Axil--
Which IE article regarding magnetism are you referring to?
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
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?
