from:"Jeff Driscoll"

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:small hydrogen

2022-04-23 Thread Jeff Driscoll

If  the  2.8328 fermi mentioned in the paper is multiplied by the inverse
of alpha, the fine structure constant (alpha =1/137.035999),  then you
get the radius of  Randell Mills' TSO (Transition State Orbitsphere)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624

  the radius of  Randall Mills' TSO (Transition State Orbitsphere)  is the
bohr radius ( r = 0.52946 Angstroms) multiplied by the fine structure
constant, alpha or:

TSO radius = (0.52946 Angstroms) *  (1/137.035999) = .00386298 angstroms =
386.298 fermi

and  386.298/2.8328 = 136.366 which is close to the inverse of alpha (error
of 1 part in 204)

Randell Mills created GUTCP (the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics)
and the TSO radius (also known as the particle production radius) is
prominent throughout.  This TSO radius has interesting properties where
five energies using this radius exactly equate to the rest mass of the
electron 510998.896 eV.  To get the higher accuracy, the bohr radius
without the reduced mass correction is used (a correction of 1 part in
1836) because at particle production, the positron (the anti-electron)
orbits around the electron with each having the TSO radius. In other words,
each has the same mass and therefore they orbit each other at the same
radius around a common centerpoint.
I describe those 5 energies starting on page 14 of a pdf that I created 7
years ago:

http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BLP-e-4-25-2016.pdf
The particle production energies that all equal the electron rest mass of
510998.896 eV are:

   1.

   Photon energy equation - based equation found in college physics textbook
   2.

   Resonant energy (LC circuit equivalent) - based on equation found in
   college physics textbook
   3.

   Electric potential energy equation - based on equation found in college
   physics textbook
   4.

   Magnetic energy equation - this one is derived in GUTCP and is
   complicated but the result is a simple equation with integer exponents and
   standard physical constants (i.e. permeability of free space, plancks
   constant etc.).
   5.

   Mass/Space time metric energy. This is *not* an energy and the
   derivation is in GUTCP and is complicated, but the result is a simple
   equation with integer exponents and standard physical constants (i.e.
   Gravitation constant, plancks constant etc.).

The equations in the paper from sciencedirect that give 2.8328 fermi are
similar to Mills's GUTCP equations which I try to summarize starting on
page 86 of my pdf linked above.

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:07 PM H LV  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:26 AM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> HLV wrote:
>>
>> A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist
>>
>> Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134
>>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
>>
>>
>> Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are a few
>> other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' : Presumably  the dense
>> version would provide anomalous heat.
>>
>> Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized “small-*Z*
>> atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create atoms, where one
>> electron is trapped on a small radius, effectively shielding one proton
>> charge of  the nucleus,.."
>>
>> Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for
>> extracting anomalous heat from Helium?
>>
>> There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due to
>> inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ...
>>
>> Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??
>>
>
>
> I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could
> play a role in forming such atoms.
> Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed atom.
> This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the ground
> state.
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:ThomasGas - is it just another alternative energy scam ?

2020-07-30 Thread Jeff Driscoll

And the power of that incandescent spectrum could be anomalous and could be
from the creation of Mills' hydrinos.  I wanted to investigate hydrogen
gas + calcium oxide "limelight" but ran out of time and money 2 years ago.
I got one data point from my calorimeter that didn't show any excess heat
at around 200 watts input. I don't show that data point in the following
link but just verbally describe it as not showing excess heat. See here:

http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=2120

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 4:18 PM Michael Foster  wrote:

> Sorry Bob,  I shouldn't have referred to my little ad hoc experiment as an
> "investigation".  It was more like, "What if I look at a lime light with a
> hand held spectroscope to see what's there?"  What I saw was what you'd
> expect to see: Dim calcium and hydrogen lines along with the ever-present
> sodium double D lines due to contamination.  All this was nearly obscured
> by the bright continuous incandescent spectrum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Wednesday, July 29, 2020, 03:03:51 PM UTC, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
> bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael—
>
>
>
>
>
> Is your investigation of limelight written up?
>
>
>
>
>
> If so, it would be good to identify an accessible reference.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Two  questions that I had relative to the investigation you note:  What
> instrument did you use to determine the spectrum and what was the range of
> frequency you were able to investigate/determine wit
>  the instrument?
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>

Re: [Vo]: CoV-19 news

2020-07-01 Thread Jeff Driscoll

  Intravenous vitamin C and steroids  (specifically Methylprednisolone)
works well on Covid-19. There is a bunch of highly respected doctors
(including pulmonologists) trying to get the word out without much luck.
The treatment has to be started as soon as breathing problems develop.
 see here:
https://medium.com/@joyce.kamen/no-one-told-them-how-to-save-themselves-the-covid19-tragedy-that-didnt-have-to-happen-722dbace50f9

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:40 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> I picked the wrong decade to quit drinking.  :)
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:17 PM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> In Lodi, they recommend 200 mg pycnogenol washed down with a glass of
>> good Zin ... 6 times per day
>>
>> This may not offer a complete cure but who cares? it will definitely
>> mitigate many of the symptoms ;-)
>>
>>
>> Terry Blanton wrote:
>>
>> > Here is a good Italian survey of in vitro results which offer a
>> promising category of nutritional options (polyphenols) ...
>>
>> An apple a daywith covfefe.
>>
>> From wikipedia:
>>
>> *Many foods in a healthy diet contain high levels of naturally occurring
>> phenols
>> 
>>  in
>> fruits, vegetables, cereals, tea and coffee. Fruits like grapes, apple,
>> pear, cherries and berries contain up to 200–300 mg polyphenols per 100
>> grams fresh weight. The products manufactured from these fruits also
>> contain polyphenols in significant amounts. Typically a glass of red wine
>>  or a cup of tea or coffee contains
>> about 100 mg polyphenols.[4]
>>   *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Calcium as a Mills catalyst

2019-07-29 Thread Jeff Driscoll

and calcium oxide is a candoluminescent material where limelight is given
off when hydrogen is exposed to the material at high temperature:

http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Candoluminescence-of-cave-gypsum.pdf


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXl6H7G6BMU

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

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:26 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> For those who have not carefully followed Mills' work on dense hydrogen
> (hydrino) - calcium is listed as a favored catalyst. This could be
> important (or not) in the context of the recent Mizuno breakthrough ...
> certainly it has not been mentioned before but perhaps it should be (at
> least listed as a possibility) due to a few other related details.
>
> The Rydberg level for Ca is the fifth - 1/5 as it is inverted and notably
> calcium is the one of the few for this level of shrinkage. There is
> complementary catalysis with the other potential catalysts present, since
> there is palladium - first level, oxygen/carbonate ion - 2nd level, nickel
> 7th and 11th and now calcium in the middle - so that there is a deepening
> progression which could set up a cascade of some kind.
>
> If one is not tied down to any particular M.O. or theory - then this
> spread of catalysis values could be relevant in the context of Alan
> Goldwater's new report on his early stage effort at replication where he
> finds calcium:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16dP_SmSP8SuQbZ7p9eGoCwf1vwJKh7KPL7NAYv7j13o/edit
>
> Really nice insight by Alan.
>
>

-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

[Vo]:electrostatic finite element software

2016-01-26 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Does anyone have access to electrostatics software package and have time to
do a finite element analysis on a 3-D part to determine the electrostatic
field potential? Specifically the JPEG in the link below shows a grouping
of protons and neutrons. I mainly need to figure out which protons have the
highest electrostatic field near them so that the protons can be numbered
and ordered from highest to lowest voltage potential. There might be two
ways to do it, one where they are all electrically conductive  and the
second where they are isolated charged spheres.  I can supply a CAD model
in different formats from a Solidworks model.

I can pay someone if they can do it.

this is the picture of 100 protons and 104 neutrons

http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/protons-neutrons.jpg

I have a CAD model of it also. It is made from 100 protons and 104 neutrons
(fermium-204 which does not exist, but fermium-257 has a half life of 100
days). Each red proton in the image would be about .8 fm (.8 x 10^-15 m) in
diameter and the same for the green neutrons. The electrons would be
orbiting this nucleus further out at some fraction (such as 1/100th) of the
bohr radius where the bohr radius = 5.29 x 10^-11 m. But I only need the
finite element analysis done on the proton/neutrons shown in the image (no
electrons). I need the order of decreasing electrostatic voltage
potential.  The goal is to confirm the well known standard orbit filling
order: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p, 5s, 4d, 5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p, 7s, 5f,
6d, 7p, 8s

Jeff

Re: [Vo]:electrostatic finite element software

2016-01-26 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I agree, this is going to be a trial and error thing. I've done a lot of
stress/strain and thermal finite element modeling (I'm a mechanical
engineer)  but never electrostatic.The main thing is just to see what
happens and keep on trying different assumptions.  First thing is to try
all the cheap options.  The main goal is to number the red protons in order
from highest to lowest potential. The ultimate goal is to confirm the well
known standard orbit filling order: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p, 5s, 4d,
5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p, 7s, 5f, 6d, 7p, 8s

Bob, I will send you a powerpoint presentation off-line.  Is there anyone
else that can help me? I can pay a medium token amount - say $200 for a
some simplified runs? I really think that my hypothesis (which I borrowed
from someone else, who I will give full credit to later, after I can
confirm as much as possible)  is worth some effort investigating.

Jeff


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I think you will have trouble with finite element analysis of that
> structure, and the results will likely depend a lot on some of the
> assumptions.  The first problem is how you are going to model the charge of
> the proton.  For example, will you presume the charge is concentrated at
> the center of the proton?  Will you presume a charge density inside the
> proton as a sphere instead?  If you presume that the proton is modeled as a
> uniform spherical charge density, you will have some charge density too
> close to the charge density in the adjacent proton - this will cause
> numerical convergence failure of the analysis.  If you let the charge
> density inside the proton to re-distribute based on the  force from the
> adjacent protons (as is typically done for electron charge density on
> conductors), then you need to have a model for the force that holds the
> charges into a uniform distribution in the first place - AND - the result
> may not be a spherical proton anymore.
>
> All in all, this becomes a fields analysis research project, probably
> requiring custom coding of the simulator, with little means of determining
> whether the initial assumptions about charge behavior in the proton were
> correct or not.  I have coded such simulators for determining electron
> charge distribution in conductors before, but the electronic charge
> distribution had a direct impact on the computed capacitance of the
> structure, so there was a reasonable test one could make to determine if
> the formulation was correct.  Not so easy in the case of nuclear field
> distribution.  How do you think the results would be tested for validity?
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jeff Driscoll <jef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have access to electrostatics software package and have time
>> to do a finite element analysis on a 3-D part to determine the
>> electrostatic field potential? Specifically the JPEG in the link below
>> shows a grouping of protons and neutrons. I mainly need to figure out which
>> protons have the highest electrostatic field near them so that the protons
>> can be numbered and ordered from highest to lowest voltage potential. There
>> might be two ways to do it, one where they are all electrically conductive
>>  and the second where they are isolated charged spheres.  I can supply a
>> CAD model in different formats from a Solidworks model.
>>
>> I can pay someone if they can do it.
>>
>> this is the picture of 100 protons and 104 neutrons
>>
>> http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/protons-neutrons.jpg
>>
>> I have a CAD model of it also. It is made from 100 protons and 104
>> neutrons (fermium-204 which does not exist, but fermium-257 has a half life
>> of 100 days). Each red proton in the image would be about .8 fm (.8 x
>> 10^-15 m) in diameter and the same for the green neutrons. The electrons
>> would be orbiting this nucleus further out at some fraction (such as
>> 1/100th) of the bohr radius where the bohr radius = 5.29 x 10^-11 m. But I
>> only need the finite element analysis done on the proton/neutrons shown in
>> the image (no electrons). I need the order of decreasing electrostatic
>> voltage potential.  The goal is to confirm the well known standard orbit
>> filling order: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p, 5s, 4d, 5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p,
>> 7s, 5f, 6d, 7p, 8s
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
>


-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.

2015-01-12 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

Nice work Jeff,

You have made Mills more accessible, but I’m not sure he would agree with
everything that you have done here, due to the implications. This is also
very similar to what Michaud is showing – with the huge emphasis on 511 keV
value, which permeates the entire field of LENR… kinda’ like the smile of
the Cheshire cat… and it is all tied into Hotson/Dirac and the epo field.

And although you state: the “Transition State Orbitsphere” (TSO) is
created at orbit state n= alpha = 1/137.036 (i.e. FSC or fine structure
constant … where matter and energy are indistinguishable by any physical
property” according to [Mills] … yet, for some strange reason you stop
there, instead of actually identifying and analyzing that precise
mass-energy state as being relevant in itself – such as the end product of
“shrinkage”.

As far as I can tell, based on GUTCP, n = 1/137 (but *not* n =
1/137.035999) would be the theoretical *stable* atom end product of
hydrogen shrinkage. A hydrogen atom at orbit state n = 1/137 has an
angular momentum that is exactly equal to hbar (the reduced Planck constant
which has units of angular momentum). All electron stable circular orbits
for a hydrogen atom have hbar of angular momentum and is a requirement of
GUTCP.

I wouldn't focus too much on the TSO being the end point of shrinkage -
it's more the birth of the electron in pair production. All the GUTCP
rules or postulates produce nice clean equations that show the TSO
being the birth. There is no clean neat calculation to get from say, n = 1
(or for that matter n = 1/4) to n = 1/137.035999. But there are nice neat
calculations to get from n = 1 to n = 1/137 based on the same postulates
and rules (at the same time there is data and experiment to back up the
rules, such as conservation of angular momentum and conservation of
energy). The best example of this is to look at the correspondence
principle write up that I put in Section 4, page 85 of
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20150105175045/blacklightpower/images/3/33/BLP-e-long-1-5-2015.pdf

(if the link changes, which it does if I update the pdf, then click on
summary here)
http://blacklightpower.wikia.com/wiki/Pair_Production

Every fractional orbit state drop creates a photon that perfectly follows
classical rules. Dropping to n = 1/137.035999 would release a photon
that didn't fit into the correspondence principle. So it's easier to think
of n = 1/137.035999 as the birth of the electron - at least in terms of
nice neat calculations. If an electron does shrink to n = 1/137.035999
then it needs some messy process (with no precise formula that has, for
example, part per thousand of accuracy) of releasing energy to get there ..
but I assume it could happen when atoms bounce around at high velocities
so that it could give up this tiny remainder of energy (the portion in
the decimal of 1/137.035999).

To cut to the chase, when you multiply this fundamental value of electron
or positron mass (511 keV) by alpha (along with a relativistic correction)
the result is essentially the same as the mass-energy signature of the DDL
– which is equivalent to dark matter (and is unlike Mills’ actual
prediction). The actual value as it is showing in dozens of cosmological
papers, appears to be 3.56 keV as opposed to 3.73 keV, which difference is
the relativistic correction. Are you unaware of the cosmology papers behind
this? They can only serve to boost your case.

As far as I know, the 3.5 keV bump that the comologists measure is not a
sharp line, and if it is real and based on hydrino shrinkage, then it is a
continuum photon with a range of frequencies with a cut off of a photon
having 3.5 keV. I don't focus on it because there are too many
inaccuracies of measuring the cutoff frequency - it's too imprecise.

If this 3.56 keV value is indeed the end of the road for ground state
hydrogen redundancy, then it should be the most important value in all of
physics, since it would explain dark matter as an isomer of hydrogen –
which is most of the mass of the visible Universe, so why not most of the
mass of the invisible? … yet everyone in LENR appears to be avoiding
cosmology like the plague. I hope that is not because it goes back to Dirac
and not to Mills, but of course – the similarity could all be a
“coincidence”.

Yet, since this particular value is the hottest topic in cosmology these
days, it is a mystery why observers here on vortex avoid connecting real
observation in another field with theory - to explain LENR as the energetic
creation of dark matter, and not a nuclear reaction. In the eyes of the
mainstream, if the 3.56 keV x-ray is verified in experiment, the field
could change almost overnight from “pathological” to “cutting edge”…

*From:* Jeff Driscoll

take a look at Appendix 2 starting on page 62 of this, it is very similar
to what you did

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

2015-01-12 Thread Jeff Driscoll

 heat -- *however much there is* -- is already included in the baseline.
 Therefore we never include it in excess heat.

  You need to answer these points if you want to have a serious
 discussion.

  - Jed





-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

2015-01-12 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Jed is correct, when the pump is turned on and everything reaches steady
state, (using his example) the pump is putting in 4 watts of power to the
tubing, the reservoir and the LENR chamber and all these tubes and the LENR
chamber emit 4 watts of thermal power to the ambient at steady state. Then
when the LENR experiment is turned on, any delta T can be attributed to the
LENR device, not the pump (assuming the pump doesn't change speed).

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:


 The major result is that we measured 43°C in the pump body very close to
 the water so it is really easy to understand that, despite what Jed says,
 the pump motor delivers a lot of heat to the water . . .


 You are wrong. This is not what I say. This is what Fig. 19 proves. If
 your graphs show something else, your experiment is different. Perhaps you
 are using a different kind of pump, or more pressure in the tubes, or
 perhaps you have confused the effects of falling ambient temperature with
 rising water temperature, as you did before.

 In the second paper you wrote:

 GSVIT-1) We do not agree at all. The pump was not stopped during the test
 and, as Rothwell says, we are speaking about a differential temperature
 increase equal to +2.5°C. . . .

 No one said the pump is stopped during the test. It runs all the time. If
 it were stopped, the test would fail because the heat from the reactor
 would no longer be collected.


 The pump power turns out to be about 4 W.


 Suppose, for the sake of argument, that is true. And suppose that raises
 the temperature by about 6°C. (Obviously that cannot be true because
 nowhere do we see a 6°C elevation above ambient, but let us pretend it is
 true.) In that case, all of the excess heat calculations must begin at a
 baseline 6°C above ambient, because the pump is always left on. Therefore
 this has absolutely no impact on the excess heat measurement.

 - Jed




-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

2015-01-12 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Ill have to leave that to you and others,

I assumed Jed was making a point that Dave didn't understand.

I don't know the details of Mizuno's experiment.



On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jeff,

 I could agree entirely with you. I've have some problems with the internal
 and external calorimeter time constants that are too short. But let's go on
 and assume that what you say is completely right.

 Now can you tell me where in the Mizuno's results (excel files and
 figures) you see this behaviour? I do not see it, so if you tell me which
 is the right curve we can discuss about it.

