Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
What do you mean, the inductor (10 turns of wire on a core) is connected between the positive end of the supply and one end of the switch (drain of the MOSFET) isn't it? 2010/3/20 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: The toroid is also wired in differently from the inductor in the wiki diagram, but I suppose that doesn't matter either? harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 1:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram The capacitor on your photo 2 is in parallel with the battery so it's part of the converter's input supply. The capacitor in the operating principles diagram of the wikipedia article is the converter's output capacitor, which might as well not be there in steady state is there is no load (once charged it just stays charged at a high voltage, and the Boost's diode never conducts-- so the diode might as well not be there either). So everything to the right of the switch in the boost converter diagram could be removed in no load condition, that's why I say the circuit operates like a Boost converter without a load. Which explains why it steps up the input voltage, that's what Boost converters do. Michel 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: I'll pass that along. But the capacitor looks like it is in the wrong place to be a booster converter with or without a load. compare photo 2: http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4 with operating principles target=_blank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter Harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com: This is not a boost converter I said it was a boost converter _without a load_. as none of them will recharge the input source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried. This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents the drain voltage from going below zero. Michel And you wont find any dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;] Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! href=http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank http://www.flickr.com/gift/ __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion
Abd, it's not being a jerk to be wrong, it's being a jerk to write authoritatively, as the book title implies, on a subject one is so blatantly ignorant about. Whether he is positive or not, or undecided, is not the problem. I myself obviously feel the field is worth researching but I am still not 100% convinced that CF is real, for lack of a single unambiguous experiment proving it is. There are scientists who know much more about the field than I do who are still undecided. Dieter Britz is in this case, even though he is probably the most CF learned person in the world. Michel 2010/3/20 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 02:00 PM 3/19/2010, Michel Jullian wrote: What a jerk. On that page alone, he says one loads palladium into deuterium, and platinum too, and he professes that excess heat is the bad kind of cold fusion! You know, he points out that it is not fraud to be wrong, and I'll point out that it is also not being a jerk to be wrong. That error shows that this wasn't well-considered. I.e., the error about loading of palladium and platinum into deuterium. He's also trying to support his friend Scaramuzzi with a comment that the loading (i.e., of deuterium into palladium, it doesn't load into platinum) is respectable, with only a tangential connection to cold fusion. Yeah, that's right! Anomalous heat or unexpected helium or whatever. Cold fusion? No. Maybe its a low-energy nuclear reaction, but fusion? No, we don't mention fusion around here, it makes the natives restless. We are researching anomalous heat in the palladium deuteride system, you got a problem with that? I think you are being a little harsh, Michel. This reads to me like an essay or even a speech or something dictated off-the-cuff, it's certainly not well-edited and researched. But the basic message is actually positive. What did bad kind of cold fusion mean? Read the context and the time. At that point, there was muon-catalyzed fusion on the table, or the possibility that there was a very-low level form of other cold fusion, i.e., what Jones was reporting. That would be the good kind. Not so horribly controversial. But Fleischmann was reporting levels of heat that could only be from much higher levels of reaction. He's describing his distress at heating that his friend was involved in this nonsense. Bad kind is what he thought then. He then, next page, says that he has looked over the results carefully, and they are pretty impressive. Go back and read this again! He's complaining that the normal process of science isn't happening. If there are all these positive results, there should be people pouring over them to try to prove them wrong. Note the very obvious implication. Cold fusion has not been proven wrong. And in this he is 100% correct. He underreports the positive evidence, that's all. Scaramuzzi is only a small part of it.
[Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
Blacklight Power has just updated their website [What's New}with four technical dcuments outlining their status on the path to commercialization, In a presentation to investors in December '09 Mills sated that BLP has employed three engineering firms to pursue ways and means to implement 'solid fuel' resctions disclosed in technical papers. The new documents have no stated authroship. The style of writing suggest that they are lifted from third-party technical reports, somewhat in the style of descriptions in a patent disclosure. There are two schematic reactor structures in which carefully controlled thermal gradients manipulates reactants to convert H gas to hydrinos with regeration of the catalytic elements. One structure has clusters of reactor cells cycling between power production and regeration; a second version shows essentially continuous operation. A third document discusses a tecnology called CIHT which produces electricity directly from the BLP reaction without a thermal-electric converstion system. The context is BLP for automobiles,with a projected performance of 1500 miles on a litr to water, or 2500 miles on a 20 liter, 100 atm hydrogen tank. Distressingly, only the barest hints at the CHIT technology are given. The fourth document is an engineering presenttion summarizing the above three. The three documents contain detailed calculations of the estimated performance of the three approaches. This is not vaporware, but a realistic shapshot of ongoing engineering of prototypes in this year, with a 1MW performance target. Cited references in the documents include technical apers also on their website, except Mills et.al, Thermally Reversable Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source which is not posted as yet [this is the heart of the matter, possibly awaiting patent protection]. The papers about the chemistry involved are dense and technical, but the results have been verified by work at Rowan University in Glassboro NJ. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 11:18 PM Subject: [Vo]:Pi factor The energy transfer between L and C as stored joules by the quantities; J= .5 CV^2 and J = .5 LI^2 and considering The I^2R heating loss of the inductor itself; when the transfer of energy between L and C as joules/sec becomes equal to the inductor heat loss wattage, by the inductor displaying a Q factor of 3.14; the oscillation of energy between the fields has become Pi times greater then its ordinary reactive state. HDN Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
[Vo]:BP Electro-conversion EMHD Generation?
Mike Group: The new documents have no stated authroship. The style of writing suggest that they are lifted from third-party technical reports, somewhat in the style of descriptions in a patent disclosure. I think Published Patent Text is Public Domain--Do any of you really know? I have thought seriously about using some description of ZPE and its history from these sources. A third document discusses a tecnology called CIHT which produces electricity directly from the BLP reaction without a thermal-electric converstion system. The context is BLP for automobiles,with a projected performance of 1500 miles on a litr to water, or 2500 miles on a 20 liter, 100 atm hydrogen tank. Distressingly, only the barest hints at the CHIT technology are given. This sounds like Electromagnetic Hydrodyamic Drive. An electrically-conducting ionized gas is propelled through a strong magnetic field inducing a current that across the flow and across the magnetic field lines. I have often wondered if this approach should have been used in the exhaust pipe to replace the alternator in a car! It would also make the engine work harder, but might be more efficient. Scott _ Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2
Re: [Vo]:BP Electro-conversion EMHD Generation?
Wm. Scott Smith wrote: This sounds like Electromagnetic Hydrodyamic Drive. a.k.a. magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). - Jed
[Vo]:Yep! aka MHD
Yep! aka MHD Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:10:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:BP Electro-conversion EMHD Generation? From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Wm. Scott Smith wrote: This sounds like Electromagnetic Hydrodyamic Drive. a.k.a. magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). - Jed _ The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
yes. You are aware that the the voltage keeps rises even after the battery is disconnected. harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 3:59:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram What do you mean, the inductor (10 turns of wire on a core) is connected between the positive end of the supply and one end of the switch (drain of the MOSFET) isn't it? 2010/3/20 Harry Veeder href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: The toroid is also wired in differently from the inductor in the wiki diagram, but I suppose that doesn't matter either? harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 1:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram The capacitor on your photo 2 is in parallel with the battery so it's part of the converter's input supply. The capacitor in the operating principles diagram of the wikipedia article is the converter's output capacitor, which might as well not be there in steady state is there is no load (once charged it just stays charged at a high voltage, and the Boost's diode never conducts-- so the diode might as well not be there either). So everything to the right of the switch in the boost converter diagram could be removed in no load condition, that's why I say the circuit operates like a Boost converter without a load. Which explains why it steps up the input voltage, that's what Boost converters do. Michel 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: I'll pass that along. But the capacitor looks like it is in the wrong place to be a booster converter with or without a load. compare photo 2: http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4 with operating principles target=_blank href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter; target=_blank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter Harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com href=mailto: href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: href=mailto: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com ymailto=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com; href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder href=mailto: href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com: This is not a boost converter I said it was a boost converter _without a load_. as none of them will recharge the input source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried. This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents the drain voltage from going below zero. Michel And you wont find any dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;] Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! href= href=http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank href=http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank http://www.flickr.com/gift/ __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! href=http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank http://www.flickr.com/gift/ __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion
At 05:27 AM 3/20/2010, Michel Jullian wrote: Abd, it's not being a jerk to be wrong, it's being a jerk to write authoritatively, as the book title implies, on a subject one is so blatantly ignorant about. What did he say, with an air of authority, that is so objectionable? Look, Goodstein was one of the few major physics personalities who supported cold fusion research, and who clearly still does this. Great idea. Attack your best friends because you see them as too weak in support. As Rothwell points out, Goodstein attended a Duncan seminar. I think it's time that we notice that Duncan remains somewhat skeptical. Duncan is pointing out somewhat the same as Goodstein, and both of them have come to a position -- Goodstein was there, what, fifteen years ago? -- that there is *something* important going on here, and it should be treated with the methods of science, which include the heaviest possible skepticism, except not a skepticism that concludes false because not proven. Rather skepticism that looks for proof, on either side, and continues to demand it. Goodstein is, in the end, on the right side. Whether he is positive or not, or undecided, is not the problem. I myself obviously feel the field is worth researching but I am still not 100% convinced that CF is real, for lack of a single unambiguous experiment proving it is. Somewhat similar to the position of Goodstein, as I see it. Please read him more carefully, and also read his old article, I think it's in the reference list on Wikipedia. There are scientists who know much more about the field than I do who are still undecided. Dieter Britz is in this case, even though he is probably the most CF learned person in the world. I don't know about Britz, it's a strange case. To me, decided is a really dumb position on cold fusion, except as an operating hypothesis. We don't know WTF is happening in the lattice. Sure looks like fusion to me. Strongest evidence is heat/helium, and then comes the neutron evidence from SPAWAR, I hope to reproduce. Heat/helium is heavily reproduced and statistically definitive. If this were about medicine, they'd be patenting and selling the drugs. Absolute proof is not necessary. Statistical proof should be adequate to establish operating assumptions, and the statistical proof is overwhelming already. Goodstein is saying to treat this as ordinary science, definitely not as fraud, and seriously investigate it. Do you argue with that? Why? Because he seems to give a personal opinion that is too mild and because he makes a typographical error? Do you think he doesn't know that this is about loading deuterium into palladium? What if, in fact, he's being politically smart? What if he really believes, more than he says, that it's fusion? CYA? Sure. Why not? His comments could be more politically effective than a public declaration of conversion. Conversion can be and will be claimed to be a betrayal of senility. The guy lost it in his old age. Too bad, he was such a good scientist in his day. Wake up, guys, you don't know where your bread is buttered. You had a huge opportunity with the 2004 DoE review, which represented a huge change from 1989, but you believed what the skeptics said about it. See, no change from 1989, says so right at the end. That was preposterous, there was a huge change from 1989! This was the time to demand that the recommendations be followed! In 1989, they were a political sop, not real. In 2004, the need for more research was a true consensus. (The statement in the conclusion about no change -- was it changed little? -- from 1989 was about the actual text of the recommendation, not about the general position on cold fusion, which was not really their charge, as interpreted by the DoE reviewer. Their charge was to determine if there should be a massive federal program, and the conclusion was basically, not yet. And, in fact, that's not far from my position. But yet could be next month. What's needed is a little more basic research, and it's happening. Just not as fast as if the recommendations of 2004 had been followed, not to mention those of 1989.)
Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion
At 07:17 PM 3/19/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: I just realized I know Prof. Goodstein. Rob Duncan invited him to the seminar at U. Missouri last May. This book was published in January 2010. So, Goodstein has been made aware of facts about cold fusion, and he ignored them. What a travesty! Lighten up, Jed. It can take a long time for a book to appear. Should he have intervened? Why? The book, *as it is*, is a positive force for the encouragement of cold fusion research. It makes the important and central recognition: there is something to this research, it cannot be dismissed as fraud or clear delusion. That he showed up a U. Missouri is a huge step; compare this with the pseudoskeptics, Jed. Maybe you should have a talk with him, but I'd suggest calming down first! Travesty is pretty dramatic. It's not a travesty, these are shallow and superficial comments, made as personal observations, probably before that seminar, and they are clearly sympathetic to cold fusion research. He's not condemning it as pathological science, explicitly saying that it isn't fraud. He's saying that the research should be treated seriously, and some of what is seen as negative is simply reporting common opinion. Look, to connect with those holding the common opinion, you must appear to be with them, at first. Yeah, I can see why you are so skeptical. Not reproduced, anybody would be skeptical. Except, well, there are these 153 reproductions published in peer-reviewed journals. Of course, they are doing different experiments, I can understand why you'd remain skeptical, I see the problem. However, there is one finding that is reproduced, and that the experimental designs differ is actually a factor that makes this more conclusive: using different designs, in palladium deuteride, whether or not helium is found and the amount found is very well correlated with measured excess heat. That's reproduction, just not exact reproduction, it's reproduction of a different kind, confirming process evidence. Would you look at that? It's basic communication technique. Start with agreement. Where would you start, Jed? With You're crazy! How well does that work? Has it ever worked? Once? You're crazy can work with some people once rapport is established. Not where it hasn't been.
