date:20150924

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

>

> If there is cheap electricity electrical cars are simple - fast to
> recharge.
>

Electricity is already cheap. It is much cheaper than gasoline per mile.
Electric cars are not fast to recharge; they are slow. Cold fusion would do
nothing to change that. Even if electricity cost nothing, electric cars
will still be slow to recharge and they will still have a limited range
because of the weight and bulk of the batteries. The cars will still be
expensive because the batteries are expensive.

> Even exchange of batteries is a possible way.
>

This would cost tremendous amounts of money to implement on a large scale.

> I really do not care for to have the reactor in the car. I am fine to have
> it locally.
>

If the reactors are not perfectly safe they should not be installed
locally. If they are only as safe as today's gas-fired and coal fired
generators they should only be used on a gigawatt scale.

If cold fusion reactors are safer than today's gasoline powered motors they
should be used in cars instead of those motors. Gasoline fueled vehicles
are not particularly safe. The fuel is toxic, and it often burn in
accidents. They pollute the air, and cause global warming.

> Neighborhood power stations. 20 homes or similar.
>

I do not see how this would be any safer or more cost-effective than
installing one generator per house. If the power station is safe enough for
20 homes surely it would be safe enough for one.

> There are many advantages with that as I think we all can see. Besides we
> can fix a job for the gas stations. Battery exchangers.
>

I see no point to make-work jobs. No one is going to pay for battery
exchangers if we can have cold fusion orders instead. It would be far
cheaper and easier to implement. No infrastructure is needed.

Thus power to weight is not of great importance.
>

The power to weight ratio of the battery+motor system is the limiting
factor for electric cars. That, plus the high cost of batteries, is why
they have such short ranges, such as 84 miles for the Nissan Leaf.

- Jed

[Vo]:RE: The megafarad capacitor

Apple is at it again - this time with hydrogen - first to power the iphone,
and then the driverless car.

A UK research company with 900 patents, Intelligent Energy - is tied to
Apple in a similar hidden way as ARM, which designs the iphone chips. Having
a bank roll of $200 billion in liquid assets will let you do crazy things
like move all the way from computeres into automotive - when the time is
right. I suppose they could just buy Toyota and be done with it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billtucker/2015/09/09/fuel-cells-apple-and-intel
ligent-energy/

http://www.intelligent-energy.com/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/1
1818169/British-hydrogen-fuel-cell-pioneer-develops-cars-and-iPhones-of-the-
future.html

Of course, Apple also has "bettery" options. It will be a curious
competition if the megacap (mega-farad capacitor) comes to market at the
same time as the hydrogen fuel cell (and/or the barium titanate device). Of
course, there is room for all. The fuel cell is ready but it is the
infrastructure for cheap hydrogen gas, which is lacking. If the graphene
megacap and barium titanate designs were integrated, one could potentially
get both high voltage and higher capacity. It's all about synergy.

In fact, the fuel cell, the battery, and the electrolytic capacitor are all
three variations on the same theme, especially when hydrogen is the charge
carrier. In fact, LENR in some form (using dense hydrogen) could be
considered to be another variation on the theme.
_
previous message

There is an eccentric inventor on YouTube named Robert Murray-Smith, who has
been working towards the megafarad capacitor using graphene oxide, and has
recently made progress (without much funding).

Certainly, the best use of coal is not to burn it - but to turn it into
graphene (and CNT, Bucky-balls, filaments, etc.). Mass-produced graphene
oxide megacapacitors should be cheaper than any other imaginable energy
storage medium like lithium batteries, since the main raw material is coal. 

Murray-Smith figures that the average house, and the power needs of two
adults, could be handled by 2-3 megafarad caps, about the size of a single
regular car battery. They could be recharged off-peak in a few minutes, or
slowly with solar. The current Tesla automobile would need about 10 of them
and could be charged in less time than the home, since the limitation on the
home is the puny grid connection (assuming a charging station has a high
power charger)

I agree with Robin that the ADGEX and possibly the STEORN are using an
advanced capacitor system, which could be made from graphene oxide or not.
Their capacitors are probably in the kilo-farad range but megafarad will
happen soon. There is probably an antenna in these units for capturing Wi-Fi
as well. RCA developed this tech 5 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wOJEIMf12I=1

It is very possible that an additional self-charging anomaly has been
discovered as one get capacitance levels up to the kilofarad range. This
does not necessarily violate CoE, so long as the device cools as it
recharges. This magneto-cooling phenomenon was seen with the Arthur Manelas
device.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:RE: The megafarad capacitor

2015-09-24 Thread Bob Higgins

For some time to come, fuel cells for portable products will be just a
novelty/stunt.  In the best case scenario, they are a battery charger
supplying constant current because they are much harder to throttle than a
lithium battery, particularly as they get miniaturized.  A serious problem
for portable electronics is the waste heat.  When you use a lithium battery
to deliver 10 watts to a product, the total heat dissipated in the product
is about 10 watts.  When you use a fuel cell to deliver 10 watts, not only
is the 10 watts turned to heat, but the fuel cell (only about 40%
efficient, and only about 50% theoretically) will deliver an additional 25
watts of heat for that same load.  Cellphones in particular are limited in
peak performance today by the need to dissipate the heat generated inside
the small enclosure.  Powering an iPhone with a fuel cell is just a
technology stunt.

This heat dissipation is not a serious problem for a car.  Historic
applications of internal combustion engines has to deal with huge heat
exchange to get rid of 40-100kW of heat from the automobile size engine.
For the same output, the fuel cell will produce less heat than the IC
engine.  Fuel cells applications for cars are likely to be hybrids for a
long time due to throttling limitations.  Thus, using a fuel cell over an
IC engine for driving the hybrid's charger is just a matter of efficiency,
efficacy, cost, and commitment to environmental issues.  How much range
will it have and how much will it cost in total $/mile over the life of the
car?  It will be pretty hard to beat my turbo diesel Jeep GC today - I have
a single tank highway range of over 600 miles, and at least right now,
diesel fuel is cheaper than regular gas - and - I am riding in the lux of
an upsized 4WD SUV instead of a fragile compact car like the Prius. [I tore
up a Prius rental in a few days because it was too fragile for the mountain
roads where I live].

It reminds me of the situation of GaAs ICs.  Yes, the mobility of GaAs was
better than Si.  However, as GaAs technology was improving to bring it to
market, Si technology was advancing at an even greater rate.  It was said
prophetically, "GaAs is the technology of the future, and it always will
be."  Many technologies are like this [but I don't think that is the case
for LENR].

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Apple is at it again – this time with hydrogen – first to power the
> iphone, and then the driverless car.
>
> A UK research company with 900 patents, Intelligent Energy - is tied to
> Apple in a similar hidden way as ARM, which designs the iphone chips. Having
> a bank roll of $200 billion in liquid assets will let you do crazy things
> like move all the way from computeres into automotive – when the time is
> right. I suppose they could just buy Toyota and be done with it.
>
>
> *http://www.forbes.com/sites/billtucker/2015/09/09/fuel-cells-apple-and-intelligent-energy/*
> 
>
> *http://www.intelligent-energy.com/* 
>
>
> *http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/11818169/British-hydrogen-fuel-cell-pioneer-develops-cars-and-iPhones-of-the-future.html*
> 
>
> Of course, Apple also has “bettery” options. It will be a curious
> competition if the megacap (mega-farad capacitor) comes to market at the
> same time as the hydrogen fuel cell (and/or the barium titanate device).
> Of course, there is room for all. The fuel cell is ready but it is the
> infrastructure for cheap hydrogen gas, which is lacking. If the graphene
> megacap and barium titanate designs were integrated, one could potentially get
> both high voltage and higher capacity. It’s all about synergy.
>
> In fact, the fuel cell, the battery, and the electrolytic capacitor are
> all three variations on the same theme, especially when hydrogen is the
> charge carrier. In fact, LENR in some form (using dense hydrogen) could
> be considered to be another variation on the theme.
>
> _
> *previous message*
>
> There is an eccentric inventor on YouTube named Robert Murray-Smith, who
> has been working towards the megafarad capacitor using graphene oxide, and
> has recently made progress (without much funding).
>
> Certainly, the best use of coal is not to burn it - but to turn it into
> graphene (and CNT, Bucky-balls, filaments, etc.). Mass-produced graphene
> oxide megacapacitors should be cheaper than any other imaginable energy
> storage medium like lithium batteries, since the main raw material is coal.
>
> Murray-Smith figures that the average house, and the power needs of two
> adults, could be handled by 2-3 megafarad caps, about

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> I am not in agreement with that electricity is cheap.
>

It is much cheaper than gasoline per mile in an automobile. About 4 times
cheaper, depending on the cost of gasoline.

