Jones wrote: "the excess power... is only 28.5% more than the input power"
But Jones, 28.5%, if verified, would be a revolution. Even 2.85%! Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Carrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's problem > > ----- 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. >
