Demonstrating an overunity effect, and having it replicated, should be all that matters for them at this point. Closing the loop would be better of course, but not indispensable, and of course would require at least 1000% excess.
I am sure Ed would be happy with a reproducible 28.5% excess, wouldn't you Ed? Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Carrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's problem > In these experiments, BLP measures the power into the cell and the developed > heat by water bath calorimetry. Basically, the cell is submerged in an > insulated fishtank with precision thermometry and a stirrer. This > demonstrates an "effect" but there is not enough power gain to close the > loop and run the system self sustained. But that *is not* the point here. > The plasma is brilliant and can be sustained by a few volts. So there is a > possibility of a new class of light sources with very low input power. Lots > of clever engineering is needed to realize this potential. > > This and other papers are bricks in a legal foundation for BLP patents, > showing reduction practice and utility. > > Mike Carrell > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:55 PM > Subject: [Vo]:Re: BLP's problem > > > 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. >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department. >