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
At 11:43 AM 3/20/2010, Mike Carrell wrote: Cited references in the documents include technical apers also on their website, except Mills et.al, Thermally Reversable Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source which is not posted as yet [this is the heart of the matter, possibly awaiting patent protection]. The papers about the chemistry involved are dense and technical, but the results have been verified by work at Rowan University in Glassboro NJ. Work, of course, supported by Blacklight Power. I have no problem with that, but independent replication it is not, not yet! I'm not placing any bets in this race. I wish them well, their personal fortunes are at stake. I've written before that if this is fraud, it's approaching the end game. I appreciate BP's approach, they are bypassing normal scientific process, which is probably necessary. In the end, though, unless they have operating power plants, or demonstration models you can buy and operate, overall scientific isn't likely to be moved unless there are truly independent replications or verifications, and probably more than one or two. If I were them, I'd be trying to make a toy demonstration that shows clear excess power, make it as cheap as possible, and sell it. But they could be hampered by patent issues, that's the problem with the patent office refusing patent protection. That's a legal problem. It should be possible to get protection on impossible devices. Perhaps some protection from having filed with adequate description to build a device. Even if the patent is not issued; later on, when someone tries to infringe, you'd have evidence that the original filing was actually not of something impossible! And that therefore the patent should have been issued, and that therefore it should be issued now. And the infringer required to pay licensing (perhaps with standing damages ameliorated, since they, too, could be seen to be acting in good faith, after all, there was no patent!)
Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Lighten up, Jed. It can take a long time for a book to appear. I doubt it. The book was published this year, and nowadays books can be written and published very quickly. It is a short book. Should he have intervened? Why? The book, *as it is*, is a positive force for the encouragement of cold fusion research. Oh come now. If this technically illiterate nonsense is the best we can hope for after 21 years, it will take another 100 years. That he showed up a U. Missouri is a huge step; compare this with the pseudoskeptics, Jed. No, he wasn't there, as far as I know. Plus, I am sure Scaramuzzi told him about the ENEA-sponsored ICCF-15 conference years ago. He described Scaramuzzi as a lone hold-out, barely tolerated at the ENEA. I will grant, many of the Italians at the ENEA have described themselves that way, but Goodstein should have at least mentioned that there are many others in the ENEA doing cold fusion and that the organization is sponsoring a conference, along with the Italian Physical Society and Chemical Society. That negates his description of the field, and his assertion that nothing much has changed. The only thing that hasn't changed is the ignorant refusal of people like him to look at the facts. Maybe you should have a talk with him, but I'd suggest calming down first! I wouldn't give him the time of day. Travesty is pretty dramatic. It's not a travesty . . . It darn well is in my estimation. A disgrace, a travesty, a joke, and a violation of academic ethics. He wrote a whole a chapter in a book about a scientific subject without reading a single paper on it, and he grossly misrepresented it and wrote a fantasy instead of a fact-based description. In a book about academic ethics! How ironic. This guy has no business lecturing others about academic ethics or fraud. I would not go so far as to call his book fraud, but it stinks. Look, to connect with those holding the common opinion, you must appear to be with them, at first. I have no desire to connect with such people. I want to steamroll them. Push them out of the way. There are only two outcomes to this debate: either the ignorant, bigoted, technically illiterate fools like Goodstein will win, or we will win. If we win, the the whole world will see them for what they are. They will go down in history as a laughingstock, like the fools who denounced the Wright brothers. If they win, we will be forgotten, and potential benefit of cold fusion will be lost to the human race. That's reproduction, just not exact reproduction, it's reproduction of a different kind, confirming process evidence. Would you look at that? Goodstein would not recognize experimental confirmation if it bit him on the butt! He is like Taubes; completely unqualified to even discuss this subject. I mean, give us a break! He wrote a book describing how you load palladium into platinum. That's like Taubes with his 50 deg C temperature difference in liquid, or Hoffman with his used CANDU reactor moderator water being sold retail. People who publish such egregious mistakes in books disqualify themselves from serious consideration. The publishers should have tossed the manuscripts into the trash. Look, everyone makes mistakes. You can find minor errors in any book. (I can, anyway.) I can even forgive a British author who thought that Harvard University was established after 1814 (R. Holmes, p. 482). But people who devote entire chapters -- or books! -- to preposterous nonsense are beyond the pale. It's basic communication technique. Start with agreement. Where would you start, Jed? With You're crazy! How well does that work? Has it ever worked? Once? I don't say he is crazy. I say he is ignorant and wrong. This will never work in the sense of winning him over or convincing him, but such people cannot be convinced. It is a waste of time trying to convince them. I have no desire to convince them. I want to push them out of the way by showing the world that they have no credibility. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update At 11:43 AM 3/20/2010, Mike Carrell wrote: Cited references in the documents include technical apers also on their website, except Mills et.al, Thermally Reversable Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source which is not posted as yet [this is the heart of the matter, possibly awaiting patent protection]. The papers about the chemistry involved are dense and technical, but the results have been verified by work at Rowan University in Glassboro NJ. Work, of course, supported by Blacklight Power. I have no problem with that, but independent replication it is not, not yet! I'm not placing any bets in this race. I wish them well, their personal fortunes are at stake. The issue of independance is a stinking red herring, casting apersions on the staff of Rowan, and showing only a cursory review of what is actually in the reports. The more severe test is tghe seven licensees of BLP technioplogy, who had first-hand due diligence access to the personnel and facilities of BLP and in some cases at least, replicatged the effects in their own labs. I've written before that if this is fraud, it's approaching the end game. I appreciate BP's approach, they are bypassing normal scientific process, which is probably necessary. In the end, though, unless they have operating power plants, or demonstration models you can buy and operate, overall scientific isn't likely to be moved unless there are truly independent replications or verifications, and probably more than one or two. I don't know how anywone who has closely followed Mills' publications could use the word fraud. Yes, BLP is in the end game. A useable :water engine must result from the two decades of effort and $60+ million investment. All eveidence is positive at this point. If I were them, I'd be trying to make a toy demonstration that shows clear excess power, make it as cheap as possible, and sell it. But they could be hampered by patent issues, that's the problem with the patent office refusing patent protection. That's a legal problem. It should be possible to get protection on impossible devices. Perhaps some protection from having filed with adequate description to build a device. Even if the patent is not issued; later on, when someone tries to infringe, you'd have evidence that the original filing was actually not of something impossible! And that therefore the patent should have been issued, and that therefore it should be issued now. And the infringer required to pay licensing (perhaps with standing damages ameliorated, since they, too, could be seen to be acting in good faith, after all, there was no patent!) Mills' extensivwe pulications through the years constitute cointinuing reduction to practice. Patents have been inssued throughout the world, but not basic patents, whci may require a court fight. [Mills has discovered new natural law which is difficult to patent] A world-class patent firm is handling the Intellectual Property issues. Making a toy or water heater is a sure pathto bankruptcy. Electric utilitis were among the first investors. Achievement of a working protoype water engine will refute critics and be a basis for retrofit of power plants worldwide. As benchmarks are met, the private funding available continues to increase. Mike Carrell This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update At 11:43 AM 3/20/2010, Mike Carrell wrote: Cited references in the documents include technical apers also on their website, except Mills et.al, Thermally Reversable Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source which is not posted as yet [this is the heart of the matter, possibly awaiting patent protection]. The papers about the chemistry involved are dense and technical, but the results have been verified by work at Rowan University in Glassboro NJ. Work, of course, supported by Blacklight Power. I have no problem with that, but independent replication it is not, not yet! I'm not placing any bets in this race. I wish them well, their personal fortunes are at stake. The issue of independance is a stinking red herring, casting apersions on the staff of Rowan, and showing only a cursory review of what is actually in the reports. The more severe test is tghe seven licensees of BLP technioplogy, who had first-hand due diligence access to the personnel and facilities of BLP and in some cases at least, replicatged the effects in their own labs. I've written before that if this is fraud, it's approaching the end game. I appreciate BP's approach, they are bypassing normal scientific process, which is probably necessary. In the end, though, unless they have operating power plants, or demonstration models you can buy and operate, overall scientific isn't likely to be moved unless there are truly independent replications or verifications, and probably more than