Producing electricity locally, in my opinion as local as possible has a
> long list of advantages. It is less vulnerable, no transmission cost to
> mention a few.
>

Yes. As long as you are doing that you might as well bring it to each
individual house and get rid of the transmission network altogether. I see
no advantage to grouping houses and 20 and supplying one generator for each
group. You would still need wires connecting the houses.

You are saying there are disadvantages with electrical cars besides slow
> recharging. The price is one and I can guarantee that the cost of batteries
> will decrease if there is a real competition.
>

Batteries have been in widespread use for 150 years. Enormous efforts have
gone into reducing the cost of batteries, without much progress. Perhaps
someday this R will pan out, but there has been real competition all
along.

> You say that generating plant should be in the Gigawatt scale.
>

Only if cold fusion turns out to be unsafe for some reason such as because
it produces large amounts of tritium which cannot be reduced. I doubt that
is the case. I expect it will be safer than any conventional source of
energy such as natural gas, high-voltage electricity, or gasoline.

> I think we are so far apart in that opinion so I hardly know where to
> begin. Reality is that the idea of big, inflexible, vulnerable, is an
> bygone idea.
>

You misunderstood what I said. I would only advocate large reactors if cold
fusion is unsafe.

> Your point about electrical cars having issues. short range and power
> weight ratio is of course correct. I think the range will be extended and
> the weight reduced in next generation batteries.
>

If cold fusion can be controlled and made safe there will be no reason to
develop next generation batteries.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

Jed,
I am not in agreement with that electricity is cheap. However, I live in
the PG land so it is a little false background. I can actually produce
electricity with a diesel generator at lower cost than I can buy it.
If you cut in to pieces what I say you can object but as whole your
arguments are rather weak.
Producing electricity locally, in my opinion as local as possible has a
long list of advantages. It is less vulnerable, no transmission cost to
mention a few. If I can produce electricity at ten percent of what I pay
today I would sat 'Tesla here I come'. In that scenario the price will be
such an attraction that I would even set aside the difficulties with Teslas
as it is today. I would not be the only one so the fear you have for high
cost of transforming gas stations in to battery exchange stations has no
merit. There will be more than adequate incentives for the investment. In
addition I read about a lot of development as it pertains to charging of
batteries quicker and big capacitors. I am sure that my suggestion about
battery exchange will have more attractive alternatives I am unable to
predict.
You are saying there are disadvantages with electrical cars besides slow
recharging. The price is one and I can guarantee that the cost of batteries
will decrease if there is a real competition. Just now there is no
aftermarket (not attractive due to high entry cost and small market), large
scale production is rare (Tesla's plant in Reno, NV will change that).
You say that generating plant should be in the Gigawatt scale. I think we
are so far apart in that opinion so I hardly know where to begin. Reality
is that the idea of big, inflexible, vulnerable, is an bygone idea. Small
flexible society where we can minimize the number of rules to a level that
you and I can understand and accept them requires a decentralized society,
which is locally managed. (Locally can sometimes be local from other aspect
than geography.) I am fine with one generator per house. It might be the
best. There are factors like back up, safety and service that might drive
the size. I agree with that one generator per house / building seems best.
In addition to other advantages investments will be of a scale that make us
all part of the decision making. We all have a hard time see the impact
from large dollar commitments. Horatius Parkinson in the 1940-is gave an
example from a meeting of the local town decision makers. There were two
items on the agenda; a new bike-stand for the only guy fully employed by
the town as he now parked his bike so it scratched the facade of the town
hall, secondly a purchase of a new statue for the town square. The cost of
bike stand was $29 and the statue was proposed at a million dollars. A long
debate where all elected representatives had opinions. The employee could
buy a bike stand, one could find a cheaper bike stand etc. etc. It ended
with that the issue was tabled to next meeting. Then came the question
about the statue took no time. It was approved after a positive
presentation by the most informed person. Long story but it is meant to
show that we are much more careful about numbers of the size we are used to
deal with as private people. Nobody question if there are savings of
$100,000 or $10,000 or even $20 on the statue.
So to the safety issue. I based my statement on the fact presented in the
suggested LENR induced by laser. I sounded safe and the suggestion was that
it was possible to use in small scale.  I would say that if we have been
able to refine the ottomotor to a relatively safe product - it seems that
with some engineering this proposed  product has fewer hurdles to overcome,
albeit it will require resources and time.
Your point about electrical cars having issues. short range and power
weight ratio is of course correct. I think the range will be extended and
the weight reduced in next generation batteries. However, I am sure that we
all can see reasons for driving an electrical car versus a gasoline powered
ditto. Most of the time 84 miles is enough. It is convenient to have an
electrical motor. I could change my car for an electrical one any day. JUst
now the only hurdle is the capital investment.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>>
>
>> If there is cheap electricity electrical cars are simple - fast to
>> recharge.
>>
>
> Electricity is already cheap. It is much cheaper than gasoline per mile.
> Electric cars are not fast to recharge; they are slow. Cold fusion would do
> nothing to change that. Even if electricity cost nothing, electric cars
> will still be slow to recharge and they will still have a

RE: [Vo]:RE: The megafarad capacitor

2015-09-24 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Jones sez:

 

...

 

> Having a bank roll of $200 billion in liquid assets will let you do

> crazy things like move all the way from computeres into automotive

> - when the time is right. I suppose they could just buy Toyota and

> be done with it.

 

LOL!

 

GOOD example of having lots of money to play around with: APPLE

BAD example of  having lots of money to play around with: TRUMP

 

Looked like Stephen Cobert had had a good time keeping Trump more-or-less on
a short leash on the Tonight Show.

 

It's too bad someone in charge over at Apple doesn't have a hankering to
discreetly look into LENR research, or even BLP's equally controversial
claims for that matter. I could say the same thing for Google. I also wish
Elon Musk would start snooping around, but I think he has pretty much
committed himself to the task of mass producing batteries to help drive down
unit costs. Can't really blame Elon. It's a good thing to work on.

 

Regarding generating a hydrogen infrastructure, many years ago I recall Dr.
Peter Zimmerman (Dr. Mills' worst nemesis) claiming we should redirect many
of our nuclear plants towards the primary task of cracking H2O into
hydrogen. Zimmerman seemed to think that would be an excellent way to
generate boatloads of cheap plentiful hydrogen for the coming hydrogen
economy. I wouldn't know where to begin to figure out if that would truly
could be an economical process or not.

 

Anyone up to the challenge of running the numbers here?

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> I am not in agreement with that electricity is cheap.
>

It is much cheaper than gasoline per mile in an automobile. About 4 times
cheaper, depending on the cost of gasoline. You are now including energy
taxes and big brother's energy politics. That is fine with me as that is my
main idea that we are so over regulated that even the faintest hint of
common sense cannot be made. No, Jed electricity is not cheap.

Producing electricity locally, in my opinion as local as possible has a
> long list of advantages. It is less vulnerable, no transmission cost to
> mention a few.
>

Yes. As long as you are doing that you might as well bring it to each
individual house and get rid of the transmission network altogether. I see
no advantage to grouping houses and 20 and supplying one generator for each
group. You would still need wires connecting the houses.
 Surpise surprise I totally agree with you. However, even if there are
issues with implementation of the product I am sure we will benefit from
not having to use the total grid. It could be that best is to have two
generators for ten houses. Redundancy nad installation cost. The wires are
already there.

You are saying there are disadvantages with electrical cars besides slow
> recharging. The price is one and I can guarantee that the cost of batteries
> will decrease if there is a real competition.
>

Batteries have been in widespread use for 150 years. Enormous efforts have
gone into reducing the cost of batteries, without much progress. Perhaps
someday this R will pan out, but there has been real competition all
along. OK batteries has been worked on for a long time. I am sure if you
make a graph you will find most progress has been made the last ten years.
Just read the parallel thread about Mega Farad capacitors. You think that
is the final step> No it is not.