 2015-01-12 22:58 GMT+01:00 Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com:

 Jed is correct, when the pump is turned on and everything reaches steady
 state, (using his example) the pump is putting in 4 watts of power to the
 tubing, the reservoir and the LENR chamber and all these tubes and the LENR
 chamber emit 4 watts of thermal power to the ambient at steady state. Then
 when the LENR experiment is turned on, any delta T can be attributed to the
 LENR device, not the pump (assuming the pump doesn't change speed).

 On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:


 The major result is that we measured 43°C in the pump body very close to
 the water so it is really easy to understand that, despite what Jed says,
 the pump motor delivers a lot of heat to the water . . .


 You are wrong. This is not what I say. This is what Fig. 19 proves. If
 your graphs show something else, your experiment is different. Perhaps you
 are using a different kind of pump, or more pressure in the tubes, or
 perhaps you have confused the effects of falling ambient temperature with
 rising water temperature, as you did before.

 In the second paper you wrote:

 GSVIT-1) We do not agree at all. The pump was not stopped during the
 test and, as Rothwell says, we are speaking about a differential
 temperature increase equal to +2.5°C. . . .

 No one said the pump is stopped during the test. It runs all the time.
 If it were stopped, the test would fail because the heat from the reactor
 would no longer be collected.


 The pump power turns out to be about 4 W.


 Suppose, for the sake of argument, that is true. And suppose that raises
 the temperature by about 6°C. (Obviously that cannot be true because
 nowhere do we see a 6°C elevation above ambient, but let us pretend it is
 true.) In that case, all of the excess heat calculations must begin at a
 baseline 6°C above ambient, because the pump is always left on. Therefore
 this has absolutely no impact on the excess heat measurement.

 - Jed




 --
 Jeff Driscoll
 617-290-1998





-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.

2015-01-11 Thread Jeff Driscoll

take a look at Appendix 2 starting on page 62 of this, it is very similar
to what you did:

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20150105175045/blacklightpower/images/3/33/BLP-e-long-1-5-2015.pdf

this comes from the summary of pair production on this page
http://blacklightpower.wikia.com/wiki/Pair_Production

the website is a wikia for Blacklight Power's theory,


On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Lane Davis seattle.tr...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I just released a new paper on modeling the Atom and photon as a capacitor
 and producing the correct energy levels. This work corresponds perfectly to
 Andre Michaud's paper which was also released the same day. Turns out that
 we had been working on similar equations with the photon, although he had
 never formulated the ground state energy of hydrogen like I did.

 Frank Znidarsic's model is also closely related to this. Here is a link to
 my paper, as well as Andre's. I had never spoken to him before the day both
 our papers were released.

 YouTube video explaining the  paper here:  http://youtu.be/PSsVI53auAI

 My Paper:
 http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5862

 Andre's:
 http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5789

 Let me know what you think if you read it.

 Lane




-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

2015-01-08 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I haven't read Mizuno's report - so I might be mistaken in my comments
but if Mizuno is at steady state with the pump on for many many hours, then
when he turns on the LENR experiment, he will only see a delta T that is
due to the LENR experiment and the pump heat doesn't matter at all.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:


 2015-01-09 0:00 GMT+01:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com:

 Many of the cold fusion skeptics conclude that LENR is not possible
 because there is no theory to support it.


 An article describe that

 https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2015/01/the-scientific-institution-is-biased-against-shortcuts-to-the-production-of-practical-technology.php

 it match kuhn vision too.
 anomalies are ignored or rationalized until there is a perfect theory to
 explain all.

 reality is not a problems , it can be denied easily.




-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out

2014-02-03 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I haven't seen that picture but based on earlier stuff I've seen that axial
magnetic field acts as a guide for the expanding plasma - the plasma first
travels axially and then intersects the transverse field at the ends,

when it hits the transverse field, the electrons spiral towards one
electrode and the positive species spiral to the opposite electrode with
the electrodes connected to a load



On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I agree Bob.  He needs to rotate the coils 90 degrees as you point out.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Cc: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:37 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out

  Has anyone noticed that in Mills' drawings of the MHD converter that he
 has the direction of the coils and the B field wrong for the directions
 that he wants his positive and negative ions to travel?  At 53:13, he is
 showing a slide with an axial B field and presumably with the plasma split
 and expanding along the axis.  The force on the charges will be normal to
 the B field and it will cause the charges to spiral around the axis.  What
 he really wants is a B field that is going along the axis he wants his
 charges to curve, so he wants a B field that would be across his apparatus.
  What he is showing wouldn't work as a DC generator.

  Did I get this wrong?

  Bob


 On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:


 http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/





-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out

2014-02-03 Thread Jeff Driscoll

here are two links for MHD, magnetohydrodynamics

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/maspec.html#c5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com wrote:

 I haven't seen that picture but based on earlier stuff I've seen that
 axial magnetic field acts as a guide for the expanding plasma - the plasma
 first travels axially and then intersects the transverse field at the ends,

 when it hits the transverse field, the electrons spiral towards one
 electrode and the positive species spiral to the opposite electrode with
 the electrodes connected to a load



 On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I agree Bob.  He needs to rotate the coils 90 degrees as you point out.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Cc: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:37 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out

  Has anyone noticed that in Mills' drawings of the MHD converter that he
 has the direction of the coils and the B field wrong for the directions
 that he wants his positive and negative ions to travel?  At 53:13, he is
 showing a slide with an axial B field and presumably with the plasma split
 and expanding along the axis.  The force on the charges will be normal to
 the B field and it will cause the charges to spiral around the axis.  What
 he really wants is a B field that is going along the axis he wants his
 charges to curve, so he wants a B field that would be across his apparatus.
  What he is showing wouldn't work as a DC generator.

  Did I get this wrong?

  Bob


 On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:


 http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/





 --
 Jeff Driscoll
 617-290-1998




-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

2014-01-26 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Jeff,

 I have toyed with the concept of traveling faster than light and mentioned
 some of the consequences I expect on this list a while back.  From the
 electrons point of view, its mass remains the same regardless of any
 velocity it may have relative to other observers.  The only way I can
 understand the behavior of particles circulating within an accelerator is
 to assume that time dilation and length contraction must exist between
 relative observers.  The operators of the device measure the speed of the
 electron as it circles the accelerator ring and see that it is moving at
 almost the speed of light.  Time therefore passes much slower for the
 electron from the operators point of view.

 This condition should make the electron's mass appear greater to the
 machine operator, but that may be just his conclusion based upon the
 difficulty in changing the direction of the electron with his magnetic
 deflection process.   The same should be true for any electric field
 acceleration process.   This behavior makes sense if the electron is
 significantly exceeding the speed of light by its measurement referenced to
 the dimensions of the accelerator when the electron is at rest.  The time
 dilation and length contraction work hand in hand in this particular case.

 We might assume that the same situation holds for an electron orbiting a
 proton of hydrogen in the small orbitsphere fractional energy cases.
 Perhaps that would allow larger denominators than 137,

Mills says the lowest stable orbit is principal quantum number  n = 1/137
(which gives it exactly one unit of angular momentum, the same as all other
orbit states including non-fractional orbit states)
at n = 137.0359, the electron is at a state that Mills terms the
transition state orbitsphere and the velocity of the orbitting electron is
equal to the speed of light c and it is not specifically matter nor energy,
but a mixture of the two,


 in which case the electron moves faster than light and time dilation and
 length contraction greatly impacts its behavior.  If true, the fraction
 1/137 just happens to be the special case where the electron speed(as
 estimated by the electron) is that of light, but smaller fractions may be
 possible.

smaller fractions than 1/137.0359 are not possible because electron would
be going faster than light


 After all, most series do not truncate at an odd term, so maybe the series
 goes to 1/infinity if time dilation and length contraction are taken into
 account.  It would be an interesting calculation to determine the radius of
 the orbitsphere when the fraction is 1/infinity while taking time dilation
 and length contraction into account.   That might suggest that the atomic
 electron states of hydrogen could go from infinity to 1/infinity which is
 well balanced.  That is the kind of beauty I like to see in nature.

 Jeff, have you seen any derivation from Mills' equations that specifically
 point to the 1/137 fractional orbitsphere as being special?  Could it be
 that this just happens to be fairly close to the physical constant and
 assumed equal?  I have to ask why 1/138 is not a valid value as well.

 I am not convinced that Mills' theory is correct in any way, but am
 speculating about some interesting characteristics that may be possible if
 it has validity.  Mark this post as blue sky wild speculation.

yep, wild :)


 Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 10:15 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

  I did some reading and using the concept of mass increases as the
 velocity approaches the speed of light is not a good way to look at it (for
 reasons that are not totally clear to me).  There is time dilation and
 length contraction for an object (the electron) as it approaches the speed
 of light - but essentially the physicists are saying don't interpret that
 as mass increase.  I found this quote from Einstein on the hyperphysics
 website:

 Einstein's point of view is described in the following quote:  It is not
 good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no
 clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass
 concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M (the relativistic
 mass that approaches infinity at v = c) it is better to mention the
 expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion.

 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html#c3

 I find it amazing that these 5 simple energy equations (from my earlier
 post) still work even though electron is undergoing length contraction and
 time dilation as it approaches the speed of light at orbit state n =
 1/137.  Mills says that the ratio of charge to mass (e/m) is a constant for
 the orbiting electron as it approaches the speed of light.  I was hoping
 that would be the reason that the energy

Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

2014-01-26 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Jeff Driscoll says:

|smaller fractions than 1/137.0359 are not possible because electron
would be going faster than light
|

Special Relativity explains the electron speed of light limit in a
somewhat reasonable manner. In that case the maximum speed is approached
as the limit to a continuously increasing value. There is no free travel
throughout all possible velocities until you hit a brick wall, but instead
an increasing resistance until that limit become unobtainable. I suspect
that Mills' theory is in error if he assumes a zero width transition. The
time dilation and length contraction effect must somehow find their ways
into his model and perhaps I misunderstand what he explains. Jeff, are you
aware of how it includes these issues?

yes it is in his model,
read any of his papers or go to the streaming book:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/
click on stream volume 1

or maybe this link will work too:
http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/vol1?mode=embedlayout=http%3A//skin.issuu.com/v/color/layout.xmlbackgroundColor=31558BshowFlipBtn=true

If he eventually does include these two well supported phenomena, then the
1/137.0359 fraction most likely will be changed to a new one.

it is a fully developed theory that can't be dismissed easily by quick
speculation

Then, my hope for inclusion of all the integer and fractional values might
reappear as a consequence.

Just seeking a better understanding of nature. No honest question should
be off limits.

Dave

--
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

2014-01-26 Thread Jeff Driscoll

http://io9.com/5642233/ask-a-physicist-is-the-fine-structure-constant-really-constant

excerpt:
About a decade ago, the UNSW team found, much to everyone's
surprisehttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9803165,
that billions of light years away, the FSC was slightly smaller than it is
here on earth. The difference is pretty miniscule, however, only about 1
part in a hundred thousand. In other words, the physics at the other end of
the physical universe would look nearly (but not exactly) like it does here
on earth. That means that the diagram above shows an effect about 10,000
times larger than the group actually observed. The signal is small enough
that people are right to be concerned about whether or not the UNSW team
got their errorbars right.


On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I guess that is what it boils down to Eric.  I would much rather have the
 series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing.  i.e.
 (1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity)  which would blend nicely with the
 other integer portion that we all assume is real.  If the total series is
 found to be valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the
 1/137 term.

 But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what we
 prefer. :(

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

   On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

   The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states that
 retain locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped photon
 representing the usual eigenstates.  The Maxwell quanta hbar(c) becomes a
 classical angular momentum quanta in phase space with quantum number 137
 attached.


  Ah, gotcha.  Thank you.  Hence also the electron becoming a photon as
 it approaches the lowest level.

  Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,
 ..., 1/136, alpha(N) }.  (Or something like that.)

  Eric




-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

2014-01-26 Thread Jeff Driscoll

as the electron gets closer the the proton for stable fractional states:
at n = 1/135  it is going near the speed of light
at n = 1/136  it is going even closer to the speed of light
at n = 1/137  closer still
at n = 137.035999 (i.e. the find structure constant, alpha)  it is exactly
the speed of light

any closer and it would go faster than the speed of light which can't happen





On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Jeff, sometimes the conclusions drawn are due to an error of an unknown
 type.  I suspect that the FSC difference that you mention falls into that
 category.  Reminds me of the announcement by CERN of the neutrino speed
 exceeding that of light which was retracted once a hardware problem was
 resolved.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 5:16 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory




 http://io9.com/5642233/ask-a-physicist-is-the-fine-structure-constant-really-constant

  excerpt:
 About a decade ago, the UNSW team found, much to everyone's 
 surprisehttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9803165,
 that billions of light years away, the FSC was slightly smaller than it is
 here on earth. The difference is pretty miniscule, however, only about 1
 part in a hundred thousand. In other words, the physics at the other end of
 the physical universe would look nearly (but not exactly) like it does here
 on earth. That means that the diagram above shows an effect about 10,000
 times larger than the group actually observed. The signal is small enough
 that people are right to be concerned about whether or not the UNSW team
 got their errorbars right.


 On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 I guess that is what it boils down to Eric.  I would much rather have
 the series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing.  i.e.
 (1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity)  which would blend nicely with the
 other integer portion that we all assume is real.  If the total series is
 found to be valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the
 1/137 term.

 But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what
 we prefer. :(

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

   The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states
 that retain locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped
 photon representing the usual eigenstates.  The Maxwell quanta hbar(c)
 becomes a classical angular momentum quanta in phase space with quantum
 number 137 attached.


  Ah, gotcha.  Thank you.  Hence also the electron becoming a photon as
 it approaches the lowest level.

  Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3,
 1/4, ..., 1/136, alpha(N) }.  (Or something like that.)

  Eric




 --
 Jeff Driscoll
 617-290-1998




-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

2014-01-26 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I assume it is either impossible or almost impossible to measure the size
of an excited hydrogen atom (i.e. n = 2, 3, 4 ...)  - otherwise Mills would
use that as proof,
Though he shows through math why his size is correct - google
correspondence principle Randell Mills




On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 That is right Harry.  Nobody cares about how big it can be. :-)

 Actually, the integer orbitspheres of Mills include all integer values
 which is like the quantum theory as I understand.  Practical values are
 limited by how easy it is to ionize the big atoms at an integer value that
 is far less than infinity.

 This subject is one that surprises me in at least one major way.  Mills
 predicts the atom size as being proportional to the integer directly while
 quantum physics suggests that it varies as the square.  This is a huge
 difference and I can not imagine why the correct rule has not been clearly
 established.  How could an atom be 10 times larger(int =10) in one
 calculation than the next without being obvious?

 Perhaps this discrepancy has been shown and I am not aware.  Does anyone
 know of an accurate measurement for an excited hydrogen diameter that
 supports one of these theories?

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 5:40 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory


  While people debate how small a hydrogen atom can be, there seems to be
 no debate about how big a hydrogen atom can be.

  Harry


 On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 I guess that is what it boils down to Eric.  I would much rather have
 the series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing.  i.e.
 (1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity)  which would blend nicely with the
 other integer portion that we all assume is real.  If the total series is
 found to be valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the
 1/137 term.

 But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what
 we prefer. :(

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

   On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

   The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states
 that retain locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped
 photon representing the usual eigenstates.  The Maxwell quanta hbar(c)
 becomes a classical angular momentum quanta in phase space with quantum
 number 137 attached.


  Ah, gotcha.  Thank you.  Hence also the electron becoming a photon as
 it approaches the lowest level.

  Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3,
 1/4, ..., 1/136, alpha(N) }.  (Or something like that.)

  Eric





-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement

2014-01-24 Thread Jeff Driscoll

the continuum is not easy to see in the data because it is hidden by
emissions due other atoms such as oxygen etc. But in some of their
experiments, the fact that they get *any* xrays (the continuum radiation
and oxygen peaks) is some proof of hydrinos because the voltage used to
create it was so low that the xrays shouldn't exist.  Only when they have a
mixture of hydrogen and the low voltage do they get the xrays. Whey they
remove the hydrogen and use other gasses they get no xrays (contimuum
etc.).

*And* there is other data that supports hydrinos such as balmer line
widening, NMR data, Raman spectroscopy with the measurements exactly
matching what the hydrino theory predicts. There is other stuff that I
can't think of at the moment also.

The continuum radiation happens after the hydrogen gives up a multiple of
27.2  eV to the catalyst and then the electron is in a no mans land area
*between* stable fractional principal quantum number orbits.  A stable
orbit  has exactly 1 unit of angular momentum hbar and the centripetal
acceleration force outwards is balanced with electrostatic force in towards
the nucleus.  The  electron, which is not in a stable orbit at this point,
then spirals down to the next *lower* stable (fractional) orbit.  It emits
continuum radiation photon because it is spriraling down, like a sattelite
spiraling down when it hits the drag of the earths atmosphere.  I assume
the reason for the continuum radiation photon is because the atom is in
the no-radiation states as described by Hermann Haus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition





On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  *From:* David Roberson



 Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic



 Gentlemen,



 It is suspected by a specialist I have talked to - that the broadband
 emission (noise) or so-called “continuum with a cutoff” is an artful
 evasion (cop-out) by Mills and could be a relic of instrumentation he has
 employed.



 It is that simple. It is almost meaningless.



 Mills cannot show several of the strong emission peaks corresponding to
 Rydberg multiples (as a the tell-tale signature which his theory predicts).
 The one or two that are seen are close but not exact … so he has invented
 this kludge.



 Yes we have talked about the “invented neutrino” proving itself later, but
 that cannot be a good analogy to this situation.



 Can anyone produce an opinion to the contrary by a spectroscopy expert who
 is not employed by BLP?



 Jones




-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino

2014-01-23 Thread Jeff Driscoll

have you looked at my website?
I describe many details of Mills's theory:

http://zhydrogen.com/

Jeff


On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all,

 After skimming Mill's book about how he treats the atom physics, I am
 pretty amazed.

 Folks, his theory is really accurate, and we should not dismiss it just
 because of the hydrino prediction. He actually calculates the g factor to
 the same level as QED, but he indicates it took two decades of fiddling
 with the QED equations to reach that level of accuracy. So the Math is as
 right as what we can get by using ordinary QED/QM but Mill's math is much
 more elegant.

