The item below is an idem of interest in the IE article regarding magnetism.
"an empirical model by Dennis Letts was used...“A Method to Calculate Excess Power”... predicts that the heat production is linearly proportional to the mass of the hydrogen-containing material and the magnetic field surrounding the mass." On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > From: Jed Rothwell > > That is fun to read! Good experiment. Good write up. > > Yes it is a fabulous, simple experiment that is ripe for both replication > and improvement. > > And it is somewhat poignant for those who have followed the field for a > while, to mention Les Case – whose shadow looms over this experiment. Here > is an old article from Gene: > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf > … showing the spherical reactor, which turns up once again. Notably Cravens > (IIRC) purchased the Lab gear from Case’s estate. And he is still using > carbon of some form, as did Case. Quote: > > The bulk of the material inside the active sphere is activated charcoal > (carbon). The charcoal has a mesh of between 1350 and 2000 (micro mesh > screening of 6 to 10 microns)…. That was selected to match the 8.2 micron > peak wavelength of black body radiation at 80°C [i.e. spectral radiance of > about 0.02 W/(cm2)]. The charcoal’s pores holding the metal alloy are > nominally 9 nm. > > That is very low spectral radiance, and to say that there is any peak at > all > at this temperature is strange, as the “curve” is essentially flat. Plus > the > value seems to be off. Nevertheless, the proof is in the pudding… and the > active sphere worked for months at substantial gain. That is the incredible > part. > > The big question I have for Dennis, or his first replicator, is what gases > turn up in the ash after a long run? > > As the active ball was cut open at the end of the Demo to show no battery > was inside, the accumulated gases were not analyzed at NI Week. Les Case > thought he was seeing helium but was he? > > Mizuno has presented a paradigm shift with his discovery of hydrogen > showing > up in place of deuterium. Is that a trend, of a sort, now that we have an > appreciation that it is possible? Was past evidence of > D->2H deliberately ignored, since that reaction seems so improbable that > the > experimenter ignored it for sake of his own credibility? > > If the Mizuno finding were to be validated in another type of experiment > then it may finally be possible to approach an operating theory which will > appeal to the more hard-headed of skeptics. The skeptics I know will never > buy into the helium spiel without some show of strong gamma photons – due > to > helium’s ubiquity… and given the recent Mizuno results – where a former > proponent of helium is now (effectively) recanting - we may be seeing a > major change in outlook. > > Who will be the next to confirm this? Or will it die a slow death? > > > > > > >