> You say that generating plant should be in the Gigawatt scale.
>

Only if cold fusion turns out to be unsafe for some reason such as because
it produces large amounts of tritium which cannot be reduced. I doubt that
is the case. I expect it will be safer than any conventional source of
energy such as natural gas, high-voltage electricity, or gasoline. The
beuty of LENR is that it can be deployed small scale. I read the article

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2049-Small-scale-nuclear-fusion-could-become-a-new-source-of-energy-Press-release-fro/
they say there will be no significant radiation. I see no other safety
issues, lots of engineering though. I understood there was no issue with
Tritium production maybe  I read wrong. Here is what I read:
"No radiationThe new fusion process can take place in relatively small
laser-fired fusion reactors fuelled by heavy hydrogen (deuterium). It has
already been shown to produce more energy than that needed to start it.
Heavy hydrogen is found in large quantities in ordinary water and is easy
to extract. The dangerous handling of radioactive heavy hydrogen (tritium)
which would most likely be needed for operating large-scale fusion reactors
with a magnetic enclosure in the future is therefore unnecessary.
"

> I think we are so far apart in that opinion so I hardly know where to
> begin. Reality is that the idea of big, inflexible, vulnerable, is an
> bygone idea.
>

You misunderstood what I said. I would only advocate large reactors if cold
fusion is unsafe.I would rather engineer the safety issues or find another
LENR without the problem. Large scale is the problem.

> Your point about electrical cars having issues. short range and power
> weight ratio is of course correct. I think the range will be extended and
> the weight reduced in next generation batteries.
>

If cold fusion can be controlled and made safe there will be no reason to
develop next generation batteries. at this point I just disagree. I think
batteries will be attractive. There should be no reason to haLPG gas
bottles in a home plumbed for natural gas. Well it is.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> I am not in agreement with that electricity is cheap.
>>
>
> It is much cheaper than gasoline per mile in an automobile. About 4 times
> cheaper, depending on the cost of gasoline.
>
>
> Producing electricity locally, in my opinion as local as possible has a
>> long list of advantages. It is less vulnerable, no transmission cost to
>> mention a few.
>>
>
> Yes. As long as you are doing that you might as well bring it to each
> individual house and get rid of the transmission network altogether. I see
> no advantage to grouping houses and 20 and

[Vo]:GLOBAL LENR RESEARCH PLAN (I)

2015-09-24 Thread Peter Gluck

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/09/sep-24-2015-sketch-of-global-research.html

we need principles, plans and ACTION!

Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

From: Mark Goldes 
*   
*   The conversion of a small Briggs & Stratton engine to run without fuel 
is now underway…
For those on vortex who are unfamiliar with Ken Rauen’s work, PESN has a web 
page focusing on an earlier engine. Ken is a leading expert on the Papp engine 
– and there are several vorticians including Axil who believe that Papp’s 
engine either worked or should work, in principle. The new Rauen engine is said 
to be an improvement over this:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rauen_Environmental_Heat_Engine
Like the Papp engine, there will be strong disagreement over the thermodynamic 
issues involved, which can only be resolved by a working demonstration. It is 
imperative to “stand and deliver” as they say in the movies. Hopefully, this 
time around, the world will see both data and especially: a self-powered engine 
– no battery required.
As for Papp, there is an overload of worthless anecdote still floating around 
the net, but no independent evidence to suggest that a functional prototype was 
ever built. It is all “stand” (with lots of arm waving) and no “deliver”. Ken 
appreciates this past history (he was part of it) and there is little doubt 
that he is convinced that he has got it right, this time. If so, LENR could be 
the perfect application. A match made in … err… space? 
One thing for sure, Papp and Rossi seem to have been cast from the same mold – 
part inventor, part showman, and 100% controversial.

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

Thank you Jones.
At the same time the issue is not the relative cost of electricity before
LENR.
I am #2 in line for the model 3.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Lennart Thornros
>
>
>
> I am not in agreement with that electricity is cheap.
>
>
>
> JR: It is much cheaper than gasoline per mile in an automobile.
>
>
>
> LT: You are now including energy taxes and big brother's energy politics.
> That is fine with me as that is my main idea that we are so over regulated
> that even the faintest hint of common sense cannot be made. No, Jed
> electricity is not cheap.
>
>
>
> Ø  About 4 times cheaper, depending on the cost of gasoline.
>
>
>
> Not in Sept. 2015. Today, with the drop in fuel cost, electricity is about
> 2 times cheaper, on average, but not everywhere; and most of that is due to
> no road tax on electricity – not the relative cost of fuel at the pump.
>
>
>
> In California, electricity is double the national average and the cost per
> mile  can be more expensive than gasoline - especially if you have a high
> mileage hybrid vehicle like the Prius (even if you never charge the car
> from the grid) !
>
>
>
> In any event, it’s not fair to compare the best EV against the worst gas
> hog. The cost has been well studied. Our government (DoE) says this:
>
>
>
> *“Comparing Energy Costs per Mile for Electric and Gasoline-Fueled
> Vehicles”*
>
>
>
> The fuel cost of driving an electric vehicle depends on the cost of
> electricity per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and the energy efficiency of the
> vehicle.  The national average cost for electricity in the U.S. (average
> residential rate) is about 11.7 cents per kWh. Average electric vehicles
> have energy efficiencies of about 2 miles per kWh. The average cost in the
> USA for electric cars is therefore about 6 cents per mile. However, in much
> of California and several other states, the cost per mile is close to twice
> the national average.
>
>
>
> The average gasoline mileage is 22 mi/gal. A gasoline vehicle with an
> energy efficiency of
>
> 22 miles per gallon costs about 11 cents per mile when gasoline costs
> $2.40 per gallon and 17 cents per mile when fuel is $3.60. A few years ago,
> gasoline was more expensive than electricity almost everywhere, but not
> today.
>
>
>
> In the largest state, with by far the most cars, the recent cost of
> gasoline per mile for a hybrid, which never needs a grid charge, can be
> less per mile than the cost of electricity per mile for all electric
> (Tesla).
>
>
>
> That will change, and many of us still want all-electric. Where do I sign
> up for the Model 3 ??
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

Here are some more instances of negative electric power costs:

"Negative prices in wholesale electricity markets indicate supply
inflexibilities"

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5110

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

2015-09-24 Thread Axil Axil

The resent work by Holmlid show that muons are produced by rydberg matter.
I now believe that rydberg matter was a product of the Papp engine plasma
process.

Notice that both Holmlid and Papp produce no heat and very high speed
neutral particles from explosive rydberg matter fragments.

The Papp engine produced excess electrons as a decay product of muon
production as seen by Holmlid. Papp used alpha decay from radium to extract
these excess electrons to power an super capacitor based alternating duel
cylinder system. Without this radioactive charge capturing system, the Papp
engine does not work. No radium means no electron capture. The arc
discharge from the "bucket" electrodes that held the radium greatly
increased the positive charge produced by alpha decay of the radium as a
LENR based reaction. This extremely high positive charge on the electrodes
is what attracted the excess electrons from the plasma and produced the
back current that drove the piston firing cycle.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Well, OTEC is a good metaphor – but without disagreeing with Jed’s
> assessment, the operative detail left out is that empty “space” is a
> rguably the virtual heat sink which would express temperatures near
> absolute zero (on paper). The idea is that ambient heat transfers to a
> virtual heat sink, which is very cold.
>
> Of course, the normal way to do this is via a refrigerant, but
> refrigeration takes work. Mark mentions propane – a refrigerant (it is
> not burned). For Papp, xenon and other noble gases do the same. Can one
> cool via a refrigerant using the same work which is later harvested?
> Mainstream science of course says … (shouts)… NO WAY.
>
> Anyone who witnesses a bona fide the Papp replication attempt (not the
> “popper” LOL) … often comments that the engine runs cold. Why? It is part
> of the M.O.
>
> I suspect, but do not know – that Rauen’s engine will run cold (assuming
> it is working). I hope to be among the first to witness this.
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell
>
> Jones Beene <*jone...@pacbell.net* > wrote:
>
> Like the Papp engine, there will be strong disagreement over the
> thermodynamic issues involved . . .
>
> That is putting it mildly! I think most people would say it is a
> flat-violation of the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot run anything on
> "atmospheric heat" because the atmospheric temperature is uniform, except
> on a giant scale that I do not think any human technology can achieve at
> present. I guess you could tap atmospheric heat if the heat sink is outside
> the atmosphere, like a gargantuan OTEC generator in air instead of water.
>
>
>
> As for Papp, there is an overload of worthless anecdote still floating
> around the net, but no independent evidence to suggest that a functional
> prototype was ever built. It is all “stand” (with lots of arm waving) and
> no “deliver”.
>
> Ha, ha! Well said.
>
> One thing for sure, Papp and Rossi seem to have been cast from the same
> mold – part inventor, part showman, and 100% controversial.
>
> Yup.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

Jones Beene  wrote:

> the operative detail left out is that empty “space” is arguably the
> virtual heat sink which would express temperatures near absolute zero (on
> paper). The idea is that ambient heat transfers to a virtual heat sink,
> which is very cold.
>
Yes, exactly.