 One hydrino state is predicted by QED too, but the spinnors are not
 integrable in QED although
 probably by combining them lead to an acceptable solution. Also the other
 states may as well be there but it's probably hard to find them because of
 the convoluted math. Also we should expect that these hydrino states have
 as well non integrable spinors. The interesting thing to understand now is
 what paths the QM/Mill's theory allow to go from a normal state to a
 hydrino state. In a sense it is degenerate and it looks like these states
 are locked. In a sense atoms must interact strongly e.g. get really close
 together and act in a precise way in order to mediate
 the forming of a hydrino. It is not unlikly that the conditions are very
 special and rarely happens in normal physics/chemistry.

 In a sense it's crazy how people treat his work all over the intertubes.
 They say that his results are wacko. It could be that the math is correct
 but there is a some extra conditions for the solutions to be physical, that
 is missing that relates to the integrability conditions for the spinors.

 Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else
 he deserves respect, with or without the hydrino.

 /Stefan




-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

2014-01-21 Thread Jeff Driscoll

you have 3 significant digits for 1/137.12 (i.e. 137)

while Mills has 9+ significant digits that match the rest mass of the
electron (i.e. 510998.896) and he does it for 5 equations that are
classical and he does it in a logical fashion that a college physics
student would understand,

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:12 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

From Quaternion
Physicshttp://books.google.com/books?id=f9IPh4IxteMCpg=PA46lpg=PA46dq=quaternion+fine+structure+constant
:

In examining the Hydrogen atoms Quantum speed, 1/2(e/q)² = 1/137.12 appears
and is approximagely equal to α.

Quaternions are the third normed division algebra.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:40 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Interesting. Do the normed division algebras enter into Mills' theory?

If so, I have something to contribute:

There may be a mathematical identity between the 4 normed division
algebras and the 4 levels of the combinatorial hierarchy.

A paper by Stanford researcher Pierre Noyes describing the prediction of
cosmological measurements based on the combinatorial hierarchy (which is
therein defined):

http://slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-8779.pdf

The reason I am suspicious that there is a connection between the two is
the parsimony with which the third level of the combinatorial hierarchy's
electroweak interaction can be described by quaternions, and my intuition
that the strong interaction may parsimoniously be described by complex
numbers.

An introduction to Noyes's bitstring physics:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9707020.pdf

wherein he associates the four levels of the combinatorial hierarchy with
the four scale constants for the superstrong, strong, electroweak and
gravitational interactions respectively

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com wrote:

I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's theory
of the atom.

==
For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine
structure constant, alpha = 1/137.035999
Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago: It has been a mystery
ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good
theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.
Feynman also said: It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics:
A magic number with no understanding by man

In my view, the value of the fine structure constant is explained by
Randell Mills's model of the hydrogen atom.
In Mills's model, the principal quantum number n can take on fractional
values with the smallest being n =1/137. For purposes of the following
energy calculations, assume an electron is orbiting around the proton in a
stable orbit at the principal quantum number n = 1/137.035999 (i.e. the
fine structure constant, alpha) and has a radius R based on Mills's
theory. An electron orbiting at this radius R has the following 5 energy
calculations related to it and they *all* equal exactly 510998.896 eV or
the rest mass of the electron (this is to 9+ significant digits!).
The energy equations are:
1. Resonant energy of the vacuum for a sphere having radius R.
2. Capacitive energy of a sphere having radius R.
3. Magnetic energy for an electron orbiting a proton on the infinite
number of great circles (as described by Mills) on the surface of a
sphere having radius R.
4. Planck equation energy for a photon having a wavelength that matches
a sphere having radius R.
5. Electric potential energy for an electron evaluated at infinity
relative to a sphere having radius R with a proton at the center.

The amazing thing is that these 5 energy equations above are classical,
meaning no quantum theory is involved and it uses Newtonian dynamics and
Maxwell's equations. The 5 energy equations are exactly the same as found
in physics textbooks.
The energy equations are related to Mills's Pair Production (where a
photon is converted into an electron) and to have an organized, logical
theory have such a coincidence where they all equal the rest mass of the
electron would be impossible in my view.

Mills's equations for the radius of the orbiting electron can be derived
using the same methods as Niels Bohr but with slightly different
postulates.

1. Bohr postulated that the momentum of the electron was equal to the
principal quantum number multiplied by the reduced Planck constant for all
stable orbits. Mills postulates that the momentum of the electron is equal
to *only* the reduced Planck constant at all stable orbits (i.e. it is not
a function of principal quantum number).
2. Bohr postulated that the electric charge experienced by the electron
due to the proton is equal to e (the elementary charge) for all stable
orbits. Mills postulates that the electric charge experienced by the
electron due to the proton *and* the trapped photon is equal to e/n

Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

2014-01-21 Thread Jeff Driscoll

yes, it is all in there, I can find it later, but if you look at his
papers, you will see it

the mass of the electron does not increase as the orbits get closer to
1/137 (and as it approaches the speed of light)

as it approaches that 1/137 orbit, it becomes more similar to a photon
having zero mass,

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Jeff, do you know whether or not Mills takes special relativity into
consideration in his equations that lead to the excellent match with the
fine structure constant? If he does, how does SR impact the calculation?
There are interesting implications if he does not need to.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 2:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

you have 3 significant digits for 1/137.12 (i.e. 137)

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:12 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

From Quaternion
Physicshttp://books.google.com/books?id=f9IPh4IxteMCpg=PA46lpg=PA46dq=quaternion+fine+structure+constant
:

In examining the Hydrogen atoms Quantum speed, 1/2(e/q)² = 1/137.12
appears and is approximagely equal to α.

Quaternions are the third normed division algebra.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:40 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

Interesting. Do the normed division algebras enter into Mills' theory?

If so, I have something to contribute:

There may be a mathematical identity between the 4 normed division
algebras and the 4 levels of the combinatorial hierarchy.

A paper by Stanford researcher Pierre Noyes describing the prediction
of cosmological measurements based on the combinatorial hierarchy (which is
therein defined):

http://slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-8779.pdf

The reason I am suspicious that there is a connection between the two
is the parsimony with which the third level of the combinatorial
hierarchy's electroweak interaction can be described by quaternions, and my
intuition that the strong interaction may parsimoniously be described by
complex numbers.

An introduction to Noyes's bitstring physics:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9707020.pdf

wherein he associates the four levels of the combinatorial hierarchy
with the four scale constants for the superstrong, strong, electroweak and
gravitational interactions respectively

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.comwrote:

I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's theory
of the atom.

==
For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine
structure constant, alpha = 1/137.035999
Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago: It has been a
mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all
good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry
about it.
Feynman also said: It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of
physics: A magic number with no understanding by man

The amazing thing is that these 5 energy equations above are
classical, meaning no quantum theory is involved and it uses Newtonian
dynamics and Maxwell's equations. The 5 energy equations are exactly the
same as found in physics textbooks.
The energy equations are related to Mills's Pair Production (where
a photon is converted into an electron) and to have an organized, logical
theory have such a coincidence where they all equal

Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

2014-01-21 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I did some reading and using the concept of mass increases as the velocity
approaches the speed of light is not a good way to look at it (for reasons
that are not totally clear to me).  There is time dilation and length
contraction for an object (the electron) as it approaches the speed of
light - but essentially the physicists are saying don't interpret that as
mass increase.  I found this quote from Einstein on the hyperphysics
website:

Einstein's point of view is described in the following quote:  It is not
good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no
clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass
concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M (the relativistic
mass that approaches infinity at v = c) it is better to mention the
expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html#c3

I find it amazing that these 5 simple energy equations (from my earlier
post) still work even though electron is undergoing length contraction and
time dilation as it approaches the speed of light at orbit state n =
1/137.  Mills says that the ratio of charge to mass (e/m) is a constant for
the orbiting electron as it approaches the speed of light.  I was hoping
that would be the reason that the energy equations work correctly during
time dialation and length contraction for the electron -  but I don't see
that in the equations so that may not be the answer.  But the end result is
amazing in terms of elegance  5 simple equations all equal the rest
mass of the electron to 9+ significant digits.

Jeff


On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:37 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Thanks for the information Jeff.  I was expecting his mass calculation to
 increase or remain the same as the speed of the orbitsphere approached
 light speed.  Now I will have to understand why it is supposed to become
 less.  That was not even on my radar!

 We need to understand what might happen had the denominator become
 infinite in his fractional representation.  Many times a limiting value
 holds key information and it seems odd that the value of 1/137 should be so
 important.  I guess that this particular fraction is tied to the speed of
 light which is a well defined parameter.  That might be the significance
 that we seek, so now I plan to go onto your site and look at the equations
 in more detail.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 3:08 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

  yes, it is all in there, I can find it later,  but if you look at his
 papers, you will see it

  the mass of the electron does not increase as the orbits get closer to
 1/137 (and as it approaches the speed of light)

  as it approaches that 1/137 orbit, it becomes more similar to a photon
 having zero mass,


 On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Jeff, do you know whether or not Mills takes special relativity into
 consideration in his equations that lead to the excellent match with the
 fine structure constant?   If he does, how does SR impact the calculation?
 There are interesting implications if he does not need to.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
   Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 2:17 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory

  you have 3 significant digits for 1/137.12   (i.e. 137)

  while Mills has 9+ significant digits that match the rest mass of the
 electron (i.e. 510998.896) and he does it for 5 equations that are
 classical and he does it in a logical fashion that a college physics
 student would understand,


 On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:12 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

  From Quaternion 
 Physicshttp://books.google.com/books?id=f9IPh4IxteMCpg=PA46lpg=PA46dq=quaternion+fine+structure+constant
 :

  In examining the Hydrogen atoms Quantum speed, 1/2(e/q)² = 1/137.12
 appears and is approximagely equal to α.

  Quaternions are the third normed division algebra.


 On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:40 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

 Interesting.  Do the normed division algebras enter into Mills' theory?

  If so, I have something to contribute:

  There may be a mathematical identity between the 4 normed division
 algebras and the 4 levels of the combinatorial hierarchy.

  A paper by Stanford researcher Pierre Noyes describing the prediction
 of cosmological measurements based on the combinatorial hierarchy (which is
 therein defined):

  http://slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-8779.pdf

  The reason I am suspicious that there is a connection between the two
 is the parsimony with which the third level of the combinatorial
 hierarchy's electroweak interaction can be described by quaternions, and my
 intuition that the strong interaction may parsimoniously be described by
 complex numbers

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement

2014-01-20 Thread Jeff Driscoll

 causes problems in
 chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions,
 polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental
 band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems.
 
 
 
 Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a
 strongly
 correlated chemical system?
 
 
 
 The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and
 orbitals.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 
  In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500:
  Hi,
  [snip]
 
  I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably
 have
  somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very
 coincidental if
  these
  exactly matched Hydrino energy levels.
  The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on
 this
  list,
  claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a
 hundred.
 
  Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple
 energy
  levels and characteristic transition  energies, which are seen in
 Hydrino
  experiments?
  
  
  On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
  
   In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06
 -0500:
   Hi,
   How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses
  orbitals
   in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the
 Mills
   experiments can't.
   [snip]
   Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic
   transition
   energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments.
  
   Regards,
  
   Robin van Spaandonk
  
   http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
  
  
  Regards,
 
  Robin van Spaandonk
 
  http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
 
 
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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


 
 This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
 Department.


 
 This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
 Department.


 
 This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
 Department.






-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement

2014-01-20 Thread Jeff Driscoll

if FRET (Forster Resonance Enegy Transfer) can happen for manganese in a
dipole dipole energy transfer that varies with distance to the 1/6th power
then Mills is not totally off base with his theory of a hydrogen
transferring energy via FRET.

this is all I could find at the moment for manganese/antimony FRET ...note,
I think the 16 in the equations from this link is really (1/6) exponent
with the slash missing :
http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v7/i4/p1657_1

the hydrino has a an electric dipole  when the density of charge builds up
locally on the spherical surface, here is an animation from BLP website:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/FLASH/P_Orbital_HighRes.swf

Also, Mill's trapped photon may be exactly the same as a gluon (which is
standard accepted physics) - this is something that I would like to find
out by asking Mills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon




On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:

 Jeff, it is so refreshing to find someone in the Vo/CMNS who has read
 Mills’ work carefully enough to understand what is going on, instead of
 mindless whacks based on a press release. Thanks for finding the Wikipedia
 discussion of the Forster energy transfer. Mills  had cited it in earlier
 writings to show that the phenomenon was known to mainstream chemistry, and
 not a figment of his imagination. However, the Forster analysis is based on
 electromagnetic dipoles whose effect depends on orientation and very close
 proximity. If you examine some of visualizations of the orbitsphere, Mills
 shows magnetic field lines extending  from the orbitspehere from the
 circulating currents. The influence of a proximate catalyst energy hole may
 distort   the fields to effect the energy transfer. A ‘dipole’ nay not be
 necessary. My own intuition, for what it is worth, is that Mills has not
 himself fully elucidated what happens. That may be a subject for
 generations of Ph.D. candidates.



 In the same vein, Mills now states that a H atom consists of an electro, a
 proton, and a photon. The usual description of a photon is a propagating
 wave packet of interlocked magnetic and electrostatic fields.. It is
 difficult; to picture such stuffed into an orbitsphere. I think language
 fails to describe Nature here, but Mills’ intuition nay remain a useful
 guide.



 Mike Carrell



 *From:* Jeff Driscoll [mailto:jef...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 9:53 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

 *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement



 gammas and xrays won't (as far as I know) turn a hdyrino into a hydrogen
 through ionization, but a cosmic ray (a high energy particle) *can* ionize
 a hyrino and turn it into a hydrogen when it recaptures some other electron.

 In Mills's theory, energy transfer to the catalyst (by bond breakage,
 electron ionization, kinetic energy) is done by Forster resonant energy
 transfer:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rster_resonance_energy_transfer

 look at page 47-51 of this pdf I created:
 http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf

 quoting text from it:


 Forster Resonance Energy Transfer
 (FRET) in Blacklight Power’s technology
 Monatomic hydrogen, the donor, transfers some integer multiple of 27.2 eV
 to acceptor (ie. 27.2, 54.4, 81.6, 108.8 eV etc).
 Energy comes from energy holes of 27.2 eV in hydrogen.
 Acceptor is a molecule or atom that has bond dissociation
 or electron ionization energy that exactly sums to an integer multiple of
 27.2 eV.
 Forster Resonance Energy Transfer
 Radiationless, coulombic dipole/dipole energy transfer.
 Amount of energy transfer varies inversely with distance to 6th power such
 that it only occurs over very short distances, typically 2 -10 nm.
 Examples of FRET
 FRET transfer process occurs in phosphors that contain manganese and
 antimony
 ions resulting in a strong luminescence from the manganese. Older
 generations of
 mercury fluorescent light bulbs used this process.
 Molecular tags that luminesce in a FRET process are used in determining
 biological
 and chemical processes. Strength of the luminescence indicates distance
 between
 the molecular tags.



 On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 Harry, I have been following the hydrino discussion and I believe that the
 theory is that the spontaneous decay can not happen unless a vessel of the
 correct energy level is nearby.  This catalyst has to accept the energy by
 near field coupling methods and not radiation of a photon which would be a
 far field effect.

 Dave







 -Original Message-
 From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

 Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm
 Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement

 I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher
 energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the
 ground state into a hydrino state. If an input

Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement

2014-01-20 Thread Jeff Driscoll

As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation
having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for
transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional
transition does, I don't know)
see here:
http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif

And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency.
There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up
sharply on a graph.  That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon
emission during hydrino creation.

I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55:
http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf

Jeff



On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:



 From: David Roberson

 A thought just occurred to me.  Is it not possible to
 ionize
 a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic
 processes?  This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen
 again which should be detected.  I suppose that if these processes can
 impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by
 definition.

 Dave,

 Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been
 done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on
 a
 regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation.

 I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to
 hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening.

 The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not
 performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as
 was
 a time delayed signature.


 https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen

 thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs
 eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ

 …and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long
 successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the
 hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There
 is no doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can
 vary.

 ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is
 accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a
 monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results
 seem
 to support some of Mills theory but not all of it.

 The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills
 theory suggests.

 However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to
 Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4
 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an
 exact signature, but none is found.

 Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to
 find
 the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to
 mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS
 NEVER
 BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of
 Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is
 itself off target.

 In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given
 the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important
 level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the
 exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent.

 The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess
 energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft
 x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV … and although this is close to
 the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for
 this signal is open to interpretation.

 In fact, I’ve been working on an alternative explanation for the 55 eV
 signal - involving the diproton reaction, (Reversible Proton Fusion) which
 will be presented at some point.

 It explains why this signature is NOT a precise Rydberg value, even though
 it is close - and why the signal derives from the XPS device itself (in its
 interaction with retained protons) – but the conclusion is that this signal
 is not derived from retained hydrinos being “reinflated.”

 Jones






-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement

2014-01-20 Thread Jeff Driscoll

thank you Peter,

Are there any more groups that you know replicated Mills's work - besides
Rowan?
The link above shows the authors to be H Conrads, R Mills and Th Wrubel, so
Mills was involved but it was done outside of BLP laboratories (I assume).

here is the abstract from the link you gave:

A hydrogen plasma with intense extreme ultraviolet and visible emission was
generated from low pressure hydrogen gas (0.1–1 mbar) in contact with a hot
tungsten filament only when the filament heated a titanium dissociator
coated with K2CO3 above 750°C. The electric field strength from the
filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the
starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges. The emission of the Hαand H
β transitions as well as the Lα and Lβ transitions were recorded and
analysed. The plasma seemed to be far from thermal equilibrium, and no
conventional mechanism was found to explain the formation of a hydrogen
plasma by incandescently heating hydrogen gas in the presence of trace
amounts of K2CO3. The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via
hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was
terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed. The
plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with
potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time
constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the
cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift
from atomic to molecular hydrogen. Our results indicate that a novel
chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen
plasma that is a potential new light source.


On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:15 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nlwrote:

  Hello Jones

 I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum
 ( which was reproduced)  proves that there is a until now unknown physical
 proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body
 reactions).

 Peter v Noorden



 - Original Message -

 *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM
 *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement

  Your spiel is a complete cop out.



 The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature.



 A so-called “continuum with a cutoff” is NOT a signature. It is a
 subterfuge.



 Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a
 distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap
 about a “continuum with a cutoff” is his feeble attempt to show what he
 cannot show otherwise – which is a real signature.



 He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat
 helpful – but you have “drunk to kool-aid” on this “continuum with a
 cutoff” BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing.



 If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get
 away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more
 like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult.



