[VO]:Re: Magnetic effect on water
BlankMichael Foster wrote.. Somewhere on Bill's endlessly large website is an experiment showing that exposure to a magnetic field increases the viscosity of water. This is such an easy thing to test that I tried it. It really works. At first I thought that this is mysterious and inexplicable. Then it occurred to me that since water molecules are electric dipoles, they would be subject to the Lenz effect when in a magnetic field, i.e., they would resist a change in orientation. Since the normal random thermal motion of the molecules would be more or less restricted, depending on the strength of the magnetic field, the rise in temperature of the water to ambient would be suppressed. This might also explain the precipitate. The normal Brownian motion caused by thermal agitation would also be suppressed, resulting in the water's inability to keep small paricles in suspension. The water would have to have some fine particulate impurity in the first place for this to happen. And here's some speculation: Suppose you place a beaker full of water inside a larger container with a non-polar liquid. Expose these to a strong magnetic field. Would the water become colder and the non-polar liquid hotter? Anti-entropic? Naaah. Howdy Michael, We were able to drop out some white powder precipitate one a single occasion some time back.We had forgotten to turn off the test unit over the lunch hour. Never able to reproduce the event in our steel test tank. The municipal source of our water supply could have had been hypo-chlorinated that day... or some chemical agent to reduce manganese.. or visa-verse. Using a plexiglas tank with aluminum frame and municipal chlorinated water would occasionally produce the precipitate and severely oxidize the aluminum. You idea of using a non-polar liquid is intriguing. Glad we have been giving the next test rig modular design theme some time for input like your speculation. If you would like to see a pic of the present setup I can send you a pdf. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif Description: GIF image
[Vo]: Re: Hydrino Summation
- Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Vo]: Hydrino Summation My take on this is that yes, LENR and BLP are somehow related and will lead to a major advance in physical understanding. In Tom Stolper's book Genius Inventor, a detailed and generally exccellent chronology of the controversy surrounding Mills, he devotes 85 pages to early work by Mills in electrolytic cells in the context of the growing controversy over CF. Tom sees excess heat in CFexperiments as really BLP catalysis reactions. The wasp in this ointment is that the F-P cell had lithium in its electrolyte, and lithium is distinctly **not** a BLP catalyst. The cells that Mills built, which turned on immediately and yielded excess heat, used K2CO3 as an electrolyte. Potassium was selected predictively from the 27.2 eV resonant transfer energy indicated by Mills' theory and a purposeful search of literature by John Farrell. Mills has demonstrated that deuterium forms deutrinos and it is reasonalbe to conjecture that such may facilitate LENR. But one has first to show that the conditions in LENR electrolytic cells are conducive to the generationof deutrinos by resonant transfer catalysis, and this has not been done. Jones' speculations are always interesting, but care is needed here to deal with facts as best known. snip rest of original post for brevity Mike Carrell For those LENR advocates on this forum who do not closely follow the hydrino forum: a recent message from Drew Meulenberg sums up nicely the bottom line situation in the big picture of LENR, the hydrino and the past 17 years of needless posturing and animosity involving the two different fields, but first let me quote Prof. Kowalski on a related issue. He asks: What are the odds that two such anathema experimental circumstances, Mills and CF, are unrelated? ANS: one can only guess. My guess is about a trillion to one... and not just because they occurred in the same year (1989) and in the same general type of experiment, using hydrogen and the same general kind of electrolytes and hydriding metals - and with the same kind of mixed confirmation from many subsequent overlapping experiments. The main reason they are related is encapsulated in that one word which is so appropriate to a correct understanding of any theory: elegance. Mills provides an elegant way, in fact it is the only elegant way, to understand the basis of LENR. The good professor goes on. BTW the cite is: http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/299hydrinos.html The experiments of Mills and those of cold fusion relate to the original disagreement between Bohr and Einstein regarding (Einstein's phrase) the 'missing causal substratum'. (Bohr's rules are actually independent of v, meaning c can substitute for it with no change other than mental interpretation.) At the time, and to this day, Physics had no ultimate causal understanding of charge behavior in the bond between p and e, a particle, charge, unified field theory deficiency. (Thus, Physics must either choose Bohr and Schroedinger or stand in complete public atomic theoretical ignorance for nearly a century. They chose B S. The inability of Mills experiments and cold fusion experiments to be explained by existing theoretical material exposes this ultimate deficiency from the past. ) To continue: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Will Link has written: Keep in mind: whether quantum mechanics is a correct theory is a DIFFERENT question then whether or not Mills theory is a correct theory. Even if Mills measurements could demonstrate conclusively his fractional