> Can one cool via a refrigerant using the same work which is later
> harvested? Mainstream science of course says … (shouts)… NO WAY.
>
I do not shout that. I say it in my "inside voice." I also say that if
someone demonstrates it, I will believe it.

. . . We do use atmospheric heat in the form of wind, which is generated on
a scale larger than any human technology can achieve. I suppose you might
be able to do something like this on Mercury, which rotates around its axis
only 3 times in 2 years. You would have a large power station that moves
gradually across the surface keeping itself in dawn (or twilight), with the
heat sink on the night side.

A slow moving solar power generator on Mercury might be more practical.
Keep it at high noon.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

2015-09-24 Thread Mark Goldes

*AAESOP’s *LITTLE ENGINE THAT COULD CHANGE THE WORLD (from the
aesopinstitute.org website)

The conversion of a small Briggs & Stratton engine to run without fuel is
now underway.

This Fuel-Free, scalable, modified engine (and proprietary future piston
and turbine engines) designed to never need fuel will run 24/7 on
Atmospheric Heat, *a vast, untapped reservoir of solar energy larger than
all the world’s fossil fuel reserves.*

PHASE TWO: Following the small Briggs & Stratton gasoline engine conversion
prototype, AESOP will build a proprietary Rauen 4 cylinder fuel-free piston
engine. 3-D printing will produce components. A 4 cylinder prototype can
deliver several hundred watts to prove the concept. Commercial gen-sets
rated at 1 kW and 10 kW will follow. These engines will later power 100 kW
gen-sets. They can also convert heat from LENR to electricity.

Ken Rauen’s engine concept, U.S. Patent #6,698,200 (and Chris Hunter’s
conversion of a FORD engine) proved the Second Law of Thermodynamics
requires modification.

AESOP Energy will develop five of Ken Rauen’s engines. Each designed to run
24/7 on atmospheric heat (“heat of ambient air”). Unlike converted engines,
four unique designs require no internal propane refrigerant. The temperature
in space is  - 454.72 o F.50 o F. on Earth is more than 500o higher.  Think
of our atmosphere as a gigantic solar energy  storage system. Unlike
traditional engines, these engines do not depend upon resource depleting,
polluting, limited availability, limited reliability, scarce, and costly
resources.

These revolutionary engines will help accomplish rapid reduction of the
need for fossil fuels.

Mark Goldes
Chairman, CEO, AESOP Energy LLC

707 861-9070

AESOP Institute website: www.aesopinstitute.org

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> 3. Oil is cheap now mainly because of fracking. This is also lowering the
>> cost of natural gas, which will lower the cost of electricity in the near
>> future.
>>
>
> Meanwhile, in Texas at night they will sometimes pay you to use
> electricity. The cost is negative:
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/09/texas_electricity_goes_negative_wind_power_was_so_plentiful_one_night_that.html
>
> They get 9% of the their electricity from wind, and 40% at night
> sometimes. The best deal would be to use an electric car in Texas with a
> smart power meter and recharger, giving you a discount during off-peak
> hours, and a super discount when the cost of electricity goes negative.
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

Well, OTEC is a good metaphor – but without disagreeing with Jed’s assessment, 
the operative detail left out is that empty “space” is arguably the virtual 
heat sink which would express temperatures near absolute zero (on paper). The 
idea is that ambient heat transfers to a virtual heat sink, which is very cold. 

Of course, the normal way to do this is via a refrigerant, but refrigeration 
takes work. Mark mentions propane – a refrigerant (it is not burned). For Papp, 
xenon and other noble gases do the same. Can one cool via a refrigerant using 
the same work which is later harvested? Mainstream science of course says … 
(shouts)… NO WAY.

Anyone who witnesses a bona fide the Papp replication attempt (not the “popper” 
LOL) … often comments that the engine runs cold. Why? It is part of the M.O.

I suspect, but do not know – that Rauen’s engine will run cold (assuming it is 
working). I hope to be among the first to witness this.


From: Jed Rothwell 

Jones Beene  wrote:
Like the Papp engine, there will be strong disagreement over the thermodynamic 
issues involved . . .
That is putting it mildly! I think most people would say it is a flat-violation 
of the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot run anything on "atmospheric heat" 
because the atmospheric temperature is uniform, except on a giant scale that I 
do not think any human technology can achieve at present. I guess you could tap 
atmospheric heat if the heat sink is outside the atmosphere, like a gargantuan 
OTEC generator in air instead of water.
 
As for Papp, there is an overload of worthless anecdote still floating around 
the net, but no independent evidence to suggest that a functional prototype was 
ever built. It is all “stand” (with lots of arm waving) and no “deliver”.
Ha, ha! Well said.

One thing for sure, Papp and Rossi seem to have been cast from the same mold – 
part inventor, part showman, and 100% controversial.
Yup.

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Like the Papp engine, there will be strong disagreement over the
> thermodynamic issues involved . . .
>
That is putting it mildly! I think most people would say it is a
flat-violation of the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot run anything on
"atmospheric heat" because the atmospheric temperature is uniform, except
on a giant scale that I do not think any human technology can achieve at
present. I guess you could tap atmospheric heat if the heat sink is outside
the atmosphere, like a gargantuan OTEC generator in air instead of water.


> As for Papp, there is an overload of worthless anecdote still floating
> around the net, but no independent evidence to suggest that a functional
> prototype was ever built. It is all “stand” (with lots of arm waving) and
> no “deliver”.
>
Ha, ha! Well said.

One thing for sure, Papp and Rossi seem to have been cast from the same mold
> – part inventor, part showman, and 100% controversial.
>
> Yup.

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Ø  About 4 times cheaper, depending on the cost of gasoline.
>
>
>
> Not in Sept. 2015. Today, with the drop in fuel cost, electricity is about
> 2 times cheaper, on average, but not everywhere; and most of that is due to
> no road tax on electricity – not the relative cost of fuel at the pump.
>

It will probably soon be back to ~4 again in many states. There are three
reasons:

1. Electric cars use far less energy per mile, as I said. Comparing fossil
fueled generators to ICE, it takes 9.5 units of gasoline energy to produce
1 unit of vehicle propulsion, whereas it takes only 5.1 units of generator
fossil fuel. See exhibits A1 and A2:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf

That is for 1997 technology.

2. The fossil fuel used in generators is usually cheaper than gasoline. It
is coal or natural gas. Uranium is far cheaper.

3. Oil is cheap now mainly because of fracking. This is also lowering the
cost of natural gas, which will lower the cost of electricity in the near
future. In Georgia the power company is talking about reducing the cost to
the consumer next year.

> The national average cost for electricity in the U.S. (average residential
> rate) is about 11.7 cents per kWh. Average electric vehicles have energy
> efficiencies of about 2 miles per kWh. The average cost in the USA for
> electric cars is therefore about 6 cents per mile.
>

As I said, this should come down for the same reason gasoline is getting
cheaper.

Hybrid and plug-in hybrid cars are another matter. With them you pay more
for the motor but less for the fuel over the life of the vehicle.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: The megafarad capacitor

Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

> Regarding generating a hydrogen infrastructure, many years ago I recall
> Dr. Peter Zimmerman (Dr. Mills' worst nemesis) claiming we should redirect
> many of our nuclear plants towards the primary task of cracking H2O into
> hydrogen.
>
No can do. Nuclear power plants are all in use 24 hours a day to generate
electricity. They produce baseline electricity. Gas and to a lesser extent
coal-fired plants are turned on and off in response to demand but the nukes
stay on all the time. They produce ~20% of U.S. electricity. There are only
about 100 of them, so taking even one out of service calls for a lot more
coal or gas.