 Jones



 *From:* Jeff Driscoll



 As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation
 having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for
 transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional
 transition does, I don't know)
 see here:
 http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif

 And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency.
 There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up
 sharply on a graph.  That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon
 emission during hydrino creation.

 I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55:
 http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf

 Jeff





 On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:



 From: David Roberson

 A thought just occurred to me.  Is it not possible to
 ionize
 a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic
 processes?  This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen
 again which should be detected.  I suppose that if these processes can
 impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by
 definition.

 Dave,

 Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been
 done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on
 a
 regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation.

 I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to
 hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening.

 The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not
 performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as
 was
 a time delayed signature.


 https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement

2014-01-20 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I don't understand it, but it seems to be answered here - on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition
quoting from portions:

Classical nonradiation conditions define the conditions according to
classical electromagnetism under which a distribution of accelerating
charges will not emit electromagnetic radiation. According to the Larmor
formula in classical electromagnetism, a single point charge under
acceleration will emit electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light. In some
classical electron models a distribution of charges can however be
accelerated so that no radiation is emitted.[1] The modern derivation of
these nonradiation conditions by Hermann A. Haus is based on the Fourier
components of the current produced by a moving point charge. It states that
a distribution of accelerated charges will radiate if and only if it has
Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of
light.[2]


The nonradiation condition went largely ignored for many years. Philip
Pearle reviews the subject in his 1982 article Classical Electron
Models.[7] A Reed College undergraduate thesis on nonradiation in infinite
planes and solenoids appears in 1984.[8] An important advance occurred in
1986, when Hermann Haus derived Goedeke’s condition in a new way.[2] Haus
finds that all radiation is caused by Fourier components of the
charge/current distribution that are lightlike (i.e. components that are
synchronous with light speed). When a distribution has no lightlike Fourier
components, such as a point charge in uniform motion, then there is no
radiation. Haus uses his formulation to explain Cerenkov radiation in which
the speed of light of the surrounding medium is less than c.

Randell Mills uses the nonradiation condition as the foundation for his
model of the hydrogen atom, in which the electron is a two-dimensional
extended membrane of negative charge that is stable according to this
condition.[9] Mills' model is controversial and not accepted by the
scientific community, which currently accepts the theory of quantum
mechanics in which the electron does not need to obey classical physics.

and 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_A._Haus




On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Jeff,

 I would be very surprised if the atom did not radiate energy under the
 conditions demonstrated in your second link.  A distant observer would see
 an E field that is changing direction back and forth at the rotation rate.
 This is exactly the behavior expected from a short dipole radiator.  If
 Mills used an approximation to derive the lack of radiation, then it would
 be quite easy to neglect the small term that demonstrates the radiation.
 The reason being that this tiny term goes to zero in the limiting case as
 the charge rotation speed goes to zero.

 A very slow charge distribution rotation rate is easy to assume to be
 unimportant and not radiating and, in fact, it is a very poor antenna.
 Unfortunately, any amount of radiation is too much, so the charge must not
 be allowed to change distribution in time to obtain that goal.  I suggest
 you look up short dipole antennas if you are interested in what I am
 describing.

 My earlier discussion of the continuous charge distribution being non
 radiating is valid.  The information on your site showing how Mills
 describes his orbitspheres as being the equivalent of an infinite number of
 small loops would work as a non radiating design.  This is true if the
 current through each loop is DC and not changing as you appeared to
 describe.  Since each loop can be shown to be non radiating, the entire
 vector sum of all of the infinitesimal loops is also non radiating.  As I
 also pointed out earlier, any 3 dimensional set of loops would also not
 radiate as long as DC current is enforced in each.  This would include the
 S, P, D, or any other arrangement as shown with quantum mechanics.  All
 they need to do to ensure that no radiation is emitted at a stable orbital
 is to force the electrons to be distributed per above instead of existing
 as a single moving point.  If I recall correctly, those models do not
 attempt to track the position of the electron in time.  That should be
 adequate provided the position of the electron is truly a probability
 function.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 10:49 am
 Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement

   if FRET (Forster Resonance Enegy Transfer) can happen for manganese in
 a dipole dipole energy transfer that varies with distance to the 1/6th
 power then Mills is not totally off base with his theory of a hydrogen
 transferring energy via FRET.

 this is all I could find at the moment for manganese/antimony FRET
 ...note, I think the 16 in the equations from this link is really (1/6)
 exponent with the slash missing :
 http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v7

[Vo]:Mills's theory

2014-01-20 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's theory of
the atom.

==
For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine
structure constant, alpha =  1/137.035999
Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago:  “It has been a mystery
ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good
theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.”
Feynman also said:  ”It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics:  A
magic number with no understanding by man”

In my view, the value of the fine structure constant is explained by
Randell Mills’s model of the hydrogen atom.
In Mills’s model, the principal quantum number n can take on fractional
values with the smallest being n =1/137.  For purposes of the following
energy calculations, assume an electron is orbiting around the proton in a
stable orbit at the principal quantum number n = 1/137.035999 (i.e. the
fine structure constant, alpha) and has a radius R based on Mills's
theory.  An electron orbiting at this radius R has the following 5 energy
calculations related to it and they *all* equal exactly 510998.896 eV or
the rest mass of the electron (this is to 9+ significant digits!).
The energy equations are:
1. Resonant energy of the vacuum for a sphere having radius R.
2. Capacitive energy of a sphere having radius R.
3. Magnetic energy for an electron orbiting a proton on the infinite number
of great circles (as described by Mills) on the surface of a sphere
having radius R.
4. Planck equation energy for a photon having a wavelength that matches a
sphere having radius R.
5. Electric potential energy for an electron evaluated at infinity relative
to a sphere having radius R with a proton at the center.

The amazing thing is that these 5 energy equations above are classical,
meaning no quantum theory is involved and it uses Newtonian dynamics and
Maxwell’s equations. The 5 energy equations are exactly the same as found
in physics textbooks.
The energy equations are related to Mills's Pair Production (where a
photon is converted into an electron) and to have an organized, logical
theory have such a coincidence where they all equal the rest mass of the
electron would be impossible in my view.

Mills's equations for the radius of the orbiting electron can be derived
using the same methods as Niels Bohr but with slightly different
postulates.

1.  Bohr postulated that the momentum of the electron was equal to the
principal quantum number multiplied by the reduced Planck constant for all
stable orbits.  Mills postulates that the momentum of the electron is equal
to *only* the reduced Planck constant at all stable orbits (i.e. it is not
a function of principal quantum number).
2. Bohr postulated that the electric charge experienced by the electron due
to the proton is equal to e (the elementary charge) for all stable orbits.
Mills postulates that the electric charge experienced by the electron due
to the proton *and* the trapped photon is equal to e/n or the elementary
charge divided by the principal quantum number for all stable orbits.

You can find out more about Randell Mills's theory at my website here:

http://zhydrogen.com

Side note: Mills's lowest allowed orbit is 1/137 not 1/137.035999 and (I
think) the difference between the two numbers is related to a small
magnetic interaction between the electron and the proton.  You can see more
detail in Mills's book, Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP)
which is streamed here:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/

Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement

2014-01-19 Thread Jeff Driscoll

** radiate and are seen in telescopes as ‘unknown sources’.
But, the same lines have been seen in BLP experiments producing hydrinos.

Mike Carrell

*From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com dlrober...@aol.com?]
*Sent:* Friday, January 17, 2014 2:48 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement

My understanding of fields is that the shell could be any thickness and
that the electron cloud (I refer to the continuous charge field here) could
occupy any three dimensional shape in space and still not radiate. The
distribution does however determine the external magnetic field that is
generated by the effective current flow. Motion of the charge distribution
must be taking place for an external magnetic field to be present.

I was reading one of the papers listed on your site about what was real
and unreal when I saw the 2 dimensional requirement. Do you recall any
theory by Mills that suggests that radiation from the electron orbital can
be suppressed if the motion of the electron charge is anything but constant
and of a DC nature? My suspicion is that it is not possible for an overall
balance to be present in the far field region unless the current is DC.
Any acceleration of charge generates a far field pattern and only an equal
and opposite directed acceleration can balance that out.

I visualize a loop of wire when I think of similar behavior. Everyone
suspects that an electron circulating around that loop is subject to
acceleration and will generate a far field radiation pattern. My model
says that this is indeed the case. But as more electrons are added to the
wire, better balance occurs. Eventually, when a continuous stream of them
are circulating around the loop, a complete balance occurs. Any direction
that is probed in the far field region will be completely balanced at every
point in space as long as an extremely large number are looping. This
effect has one hole in it which is a steady DC magnetic field. The DC
field can be very complex in 3 dimensional spatial shape which is
established by the motion of the electrons path.

One interesting complication is that the magnetic field must consist of at
least 2 poles from which it emanates. This ensures that the field fall off
quickly with distance and that its total energy is well contained.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 17, 2014 12:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement
he does give a thickness for the electron shell - it is very small,
the thickness is equal to the Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild
radius equation applied to the mass of the electron is much smaller than
the diameter of the electron shell.
I cut and pasted this from one of his pdf's - the equations are not
shown in this email, but it is from page 8 of this:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/theorypapers/Classical_Quantum_Mechanics_102804.pdf
==
quoting from pdf above:
The orbitsphere has zero thickness, but in order that the speed of light
is a constant maximum in any frame
including that of the gravitational field that propagates out as a
light-wave front at particle production, it gives rise
to a spacetime dilation equal to 2π times the Newtonian gravitational or
Schwarzschild radius
(equation deleted)
according to Eqs. (178) and (202). This corresponds to a spacetime
dilation of
(equation deleted)
Although the orbitsphere does not occupy space in the third spatial
dimension, its mass discontinuity effectively “displaces” spacetime wherein
the spacetime dilation can be considered a “thickness” associated with its
gravitational field

I have a *lot* of detail on Mill's theory at my website
http://zhydrogen.com/

Jeff

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
wrote:
I also find what appears to be a problem with the theory. Mills makes an
assumption in the very beginning of his analysis that the electron orbit
sphere must be of zero thickness with no radial component if it is to exist
without radiation of electromagnetic waves. This is not true and can
easily be demonstrated in an experiment. You can construct any three
dimensional wire configuration you like containing the 2 dimensional
surface that Mills assumes as well as any sections which head into and out
of the third dimension he rejects. The only constraint is that the current
flowing through this total structure does not change the charge
distribution with time.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement

2014-01-19 Thread Jeff Driscoll

.

  Mike Carrell

   *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com janap...@gmail.com?]
 *Sent:* Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM
 *To:* vortex-l
 *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement

   Beauty comes from truth.

   On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
  In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
   We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally
 demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory
 that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are
 easier to swallow.
   Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;)

 
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf
 
 Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the electron
 in
 strongly correlated systems.
 
 
 
 The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed
 matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons.
 
 
 
 It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in
 chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions,
 polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental
 band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems.
 
 
 
 Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a strongly
 correlated chemical system?
 
 
 
 The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and
 orbitals.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 
  In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500:
  Hi,
  [snip]
 
  I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably
 have
  somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very coincidental
 if
  these
  exactly matched Hydrino energy levels.
  The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on
 this
  list,
  claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a
 hundred.
 
  Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple energy
  levels and characteristic transition  energies, which are seen in
 Hydrino
  experiments?
  
  
  On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
  
   In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 -0500:
   Hi,
   How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses
  orbitals
   in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the Mills
   experiments can't.
   [snip]
   Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic
   transition
   energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments.
  
   Regards,
  
   Robin van Spaandonk
  
   http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
  
  
  Regards,
 
  Robin van Spaandonk
 
  http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
 
 
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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


 
 This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
 Department.


 
 This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
 Department.




-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement

2014-01-19 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Hydrinos are still matter, and is a gas, just like hydrogen, you can feel
it with your hands if it is blowing out a tube.  But light will pass
straight through a giant cloud of it without being absorbed or reflected
but it will be gravitationally bent:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html


On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:

 Erik, conservation f energy applies.


 Understood.  I'm not saying that hydrinos would violate conservation of
 mass/energy.  I was making a point about what measurements would seem to
 record -- that instruments might tell the observer that visible mass seems
 to have been lost that is not accounted for by the balance of energy seen.
  No doubt I might be wrong.  If someone knows of a detail that would make
 this otherwise, it would be interesting to know.  (I've already mentioned
 spectrographic analysis as one possibility.)

 Eric




-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement

2014-01-19 Thread Jeff Driscoll

no, won't refract, just gravitationally bend

here is a better link for dark matter:

http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2013/06/26/does-dark-matter-really-exist/


On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:21 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hydrinos are still matter, and is a gas, just like hydrogen, you can feel
 it with your hands if it is blowing out a tube.  But light will pass
 straight through a giant cloud of it without being absorbed or reflected
 but it will be gravitationally bent:


 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html



 Is it possible that hydrinos could refract light instead of reflecting it?

 Harry




-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement

2014-01-17 Thread Jeff Driscoll

mills has books online that describe what you are looking for,

click on free book access:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/

the book streams to your computer very fast and easy to read (not
necessarily understand, you have to put some work into it)

standalone atoms are fully described all the way down to quarks and gluons

there is a huge section on molecules  in his books,




On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 It seems to me that there is a fundamental contradiction in the Mills
 theory. This theory is purported to be a universally applied theory of the
 atom, but it requires the mediation of a catalyst to appear.
 The requirement for a catalyst adds consideration of the chemically based
 mediation of other electrons associated with the catalyst to affect the
 quantum mechanical behavior of the atom in question.

 The mills hydrino theory is purported to be an atomic theory, but it is
 really a condensed matter theory. In other words, the Mills theory cannot
 rightfully describe the behavior of a standalone atom in terms of orbits of
 its electrons.

 Furthermore, the mathematical description of hydrino atom's behavior never
 includes the interactions of neighboring electrons and their influence on
 the hydrino atom.

 In the explanation of his theory to the best of my understanding, Mills
 never mentions how the actions and influences of the electrons that are in
 the environment of the hydrino atom effect or cause the hydrino atom





 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:42 PM, JeffD jef...@gmail.com wrote:


 I have a website that goes into the details of BLP's theory:

 http://zhydrogen.com

 I have one PDF (near the top of the home page and shown below) that I
 made that shows interesting calculations dealing with the hydrogen atom -
 and is one of the reasons that I believe Mills's theory is correct.

 http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-e-energy.pdf

 I still believe in BLP even though I tried to replicate their CIHT device
 last year without success (this is the non-plasma, non-MHD version).

 http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620

 Jeff

 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:37:50 AM UTC-5, peter...@gmail.com wrote:

 This, this time seems to be remarkable progress-
 if true:

 http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+
 Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+
 Millions/9384649/story.html

 Let's see- Mike Carrell remained BLP's faithful supporter.
 Not LENR, but energy

 Peter

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





-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement

2014-01-17 Thread Jeff Driscoll

he does give a thickness for the electron shell - it is very small, the
thickness is equal to the Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild radius
equation applied to the mass of the electron is much smaller than the
diameter of the electron shell.

I cut and pasted this from one of his pdf's - the equations are not shown
in this email, but it is from page 8 of this:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/theorypapers/Classical_Quantum_Mechanics_102804.pdf
==
quoting from pdf above:
The orbitsphere has zero thickness, but in order that the speed of light is
a constant maximum in any frame
including that of the gravitational field that propagates out as a
light-wave front at particle production, it gives rise
to a spacetime dilation equal to 2π times the Newtonian gravitational or
Schwarzschild radius
(equation deleted)
according to Eqs. (178) and (202). This corresponds to a spacetime dilation
of
(equation deleted)
Although the orbitsphere does not occupy space in the third spatial
dimension, its mass discontinuity effectively displaces spacetime wherein
the spacetime dilation can be considered a thickness associated with its
gravitational field

I have a *lot* of detail on Mill's theory at my website
http://zhydrogen.com/

Jeff

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I also find what appears to be a problem with the theory. Mills makes an
assumption in the very beginning of his analysis that the electron orbit
sphere must be of zero thickness with no radial component if it is to exist
without radiation of electromagnetic waves. This is not true and can
easily be demonstrated in an experiment. You can construct any three
dimensional wire configuration you like containing the 2 dimensional
surface that Mills assumes as well as any sections which head into and out
of the third dimension he rejects. The only constraint is that the current
flowing through this total structure does not change the charge
distribution with time.

The net result of a system that I am describing is a DC current flowing
through the structure. It does not require any restriction upon its loop
path, contrary to what Mills assumes. Perhaps he should go back to his
original equations and see how this relaxed requirement impacts his model.
There may be implications for the behavior of the hydrino orbitals that he
predicts. It is refreshing to review how he is able to apply classical
theory to the atomic realm and I would love to see quantum theory replaced
with a more deterministic model. That is a long shot.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 17, 2014 10:33 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement

It seems to me that there is a fundamental contradiction in the Mills
theory. This theory is purported to be a universally applied theory of the
atom, but it requires the mediation of a catalyst to appear.
The requirement for a catalyst adds consideration of the chemically based
mediation of other electrons associated with the catalyst to affect the
quantum mechanical behavior of the atom in question.

The mills hydrino theory is purported to be an atomic theory, but it is
really a condensed matter theory. In other words, the Mills theory cannot
rightfully describe the behavior of a standalone atom in terms of orbits of
its electrons.
Furthermore, the mathematical description of hydrino atom's behavior never
includes the interactions of neighboring electrons and their influence on
the hydrino atom.
In the explanation of his theory to the best of my understanding, Mills
never mentions how the actions and influences of the electrons that are in
the environment of the hydrino atom effect or cause the hydrino atom

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:42 PM, JeffD jef...@gmail.com wrote:

I have a website that goes into the details of BLP's theory:

http://zhydrogen.com

I have one PDF (near the top of the home page and shown below) that I
made that shows interesting calculations dealing with the hydrogen atom -
and is one of the reasons that I believe Mills's theory is correct.

http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-e-energy.pdf

I still believe in BLP even though I tried to replicate their CIHT
device last year without success (this is the non-plasma, non-MHD
version).

http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620

Jeff

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:37:50 AM UTC-5, peter...@gmail.com wrote:

This, this time seems to be remarkable progress-
if true:

http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+
Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+
Millions/9384649/story.html

Let's see- Mike Carrell remained BLP's faithful supporter.
Not LENR, but energy

Peter

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

--
Jeff Driscoll
617-290

Re: [Vo]:Incredible Gen3 paper

2013-11-06 Thread Jeff Driscoll


 RPR then releases the hotter UV photon which can create another catalytic
 hole (when slightly downshifted) especially in oxygen preferentially. A
 limited chain reaction, mediated by UV photons, is the result.

