----- 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.