one or two. I don't know how anywone who has closely followed Mills' publications could use the word fraud. Yes, BLP is in the end game. A useable :water engine must result from the two decades of effort and $60+ million investment. All eveidence is positive at this point. If I were them, I'd be trying to make a toy demonstration that shows clear excess power, make it as cheap as possible, and sell it. But they could be hampered by patent issues, that's the problem with the patent office refusing patent protection. That's a legal problem. It should be possible to get protection on impossible devices. Perhaps some protection from having filed with adequate description to build a device. Even if the patent is not issued; later on, when someone tries to infringe, you'd have evidence that the original filing was actually not of something impossible! And that therefore the patent should have been issued, and that therefore it should be issued now. And the infringer required to pay licensing (perhaps with standing damages ameliorated, since they, too, could be seen to be acting in good faith, after all, there was no patent!) Mills' extensivwe pulications through the years constitute cointinuing reduction to practice. Patents have been inssued throughout the world, but not basic patents, whci may require a court fight. [Mills has discovered new natural law which is difficult to patent] A world-class patent firm is handling the Intellectual Property issues. Making a toy or water heater is a sure pathto bankruptcy. Electric utilitis were among the first investors. Achievement of a working protoype water engine will refute critics and be a basis for retrofit of power plants worldwide. As benchmarks are met, the private funding available continues to increase. Mike Carrell
[Vo]:Rossi
A couple of things regarding Rossi: It is a he, not she. I believe Andrea can be either one but anyway it is he. Sorry about the confusion. I am expecting better information in 2 or 3 months, including independent evaluations of the claims. So, everyone should sit tight and have patience. If the information does not come, I will be inclined to dismiss the claims, but that's just me. As soon I get anything with permission to publish it, I will publish it. Anyway, I do not have any hard information at present. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
Mike Carrell wrote: The issue of independance is a stinking red herring, casting apersions on the staff of Rowan, and showing only a cursory review of what is actually in the reports. I think that is overstating it a bit. With all the good will in the world, I would be nervous about a claim that has not been totally, hands-off, independently replicated. I still have some lingering doubts about Energetics Technology because there have been no fully independent replications as far as I know. I say that even though the people at SRI are the most rigorous and professional in the field. People have a mysterious weakness for groupthink that can propagate a mistake from one person to the next without anyone being aware of it. It is hard to describe. It is a variation of the Madness of Crowds, and the reason just about every bank invested in sub-prime loans a few years ago. I think it is unlikely but the only way to rule it out is to have a fully-independent replication. There is a good reason why this is the tradition in science. Granted there are experiments and technologies they can never be replicated except by direct teaching by experts to other experts. The Top Quark is in this category, and probably so are all modern complex integrated semiconductors. I'll bet no factory every started up after 1965 that did not have at least a few experts who walked away from rival firms (or people hired away) such as the so-called Fairchildren of Fairchild. There are complex experiments in this category but I do not think Mills is that complex. The more severe test is tghe seven licensees of BLP technioplogy, who had first-hand due diligence access to the personnel and facilities of BLP and in some cases at least, replicatged the effects in their own labs. Until we see these licensees demonstrate real, energy generating technology I think it will be wise to remain skeptical. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PewReserachCenter The Science Knowledge Quiz
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Oh, I don't know -- keep in mind that the random sample is actually self selected. Have you ever consented to answer a phone survey? It isn't supposed to be self-selected. There are ways to reduce that bias. Granted, the methods are not perfect. Does it say these are telephone interviews? Fully self-selected samples are, for example, when you set up a questionnaire on a web site. Fully non-self selected is the U.S. Census, now underway. There are gradations in between. The commercial phone surveys about radio stations with few respondents probably are toward the self-selected side. The telephone polls before political elections are remarkably accurate these days, despite problems with cell phone. Of course, people who vote in an election are self selecting by definition, aren't they? If you are likely to tell someone on the phone what you think, you are also likely to vote, I suppose. Voters are self-selected except in Australia, where it is against the law not to vote. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yep! aka MHD
aka The Caterpillar.