 In short, this hybridized version provides a more complete picture than
 Mills, especially since he depends on angular momentum of electrons as
 the
 ultimate energy source. Bollocks.


According to Mills's theory:
The energy comes from the potential energy of the electron relative to the
proton - electron drops down to a lower fractional orbit (fractional
principal quantum number) and the energy comes from this change in
potential energy.  Energy released takes the form of:
1.  kinetic energy transferred to another hydrogen, or ionization of an
electron or breaking of chemical bonds
2. continuum radiation as the electron spirals down to the next stable
fractional orbit.  This spiral has a non-constant orbit frequency and gives
continuum radiation.

The electron has 1 unity of angular momentum at all orbit states (principal
quantum numbers), including at n = 1, the ground state.  Conservation of
angular momentum is always seen in all energy releases.

Continuum energy is seen in the experiment that matches his theory.  The
19.3 nm oxygen line is in both the control experiment (He) and the active
experiment (H2+He).

My guess is that it is very hard to eliminate all the oxygen from a surface
- plus they may not have a reason to eliminate it.

Jeff

Re: [Vo]:Incredible Gen3 paper

2013-11-06 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Jeff,

 Looks like you have been imbibing on the BLP kool-aid...
 comments interspersed below...

 Do you glow-in-the-dark, yet?  :-)


 From: Jeff Driscoll

 JB: RPF then releases the hotter UV photon which can
 create another catalytic
 hole (when slightly downshifted) especially in oxygen
 preferentially. A
 limited chain reaction, mediated by UV photons, is the
 result.

 In short, this hybridized version provides a more complete
 picture than
 Mills, especially since he depends on angular momentum of
 electrons as the
 ultimate energy source. Bollocks.

 JD: According to Mills' theory:
 The energy comes from the potential energy of the electron
 relative to the proton - electron drops down to a lower fractional orbit
 (fractional principal quantum number) and the energy comes from this change
 in potential energy.

 This is nonsense. There is no potential energy for any electron below
 ground
 state unless it can find a stable orbit. Finding a stable orbit will
 require
 substantial net energy input, which makes this part of the equation net
 endothermic. There is no way around this problem.

 Energy released takes the form of:

 1.  kinetic energy transferred to another hydrogen, or
 ionization of an electron or breaking of chemical bonds

 There is no net energy released from the redundant ground state, without
 more.

 Period.


In Mills theory, the electron moves to an orbit that is closer to the
proton, this releases potential energy which is converted into kinetic,
bond breaking, ionization and continuum radiation.  There is no
mathematical reason this can't happen.  The only reason against it is that
it has not been seen previously in physics.  It is not endothermic (heat
absorbing), this is an exothermic (heat releasing) process.

Potential energy is only a function of the orbit radius, the lower the
electron drops (in orbit) the more energy is released.




 Again - going below ground state does happen routinely, but it is
 endothermic. However, the Mills redundancy reaction can result in a neutral
 particle with an electron in very close electron orbital - a virtual
 neutron
 if you will. At a cost.

 THEN AND ONLY THEN can the endotherm be erased by the quark reaction which
 is called the QCD color charge.

 The finding of robust shrinkage below ground state is the limit of Mills'
 actual contribution to the field, and it is brilliant up to a point - but
 as
 for the rest of the continuum nonsense: BS - IMHO.

 Mills could not close the deal. He risks becoming a footnote to Rossi
 unless
 he can produce the working public demo in a reasonable time frame.

 2. continuum radiation as the electron spirals down to the
 next stable fractional orbit.

 There is no stable orbit without energy input so there is no excess
 radiation at all. This is precisely why you see from Mills this silly
 appeal
 to a continuum instead of the (formerly) predicted lines. This
 continuum
 business from Mills is a joke - really the last gasp of a dying theory.

 This spiral has a non-constant orbit frequency and gives
 continuum radiation.

 Nonsense. This is an endothermic reaction. Continuum radiation is a
 gigantic fail - a fabrication.

 Continuum energy is seen in the experiment that matches his
 theory.

 Bollocks. This is a complete fabrication by Mills LOL - and attempt to
 gloss
 over the fact that the specific radiation predicted in the theory was found
 to be absent - many years after predicted. Oops time for a theoretical
 laxative. What you hear in the background is the sound of Mills old CQM
 theory going down the continuum plumbing.



The specific radiation that is predicted is continuum radiation and that is
what BLP shows in their experiments.





 The 19.3 nm oxygen line is in both the control experiment
 (He) and the active experiment (H2+He).

 Of course it is!  There is an oxygen line in the control since, the oxide
 layer cannot be reduced without hydrogen present.

 When H2 is added, the oxide layer is reduced, and the line which is
 slightly
 shifted comes from the solar diproton reaction - the QCD rearrangement of
 proton quarks - not from the oxygen layer which is now gone from the
 electrode. Oxygen on any electrode cannot survive hot hydrogen bombardment.

 My guess is that it is very hard to eliminate all the
 oxygen
 from a surface - plus they may not have a reason to eliminate it.
 Not hard at all ! The Oxygen layer reduction would be routine and
 immediate.
 You many need to check into a BLP abstinence program, Jeff. Mills theory
 may
 be intoxicating at first, but on close inspection he is ultimately wrong

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:What the heck is LENR+, anyway?

2013-09-01 Thread Jeff Driscoll

xvxv ZZzAssOc zz xxsex CT vacs cv Mv

Sent from my HTC smartphone on the Now Network from Sprint!

- Reply message -
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:What the heck is LENR+, anyway?
Date: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 11:10 pm
Wow, Jed Rothwell has awakened from a quarter century of slumber. The Sleeper 
Has Finally Awakened. While you were asleep, Rossi has told us what he was 
doing all along, all we had to do is listen…yes with concentration and purpose 
but he has revealed all to those who would listen with attention and to take 
heed. Piece by piece, clue by clue it was all revealed in little bits and 
pieces.

LENR does not use micro and nanoparticles and LENR+ does. That is what Rossi 
first taught us, he told us to use small particles but not too small and he 
even gave us the right size. He told us to cover the micro particles with 
nanowire. There is also high pressure hydrogen involved.
He told us to use a catalyst that was activated through heating in the hot 
hydrogen. And most importantly, he gave us faith that the thing he built would 
work. I told you before that you never had this faith and you never will have 
it. Without that faith, you will never invest in the work to look for the 
answers. You are chained to the past by the ghosts of pons and fleischmann, and 
by the production of helium in a cold fusion.

I tried my best to teach you the rules behind it all but you just don’t get it. 
I feel sorry for you and the others …for what you are missing… your shoes 
nailed to the floor by LENR… because LENR+ is a thing of complex beauty that 
you will never know. 

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

There has been a lot of blather here along these lines:

That is how LENR is. This is no science behind it, It is all trial and error.
Now LENR+. is analogous to the first vacuum tube radios. There is a degree of 
science nad methodology behind it and LENR+ works well almost every time.

Okay, so what is the difference between LENR and LENR+? Is LENR with Pd-D, and 
LENR+ Ni-H? Why don't you just call it that?
Most people who tried to make Ni-H work got nothing. No heat, no results. So I 
do not understand why anyone claims it works well every time. Maybe it works 
for Rossi, but he is not telling anyone else how to do it, is he? So we should 
not call this LENR+. We should call it whatever Rossi is doing, assuming his 
results are what he and Levi et al. claim they are. That's not a generally 
applicable statement about any branch of LENR. It is a statement about Rossi.

There was a time when Patterson had very promising results too, with high power 
density. Unfortunately, he did not tell anyone how to do it, and he took the 
secret to the grave. Rossi might do the same thing. Until he teaches, perhaps 
with a patent that is replicated, his discovery is not a new form of LENR in 
the broad sense of the word. It is a trade secret that at present no one else 
has any clue how to achieve.

It may be that Defkalion has also achieved highly reliable Ni-H cold fusion. I 
wouldn't know; they have not published any data. The demonstration looked 
promising but it is not proof. To get proof, you have to have an independent 
team go on and wring the thing out for weeks. It takes weeks because you often 
encounter the kinds of problems that Levi et al. had, with the cell melting and 
so on. Plus the team may need to improve the instruments a couple of times, the 
way Levi did.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Important news from HUG team in Minnesota

2012-12-02 Thread Jeff Driscoll

This may not be a factor in the Celani replication experiment where
pressures are high (greater than 1 atmosphere correct??),  but at low
pressures, the thermal conductivity of hydrogen gas is hugely impacted
by small amounts of a heavier molecule gas that is added  - such as
Argon or nitrogen.   I forget exactly how low the pressure needs to be
- but something less than 10% of 1 atmosphere (1.5 psi).  So for
example, 1.5 psi of 90% H2 and 10% Argon has much lower thermal
conductivity than 100% H2 at the same pressure.  The reason is that
fast moving hydrogen is *physically* blocked from transporting heat by
the much  slower and larger Argon atoms.  18 years ago, in 1995, I was
running a Mizuno proton conductor replication experiment  and I added
a very small amount of air (which is mostly nitrogen) to the low
pressure deuterium gas and got a temperature rise. I had thought that
adding gas should increase the thermal conductivity of the gas and
reduce the temperature of the proton conductor operating at 350 C.
But because of the low pressure H2 and the addition of higher weight
gas, the temperature increased and I therefore thought that Air was
the trigger for a cold fusion effect.  It took a bit of research to
find out that I had an artifact. I was able to post my question about
thermal conductivity changes on a discussion board and got an answer.
The Internet was a great help - even back then in its beginning.

But again, in the Celani replication experiment where the pressures
are greater than 1 atmosphere, this issue of hydrogen conductivity
being affected hugely by Argon in a counter intuitive way is less of
an issue.  The purpose of my email is to alert people to the counter
intuitive effects at low pressures (less than 10% of an atmosphere)
involving Hydrogen and a second higher molecular weight gas.
Though I could not find a good thermal conductivity graph of hydrogen
and another gas at low pressure on the internet to show my point.


On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote:
 It's bad news, but it's important.

 In short, the contention now is that Celani did not account for effect of
 pressure changes within the cell. Reducing the gas pressure reduces the
 thermal conductivity of the gas. This reduces the temperature of cell
 components like the metal flanges that are mostly heated by the gas.

 So at lower gas pressure, the flanges don't get as hot and so don't radiate
 away as much heat. But the electrical heating is constant, so measured
 temperatures at other points in the cell must rise. HUG is contending that
 this pressure-modulated rise in temperature elsewhere in the cell is what
 Celani measured as excess heat.

 http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/163-a-partial-explaination

 Jeff

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Rossi is right about the CLOWNS (was::Rossi Wakes Up -- Took Note of Linear Generator with 2 Noble Gas Engine Head)

2012-08-19 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Defkalion is moving to Canada.  Can someone comment on something I
heard which is western Canada (such as Alberta and Vancouver) have
weak laws that make running scams and frauds easier?



On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:
 Rossi is right about one thing; the clowns are just waiting for the home
 ecats so that they can steal it again and put it inside their mock ups.

 I don't know about others here, but am I the only one seriously bothered by
 DGT's behavior.  They cheat and lie with a straight face in their expensive
 Armani suits.  Weren't they supposed to release their test data at
 ICCF-17?  Has anyone seen those test data from supposedly half a dozen third
 party folks?  Now, they've picked up and moved to Canada.  Are we supposed
 to believe those pictures of their factory supposedly being built in Xanthi?
 Supposedly, they moved because of the grave economic situation in Greece.
 Question is, Why then build a multi-million factory in a place that has
 grave economic outlook?

 A few weeks ago, I predicted that there is a 70% chance that DGT will
 withdraw from ICCF-17.  I then went on to elaborate on what I meant - that
 is, that they will withhold data.  Well, looks like I was right about these
 clowns.

 What has DGT released at ICCF-17?  A single paper that contains more
 verbosity on how great DGT is and how great their organization and teamwork
 is; than real scientific theory, let alone real scientific data.

 Heck, right now ChemE has released more scientific theory about his
 Gremlins than these clowns.



 Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides

2012-07-30 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Jaro has myopic tunnel vision (mixed metaphor?) with thoughts of a
warmer climate making more farmland or making cold areas more
hospitable to humans.

Below is a list of the disadvantages of global warming that I found on
a website.   Any advantages from global warming are far outweighed by
these disadvantages.



Disadvantages of Global Warming

Ocean circulation disrupted, disrupting and having unknown effects on
world climate.

Higher sea level leading to flooding of low-lying lands and deaths and
disease from flood and evacuation.

Deserts get drier leaving to increased desertification.

Changes to agricultural production that can lead to food shortages.

Water shortages in already water-scarce areas.

Starvation, malnutrition, and increased deaths due to food and crop shortages.

More extreme weather and an increased frequency of severe and
catastrophic storms.

Increased disease in humans and animals.

Increased deaths from heat waves.

Extinction of additional species of animals and plants.

Loss of animal and plant habitats.

Increased emigration of those from poorer or low-lying countries to
wealthier or higher countries seeking better (or non-deadly)
conditions.

Additional use of energy resources for cooling needs.

Increased air pollution.

Increased allergy and asthma rates due to earlier blooming of plants.

Melt of permafrost leads to destruction of structures, landslides, and
avalanches.

Permanent loss of glaciers and ice sheets.

Cultural or heritage sites destroyed faster due to increased extremes.

Increased acidity of rainfall.

Earlier drying of forests leading to increased forest fires in size
and intensity.

Increased cost of insurance as insurers pay out more claims resulting
from increasingly large disasters.

Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

2012-07-04 Thread Jeff Driscoll

after some thinking I realized I made a few wrong statements - see below

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 I think the explanation offered by Jeff is pretty good.   As long as a
 significant electric field is within the cell conductive region charged ions
 will be driven by that field in such a manner as to eliminate it.   This
 concentrates the electric field  so that it appears across the non
 conductive plastic.  The final system has 3000 volts across each of the two
 plastic insulators with a drive of 6000.  This assumes that there is a
 balanced system with equal insulators.

 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Jul 3, 2012 11:40 pm
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of
 effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte:
 Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

 I think your assessment is spot on Jeff.

 The only question in my mind is whether or not the mixing of the electrolyte
 caused by the evolution of gas at the working electrode might generate a
 varying electric field by redistributing the ions in solution.

 Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 23:17:01 -0400
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of
 effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte:
 Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
 From: hcarb...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

 Here are my two cents from reading up on dielectrics:

 With the 6000 V capacitor isolated from the electrolyte by the
 plastic, the electrolyte acts as a dielectric which reduces the E
 field in the electrolyte almost to zero in the middle but increases
 the the capacitance of the capacitor.

I am not an electrochemist  but this is my speculation.  There are two
mechanisms which decrease the E  field in the middle of the
electrolyte.   The E field is reduced  by  the dielectric properties
of the  electrolyte and by charged species (ions)  that move towards
the  plates.  The water is a dielectric because  the water molecule is
a dipole with a positive and a negative end.   After (1) the water
molecules align with the  electric field and (2) after the ions travel
towards the plates, there is no further current due to the 6000 V.

But what if the water was  replaced with a nonpolar fluid and had zero
charged species (ions)?   Then  there would be an E  field in the
middle of the electrolyte -  approaching the same E field as in a
vacuum when the electrolyte approaches a dielectric constant of 1
(same as a vacuum).   Benzene is a liquid and has a dielectric
constant of 2.2 while water has a high dielectric constant at 80.  So
fill the SPAWAR cell with benzene and the E field in the center of
SPAWAR's cell will be much higher.

Also, at steady state, there will be zero current in the electrodes
that are physically in the electrolyte (i.e. touching) due to the 6000
V capacitor outside the cell (i.e. not touching).

 If I call the electrodes in the solution plates A and B, then plate B
will become more positively charged than A and any charged species
(ion) traveling from the center of the electrolyte towards plate A is
trying to reach the 6000 V plates, the ion is not trying to complete
the circuit between plates A and B.

Not sure what this means for the issues Duncan is raising since I'm
trying not to get bogged down in details and I'm trying to focus on my
experiment replicating Mills's CIHT.

from Wikipedia:
--
Solvent classifications

Solvents can be broadly classified into two categories: polar and
non-polar. Generally, the dielectric constant of the solvent provides
a rough measure of a solvent's polarity. The strong polarity of water
is indicated, at 20 °C, by a dielectric constant of 80.10;[citation
needed]. Solvents with a dielectric constant of less than 15 are
generally considered to be nonpolar.[4] Technically, the dielectric
constant measures the solvent's ability to reduce the field strength
of the electric field surrounding a charged particle immersed in it.
This reduction is then compared to the field strength of the charged
particle in a vacuum.[4] In layman's terms, dielectric constant of a
solvent can be thought of as its ability to reduce the solute's
internal charge.






 If there is zero ionic current then I assume there has to be zero E
 field in the center of the electrolyte. As soon as the 6000 V is
 applied, there is a momentary current in the electrolyte and a
 polarization of the dielectric electrolyte. After that there is zero
 current assuming the plastic is an infinite insulator.

 So the positive ends of the water molecules are facing the negative
 plate of the capacitor and the negative ends of the water molecules
 are facing the positive plate of the capacitor. Initially, positive
 ions travel towards the negative plate and vice versa. But as the
 positive ions build up near

Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

2012-07-03 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Here are my two cents from reading up on dielectrics:

With the 6000 V capacitor isolated from the electrolyte by the
plastic, the electrolyte acts as a dielectric which reduces the E
field in the electrolyte almost to zero in the middle  but increases
the the capacitance of the capacitor.

If there is zero ionic current then I assume there has to be zero E
field in the center of the electrolyte.  As soon as the 6000 V is
applied, there is a momentary current in the electrolyte and a
polarization of the dielectric electrolyte.  After that there is zero
current assuming the plastic is an infinite insulator.

So the positive ends of the water molecules are facing the negative
plate of the capacitor and the negative ends of the water molecules
are facing the positive plate of the capacitor.   Initially, positive
ions travel towards the negative plate and vice versa.  But as the
positive ions build up near the negative plate, they start to repel
any newly arriving positive ions and therefore there must be an
increasing positive ion concentration with decreasing distance from
the negative plate at steady state.

I'm not an electrochemist so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or
not quite correct.

you can see some details on dielectrics here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dielec.html

http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/becker/physics51/capacitors.htm

I assume the water molecules nearest the electrodes feel the strongest
orientating E field compared to the center of the electrolyte.