Using a nuclear plant part-time or using one for anything other than
electricity would be economic insanity. The electricity is very cheap when
you generate it 24/7, but it would be hideously expensive if you turned one
on and off. That is because the equipment costs outrageous amounts --
$3,850 /kWe officially but I have heard it is more like $6,000 with
overruns, interest payments for late projects, etc. "Construction costs are
very difficult to quantify but dominate the cost of Nuclear Power" - as one
website puts it. Whereas the fuel is very cheap.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/

"Fuel costs make up 30 percent of the overall production costs of nuclear
power plants. Fuel costs for coal, natural gas and oil, however, make up
about 80 percent of the production costs."

http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle

RE: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

From: David Roberson 

 

Ø  Does anyone know of experiments that demonstrate that photo cells can 
convert heat or light radiation from a sink in which they are located directly 
into electrical power?  

 

There are several electro-optical anomalies like this one, which involve LEDs, 
lasers, etc. 

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds

 

Most of these anomalies have explanations which sound like apologies or 
oops-jargon.

 

There are many anomalies wrt Boyle’s law – especially involving the 
hydrogen/helium inversion temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_temperature

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

2015-09-24 Thread Mark Goldes

Guys,

Rauen patented a series of thermodynamic cycles (US #6,698,200) and
designed and built a prototype of an engine concept that embodies the
Proell effect. The prototype did not run due to poor piston seals and
excessive friction of its moving parts. Pressure instrumentation of the
motored engine showed the theoretically identified cycle was occurring, but
work generated did not exceed losses. Corrections to the design were
precluded by lack of funds. Instrumentation showed the process did work.
The science was right, but the engineering was wrong. A different
mechanical configuration was needed for practical engines. Rauen gave
lectures about his work on the Proell effect and its application in heat
engines at three international science conferences. Physics professors
attended all three. None found flaws. From a practical point of view, it
has passed peer review. Several mathematical proofs exist.

Rauen experimentally verified a thermodynamic process proposed by Wayne
Proell, which he named: “the Proell effect.” It is the complete energy
transfer analysis of the constant volume (isometric) process of classical
thermodynamics as applied to displacement and regeneration, found in the
Stirling Cycle. The Stirling Cycle has two constant volume processes that
negate the Proell effect around one cycle by equal and opposite energy
flows, so conventional thermodynamics had no reason to study the details as
Proell did. Classical thermodynamics missed this opportunity. The upshot of
the Proell effect is that thermal energy is transferred across macroscopic
distances (greater than the mean free path of a gas) by
molecule-to-molecule collisions across temperature gradients without work
input to the process. This circumvents the randomness of the 2LT. The
results of this theoretical and experimental work were published in *Infinite
Energy* magazine. That research paper is posted under SECOND LAW SURPRISES
on the website.

Rauen patented a series of thermodynamic cycles (US #6,698,200) and
designed and built a prototype of an engine concept that embodies the
Proell effect. The prototype did not run due to poor piston seals and
excessive friction of its moving parts. Pressure instrumentation of the
motored engine showed the theoretically identified cycle was occurring, but
work generated did not exceed losses. Corrections to the design were
precluded by lack of funds. Instrumentation showed the process did work.
The science was right, but the engineering was wrong. A different
mechanical configuration was needed for practical engines. Rauen gave
lectures about his work on the Proell effect and its application in heat
engines at three international science conferences. Physics professors
attended all three. None found flaws. From a practical point of view, it
has passed peer review. Several mathematical proofs exist.


BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RAUEN PISTON ENGINE INVENTIONS

These inventions go beyond the prior art by totally converting heat from an
energy source into mechanical work, allowing an engine of the present
invention to interface with only one thermal reservoir. When only one
thermal reservoir is required, the heat source can be the traditional heat
sink, the environment. Heat inside the engine is converted into work, the
engine becomes cold, and heat flows from the environment into the engine
according to the correct interpretation rather than the traditional
understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics has limitations on its applicability, just
as Quantum Mechanics showed that Newtonian Mechanics did not apply on the
atomic scale. The Second Law does not universally apply to heat engines, as
previously believed. There are conditions under which the Second Law does
not apply, where the randomness of heat, identified by the Kinetic Theory
of Heat and Statistical Mechanics, is not random in its conversion into
work. The general scientific explanation behind this invention of the
non-universality of the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been conceptually
and experimentally proven and published as the Proell Effect, though not
yet widely accepted in the mainstream scientific community.


These inventions, different from the inventor’s earlier U.S. Patent: No.
6,698,200, which is based upon the Proell Effect, aim to approach 100%
conversion of heat into work, are inspired by the contemporary work of
Chris Hunter and pioneering ideas of Jacob T. Wainwright in the early
1900s. Like Sadi Carnot's first arguments for the Second Law of
Thermodynamics in 1824, Wainwright’s ideas were incomplete and partly
incorrect, but Wainwright's ideas provided the inspiration for this
invention. The inventions correct and complete the theoretical concepts
initiated by Wainwright.



 Sorry for some redundancy in the above. There is more about these engines
on the aesopinstitute.org website.


Obviously, only a working demonstration will prove Rauen is correct.


A White Paper about these

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

2015-09-24 Thread David Roberson

It is unfortunate that the prototype did not run per your note.  If it had run 
as expected then you might find stronger acceptance of the concept.

Perhaps the inventors are mistaken in their understanding and the meters which 
indicated positive results were misread or interpreted incorrectly.  As you are 
well aware, it is quite easy to make mistakes in these types of measurements.

Also, since the current understanding of the laws of thermodynamics would 
strongly indicate that the machine could not function as expected, and that is 
what was seen, perhaps those laws are correct.  It is going to be necessary for 
inventors making a claim of this nature to prove that they are not attempting 
the impossible.  So far that standard has not been achieved.

Heat energy is systematically converted into thermal radiation which can then 
leave the local thermal environment.   This radiation can drive photo cells 
producing electricity that can be converted into mechanical energy.  In a way, 
this is equivalent to what is claimed except that the radiation leaves the 
local region instead of remaining.  If it can be shown that photo cells located 
within the single sink can produce electrical energy that is tapped, then you 
might well be able to prove your supposition.

Does anyone know of experiments that demonstrate that photo cells can convert 
heat or light radiation from a sink in which they are located directly into 
electrical power?  It is obvious that this is true for cell located at a 
distance contained within a cooler sink.  My bet is that the conversion 
efficiency approaches zero as the temperature of the two sinks become equal.  
If not, then the invention has possible merit.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Mark Goldes 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Sep 24, 2015 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP 
ENERGY ENGINES




Guys,
Rauen patenteda series of thermodynamic cycles (US #6,698,200) and designed and 
built a prototype of anengine concept that embodies the Proell effect. The 
prototype didnot run due to poor piston seals and excessivefriction of its 
moving parts.Pressure instrumentation of the motored engine showed the 
theoretically identifiedcycle was occurring, but work generated did not exceed 
losses. Corrections to the design wereprecluded by lack of funds. 
Instrumentationshowed the process did work. The science was right, but the 
engineering waswrong. A different mechanical configuration was needed for 
practical engines. Rauen gavelectures about his work on the Proell effect and 
its application in heatengines at three international science conferences. 
Physics professors attendedall three. None found flaws. From a practical point 
of view, it has passed peerreview. Several mathematical proofs exist.
Rauen experimentally verified athermodynamic process proposed by Wayne Proell, 
which he named: “the Proelleffect.” It is the complete energy transfer analysis 
of the constant volume(isometric) process of classical thermodynamics as 
applied to displacement andregeneration, found in the Stirling Cycle. The 
Stirling Cycle has two constantvolume processes that negate the Proell effect 
around one cycle by equal andopposite energy flows, so conventional 
thermodynamics had no reason to studythe details as Proell did. Classical 
thermodynamics missed this opportunity.The upshot of the Proell effect is that 
thermal energy is transferred acrossmacroscopic distances (greater than the 
mean free path of a gas) bymolecule-to-molecule collisions across temperature 
gradients without work inputto the process. This circumvents the randomness of 
the 2LT. The results of thistheoretical and experimental work were published in 
Infinite Energymagazine. That research paper is posted under SECOND LAW 
SURPRISES on thewebsite.
Rauen patenteda series of thermodynamic cycles (US #6,698,200) and designed and 
built a prototype of anengine concept that embodies the Proell effect. The 
prototype didnot run due to poor piston seals and excessivefriction of its 
moving parts.Pressure instrumentation of the motored engine showed the 
theoretically identifiedcycle was occurring, but work generated did not exceed 
losses. Corrections to the design wereprecluded by lack of funds. 
Instrumentationshowed the process did work. The science was right, but the 
engineering waswrong. A different mechanical configuration was needed for 
practical engines. Rauen gavelectures about his work on the Proell effect and 
its application in heatengines at three international science conferences. 
Physics professors attendedall three. None found flaws. From a practical point 
of view, it has passed peerreview. Several mathematical proofs exist.


BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RAUEN PISTONENGINE INVENTIONS
Theseinventions go beyond the prior art by totally converting heat from an 
energysource into mechanical work, allowing an engine of the

Re: [Vo]:RE: The megafarad capacitor

Jed with your numbers, which I am sure you have right, it seems to me that
nuclear power is great for H production when we implemented LENR on a local
level. Those mega investment that never can be economically sound could get
a second life.
I think if you are in France solar is an alternative lately, a little wind
and hydro in the Alps but limited by the environmentalists, seems import or
nuclear are the two realistic alternatives. In addition the European grid
is well connected so it might be possible to keep all nuclear power plants
operational 24/7 and turn off a coal powered station in England or Italy.
Europe (West) is small size of Texas.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:
>
>> Regarding generating a hydrogen infrastructure, many years ago I recall
>> Dr. Peter Zimmerman (Dr. Mills' worst nemesis) claiming we should redirect
>> many of our nuclear plants towards the primary task of cracking H2O into
>> hydrogen.
>>
> No can do. Nuclear power plants are all in use 24 hours a day to generate
> electricity. They produce baseline electricity. Gas and to a lesser extent
> coal-fired plants are turned on and off in response to demand but the nukes
> stay on all the time. They produce ~20% of U.S. electricity. There are only
> about 100 of them, so taking even one out of service calls for a lot more
> coal or gas.
>
> Using a nuclear plant part-time or using one for anything other than
> electricity would be economic insanity. The electricity is very cheap when
> you generate it 24/7, but it would be hideously expensive if you turned one
> on and off. That is because the equipment costs outrageous amounts --
> $3,850 /kWe officially but I have heard it is more like $6,000 with
> overruns, interest payments for late projects, etc. "Construction costs are
> very difficult to quantify but dominate the cost of Nuclear Power" - as one
> website puts it. Whereas the fuel is very cheap.
>
>
> http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/
>
> "Fuel costs make up 30 percent of the overall production costs of nuclear
> power plants. Fuel costs for coal, natural gas and oil, however, make up
> about 80 percent of the production costs."
>
>
> http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle
>
> See also:
>
> Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in
> the Annual Energy Outlook 2015
>
> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
>
>
> I cannot imagine how the French electric power industry works with such a
> high fraction of their power coming from nuclear reactors. Turn one off and
> you pay a million bucks a day for nothing!
>
> Wind turbines are also very expensive, $3,000 to $8,000 per kilowatt of
> capacity:
>
> http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost
>
> In this case the fuel is absolutely free, even cheaper than uranium. The
> cost of decommissioning wind turbines is also much lower than nuclear power
> plants.
>
> The cost of a wind turbine accident is negligible, whereas the cost of the
> Fukushima nuclear accident bankrupted the world's largest power company.
> The cost of an accident is so high that it would be impossible to buy
> accident insurance for any nuclear power plant, anywhere in the world. All
> of them have always been insured by governments. See the Price-Anderson act.
>
> Coal is around $3,500/kW these days, with modern pollution controls:
>
>
> http://www.synapse-energy.com/project/coal-fired-power-plant-construction-costs
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

BTW – I mentioned ~70% efficient photocells, because there have been claims for 
that high level, and there would be plenty of losses in a closed-loop system, 
even if the emitter was COP=2.3. But it turns out there are even higher 
efficiencies being claimed – 80 percent.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/168811-new-nano-material-could-boost-solar-panel-efficiency-as-high-as-80

 

But even 50% would be worth a try. Too bad that there is so much bogosity on 
the internet – if we could believe all these things, the energy crisis would be 
solved already by closing the loop using LEDs and solar panels. Today, I could 
use the fringe benefit – cool air.

 

 

  
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds

Notice that this LED has a COP of 2.3… or 230 percent overunity. That implies 
“perpetual motion”.

“However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons 
as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because 
it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead.” 

When it gets more than 100 percent efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing 
energy from ambient, which is exactly what must happen in any OU device, unless 
there is nuclear reaction pathway or another “supra-chemical” way to convert 
mass into energy.

BTW - If photocells could be obtained which are ~70% efficient, then in 
principle, yjey could be mated to the LED for the proverbial “eternal light” … 
but the output is so low you would need a few million of them to be useful… but 
you get free air conditioning as a fringe benefit J

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

There's huge consensus about what works though.   Why not establish that as
a basis and just say other approaches are open questions?  Why does
everyone go to such huge effort to say "pyroelectric fusion which works at
low temperatures isn't cold fusion because it doesn't follow
pons/fleischman experimental apparatus".

What really annoys me to no end is that the first historical usage of the
term cold fusion actually referred to muon catalyzed fusion!!  The whole
term got hijacked by these drama seekers.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
> The idea that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just
>> end-of-times for these people.
>>
>
> It's really hard to sort out what is known from what is conjecture.  There
> are some careful experimentalists who have made some very measured
> statements and drawn some very measured conclusions.  And then there are
> some popularizers who take those statements and overlay all kinds of
> additional details that do not have a sure foundation, applying what they
> believe to be obvious logic, which, when analyzed more closely, is not
> obvious.
>
>- Does CF involve deuterium?  In some cases it appears to.
>- Does CF involve light hydrogen?  There's some evidence that it might
>in some cases.
>- Does CF involve lithium?  In some cases it might.
>- Does CF involve palladium?  Somehow, sometimes.
>- Does CF involve nickel?  Maybe, sometimes.
>- Is helium-4 correlated with excess heat?  Yes, in a subset of CF
>experiments with very specific systems.
>- Is helium-4 always correlated with excess heat in CF?  Hard to say.
>- Is the amount of excess heat indicative of the 23 MeV resulting from
>d+d -> 4He?  There was an experiment by a careful researcher that suggested
>that it was in that particular case.
>- Is the amount of excess heat always indicative of the 23 MeV
>resulting from d+d -> 4He?  Hard to say.
>
> People want to go well beyond measured statements of this kind.  Some are
> willing to manufacture consensus in the process.  It's a little hard to
> watch from the sidelines as this kind of thing is done.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

Yeah, I know.  It's like these people's brains are utterly broken.   There
is an implicit conspiracy (by BOTH anti and pro pons/fleischman people) to
narrow define cold fusion as experiments done in the late 80s.   The idea
that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just
end-of-times for these people.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> From Blaze,
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I think it will also help the community at large if they view cold
>
> > fusion as completely doable.
>
>
>
> Perhaps it's time for you to update the Wikipedia article on CF in order
> to reflect this important matter.
>
>
>
> See what happens...
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> OrionWorks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

2015-09-24 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

The idea that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just
> end-of-times for these people.
>

It's really hard to sort out what is known from what is conjecture.  There
are some careful experimentalists who have made some very measured
statements and drawn some very measured conclusions.  And then there are
some popularizers who take those statements and overlay all kinds of
additional details that do not have a sure foundation, applying what they
believe to be obvious logic, which, when analyzed more closely, is not
obvious.

   - Does CF involve deuterium?  In some cases it appears to.
   - Does CF involve light hydrogen?  There's some evidence that it might
   in some cases.
   - Does CF involve lithium?  In some cases it might.
   - Does CF involve palladium?  Somehow, sometimes.
   - Does CF involve nickel?  Maybe, sometimes.
   - Is helium-4 correlated with excess heat?  Yes, in a subset of CF
   experiments with very specific systems.
   - Is helium-4 always correlated with excess heat in CF?  Hard to say.
   - Is the amount of excess heat indicative of the 23 MeV resulting from
   d+d -> 4He?  There was an experiment by a careful researcher that suggested
   that it was in that particular case.
   - Is the amount of excess heat always indicative of the 23 MeV resulting
   from d+d -> 4He?  Hard to say.

People want to go well beyond measured statements of this kind.  Some are
willing to manufacture consensus in the process.  It's a little hard to
watch from the sidelines as this kind of thing is done.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

From: Lennart Thornros 

 

I am not in agreement with that electricity is cheap.

 

JR: It is much cheaper than gasoline per mile in an automobile. 