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said on Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:53:48 -0700 It should be possible to get protection on impossible devices. Perhaps some protection from having filed with adequate description to build a device. Even if the patent is not issued; later on, when someone tries to infringe, you'd have evidence that the original filing was actually not of something impossible! And that therefore the patent should have been issued, and that therefore it should be issued now. And the infringer required to pay licensing (perhaps with standing damages ameliorated, since they, too, could be seen to be acting in good faith, after all, there was no patent!) Abd, I totally agree, and frankly think no body except Naudts and Bourgoin really nailed the theory, Mills hydrogen with catalytic action, Haisch Moddels' hydrogen with Casimir cavities, Superwave hydrogen compressed bubbles all seemed to be based on different metrics of the same underlying energy source. If the relativistic concept is correct then all these researchers are employing the same environment. They do use different methods to extract the energy from the catalyzed hydrogen so their patents are differentiated but the right thing to do is acknowledge Mills was first to patent the environment - or I should say was first to try and patent the environment. This probably won't happen until after the technology is proved and the research really explodes. Regards Fran Simulation http://www.byzipp.com/sun30.swf of Fractional Hydrogen ash less chemistry in Flash actionscript
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
Jed wrote: - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update Mike Carrell wrote: The issue of independance is a stinking red herring, casting apersions on the staff of Rowan, and showing only a cursory review of what is actually in the reports. JR: I think that is overstating it a bit. With all the good will in the world, I would be nervous about a claim that has not been totally, hands-off, independently replicated. I still have some lingering doubts about Energetics Technology because there have been no fully independent replications as far as I know. I say that even though the people at SRI are the most rigorous and professional in the field. MC: Scepticism is a wonderful attitude and totally safe; I think it should be applied equally to received opinion and new claims. I understand where Jed is coming from but I have also closely followed BLP for years, more closely than most on this list. Mills' business plan is not Jed's, so it is easliy misunderstood. Mills has pursued the course of the scientist-entrepreneur, publishing nearly everything, building a strong patent base to protect investors, speaking to major technical societies, writing a magnum opus on the application of his insights to the major problems of physics. Such is not 'proof'; only experiments are 'proof'. There is a remarkable parade of experiments from BLP, which support his models, leading to a new energy source. MC: regarding Rowan, and Dr. Jansson, who heads the BLP work there. I have been in his office, and read his Master's thesis for Rowan, which was on a simple BLP experiment using a Seeback calorimeter on loan from BLP. It happens that Jansson was once a technical scout for the utility now known as Connectiv, and recommended to Connective to invest in BLP years ago. I think Jansson may be a minor stockholder in BLP by special agreement. MC: Now if one is a *strident skeptic* this would invalidate all the Rowan findings. Such is silly and glib. Two resons why BLP would choose Rowan as an independent lab for validation: a) Rowan is about two hour's drive from BLP's site, and b) Jansson can be trusted not to screw up the tests. In my years of following critics of BLP I have found glib swipes, failures to duplicate what Mills did, etc. If one actually **studies** the Rowan reports, you find independant calibrations of devices, etc. What is carefully followed are the procedures and protocols developed at BLP. These qualify as ***independent*** validations as the ultimate references are standard laboratory instruments. MC: BLP is in an end game of a very difficult journey. Failure is still a possibility. The existence of the sub-ground state of hydrogen is established beyond reasonable doubt by multiple threads of evidence. Energy yields 200 times combustion [of hydrogen] have been shown using several methods of calorimetry. The engineering problem is to follow nature and build reactors that can produce sustained megawatt power output using water as a fuel. A BLP powe plant is a complex system now, but in time may be simplified. The documents just posted at BLP are mileposts on that path. All the data to understand them is published on the website, but one must dig for it and *study*. Mike Carrell snip
Re: [Vo]:Pi factor
On 03/20/2010 12:01 AM, Harvey Norris wrote:
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
--- On Fri, 3/19/10, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com Subject: [Vo]:Pi factor To:
vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Friday, March 19, 2010, 11:18 PM The
energy transfer between L and C as stored joules by the
quantities; J= .5 CV^2 and J = .5 LI^2
The quandary here is the fact when we measure either I or V by meter
means, this displayed value is the rms or averaged, and the true peak
value is therefore 1.4 times the reading.
I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, but I think it's worth
pointing out that RMS volts isn't the same as average volts (it's the
root of the average of the square, which may be rather different from
the simple average). Furthermore, peak volts are only 1.414... times
the RMS volts when you're dealing with perfect sine waves.
A sine wave with peaks of +/- 1 volt has a mean square value of 1/2
volt, and the square root of that, which is the RMS voltage, is
1/sqrt(2) volts. The peak voltage is, in this case, sqrt(2) times the
RMS value.
The same wave has an *average* voltage of 0 (positive and negative going
values cancel out, when averaged over time).
The average of the *absolute value* of our +/- 1 volt sine wave is
integral(sin(x))_0^pi / pi, which is (cos(0)-cos(pi))/pi, or 2/pi, which
is roughly 10% smaller than the RMS voltage.