I'm in the process of trying to replicate Randell Mills electricity
generating CIHT device which has a Lithium Bromide, Lithium Hydride
electrolyte.  Somehow Mills is creating electricity during the
production of hydrinos.  Should have it up and running in 2 months.
Details here:
http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620

Jeff

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
 At 07:26 PM 7/3/2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:


 There was one figure which shows the visual manifestations photographed
 from the experiments, with the theoretical model of the E-flds (on the
 right).  It was very clear that fields were present in the electrolyte, as
 one could see the manifestations of the field-lines in the photographs taken
 of the area above the electrodes.  Electrolyte concentrations varied from
 0.02 to 0.08M KCl.  I believe LENR typically uses 0.1M, so just slightly
 more conductive than this reference.  Now, this experiment was done using
 AC, 100Hz to 1 Hz.


 First of all, the work being criticized uses a DC field. AC is considerably
 more complicated. AC will, for example, effectively pass right through the
 acrylic wall. If this was 6000 V AC, at 10,000 Hz, and if it actually had
 some available current, the thing would blow up!

 Secondly, there is no question that electric fields exist in the
 electrolyte. But not fields of a few thousand volts per cm, produced by the
 external field. The external DC field has, essentially, no effect on the
 fields in the electrolyte, which are, in this experiment, produced entirely
 by the electrolytic voltage.

Re: [Vo]:The Ridiculous Demand for Excessive E-Cat Proof

2012-06-09 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Is that an anonymous hearsay source or do you actually have a quotable
 source?


 I heard directly (i.e.  not hearsay)  that one group with deep pocket
investors and engineers visited Rossi last fall and it was fiasco with
Rossi presenting a horribly set up experiment and attempting to pull
the wool over the engineers eyes.  The  engineers and investors were
totally turned off and went away.   Some components of the same group
went back to visit Defkalion 2 months ago,  again with deep pocket
investors and engineers,  trying to make a deal with Defkalion  but
were presented with bad  evidence,  bad experiments and poor
understanding of how to run an experiment.   The engineers and
investors were desperate for a definitive experiment but Defkalion
gave them essentially nothing and the investors and  engineers went
away with never coming back.  I heard second hand (i.e. hearsay) this
info on the Defkalion / engineer / investor fiasco from 2 months but
it was from a very reliable source.  My knowledge of the Rossi /
engineer / investor fiasco from last fall was direct knowledge (i.e.
not hearsay).

Yet Blacklight Power gives all the details of how to reproduce their
experiments plus a very convincing theory and very few on Vortex
really pay attention to them.  Vortex analyzes Rossi / Defkalion to
death but won't focus on more promising technologies.

I'm putting my money where my mouth is, I'm setting up a Blacklight
Power / CIHT replication with details shown here:

http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620

I found an investor who can pay for my equipment which will help a lot
since this will cost about $8,000+  in materials.  I'm taking time off
from work so I can get results quickly and should have initial results
in 4 months or less.

Jeff


On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Is that an anonymous hearsay source or do you actually have a quotable
 source?


 2012/6/7 Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com

 I heard of one group that went to Defkalion with rich investors and
 Defkalion either wouldn't or couldn't show a definitive test.   This
 group said that Defkalion had poor experiments, poor equipment and
 dumb scientists running it.

 Why not look more closely at Blacklight Power?  They have top notch
 scientists, great equipment and multiple detailed scientific papers.

 http://www.blacklightpower.com/

 I'm putting together an experiment to replicate BLP's CIHT experiment,
 you can see details on my website:

 http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620

 I found an investor to pay for my equipment - so I'm ramping up to
 build it.  Should take me 3-4 months to get results.

 Jeff

 On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Guenter Wildgruber
 gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote:
  Jed,
  we agree that Rossi is a complex character, akin to Karl May , which is
  my
  guess, which we discussed earlier, and where You and I disagree.
 
  Discard the money-aspect, plus add that Rossi is a true believer in his
  own
  design, which he keeps secret.
  ( very similar to Karl May, who had such a vivid imagination, that he
  had
  difficulties to discern 'reality' from imagination.)
  Nowadays the deja vu is eg in genetics, -- Hwang Woo-suk and his stem
  cell
  fraud.
  Was he in it for the money?
  NO.
 
  What we know about Rossi's devices is very little.
  It could be as low as COP 1.1 or 1.0, as the skeptics say: a mere pooof
  of
  water vapor.
 
  If so, is it stable?
  I doubt that.
 
  Lewan/Ny Teknik has been suspicously silent for some time.
 
  Why so?
 
  Guenther
 
  (to be sure: I believe that there is something substantial in LENR, else
  I
  would not waste a brain cell. all the more I am embarrassed by
  unsubstantial
  phony claims, which do a disservice to the task.)
 
  
  Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
  An: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Gesendet: 22:56 Donnerstag, 7.Juni 2012
  Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Ridiculous Demand for Excessive E-Cat Proof
 
  Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote:
 
  Rossi has no shame.
 
 
  That's true. He doesn't.
 
 
 
  No money needed = no scam.
 
 
  How can you scam someone without taking any money?!?
 
 
 
  I believe in LENR but not in Rossi, and feel embarrassed by his phony
  claims.
 
 
  His claims have been independently verified. They are not a bit phony.
 
 
 
 




 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:The Ridiculous Demand for Excessive E-Cat Proof

2012-06-07 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I heard of one group that went to Defkalion with rich investors and
Defkalion either wouldn't or couldn't show a definitive test.   This
group said that Defkalion had poor experiments, poor equipment and
dumb scientists running it.

Why not look more closely at Blacklight Power?  They have top notch
scientists, great equipment and multiple detailed scientific papers.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/

I'm putting together an experiment to replicate BLP's CIHT experiment,
you can see details on my website:

http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620

I found an investor to pay for my equipment - so I'm ramping up to
build it.  Should take me 3-4 months to get results.

Jeff

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Guenter Wildgruber
gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote:
 Jed,
 we agree that Rossi is a complex character, akin to Karl May , which is my
 guess, which we discussed earlier, and where You and I disagree.

 Discard the money-aspect, plus add that Rossi is a true believer in his own
 design, which he keeps secret.
 ( very similar to Karl May, who had such a vivid imagination, that he had
 difficulties to discern 'reality' from imagination.)
 Nowadays the deja vu is eg in genetics, -- Hwang Woo-suk and his stem cell
 fraud.
 Was he in it for the money?
 NO.

 What we know about Rossi's devices is very little.
 It could be as low as COP 1.1 or 1.0, as the skeptics say: a mere pooof of
 water vapor.

 If so, is it stable?
 I doubt that.

 Lewan/Ny Teknik has been suspicously silent for some time.

 Why so?

 Guenther

 (to be sure: I believe that there is something substantial in LENR, else I
 would not waste a brain cell. all the more I am embarrassed by unsubstantial
 phony claims, which do a disservice to the task.)

 
 Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 An: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Gesendet: 22:56 Donnerstag, 7.Juni 2012
 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Ridiculous Demand for Excessive E-Cat Proof

 Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote:

 Rossi has no shame.


 That's true. He doesn't.



 No money needed = no scam.


 How can you scam someone without taking any money?!?



 I believe in LENR but not in Rossi, and feel embarrassed by his phony
 claims.


 His claims have been independently verified. They are not a bit phony.

[Vo]:Blacklight Power

2012-05-13 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I put together a Powerpoint presentation on Randell Mills theory and
Blacklight Power.  Mills's theory involves fractional state hydrogen -
also known as hydrinos.  There is a link to the presentation on the
home page of my website and also below:

home page:
http://zhydrogen.com

link to pdf presentation:
http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/BLP-presentation-a.pdf

I  found some new information on Shelby Brewer who was on BLP's board
of directors from 1997 - 2000.In 2000, Blacklight power (or
someone related to BLP) bought a company that specializes in handling
large quantities liquid Sodium (Na) and Ammonia (NH3) and put Shelby
Brewer in place as the CEO of the newly named Commodore Applied
Technologies.  This is the exact same chemicals that Mills is
advocating.  Brewer had been  on BLP's board of directors since 1997.
 So it seems to me they were trying to figure out  what would happen
if they used large quantities of sodium to produce thermal energy.
Brewer  had been the top nuclear official in the Reagan administration
in from 1981 to 1984 and he later went on to be the CEO of ABB
Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power Businesses from 1985 to 1995.
Another person, Michael Kalleres (retired commander of US Second
Fleet), was also on the Board of Directors of Commodore Applied
Technologies and on Board of Directors of BLP for short time.



Here is what Shelby Brewer has to say about Randell Mills (on BLP's website):
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/Reviews/review_shelby.shtml
... Now along comes Randell Mills. Without expending billions or even
millions or even hundreds of thousands of US taxpayers' dollars, Dr.
Mills has apparently completed Einstein's quest for a unified field
theory. Dr. Mills' theory is presented in his book, The Grand Unified
Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (July 2002). This is a huge
achievement for three reasons. First, the Mills Theory tidies up
theoretical physics by stitching together quantum mechanics and
relativity. That in itself is a major triumph. Second, and more
important, the Mills Theory explains several major empirical anomalies
that have vexed physicists for decades: the sun's energy balance
deficit; the dark matter in space phenomena; and mountains of
atomic-electron spectral data that is inconsistent with prevailing
theory. Third, the Mills Theory gives rise to the possibility of an
inexhaustible energy source based on phenomenology not yet recognized
and accepted by the scientific community.
Remarkably, Dr. Mills has developed his theory and its energy
generation application as an entrepreneur -- without largesse from the
US Government, and without the benediction of the US scientific
priesthood. Because his enterprise does not suffer these two
impediments, it just might succeed. If so, Mills will be the next
Thomas Edison.

==

here is the news release from 2000:

Brewer Joins Commodore Applied Technologies

May 16, 2000

Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. (CXI, New York, NY) said on May
11 that the former Reagan Administration nuclear chief and CEO of ABB
Combustion Engineering, Shelby T. Brewer, had joined its management
team as chairman and CEO of CXI's Commodore Nuclear (Alexandria, VA).

 Brewer has oversight over 100-percent-owned subsidiaries, Commodore
Advanced Sciences, Inc. (CAS), and Commodore Solution Technologies,
Inc. (CST). He will direct the day-to-day activities of CXI's
subsidiaries and work closely with Peter E. Harrod, president and COO.
In addition, he will provide strategic guidance and access to private
industry and governmental agencies.

 Brewer joined Combustion Engineering in 1985 as president and CEO of
its nuclear power businesses and held that position through 1995. When
ABB acquired Combustion Engineering in 1990, Brewer's responsibilities
expanded. He led ABB's post-war initiative in Kuwait and in the former
Soviet Union following the end of the Cold War.

 President Reagan appointed Brewer Assistant Secretary of Energy in
1981, where he served until 1984. In the position, Brewer was the top
nuclear official in the administration. He is credited with a number
of major accomplishments, including the uranium enrichment business
turnaround, passage of the 1982 Nuclear Waste Act, initiation of the
Advanced Naval Reactor program, and streamlining the U.S. nuclear
regulatory processes.

 CXI said it is continuing its mission to focus on its proprietary,
patented solvated electron technology (SET)™ for the nuclear waste
market. CXI, through its wholly owned subsidiary Commodore Nuclear,
serves the nuclear mixed-waste market and the depleted uranium
hexafluoride (DUF6) stabilization program.

 CXI claims to offer the only broad range, commercially proven,
non-thermal system to effectively treat mixed waste at substantial
savings compared with incineration. Additionally, CXI is capable of
assisting the U.S. Department of

Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power

2012-05-13 Thread Jeff Driscoll

 

 below is a partial transcript of Shelby Brewer speaking at some presentation:

 http://seekingalpha.com/article/27312-commodore-applied-technologies-red-chip-conference-presentation-transcript

  The technology side, we have a process called Solvated Electron
 Technology and it's very, very unique. Basically and technically what
 happens is as we mix anhydrous ammonia with elemental sodium, the
 electrons come off the sodium.
 So you have a sea of electrons. You then put the toxic material PCBs,
 Furans, whatever it is in the solution and press all, the chemical
 formed, the toxic materials change to something benign. It operates at
 room temperature. ...
 ==


I'm trying to imply that the PCB's and toxic waste services that
Commodore Applied Technologies engages in is mostly a side business.
They mainly bought the company to get the expertise in handling large
quantities of liquid Sodium so they could experiment with Randell
Mills's theory.

Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim

2012-03-07 Thread Jeff Driscoll

he needs a gullible investor, or a fraudulent investor wanting to find
a bigger gullible investor,
he's probably learned the game with his previous fraudulent work

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 I read through all of this - and still do not understand how Rossi will get
 rich without a working device.



 Can anyone explain it ?

Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim

2012-03-07 Thread Jeff Driscoll

In anyone's opinion (especially Jed), and in order of convincingness
for an investor that wants to invest, which should be the most
convincing Rossi tests (include the date to reduce confusion)?

Also, are there any competent scientists who have *carefully* looked
at any Defkalion tests and put the weight of their reputation behind
it?  Christos Stremmenos?  What I mean by carefully is did they check
every wire and work closely with the calibration?  I suppose no one
really knows but what is the best answer to this?




On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 I meant to say Rossi DOES NOT care about credibility.

 Here is an astounding statement from Krivit:

 How did highly educated professionals in the scientific community not
 recognize the multiple contradictions in the Rossi story? How did they not
 see the scientific failure of Rossi's claim?

 Is there any person familiar with Rossi who does not recognize the multiple
 contradictions in the Rossi story?!? Who the hell is Kivit talking about? I
 and other have compiled lists of contradictory technical statements made by
 Rossi. There is such a flood of these, I can't keep up with them. I would
 not try to keep up with his contradictory assertions about his personal
 business. Krivit seems to think that he alone sees this, and the rest of us
 are blind to it. This is like looking at Niagara falls and thinking you are
 the only person who notices all that water and everyone else is oblivious to
 it.

 Fortunately, these multiple contradictions have no bearing on the
 scientific success or failure of the claim. That can only be established
 with reference to instrument readings, palpable heat, physical laws and
 other objective evidence. Despite the poor quality of Rossi's tests, they
 have proved beyond doubt that the claims are true. Rossi's personality and
 his contradictory claims about his business cannot affect this conclusion.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094

2011-12-23 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Mills says the hydrogen atom has 1 unit of angular momentum m*v*r  at
all orbit states from n = 1/137.0599 to n = infiity

though around the spin axis, it has 1/2 unit of angular momentum,
with the other 1/2 unit of the angular momentum spread out on other
axis.

this is why the hydrogen atom is said to have intrinsic spin 1/2 - but
people think of it as intrinsic but it's not, it's physical, it's
classical physics.  Mills's great cirlces are like trillions of
physical rings spinning around the nucleus.  It all follows classical
physics equations.

This is all convenient because a photon has 1 unit of angular
momentum, m*v*r which also equals hbar - the reduced plank constant

I have a write up here:

http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=350/#ComparingRadii-rmenu



On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 6:18 PM,  fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
 Its sort of like angular momentum.  (Mvr)
 Planck's constant of angular momentum is centered around both.  The
 difference is its the Compton frequency times length.

 -Original Message-
 From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Fri, Dec 23, 2011 1:13 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094

 In reply to  fznidar...@aol.com's message of Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:47:56 -0500
 (EST):
 Hi Frank,
 [snip]

 Is this angular velocity of the electron about it's own center, or centered
 on
 something else (e.g. the nucleus)?

That's I problem I have also.  I have found that the angular velocity of
 the
 electron equals the speed of sound in the nucleus during quantum transition.
 I
 am not really sure what the angular velocity of the electron is.  Its a weak
 point in my arguments.  I think it is somehow connected with magnetism but I
 cant qualify it.


Frank Z



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 22, 2011 5:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094


In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:44:10 -0800
 (PST):
Hi Jones,
[snip]
Yes, it is nothing new - Mills did this in 1990 rather emphatically - and
 even

then it was not new, but Robin - you seem to be downplaying your own
contribution.

Does not a 'screw-like' motion mesh with a Lissajous? or are you backing
 off
 of

that?

No. I guess it depends on how you define screw like. The Lissajous model
 at
it's simplest depends on an oscillation and a rotation, whereas a screw
 like
motion depends on two rotations for a closed form (creating a toroid), or
 one
rotation for an open form (i.e. straight line travel).
(A rotation may be seen as two perpendicular oscillations).
Even so, I still don't see how the screw like motion is used to derive the
electron speed, which can be calculated quite adequately without it.


Seems like there is a connection, but maybe not.






From: mix...@bigpond.com

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:30:49 -0900:
Hi Horace,

You probably did. I also pointed it out to Frank himself a couple of years
back.
The calculation of the electron speed is nothing new. It's also in the
 Hydrino
calculations on my web site. However I still haven't seen anyone show the
connection between that speed and screw like motion.

Robin,

I think I pointed out a similar relation a while back.  My memory is
not very good though. It had to do with the speed of thermal pulses
though very fine metal whiskers.  Heat pulses were measured at the
mean speed of the conduction band electrons, which is about 2x10^6 m/
s, which is about twice Frank's constant.  I never did find that
article though.


On Dec 21, 2011, at 4:54 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Mark Iverson's message of Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:34:04
 -0800:
 Hi,

 alpha*c is the speed you get for the electron in a Bohr orbit,
 utilizing the De
 Broglie wavelength. What is not apparent from the snippet quoted is
 why this
 velocity follows from a screw type of motion.

 Might I suggest all Not Off Topic (i.e., technical, aka, ?signal?)
 postings use NOT in the subject line to make them more obvious to
 those who care not to waste bandwidth on the personal aspects of
 the Rossi saga?

 In my latest session of ?serendipitous surfing?, I was scanning a
 PDF of the document in the Ref: section below, and noticed this
 little bit of text and the accompanying calculation:
 ==
 ?This screw type of motion obviously is optional and let us
 suppose that it corresponds to the electron motion in Bohr atom at
 orbit a0 with energy of 13.6 eV. Then the axial velocity is:

v = (e^2)  /  ( 2*h*epsilon_sub_0 )
  = alpha*c
  = 2.18769e6 m/s  (3)

 where:
 e = charge of electron,
 h = Planck constant,
 c = speed of light,
 alpha = fine structure constant
 ==

 Now what struck me was the result, 2.188e6 m/s.
 This is exactly twice the constant in Znidarsic?s work, 1.094e6 Hz.m
 Any

Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094

2011-12-21 Thread Jeff Driscoll

You can learn more about Randell Mills's (of Blacklight Power) theory
on my website - in particular I'm including some text from it as shown
below which can also be seen at this link:

http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=350/#FineStrucPart2-rmenu

My goal from the website was to explain some of the basics of Mill's
theory - I think eventually it will be accepted as fact.