quantum states, his theory would still be incorrect. Drew Meulenberg's insightful message that corrects this ridiculous conclusion: Bohr's model of the atom is incorrect. Nevertheless, it revolutionized physics. I suspect that Mills' work may fall in the same category. If fractional quantum states are confirmed, he will be famous, even if his model is incorrect. His critics will be forgotten. Those who improve and correct the model will become the new school. They will find that THEIR correct model is readily incorporated into SQM, which will be made more complete by the addition. While Mills has steered well clear of cold fusion, it may end up vindicating him. Work in India, during the early '90's with light water and nickel, reproduced his early results (indicating the production of both tritium and neutrons; references provided on request). That work is continuing today in the US with the CR-39 detectors showing energetic alphas. The sub-orbital states are certainly an easier way to believe Coulomb-barrier penetration than most present theories to explain cold-fusion results. If Mills' model is BS, but ultimately sub-orbital states explain some aspects of LENR, as well as his research on hydrino and hydrino products, (both of which could lead to multiple breakthroughs in science and
Re: [Vo]: Magnetic effect on water
Michael Foster's mention of the normal Brownian motion caused by thermal agitation being suppressed - also raises a larger issue. Much larger: global warming. John Roach wrote the following for 'National Geographic News' in 2004. Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845 ... If the trend continues, the field may collapse altogether and then reverse. Compasses would point south instead of north Not surprisingly, Hollywood has already seized on this new twist in the natural-disaster genre. Last year Tinseltown released The Core a film in which the collapse of Earth's magnetic field leads to massive electrical storms, blasts of solar radiation, and birds incapable of navigation. Well - I musta missed that fine film, but the idea that the collapse of Earth's magnetic field will have unseen repercussions (some severe) is valid ... ...and one wonders: IF (big if) the present field alignment, especially at the poles has incorporated some large amount of energy stored in the form of anti-entropic field alignment of all that ice, gigatons - then what happens when the structure becomes unaligned, due to collapse of the field? It would likely not have been the approximately one degree of pent-up heat, seen by Dr. Stiffler, as his magnet was much stronger than the earth field - but it still could be substantial - and it is just possible that some of the global warming already seen in the polar regions is due to the diminishing magnetic field. Jones
RE: [Vo]: Magnetic effect on water
It would likely not have been the approximately one degree of pent-up heat, seen by Dr. Stiffler, as his magnet was much stronger than the earth field - but it still could be substantial - and it is just possible that some of the global warming already seen in the polar regions is due to the diminishing magnetic field. I must say I jumped on the concept of 'anti-entropic' (by Michael Foster) like a Fox on a Hen, without thinking of the farmer. I did start two test setups at once, but have already found that one must consider the requirement an Adiabatic or Diathermic wall between the polar and non-polar fluids. I am not prepared to make any meaningful observation other than if you plan to try it, Pyrex and Bomex are out, adiabatic wis required. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 10:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic effect on water Michael Foster's mention of the normal Brownian motion caused by thermal agitation being suppressed - also raises a larger issue. Much larger: global warming. John Roach wrote the following for 'National Geographic News' in 2004. Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845 ... If the trend continues, the field may collapse altogether and then reverse. Compasses would point south instead of north Not surprisingly, Hollywood has already seized on this new twist in the natural-disaster genre. Last year Tinseltown released The Core a film in which the collapse of Earth's magnetic field leads to massive electrical storms, blasts of solar radiation, and birds incapable of navigation. Well - I musta missed that fine film, but the idea that the collapse of Earth's magnetic field will have unseen repercussions (some severe) is valid ... ...and one wonders: IF (big if) the present field alignment, especially at the poles has incorporated some large amount of energy stored in the form of anti-entropic field alignment of all that ice, gigatons - then what happens when the structure becomes unaligned, due to collapse of the field? It would likely not have been the approximately one degree of pent-up heat, seen by Dr. Stiffler, as his magnet was much stronger than the earth field - but it still could be substantial - and it is just possible that some of the global warming already seen in the polar regions is due to the diminishing magnetic field. Jones
[Vo]: Re: Hydrino Summation