 

LT: You are now including energy taxes and big brother's energy politics. That 
is fine with me as that is my main idea that we are so over regulated that even 
the faintest hint of common sense cannot be made. No, Jed electricity is not 
cheap.

 

Ø  About 4 times cheaper, depending on the cost of gasoline.

 

Not in Sept. 2015. Today, with the drop in fuel cost, electricity is about 2 
times cheaper, on average, but not everywhere; and most of that is due to no 
road tax on electricity – not the relative cost of fuel at the pump. 

 

In California, electricity is double the national average and the cost per mile 
 can be more expensive than gasoline - especially if you have a high mileage 
hybrid vehicle like the Prius (even if you never charge the car from the grid) !

 

In any event, it’s not fair to compare the best EV against the worst gas hog. 
The cost has been well studied. Our government (DoE) says this:

 



“Comparing Energy Costs per Mile for Electric and Gasoline-Fueled Vehicles”

 

The fuel cost of driving an electric vehicle depends on the cost of electricity 
per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and the energy efficiency of the vehicle.  The national 
average cost for electricity in the U.S. (average residential rate) is about 
11.7 cents per kWh. Average electric vehicles have energy efficiencies of about 
2 miles per kWh. The average cost in the USA for electric cars is therefore 
about 6 cents per mile. However, in much of California and several other 
states, the cost per mile is close to twice the national average.

 

The average gasoline mileage is 22 mi/gal. A gasoline vehicle with an energy 
efficiency of

22 miles per gallon costs about 11 cents per mile when gasoline costs $2.40 per 
gallon and 17 cents per mile when fuel is $3.60. A few years ago, gasoline was 
more expensive than electricity almost everywhere, but not today.

 

In the largest state, with by far the most cars, the recent cost of gasoline 
per mile for a hybrid, which never needs a grid charge, can be less per mile 
than the cost of electricity per mile for all electric (Tesla). 

 

That will change, and many of us still want all-electric. Where do I sign up 
for the Model 3 ??

 

Jones

[Vo]:Re: CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

2015-09-24 Thread Bob Cook

RE: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY 
ENGINESJones said--

“When it gets more than 100 percent efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing 
energy from ambient, which is exactly what must happen in any OU device, unless 
there is nuclear reaction pathway or another “supra-chemical” way to convert 
mass into energy.”

I have always thought that the binding energy released in a  normal “chemical 
reaction” was equivalent to a small change in mass.  Is this not the case?

The potential energy of an atom adds to its total rest mass IMHO.  

Please correct me, if I am wrong. 

Bob Cook


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 5:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP 
ENERGY ENGINES

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds


Notice that this LED has a COP of 2.3… or 230 percent overunity. That implies 
“perpetual motion”.

“However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons 
as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because 
it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead.” 

When it gets more than 100 percent efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing 
energy from ambient, which is exactly what must happen in any OU device, unless 
there is nuclear reaction pathway or another “supra-chemical” way to convert 
mass into energy.

BTW - If photocells could be obtained which are ~70% efficient, then in 
principle, yjey could be mated to the LED for the proverbial “eternal light” … 
but the output is so low you would need a few million of them to be useful… but 
you get free air conditioning as a fringe benefit J

Re: [Vo]:RE: The megafarad capacitor

Lennart Thornros wrote:

Jed with your numbers, which I am sure you have right . . .
>

No necessarily! You should not trust my arithmetic. I sometimes drop 1 or 2
orders of magnitude.

. . . it seems to me that nuclear power is great for H production when we
> implemented LENR on a local level.
>

Hydrogen production?! Why would we need that? All of the energy in the
world can be supplied with the hydrogen from 60,000 tons of water a year.
That's 6 tons per hour. That is actually 10 times more than we need, but I
assume most would not actually be fused. You could make that in a single
factory machine like this:

http://www.hydrogenics.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/poer-to-gas-mw-class-series.pdf?sfvrsn=0

If we need deuterium the facility would be larger but still a tiny fraction
of a 1 GW fission reactor. In any case, these machine run on electricity,
and the electricity from cold fusion will far cheaper than from fission,
wind or any other source.

In actual applications I would expect each factory making cold fusion
engines or power supplies to generate their own purified hydrogen, or to
bring in a tank of hydrogen every week or so. The hydrogen source in an
automobile plant would be single cabinet. I guess they will need ~10 g of
hydrogen gas per automobile (a ten-year supply of fuel). Maybe 12 kg per
day in a large factory. These machines produce 10 to 15 nm^3 of hydrogen
per hour (0.9 kg to 1.3 kg):

http://www.hydrogenics.com/docs/default-source/pdf/211-industrial-brochure-english.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Power consumption is "4.9 kWh/Nm3 at full load" (18 MJ per 90 g of H). 90 g
of hydrogen is enough to produce 9e14 MJ, if I have done my arithmetic
right. In other words, the overhead is small; 1 MJ of electricity produces
enough hydrogen to generate 5e13 MJ of heat.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-fusion/

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

Steven,

 

I read the old NYT article just now and yes --- it specifically uses the
term "cold fusion" several times in 1956 . wow. and yes, they are talking
about muon catalyzed fusion at low temperature - the kind with lots of 24
MeV gamma rays as evidence of the reaction. Even though it was initiated
cold, the radiation from the MCF is extremely hot, but does not heat the
reactants. 

 

Steven Jones also claimed the term "cold fusion" for his muon catalyzed
fusion at about the same time as P Clearly either of the two prior
announcements could have precedence, if actual history means anything (it
doesn't). 

 

The problem now is Holmlid - who uses MCF but apparently sees few hot
gammas. If he really is doing what he says, he should see very energetic
gammas.

 

BTW - the article is quoting from Luis Alvarez at Cal. One of the great
Magi.

 

 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 

 

>From Blaze:

 

>
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E0D7103FE033A05753C3A9649
D946792D6CF   

 

I wonder if the 1956 article actually uses the phrase "Cold Fusion"? I'm not
clear on that. I'm assuming it didn't.

 

Interesting piece of research nevertheless. Perhaps someone within Vort Land
might like to fork over $3.95 to NYT and get the article. How bout you,
Blaze. Based on some of your prior posts you have given me the impression of
being someone who may have a few extra bucks laying around, just for
gambling occasions like this. ;-)

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

I wrote:

> 3. Oil is cheap now mainly because of fracking. This is also lowering the
> cost of natural gas, which will lower the cost of electricity in the near
> future.
>

Meanwhile, in Texas at night they will sometimes pay you to use
electricity. The cost is negative:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/09/texas_electricity_goes_negative_wind_power_was_so_plentiful_one_night_that.html

They get 9% of the their electricity from wind, and 40% at night sometimes.
The best deal would be to use an electric car in Texas with a smart power
meter and recharger, giving you a discount during off-peak hours, and a
super discount when the cost of electricity goes negative.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds

Notice that this LED has a COP of 2.3… or 230 percent overunity. That implies 
“perpetual motion”.

“However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons 
as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because 
it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead.” 

When it gets more than 100 percent efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing 
energy from ambient, which is exactly what must happen in any OU device, unless 
there is nuclear reaction pathway or another “supra-chemical” way to convert 
mass into energy.

BTW - If photocells could be obtained which are ~70% efficient, then in 
principle, yjey could be mated to the LED for the proverbial “eternal light” … 
but the output is so low you would need a few million of them to be useful… but 
you get free air conditioning as a fringe benefit :-)

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

2015-09-24 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Anyone who witnesses a bona fide the Papp replication attempt (not the
> “popper” LOL) … often comments that the engine runs cold. Why? It is part
> of the M.O.

It would be a mistake to lump the poppers from the two Rohner brothers into
the same basket.  One brother gives the impression of having vaporware (and
really does have legal troubles), while the other might or might not have
something.  Michael McKubre took a look at Bob Rohner's popper and saw
something. [1]  In my mind that's an interesting data point.  Not enough to
sign off on Bob's technology or on the Papp engine.  But enough to make me
wonder what's going on.

Eric

[1] http://www.lenrnews.eu/robert-rohner-and-dr-michael-mckubre/

[Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

I was reading the entry for cold fusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

While I agree with this statement:


*Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction
 that would occur at, or
near, room temperature .
This is compared with the "hot" fusion
 which takes place naturally
within stars , under immense
pressure and at temperatures of millions of degrees.*

The following statement is utterly false:

*There is currently no accepted theoretical model which would allow cold
fusion to occur.*

For example, both muon and pyro electric fusion will occur at room
temperatures.  We also now have a published statement about laser induced
fusion happening at low temperatures.