I'm also setting up an experiment to verify Mills's claims as can be seen here:

http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620

Basically a high energy photon's first step towards becoming matter
happens at orbitstate n = 1/137.05999679 which Mills terms the
transition state orbitsphere.  There is a connection between
potential energy, the rest mass of the electron, the speed of light
and Einsteins mass/energy equation E = mc^2:

==
The following three questions are based on an initially stationary
electron at an infinite distance from a proton that is then captured
by the proton (because objects with opposite charges attract each
other) and ends up at orbit state n = 1/137.05999679  (i.e.  n =
alpha where alpha equals the fine structure constant which also equals
0.007296 )

Question 1:  What is the electron's orbit velocity when it reaches
orbit state  n = 1/137.05999679 ?
Answer:  The electron’s orbit velocity v equals c, the speed of light
(299792458 m/s).

Question 2:  What is the change in potential energy of the electron as
it “falls” from n = infinity to  n = 1/137.05999679  ?

Answer:  -510998.896  eV, which is exactly equal to the negative
of the rest mass of the electron in terms of electron volt (eV) units.

Question 3:  What is the sum of the following two energies when the
electron falls from orbit state n = infinity to  n = 1/137.05999679 ?
1.  energy radiated by the electron as it spirals down to n =
1/137.05999679
plus
2.  kinetic energy of electron at n = 1/137.05999679

Answer:  The sum of these two energies equals 510998.896 eV (because
both components are equal to 255499.448 eV) which is exactly equal to
the known rest mass of the electron.


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:54 PM,  mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 In reply to  Mark Iverson's message of Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:34:04 -0800:
 Hi,

 alpha*c is the speed you get for the electron in a Bohr orbit, utilizing the 
 De
 Broglie wavelength. What is not apparent from the snippet quoted is why this
 velocity follows from a screw type of motion.

Might I suggest all Not Off Topic (i.e., technical, aka, ‘signal’) postings 
use NOT in the subject line to make them more obvious to those who care not 
to waste bandwidth on the personal aspects of the Rossi saga…

In my latest session of ‘serendipitous surfing’, I was scanning a PDF of the 
document in the Ref: section below, and noticed this little bit of text and 
the accompanying calculation:
==
“This screw type of motion obviously is optional and let us suppose that it 
corresponds to the electron motion in Bohr atom at orbit a0 with energy of 
13.6 eV. Then the axial velocity is:

    v = (e^2)  /  ( 2*h*epsilon_sub_0 )
      = alpha*c
      = 2.18769e6 m/s                                  (3)

where:
e = charge of electron,
h = Planck constant,
c = speed of light,
alpha = fine structure constant
==

Now what struck me was the result, 2.188e6 m/s.
This is exactly twice the constant in Znidarsic’s work, 1.094e6 Hz.m
Any connection?

Frank, does this make sense to you?

-Mark

Ref:
Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM - 
Supergravitation Unified Theory
Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev
York University, Toronto, Canada
E-mail: stoy...@yorku.ca

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Inverted Rydberg Matter

2011-11-06 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Regarding ultra dense deuterium, George Miley and Leif Holmlid:

 In Rydberg matter:
-  the electrons and protons are inverted in terms of a metal (though
not clear what this means)
- the distance between nuclei in the planar Rydberg matter made from
deuterium is on the order of 150 picometers.  This is the non-inverted
Rydberg matter termed D(1) by Holmlid.
- there is a planar nature to the outer electron orbits

But I can't figure out how they calculate the 2.3 picometer  spacing
distance in the D(-1) inverted Rydberg matter.

Apparently they irradiate the surface with just enough energy to
create deuterium atoms that have a kinetic energy of 630 eV.  Then
they conclude that the deuterium  spacing of the inverted Rydberg
matter D(-1) being irradiated is 2.3 picometers.

They also create either protons or neutrons with kinetic energies of
1.8 MeV which has to be nuclear in origin - though I suppose it's
possible there is some sort of Mills hydrino process that can lead to
some nuclear process.

I have a website that describes Mills's theory.  It can be seen here
www.zhydrogen.com

===

From Holmlid's website:

My main research interest is Rydberg Matter, which is a state of
matter of the same status as liquid or solid, since it can be formed
by a large number of atoms and small molecules. For a more complete
description, see Wikipedia.

The lowest state of Rydberg Matter in excitation state n = 1 can only
be formed from hydrogen (protium and deuterium) atoms and is
designated H(1) or D(1). This is dense or metallic hydrogen, which we
have studied for a few years. The bond distance is 153 pm, or 2.9
times the Bohr radius. It is a quantum fluid, with a density of
approximately 0.6 kg / dm3. See for example Ref. 167 below!

A much denser state exists for deuterium, named D(-1). We call it
ultra-dense deuterium. This is the inverse of D(1), and the bond
distance is very small, equal to 2.3 pm. Its density is extremely
large, 130 kg / cm3, if it can exist as a dense phase. Due to the
short bond distance, D-D fusion is expected to take place easily in
this material. See Refs. 179 and 183 below and Wikipedia! See also a
press release and listen to a radio interview in Swedish (10.50 min
into the program).

==
here is one paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/244/3/032036/pdf/1742-6596_244_3_032036

also:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1fid=7807228jid=LPBvolumeId=28issueId=02aid=7807226

Holmlid writes:
Further studies of the dense hydrogen materials have shown that an
even denser material exists, called ultra-dense
deuterium or D(-1) (Badiei et al., 2009a, 2009b). The bond distance is
2.3 pm, which is found directly from the experiments,
corresponding to a density of 8 x 10^28 cm^3. The possible use of this
material as a target material in ICF was
recently discussed further (Holmlid et al., 2009; Andersson  Holmlid,
2009). This material is proposed to be an
inverted metal relative to D(1) (thus the -1), where the electrons and
ions have exchanged their roles relative to an ordinary
metal (Ashcroft, 2005; Militzer  Graham, 2006).

=

 Also:

 http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/MileyClusterRydbLPBsing.pdf

While these clusters were measured in metals at the interface against
covering oxides (Lipson et al 2005), the generation of these
 states within the whole volume of a metal (palladium, lithium
etc.) at crystal defects, Fig. 1, (Miley et al 2007, 2008) is
important. For surface states on metal oxides, the measurement of the
ultra
 high ion densities of 10^29 cm^3 was directly evident from the ion
and neutral emission by laser probing. These surface states were
produced involving catalytic
techniques (Badiei et al 2009). The distance d between the deuterons
was measured to be d = 2.3 ±.1 pm (1)
compared with the theoretical value of 2.5 pm derived from the
properties of inverted Rydberg
matter. The energy release of the deuterons from the surface layer was
measured as 630±30 eV.
The difference between protons and deuterons was directly observed and
the deuteron state
called D(-1) is well indicating the bosonic property against the
fermionic protons.
The material used in the experiments (Badiei et al 2009) as a catalyst
for producing the ultradense
deuterium is a highly porous iron oxide material similar to Fe2O3
doped with K, Ca and
other atoms. Thus, the number of defects or adsorption sites is very
high relative to a metal and
the open pore volume in the material is large, of course varying with
the method used to measure
it. Initially the D(1) phase is formed in the pores, and it is then
inverted to the
ultra-dense deuterium D(-1). When probing the porous surface with the
grazing incidence laser
beam, fragments of the D(1) and D(-1) materials are removed from the
sample surface.
Rydberg Matter is a long-lived form of

Re: [Vo]:Thermocouple extends beyond steel nut?

2011-10-14 Thread Jeff Driscoll

A fraudster (i.e. Rossi) could have yanked on that thermocouple just before
opening up the insulation wrapping making it fraudulently appear that the
thermocouple was close to the exit of the secondary cooling water when in
fact it was close to the hot steam input side of that brass manifold during
the test.  That thermocouple does not look like it is secured at all and
would slip under the tape with a solid yank.

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanTcoupleClose.jpg

Rossi has done test after test poorly for a *reason* - when will people
understand this?






On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
wrote:
 This photo by Mats Lewan of Nyteknik of the 6 Oct Rossi Tout thermocouple
 leaves little doubt in my mind that the Tout thermocouple can and probably
 did extend beyond the steel nut, toward the brass manifold. It was thus
 subject to the air temperature near that manifold.

 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanTcoupleClose.jpg

 Best regards,

 Horace Heffner
 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis

2011-10-08 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Can someone tell me where the exit water themocouple was located?  It
meausured a delta T of zero C to approx 9 C during the test.

Is there a photo?

Could it have been under the influence of an electic heater nearby?

Why didn't Rossi make a big tank of hot water?  120 MJ would heat 150
gallons of water about 50 C above starting temperature.

Though note that Horace says 120 MJ while Krivit says less - why is that?

Jeff


 Therefore E-Cat test was phenomenal success that surpassed even our wildest
 dreams. I think we need David Copperfield to explain the illusion, because
 no less skilled illusionist can not do such a convincing demonstration, if
 it was the gratest hoax in history of cold fusion.

 —Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

2011-07-05 Thread Jeff Driscoll

it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into
microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of
vaporization)

what thermodynamic point was incorrect?

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 Steam can be wet. Live with it.

 Water cannot leave the surface of water.  It must be in a gaseous
 form.  Learn some thermodynamics, Cude.  Each molecule that escapes
 the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy.

 T

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

2011-07-05 Thread Jeff Driscoll

it goes into colder water entering the ecat - but I contend that the
following possibilites exist for fakery

1.  large slugs of water are spit through the black hose and down the drain
2. the water stays in the Ecat and never leaves it
3. the input water is not measured correctly intentionally (fraudulently)

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 Jeff wrote:
 ...it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat 
 (heat of vaporization)

 Agreed, and where does that released latent heat GO?

 -Mark


 -Original Message-
 From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

 it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into 
 microscopic droplets while
 giving up latent heat (heat of
 vaporization)

 what thermodynamic point was incorrect?

 On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 Steam can be wet. Live with it.

 Water cannot leave the surface of water.  It must be in a gaseous
 form.  Learn some thermodynamics, Cude.  Each molecule that escapes
 the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy.

 T

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

2011-07-03 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Rossi has not done a definitive test.  I don't trust him on his input
mass flow rate (2 grams per second)  or whether or not it was turned
to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain.

Levi has a lot to gain monetarily so I don't trust his high flow rate
test (where there was no vapor produced).  I'll be less skeptical,
when independent groups definitively show a large tank of water being
heated with input power carefully monitored.

My skepticism comes from:

1. Rossi used a water vapor based analysis that could be easily faked
(i.e. faked input water mass flow rate or faked vapor output). He
could easily have done a test and made 30 gallons of hot water but
multiple times he chose the vapor down the drain / hide the evidence
method.

2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a
Relative Humidity meter (it can't).

3. Rossi is not trained as a scientist (diploma mill college degree -
is that true?) and virtually comes out of nowhere with huge claims.

4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company.

5. His fiasco with the thermoelectric device contract.

6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods
used to measure.

There is probably more, but I'm not following Rossi close enough to know it all.

Does anyone have comments they can make for or against Defkalion
regarding their legitimacy?

Jeff


On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Here is an analysis of Rossi's e-Cat steam test from Ed Storms. Actually,
 this is a combination of two messages he sent me, with a clarification
 inserted into item 2.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

2011-07-03 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Rossi has not done a definitive test.  I don't trust him on his input
 mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . .

 You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale?

not when I look at all the circumstantial evidence

 Do you trust that
 Krivit can? If he had any presence of mind I suppose he checked, and he
 would have reported a problem. He goes out of his way to find problems,
 finding mainly imaginary ones.

 or whether or not it was turned
 to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain.

 You saw in the video that it was steam! And in the video made by Lewan. You
 don't believe your own eyes?


 Levi has a lot to gain monetarily . . .

 From who? How? Where did you get this information? Levi's university will
 reportedly get a grant from Rossi, but grant money does not go the professor
 personally. If you suspect that results are tainted by grant money, you will
 not believe 99% of research.


 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a
 Relative Humidity meter (it can't).

 Yes, it can.

No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't,
maybe I should repost it.


 3. Rossi is not trained as a scientist (diploma mill college degree -
 is that true?) and virtually comes out of nowhere with huge claims.

 This is a bit like saying that Newton and Darwin were not trained as
 scientists. Newton invented most of what we now call science, and before
 Darwin biology did not exist, so there was no one to train them. Rossi is
 one the most brilliant and original inventors in history.



 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company.

 That has nothing to do with the claims, any more than Robert Stroud's murder
 convictions cast doubt on this expertise in bird disease. Rossi's claims
 have been independently confirmed by Defkalion, so there is no doubt they
 are real.


Greeks have their backs up against a wall financially speaking and
desperate people will do desperate things.


 5. His fiasco with the thermoelectric device contract.

 That was ordinary RD, not a fiasco. It may yet be revived and made
 successful.



 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods
 used to measure.

 He is not a scientist. He himself has said this many times. It is obvious he
 is not! This is like accusing me of not being a musician.


 Does anyone have comments they can make for or against Defkalion
 regarding their legitimacy?

 Their devices have been tested by Greek regulators; they have $280 million;
 their board of directors that would be suitable for any Fortune 500 company.
 Do you really, seriously think they are bamboozling the regulators, or
 faking any of this? As I said, that is akin to the notion that the moon
 landings were faked, or the 9/11 attacks were conducted by the U.S.
 Government.
 There is no doubt Defkalion's claims are real. That proves that Rossi's
 claims must have been real all along. Do you suppose he is faking and yet by
 a fantastic coincidence Defkalion tried the same material and it actually
 worked?
 Various skeptical doubts about Rossi's tests have been posted here and
 elsewhere, such as claims that wet steam can reduce enthalpy by a factor of
 20, or the flow rate and other factors might have made his output heat 1000
 times less than it really was, or that the meter does not work as claimed in
 the brochure and by various experts. All of these doubts -- without
 exception -- are without merit. Rossi's crude estimate of enthalpy made
 during Krivit's visit is correct. The temperature would not be 101 deg C if
 there was not mostly dry steam.

We don't know the atmospheric pressure or the back pressure in the
tubing.  Water boiling temperature increases by 1 degree C with a
change of 0.6 psi.  See here

http://www.broadleyjames.com/FAQ-text/102-faq.html

Also, we don't know the calibration of the instrument.  We can't rely
on +/- .1 degree C accuracy to verify huge claims. They may have
intentionally miscalibrated the instrument by 0.5 degrees C.
It's much better to heat 30 gallons of water from room temp to 50 C in
front of 20 independent people who all have their own temperature
measuring device.

Anyone can confirm this, and it has been
 confirmed millions of times in the last 200 years.
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

2011-07-03 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:


  2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a
  Relative Humidity meter (it can't).
 
  Yes, it can.

 No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't,
 maybe I should repost it.

 Experts in those meters such as Galantini say you are wrong. The
 manufacturer's brochure says you are wrong. I suppose they are right, and
 you are wrong. In any case, as Storms pointed out, the steam cannot be so
 wet as to materially affect the conclusions.

The capacitance changes as the partial vapor pressure of the water
changes.  But in saturated steam, the partial pressure of the vapor is
constant at 14.7 psi for all steam qualities between 0 and 100%.  This
is the key thing.  So the capacitance won't change as the steam
quality changes.

Also, the capacitance probe would get clogged up with water droplets,
which would block the vapor from reaching the plastic capacitance
sensor.  It takes an expensive, complex meter to measure steam
quality.

The meter can not measure steam quality no matter what type of method
(including non-standard) they use.

Here is what I wrote on the Relative Humidity probe last week:
=

Here are details on how a relative humidity sensor works (as
others have also mentioned).

It uses an extremely thin plastic (one manufacturer uses a one micron
thick polymer) between two metal plates which creates a capacitor.  I
assume there are holes in the face of the metal plates so that the
water can migrate into and out of the plastic faster.  This is because
the water couldn't migrate through the bulk fast enough if it just
went through the microns thick plastic exposed at the edge.  The
capacitance changes as the water is absorbed.

The manufacturer correlates capacitance with humidity and temperature
in air at 1 atmosphere (if they wanted to go to higher pressures then
then would have to add a device to measure pressure and add that as a
correlation - but few customers would really need the capability for
higher pressures)

here are details on the construction of Relative Humidity meters:
http://www.stevenswater.com/catalog/stevensProduct.aspx?SKU='51122'
http://sensing.honeywell.com/index.cfm/ci_id/140576/la_id/1/document/1/re_id/0
http://www.ddc-online.org/Input-Output-Tutorial/Humidity.html
http://www.jifbrunei.com/files/083DHumidity.pdf

The amount of water absorbed by the plastic depends on how many water
molecules hit the plastic per unit time which is directly related to
the partial pressure of the water vapor.  The sum of the pressure due to the
water vapor molecules plus the pressure due to the air molecules
equals 14.7 psia.  The plastic absorbs more water when the partial
pressure of the water is 3 psi than if it is 1 psi, for example.

So, for example the vapor pressure of water at 90 C is 10.1 psia and
therefore the air has a partial pressure of 4.6 psia (because 14.7 -
10.1 = 4.6).  The plastic probably does not even know the air is there
- i.e. the capacitance may not change much if the air was taken away
while keeping the water at 10.1 psia.

At 100 C (boiling), the vapor pressure of water is 14.7 psia and the
capacitance is some value.

Here is the key point:
At 100 C, how much water would the plastic absorb if the steam was
100% quality (i.e. dry) compared to 0% quality (i.e. wet or also known
as fog).  The answer is the capacitance would be virtually the *same*.
 The reason is because the partial pressure of the water vapor is the
*same*.  The amount of water molecules hitting the plastic stays the
same as the steam quality increases from 0 to 100%.

So therefore, a Relative Humidity meter can not be used in any way to
determine the quality (also known as dryness) of the steam and the
supposed expert Galantini made a huge mistake.

here are some graphs of water vapor pressure for reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_vapor_pressure_graph.jpg
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-air-d_689.html

Here are the specs on one of the probes Rossi used:

HP474AC Relative Humidity Probe specifications:

5% to 98% RH   -40C to 150 C
+/- 2.5% (5%...95%RH)
+/-3.5%(95%...99%RH)
Temp +/-0.3C

Note that it works at 150 C.  The probe probably senses a capacitance
change as the temperature is increased from 100 C to 150 C but the
water pressure would also have to increase so that more water was
driven into the plastic of the capacitor.

