction of the positron or electron mass/energy of ~ .5 MeV, if they were to actually annihilate in our 3-space, but still it isn't too shabby, double what one gets from hydrogen/oxygen combustion. If it can be captured, it could be a consequence of positronium being disrupted by proximity to a bare proton before fading into someone else's 3-space. But why 3.4 eV and not 6.8 eV? Well, the best explanation for this that I can give at the moment is that we must assume that in every atom, there is a "medium" that keeps the electrons from collapse into the nucleus, and it is a gluon-like transfer medium. If so, in positronium it is probably a lepton pair with a mass/energy of 3.4 eV each which can either annihilate into a 6.8 eV photon, or preferentially be captured by any free proton, as a necessary predecessor event to molecular recombination. Jones