I think we're doing a massive disservice to researchers everywhere by
obsessively defining the concept of "cold fusion" as pons/fleischman.
 Normal people care whether fusion can occur  with minimal investment and
low temperatures.

I think it will also help the community at large if they view cold fusion
as completely doable.  There will be increased investment in the area if
people can use the term without having to apologize.  Hopefully people will
stop wasting money on these moronic ITER experiments.

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

2015-09-24 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From Blaze,

 

...

 

> I think it will also help the community at large if they view cold 

> fusion as completely doable.  

 

Perhaps it's time for you to update the Wikipedia article on CF in order to 
reflect this important matter. 

 

See what happens...

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

2015-09-24 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From Blaze:

 

> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E0D7103FE033A05753C3A9649D946792D6CF
>

 

I wonder if the 1956 article actually uses the phrase "Cold Fusion"? I'm not 
clear on that. I'm assuming it didn't.

 

Interesting piece of research nevertheless. Perhaps someone within Vort Land 
might like to fork over $3.95 to NYT and get the article. How bout you, Blaze. 
Based on some of your prior posts you have given me the impression of being 
someone who may have a few extra bucks laying around, just for gambling 
occasions like this. ;-)

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:RE: The megafarad capacitor

2015-09-24 Thread mixent

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 24 Sep 2015 20:42:22 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>In actual applications I would expect each factory making cold fusion
>engines or power supplies to generate their own purified hydrogen, or to
>bring in a tank of hydrogen every week or so. The hydrogen source in an
>automobile plant would be single cabinet. I guess they will need ~10 g of
>hydrogen gas per automobile (a ten-year supply of fuel). Maybe 12 kg per
>day in a large factory. These machines produce 10 to 15 nm^3 of hydrogen
>per hour (0.9 kg to 1.3 kg):


...I think we have been here before. You can just carry water in the vehicle,
and electrolyze it in situ, a minute quantity at a time, as required. There need
be no stored gas, and no danger.

2 mL of hydrogen gas at STP would power a 100 hp engine for 88 hours, that's 22
microliters of Hydrogen / hour . The "explosion" following even a catastrophic
collision would barely register as a mild "pop".

Even if you used ordinary water, rather than deuterium enriched, you still get
about 1200 kWh/L (of water). That's 80-100 times better than gasoline.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

2015-09-24 Thread Mark Goldes

The new prototype is a conversion of a small engine. A Ford engine has
already been converted by an inventor. Both require filling with Propane.
His old Ford engine seals leaked propane as the internal pressure is great.
He ran the Ford engine at 1,300 rpm to prove it could be done.

We have improved the seals on the small engine and hope they will withstand
the high pressure. If not, we have a solution but if that is needed it may
only allow conversion of stationary engines. We are hoping car engines
might be converted as well.

The conversion is nearing completion. All the machine shop work is done. A
few more weeks should tell the tale.

The four cylinder design is an engine designed to run without fuel. It will
need no propane. If it runs as expected it opens the door to AESOP's other
fuel-free engine designs, which include both a shaft-turbine and a pure jet
engine.

Experiments rather than arguments will decide these issues.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Chairman, CEO, AESOP Energy LLC

707 861-9070

AESOP Institute website: www.aesopinstitute.org


On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:58 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> It is unfortunate that the prototype did not run per your note.  If it
> had run as expected then you might find stronger acceptance of the concept.
>
> Perhaps the inventors are mistaken in their understanding and the meters which
> indicated positive results were misread or interpreted incorrectly.  As
> you are well aware, it is quite easy to make mistakes in these types of
> measurements.
>
> Also, since the current understanding of the laws of thermodynamics would
> strongly indicate that the machine could not function as expected, and that
> is what was seen, perhaps those laws are correct.  It is going to be
> necessary for inventors making a claim of this nature to prove that they
> are not attempting the impossible.  So far that standard has not been
> achieved.
>
> Heat energy is systematically converted into thermal radiation which can
> then leave the local thermal environment.   This radiation can drive photo
> cells producing electricity that can be converted into mechanical energy.
> In a way, this is equivalent to what is claimed except that the radiation
> leaves the local region instead of remaining.  If it can be shown that
> photo cells located within the single sink can produce electrical energy
> that is tapped, then you might well be able to prove your supposition.
>
> Does anyone know of experiments that demonstrate that photo cells can
> convert heat or light radiation from a sink in which they are located
> directly into electrical power?  It is obvious that this is true for cell
> located at a distance contained within a cooler sink.  My bet is that the
> conversion efficiency approaches zero as the temperature of the two sinks
> become equal.  If not, then the invention has possible merit.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Goldes 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, Sep 24, 2015 4:32 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP
> ENERGY ENGINES
>
> Guys,
> Rauen patented a series of thermodynamic cycles (US #6,698,200) and
> designed and built a prototype of an engine concept that embodies the
> Proell effect. The prototype did not run due to poor piston seals and
> excessive friction of its moving parts. Pressure instrumentation of the
> motored engine showed the theoretically identified cycle was occurring, but
> work generated did not exceed losses. Corrections to the design were
> precluded by lack of funds. Instrumentation showed the process did work.
> The science was right, but the engineering was wrong. A different
> mechanical configuration was needed for practical engines. Rauen gave
> lectures about his work on the Proell effect and its application in heat
> engines at three international science conferences. Physics professors
> attended all three. None found flaws. From a practical point of view, it
> has passed peer review. Several mathematical proofs exist.
> Rauen experimentally verified a thermodynamic process proposed by Wayne
> Proell, which he named: “the Proell effect.” It is the complete energy
> transfer analysis of the constant volume (isometric) process of classical
> thermodynamics as applied to displacement and regeneration, found in the
> Stirling Cycle. The Stirling Cycle has two constant volume processes that
> negate the Proell effect around one cycle by equal and opposite energy
> flows, so conventional thermodynamics had no reason to study the details as
> Proell did. Classical thermodynamics missed this opportunity. The upshot of
> the Proell effect is that thermal energy is transferred across macroscopic
> distances (greater than the mean free path of a gas) by
> molecule-to-molecule collisions across temperature gradients without work
> input to the process. This circumvents the randomness of the 2LT. The
> results of this

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E0D7103FE033A05753C3A9649D946792D6CF


Cold Fusion of Hydrogen Atoms; A Fourth Method Pulling Together

1956!!

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> There's huge consensus about what works though.   Why not establish that
> as a basis and just say other approaches are open questions?  Why does
> everyone go to such huge effort to say "pyroelectric fusion which works at
> low temperatures isn't cold fusion because it doesn't follow
> pons/fleischman experimental apparatus".
>
> What really annoys me to no end is that the first historical usage of the
> term cold fusion actually referred to muon catalyzed fusion!!  The whole
> term got hijacked by these drama seekers.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The idea that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just
>>> end-of-times for these people.
>>>
>>
>> It's really hard to sort out what is known from what is conjecture.
>> There are some careful experimentalists who have made some very measured
>> statements and drawn some very measured conclusions.  And then there are
>> some popularizers who take those statements and overlay all kinds of
>> additional details that do not have a sure foundation, applying what they
>> believe to be obvious logic, which, when analyzed more closely, is not
>> obvious.
>>
>>- Does CF involve deuterium?  In some cases it appears to.
>>- Does CF involve light hydrogen?  There's some evidence that it
>>might in some cases.
>>- Does CF involve lithium?  In some cases it might.
>>- Does CF involve palladium?  Somehow, sometimes.
>>- Does CF involve nickel?  Maybe, sometimes.
>>- Is helium-4 correlated with excess heat?  Yes, in a subset of CF
>>experiments with very specific systems.
>>- Is helium-4 always correlated with excess heat in CF?  Hard to say.
>>- Is the amount of excess heat indicative of the 23 MeV resulting
>>from d+d -> 4He?  There was an experiment by a careful researcher that
>>suggested that it was in that particular case.
>>- Is the amount of excess heat always indicative of the 23 MeV
>>resulting from d+d -> 4He?  Hard to say.
>>
>> People want to go well beyond measured statements of this kind.  Some are
>> willing to manufacture consensus in the process.  It's a little hard to
>> watch from the sidelines as this kind of thing is done.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES