----- Original Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Having missed the recent hydrino thread, let me add one observation (which is almost as redundant as some of Randy's 'ground states') The good news: this recently peer reviewed and published paper shows convincing calorimetry evidence of excess power from hydrogen (OU). "Water Bath Calorimetry on a Catalytic Reaction of Atomic Hydrogen" Mills et al. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 32, (2007), 4258-4266.
Good that has finally been published. It is appropriate for the Vortex audience as it deals with calorimetry, familiar to this forumn.
The bad news: After 19 years of trying, and this being the latest and greatest: i.e. the featured paper on Mills' website (presumably if there were better evidence, it would be presented there instead of this one)... yet...
I don't know what Jones is looking at. I just checked the website and the featured item is the solid fuel reactor. In the paper Jones cites, water bath calorimetry is quite incidental. The essential item is "These hydrogen plasmas called resonant transfer- or rt-plasmas were observed to form at low temperatures (e.g. and extraordinary low field strengths of about 1-2 V/cm when argon and strontium were present with atomic hydrogen". In other papers, the fact that a plasma is sustained with Sr and Ar as catalysts at low field strength is suggested as a novel light source, not a heat source.
... the excess power shown is both small in watts and is only 28.5% more than the input power. "Using water bath calorimetry, an excess power of 2.85 W was measured with Sr and Ar as catalysts, compared with controls (10 watts input)" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-4PCH46R-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=270f9bc7aaa53437e1723d1380224b99 What makes this particularly damning from a comparative standpoint vis-a-vis LENR is that the "control" is defined as "no catalyst present AND no hydrogen present." Translation: there will be some OU with hydrogen alone (since it is self-catalyzing according to Mills)....
The abstract is poorly worded: "....with Sr+ and Ar+ as catalysts and atomic hydrogen as a reactant, compared with controls with no hydrogen and no catalyst present.". If one leaves out the H, Sr and Ar, there is nothing left.
The cynics out there should be justifiably irritated that after burning through many millions of dollars and nearly 20 years of time, the OU demonstrated by BLP in this featured paper, is still FAR less than what is routinely seen and reported from a variety of international experimenters, in LENR calorimetry.
As I said above Jones is missing the important feature, which is not heat. The best paper on the water bath calorimetry is Water Bath Calorimetric Study of Excess Heat Generation in "Resonant Transfer" Plasmas J. Phillips, R. Mills, X. Chen Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 96, No. 6, (2004) pp. 3095-3102. Here the excess power is in the tens of watts for a variety of catalysts, with a detailed analysis of the setup and calorimetry. Note that the publication date is 2004.
For instance, McKubre reported at ICCF13 on results from a joint research project with Energetics Technology, ENEA, and SRI where roughly 60% excess heat was produced. Swartz has seen and reported a far greater (percentage-wise) excess than this figure. OK neither is not going to solve the energy crisis without another breakthrough and/or without scaling-up significantly- but OTOH the LENR results are routinely over double what Mills is showing, and with probably $40 million less money having been spent to do it...
Jones, please, you are serioulsy out of date with Mills' work. Read very carefully the "New Energy Source" on the first page of the website, and follow down the links.
PLUS in the McKubre results, the excess heat was accompanied by He4 production in good correlation. More evidence that is hard to dispute. Now admittedly, other observers like Mike C. will be able to but a different 'spin' on this comparison, but the reported facts speak for themselves - with the result that two sad things about this state of affairs emerge, from one independent perspective (neutral or trying hard to be neutral):
Apples and oranges, no spin. Only careful observation of Mills's work, which Jones has not done here. The "reports" exist in context and can be misinterpreted out of context.
1) the company with most of the money, and possibly the best theory, refuses to use deuterium, which is more reactive.
No "refusal". Deuterium has been used in one or two experiments to show that certain spectral lines shift and are therefore not artifacts. The energy comes from the electron orbit, not the the nucleus. Hydrogen works fine, and there is a lot more of it.
2) the hydrino theory may be involved as a precursor step which allows two deuterons to fuse into He4
This may happen. It has been proposed that a highly shrunken hydrino may be enough neutron-like to pass the Coulomb barrier. Such may be the actual source of excess heat in some LENR experiments. Apparently does not apply to particle emission or transmutation, which are different reactions. This speculation at present.
IOW - Mills could be so right that he is wrong... but we will likely never know.
Stay tuned and do your homework.
... "so right as to be wrong" ... vanity of vanities, saith the preacher ... makes one ill at the stomach...
Do your homework. Mike Carrell
Jones ________________________________________________________________________This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
0?wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkWW
Description: Binary data