Mike The wasp in this ointment is that the F-P cell had lithium in its electrolyte, and lithium is distinctly **not** a BLP catalyst. Yes, agreed - but then again (even without a kludge that makes it a catalyst)- this goes to the original straw man argument of the HSG thread. That being: Keep in mind: whether quantum mechanics is a correct theory is a DIFFERENT question then whether or not Mills theory is a correct theory. Even if Mills measurements could demonstrate conclusively his fractional quantum states, his theory would still be incorrect. And as it turns out, in the alternative hydrino theory of Arie de Geus, lithium is a hydrino catalyst. This presents the possibility that anyone who comes along later - can improve on Mills work - or find gaps not covered. This does not at all denigrate the original work IMHO. The original insight is on a par with Bohr, etc. and history will assign the that to Mills. Therefore, it should be noted first that Mills alone had the original insight, and that is extraordinarily valuable in itself - but very likely Mills got the situation only either partially incorrect, or with big lapses in coverage, or even wrong in minor details. It doesn't really matter (historically), but what does delay things is the ego problem. The final chapter has not been written on this of course, and personally I very much doubt that hydrino formation is even exothermic in the first two stages (n= 1/2 and 1/3); and that all of the excess heat is coming from new kinds of fusion reactions involving faux D and even then it may be a natural and not a manufactured species, or from higher level shrinkage in the case of Mills. But the point is that there are any number of alternatives or improvements to Mills' original insight, and only three things are certain. 1) There are large egos involved 2) No general theory is correct in 2006 3) A useful theory for LENR will of necessity incorporate the hydrino as a basic paradigm. Jones
RE: [VO]:Re: Magnetic effect on water
BlankWe were able to drop out some white powder precipitate one a single occasion some time back. We had forgotten to turn off the test unit over the lunch hour. Never able to reproduce the event in our steel test tank. The municipal source of our water supply could have had been hypo-chlorinated that day... or some chemical agent to reduce manganese.. or visa-verse. Using a plexiglas tank with aluminum frame and municipal chlorinated water would occasionally produce the precipitate and severely oxidize the aluminum. R.C. I have not duplicated you setup, yet I have never seem Cl released as a White precipitate? You mention 'manganese' is this part of your electrolyte? If not I might suggest you start drinking bottled water or maybe a good Brandy :-) -Original Message- From: RC Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 7:28 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [VO]:Re: Magnetic effect on water Michael Foster wrote.. Somewhere on Bill's endlessly large website is an experiment showing that exposure to a magnetic field increases the viscosity of water. This is such an easy thing to test that I tried it. It really works. At first I thought that this is mysterious and inexplicable. Then it occurred to me that since water molecules are electric dipoles, they would be subject to the Lenz effect when in a magnetic field, i.e., they would resist a change in orientation. Since the normal random thermal motion of the molecules would be more or less restricted, depending on the strength of the magnetic field, the rise in temperature of the water to ambient would be suppressed. This might also explain the precipitate. The normal Brownian motion caused by thermal agitation would also be suppressed, resulting in the water's inability to keep small paricles in suspension. The water would have to have some fine particulate impurity in the first place for this to happen. And here's some speculation: Suppose you place a beaker full of water inside a larger container with a non-polar liquid. Expose these to a strong magnetic field. Would the water become colder and the non-polar liquid hotter? Anti-entropic? Naaah. Howdy Michael, We were able to drop out some white powder precipitate one a single occasion some time back.We had forgotten to turn off the test unit over the lunch hour. Never able to reproduce the event in our steel test tank. The municipal source of our water supply could have had been hypo-chlorinated that day... or some chemical agent to reduce manganese.. or visa-verse. Using a plexiglas tank with aluminum frame and municipal chlorinated water would occasionally produce the precipitate and severely oxidize the aluminum. You idea of using a non-polar liquid is intriguing. Glad we have been giving the next test rig modular design theme some time for input like your speculation. If you would like to see a pic of the present setup I can send you a pdf. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif Description: GIF image
Re: [Vo]: Re: Hydrino Summation
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:15:03 -0800: Hi, [snip] Mike The wasp in this ointment is that the F-P cell had lithium in its electrolyte, and lithium is distinctly **not** a BLP catalyst. Yes, agreed - but then again (even without a kludge that makes it a catalyst)- this goes to the original straw man argument of the HSG thread. That being: Keep in mind: whether quantum mechanics is a correct theory is a DIFFERENT question then whether or not Mills theory is a correct theory. Even if Mills measurements could demonstrate conclusively his fractional quantum states, his theory would still be incorrect. And as it turns out, in the alternative hydrino theory of Arie de Geus, lithium is a hydrino catalyst. Mills may not claim Li as a hydrino catalyst, but as I have previously pointed out on this forum, it has a K shell x-ray absorption energy of 54.7 eV, which IMO makes Li+ (at least), where the K shell is directly exposed to the environment, and hence to collisions, a Mills catalyst with m=2. IOW if it can absorb 54.7 eV from an x-ray, then I see no reason why it cannot absorb the same amount of energy from a hydrino. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