Finally, if we're using a +/- 1 volt square wave, the RMS value is 1
volt; peak voltage is equal to RMS voltage. The average is again zero,
and the average of the absolute value is 1/2 volt, or half the RMS
voltage. This is rather different from the case of a sine wave!
However even after making
this corrective manipulation of indicating true values,
All these ways of measuring the voltage are equally true; neither peak
nor RMS voltage is more true or more correct than the other. But no
single number can capture all aspects of an AC signal.
the
comparison to actual energy transfer over time falls short by pi
times the amount of supposed energy transfer. Here perhaps semantics,
or wording of the involved process of description might explain this
apparent discrepancy that has long bothered me. When we speak of
energy transfer OVER TIME; the amount of energy being transferred {in
time itself] is only at a peak at a certain instant of time, and
therefore by using that derived peak value as the total amount of
energy to be transferred in time itself, a different answer is
arrived at. The true analysis should include the fact that the amount
of energy being transferred over time is itself not constant,(we need
calculus) and in fact it can be itself zero at certain time
measurements of the time interval itself as a cycle being measured. I
am now wondering if this is the explanation for the discrepancy of
joules/sec vs wattage measurements in comparison for equal energy
transfer resonant circuits.
and considering The I^2R heating loss of the inductor itself; when
the transfer of energy between L and C as joules/sec becomes equal
to the inductor heat loss wattage, by the inductor displaying a Q
factor of 3.14; the oscillation of energy between the fields has
become Pi times greater then its ordinary reactive state. HDN
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
Re: [Vo]:PewReserachCenter The Science Knowledge Quiz
On 03/20/2010 06:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Oh, I don't know -- keep in mind that the random sample is actually self selected. Have you ever consented to answer a phone survey? It isn't supposed to be self-selected. There are ways to reduce that bias. Granted, the methods are not perfect. Does it say these are telephone interviews? Yes. Phone interviews work pretty well for political polls, presumably because willingness to cooperate with phone surveys doesn't correlate strongly with political alignment. In this case, however, I'm not so sure the correlation with ability to answer the questions correctly is insignificant. Fully self-selected samples are, for example, when you set up a questionnaire on a web site. Those are, indeed, self selected, and what's worse, they're nearly always trivially gimickable. With a little effort most of them could be flooded with a Perl script. In other words, they're totally worthless (unless the issue is one nobody cares about). Fully non-self selected is the U.S. Census, now underway. There are gradations in between. The commercial phone surveys about radio stations with few respondents probably are toward the self-selected side. The telephone polls before political elections are remarkably accurate these days, despite problems with cell phone. Of course, people who vote in an election are self selecting by definition, aren't they? If you are likely to tell someone on the phone what you think, you are also likely to vote, I suppose. Voters are self-selected except in Australia, where it is against the law not to vote. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pi factor
In the tuning of ~ 25 mh/ 2.6 ohms resonances @ 60 hz we find that it has an
effective impedance for practical considerations Of ~ 10 ohms. This in fact is
the actual impedance to be tuned to capacitively, so we set X(C) to equal 10
ohms.
X(C) = 1/{2pi*F*C}
X(L)= 2pi*f*L
are the equations involved for equal matches at resonance.
Setting X(C) = 10 we find that this value enables a one amp conduction given a
10 volt source.
10= 1/[6.28*60*C]
1/C= 376.8*10= 3768
C= 1/3768 F or 265 uf or microfarad = 2.65 * 10^-6 F.
The value of stored energy in 265 uf is given by that one amp conduction
whereby J = .5CV^2.
Here that one amp conduction is made possible by a 10 volt source placed across
a 10 ohm load.
Ordinarily giving the V value as 10 volts; V^2 becomes 100, but recognizing
that V(peak)^2 = 14.4 squared this instead becomes 207.4, instead of just 100.
J= .5 C V^2= .5* {2.65* 10^-6}*207.4 = .027 joules
This amount of energy is transferred 120 times per second between L and C for
an energy transfer of ~ 3.3 joules/ second.
But ten watts is supposed when ten volts makes a one amp current.
If the inductor had a Q of pi; pi times more current or voltage could ensue;
then the figures would be in agreement. However resistive inductors at certain
frequencies can also have a Q better then pi, in which case the energy
transfers between L and C can exceed the I^2R losses made on the inductors
resistance itself.
This is somewhat a complicated matter whereby perhaps others can explain the
discrepancy better here. Perhaps I have made errors in my mathematics. But this
was the point I was trying to drive across. Thanx for the reply.
HDN