 The capacitance changes as a function of water vapor pressure. It
does not change as a function of steam quality.

here is the Testo 650 relative humidity instrument that also Rossi used:

http://www.ipi-online.com.au/test-and-measurement/data-loggers/testo/176-h2-data-logger

Galantini wrote the following:
...The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of
Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 .


from

Re: [Vo]: Proposed method for how Galantini measures steam quality...

2011-06-26 Thread Jeff Driscoll

 Jeff,

 thermometer was calibrated and unlike common belief, boiling point was not
 100 degrees, but 99.7°C ± 0.1.

So then you are relying on Rossi's calibration being accurate to
within +/- .5 C and believing Rossi who  comes across as a fraud
(hiding the evidence down the drain, terrible choice of experiment for
public demonstration, previous legal troubles, money problems etc.)?

It's so easy for Rossi to fake his experiment if you have to rely on +/- .5 C.

I'd rather see Rossi make 50 gallons of hot water so that everyone can
pull out there own uncalibrated thermometer  and measure that the
water went from 15 C to 30 C over a 3 hour period (for example).  A
thermometer that is uncalibrated will usually give the right delta
temperature but not the right absolute temperature.


On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:

 The fact is that steam must be dry if it's temperature is above 100.1 °C ±
 0.1 at atmospheric pressure.

 —Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat

2011-06-26 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:58 PM,  mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
  In reply to  Joshua Cude's message of Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:20:48 -0500:
  Hi,
  [snip]
 I was talking about running it above boiling, but way below the level
  needed
 to boil it all. Different thing. And it's easy. The power can range
  within a
 factor of 7. In this case, anywhere between 600W and about 5 kW.
 
  BTW (the latent heat of steam) / (the heat energy required to bring
  water to the
  boil) is a factor of about 6.7 (depending on starting temperature of
  water), and
  curiously close to the COP Rossi claims to be aiming for.
  In short, if virtually none of the water were converted to steam, and he
  was
  assuming that it all was, then it would neatly explain the conversion
  factor he
  is claiming.
 

 You might be thinking of another scenario - but if I'm guessing what
 you are saying then the best anyone could do is about 1.86 to 1 ratio.
  But this assumes that any liquid hot water needed to cool water vapor
 in a heat exchanger is included in the calculation (otherwise the
 ratio would be worse, less than 1.86 to 1).  I did this calculation,
 shown below, weeks ago. [...]


 There is no need for heat exchangers to arrive at the ratio of around 7. The
 argument goes, that if the water starts at 10C, then the amount of heat
 required to vaporize 1 g is 90 + 540 = 630 cal. The amount of heat required
 to bring it to the bp is 90 cal, and the ratio is 630/90 = 7. (Different
 starting temperatures give slightly different ratios)

Why would you divide the energy  to vaporize 1 g of water (starting at
10 C) by the energy to heat it from 10 C to 100 C (liquid)?  Seems
random to me.

I wrote out a whole scenario with (I thought) clear steps.  Give me
your reasoning and steps.


 These two scenarios result in the same quantitative data reported in one of
 Rossi's steam producing demos, because he only reports temperature, and
 input flow rate. So the same data is consistent (in Krivit's run) with 600W
 and with 5 kW.
 Rossi does not provide quantitative evidence that it should be closer to, or
 at, the high end of that range. He only makes pronouncements based on things
 like visual inspections, or unreported RH measurements, which indicate
 nothing.
 Now, of course, the fact that there is some steam, means it is not at the
 bottom of the range either, but in the videos where he shows the steam, it
 is not impressive.

Re: [Vo]: Proposed method for how Galantini measures steam quality...

2011-06-25 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 First, here is my conclusion based on the methodology and resoning below:

 If certain conditions are present, one can reduce this to a mass-in, mass 
 out problem, and you
 don't need to measure the volume of steam exiting in order to estimate 
 dryness

 I don't think anyone here was suggesting that the instrument used by 
 Galantini could measure steam
 quality directly.  What I am attempting to do is ascertain if there is a way 
 to make an indirect
 measurement with what variables we DO have, and I think I may have the answer.

 Let's discuss whether this method will work, and under what conditions...

 1) we know the flow-rate of water going in; can't remember but say its 
 10g/sec.
 2) assume the entire mass of water IS vaporized;
 3) we can easily calculate the volume of steam that would be generated each 
 second;
 4) *IF* the pressure inside the chimney is ambient, then the entire volume of 
 steam is exiting the
 chimney each second, else pressure would build up inside;
 5) assume that overall the process is relatively stable, with constant flow 
 of steam out the chimney
 and only minor fluctuations in temp and pressure inside;
 6) Given the above, the mass on the instrument's display of mass of water in 
 the steam MUST equal
 the mass of water going in.

 If the instrument is reading 10g/m^3, then ALL the inlet water is being 
 converted to vapor, and the

This is wrong.
I wrote in a another thread that the Relative Humidity detector is
pegged at 100% for any saturated steam with a quality between 0 and
100%.  The capacitance reading will not change as the steam quality
changes, it is not sensitive to steam quality.  So you can't measure
10 g/m^3 as vapor because the relative humidity meter only tells you
that there is saturated vapor in contact with it.  Are you trained in
science in anyway?  The Relative Humidity meter will never give you
steam quality.  Jed in particular needs understand this because people
seem to listen to him.

 steam is dry.  Volume is irrelevent *IF* the pressure inside the chimney is 
 ambient.  This also
 assumes the instrument's humidity sensor isn't getting bombarded by liquid 
 water, as we have
 discussed recently in our postings about how the polymer/capacitive sensor 
 works.

 The only critical elements here are #4 and #5.
 I propose that it is REASONABLE to accept these assumptions because of these 
 FACTS:
 1) There is only one place for the water vapor to go... Out the chimney!
 2) The pressure inside the chimney is the same as ambient as measured by the 
 instrument in question.

 If pressure was higher in the chimney then this would not be a valid 
 methodology.

 As I said very early on, there is a specific reason why both Rossi and 
 Galantini always specified
 the temperature AND pressure when being asked about how they measured the 
 steam quality. I've
 explained why the pressure is important, and I assume that the temperature is 
 important for the
 reasons stated by Finlay McNab,

 If the temperature of the vapor is above 100C and the pressure is 1 atm, 
 then an examination of the
 phase diagram of water suggests that no liquid water can be entrained in the 
 vapor.

How sure are we that the temperature is above 100 C?

Rossi made a crude measurement with a thermocouple, there is very
likely to be calibration error.  The steam exhaust could be anywhere
between 99 and 101 C (assuming he has a halfway decent temperature
measuring instrument).

Also, is Rossi measuring the steam or does he have it too close to the
source of heat?  Or is the thermocouple too close to the edge of the
pipe so that the room is cooling it?  We don't know. This is rough
measurement for a public demonstration, not a properly done experiment
to be peer reviewed and published.  There is no proof that they did a
proper temp probe calibration and put it at the right location.

So it is easily possible that there is a water vapor / water micro
droplet mixture (i.e. wet steam) with most of the mass in the form of
micro droplets (i.e. liquid) and a small fraction in the form of
vapor.

We can't use a crude temperature measurement to determine that it is
all vapor - because that measurement was crude with no proof of
calibration.




 CONCLUSION:
 If certain conditions are present, one can reduce this to a mass-in, mass out 
 problem, and you don't
 need to know the volume of steam exiting in order to estimate dryness...

 -Mark

Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat

2011-06-25 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:58 PM,  mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 In reply to  Joshua Cude's message of Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:20:48 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
I was talking about running it above boiling, but way below the level needed
to boil it all. Different thing. And it's easy. The power can range within a
factor of 7. In this case, anywhere between 600W and about 5 kW.

 BTW (the latent heat of steam) / (the heat energy required to bring water to 
 the
 boil) is a factor of about 6.7 (depending on starting temperature of water), 
 and
 curiously close to the COP Rossi claims to be aiming for.
 In short, if virtually none of the water were converted to steam, and he was
 assuming that it all was, then it would neatly explain the conversion factor 
 he
 is claiming.


You might be thinking of another scenario - but if I'm guessing what
you are saying then the best anyone could do is about 1.86 to 1 ratio.
 But this assumes that any liquid hot water needed to cool water vapor
in a heat exchanger is included in the calculation (otherwise the
ratio would be worse, less than 1.86 to 1).  I did this calculation,
shown below, weeks ago.

Basically in this fraudulent set up, the Ecat would do the following:

1. Create 1 kg of 99.9 C water from 10 C water which requires (99.9 -
10) x 4.18 kJ/kg/C = 376 kJ
2.  Using same water from step 1, make 1 kg of water *vapor* requiring
2257 kJ. Total input to Ecat required at this point is 376 + 2257 =
2633 kJ
3. Condense water vapor into micro droplets (i.e. fog) deep *inside*
the Ecat using a heat exchanger and use this heat to heat 6.00 kg of
cold liquid water from 10 C to 99.9 C.This is because 2257 kJ /376
kJ/kg = 6.00 kg (note that the units are correct).  Also, note that at
this point the total input energy is still 2633 kJ.

The actual/real end result is 6.00 kg of  99.9 C water and 1 kg of
micro liquid water *droplets* (fog or steam with 0% quality).

A gullible observer would think that the Ecat just produced 6 kg of
hot water and 1 kg of water *vapor* when it really made 6 kg of hot
water and 1 kg of  hot *liquid* water droplets.

The gullible observer would think that the energy normally needed to
create this is 4890 kJ because:
(6 kg + 1 kg) x (99.9 - 10) x 4.18 kJ/kg + (1 kg) x 2257 kJ/kg = 4890 kJ

While in *reality* it took the following amount of electrical energy:

(6 kg + 1 kg) x (99.9 -10) x 4.18 kJ/kg = 2633 kJ

So, the gullible observer would see 2633 kJ of electrical energy go
into the Ecat and 4890 kJ of thermal energy leave the Ecat.  This is a
ratio of 4890/2633 = 1.86

I can't think of any way of increasing this ratio using any other
similar method.

Jeff


 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:relative humidity

2011-06-22 Thread Jeff Driscoll

 Yes, you're on the right track... see my posting at 6/21 at 9:04pm.
 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48242.html

 I would bet that Galantini is making an indirect measurement of the liquid
 water content as explained in my posting.

 -Mark


no, there is no way to make an indirect measurement of steam quality
using a humidity probe that is designed for *air*


HD 37AB1347
HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor is a tool manufactured by Delta Ohm for the
analysis of air quality (Indoor Air Quality , IAQ). The instrument
simultaneously measures several parameters: Carbon Dioxide CO2, Carbon
monoxide CO, Temperature, Relative humidity and calculates Dew Point,
wet bulb temperature, absolute humidity, mixing ratio, enthalpy and
atmospheric pressure. All this with the P37AB147 SICRAM probe. The
probe SICRAM P37B147 does not measure the Carbon Monoxide CO. Also
combined temperature and humidity SICRAM probes, Hot wire Air speed
SICRAM probes, Vane air speed SICRAM probes and temperature SICRAM
probes can be connected to the instrument. The instrument, with proper
procedure, calculates the percentage of outdoor air intake (% Outside
Air) as a function of both carbon dioxide CO2 and temperature and the
Ventilation Rate. HD37AB1347 data logger has a storage capacity of
67,600 presets for each of the two inputs divided into 64 blocks. Use
the software DeltaLog10 version 0.1.5.0. The instrument is equipped
with a large dot matrix graphic display with a resolution of 160x160
points. Standards: ASHRAE 62.1-2004, Decree Law 81/2008. The rules
apply to all enclosed spaces that may be occupied by people. Should be
considered, depending on air quality, chemical contaminants, physical
and biological or outdoor air flow inside inadequately purified
(Ventilation Rate). Typical applications of the instrument with the
range of sensors mentioned above are: - Measure IAQ and comfort
conditions in schools, offices and indoor. - Analysis and study of
sick building syndrome (Sick Building Syndrome) and consequences. -
Verification of HVAC system. - Investigation of IAQ conditions in
factories to optimize the microclimate and improve productivity. -
Audits in Building Automation.
DELTA OHM, SIT, calibration centre

http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347



note the work enthalpy in the above text,  it measures the enthalpy of
the humid air!   not steam quality !!!

Re: [Vo]:relative humidity

2011-06-22 Thread Jeff Driscoll

no, the instrument gives the mass of water in air at some temperature,

so it is grams of water per kg of air,

how do you get steam quality from that?  steam quality is grams of
vaporized  water per gram of liquid and vapor.

for example, they need steam quality for measuring how much liquid
droplets are going through a steam turbine - there is no air involved
when measuring steam quality,

Rossi used the wrong instrument and I am sure about this,

Read up on mixing ratios - that is for air and water vapor combined
and we don't care about that.





On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 Jeff,

 Mass of water in = mass of water out

 It doesn't get any simpler.

 Everyone is assuming (wrongly) that they are using the instrument to measure 
 the liquid content
 directly, which the instrument clearly cannot do.  That is NOT what they are 
 doing.  You obviously
 didn't read my posting where I describe the simple algebra required to figure 
 out how this can be
 done...

 The instrument DOES provide a (calculated) value for the mass of water which 
 is in the form of
 vapor... Its called the mixing ratio (sometimes referred to as mass ratio) 
 and is displayed in
 g/cubic meter, which is exactly what Galantini states... device indicates 
 the grams of water by
 cubic meter of steam.  From that, one can easily work backward and calculate 
 the mass of liquid
 water using simple algebra... One can calulate the mixing ratio from the 
 humidity.

 I agree that this is not the most desirable method, but is valid, unless 
 you're claiming that they
 are violating the conservation of mass.

 -Mark


 -Original Message-
 From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:37 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:relative humidity

 Yes, you're on the right track... see my posting at 6/21 at 9:04pm.
 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48242.html

 I would bet that Galantini is making an indirect measurement of the
 liquid water content as explained in my posting.

 -Mark


 no, there is no way to make an indirect measurement of steam quality using a 
 humidity probe that is
 designed for *air*


 HD 37AB1347
 HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor is a tool manufactured by Delta Ohm for the analysis 
 of air quality (Indoor
 Air Quality , IAQ). The instrument simultaneously measures several 
 parameters: Carbon Dioxide CO2,
 Carbon monoxide CO, Temperature, Relative humidity and calculates Dew Point, 
 wet bulb temperature,
 absolute humidity, mixing ratio, enthalpy and atmospheric pressure. All this 
 with the P37AB147
 SICRAM probe. The probe SICRAM P37B147 does not measure the Carbon Monoxide 
 CO. Also combined
 temperature and humidity SICRAM probes, Hot wire Air speed SICRAM probes, 
 Vane air speed SICRAM
 probes and temperature SICRAM probes can be connected to the instrument. The 
 instrument, with proper
 procedure, calculates the percentage of outdoor air intake (% Outside
 Air) as a function of both carbon dioxide CO2 and temperature and the 
 Ventilation Rate. HD37AB1347
 data logger has a storage capacity of 67,600 presets for each of the two 
 inputs divided into 64
 blocks. Use the software DeltaLog10 version 0.1.5.0. The instrument is 
 equipped with a large dot
 matrix graphic display with a resolution of 160x160 points. Standards: ASHRAE 
 62.1-2004, Decree Law
 81/2008. The rules apply to all enclosed spaces that may be occupied by 
 people. Should be
 considered, depending on air quality, chemical contaminants, physical and 
 biological or outdoor air
 flow inside inadequately purified (Ventilation Rate). Typical applications of 
 the instrument with
 the range of sensors mentioned above are: - Measure IAQ and comfort 
 conditions in schools, offices
 and indoor. - Analysis and study of sick building syndrome (Sick Building 
 Syndrome) and
 consequences. - Verification of HVAC system. - Investigation of IAQ 
 conditions in factories to
 optimize the microclimate and improve productivity. - Audits in Building 
 Automation.
 DELTA OHM, SIT, calibration centre

 http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347
 


 note the work enthalpy in the above text,  it measures the enthalpy of
 the humid air!   not steam quality !!!

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-22 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:


 The only way to guage whether the steam flow is adequate is at the outlet
 of the chimney, NOT at the
 end of a 10 foot hose that has condensation going on inside it. . . .

 That is correct.


 I believe that the demo for Essen and Kullander did make the measurements
 of the steam at the
 chimney...

 They measured the steam quality at the chimney with the meter. I do not
 think they actually saw the steam emerge directly from the chimney.
 Many people have asserted that the two meters used in these studies do not
 measure by mass, or that they cannot combine this measurement with the
 temperature to measure enthalpy. They are saying the manufacturers of these
 meters are wrong, and Galantini are wrong.

yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality.
Galantini used the wrong instrument


I doubt it. In any case, the
 second test proved that the steam is dry. All other discussion is
 obfuscation, handwaving, unfounded accusations of fraud, and a waste of
 time.
 By the way, I have seen 30 kW of steam emerge from a pipe about 1 m from the
 steam generator. It is impressive, but the plume is surprisingly small. The
 vapor is visible ~30 cm from the end of the hose.
 Wet and dry steam generators at dry cleaners are not that large. They are 2
 to 5 kW. Here is a photo of a 5 kW wet steam stream:
 http://www.chewinggumremovalmachines.com/wet-steam-gum-removal-pressure-washers.php
 1.5 kW steam cleaners for home use are common. They do not produce an
 impressive plume.
 This looks like ~2 kW, used to clean an automobile interior:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pcOgkRbfQfeature=related
 http://wn.com/ICanSteamCleanwow
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-22 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 Jeff,
 You still did NOT read my posting and the simple algebra that is needed...
 I can't spoon-feed you knowledge Jeff; I have pointed you at the explanation 
 and you refuse to read
 it. You obviously aren't interested in learning...

 You stated AGAIN:
 yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality.
  Galantini used the wrong instrument.

 AS I ALREADY STATED, I AGREE THAT THE INSTRUMENT DOES NOT MEASURE STEAM 
 QUALITY!
 YOURE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT!  IT DOES GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO 
 CALCULATE IT THOUGH!

 THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR, AND SUBTRACTING THAT FROM 
 THE MASS OF WATER
 GOING IN WILL GIVE YOU THE MASS OF LIQUID WATER THAT IS COMING OUT!!


no it doesn't give the mass of water as vapor because it only works
for measuring the mass of water of vapor in AIR.
NOT in a mixture of vapor and microscopic water DROPLETS



 Its ALGEBRA-I level math...

 -Mark


 -Original Message-
 From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:03 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

 On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:


 The only way to guage whether the steam flow is adequate is at the
 outlet of the chimney, NOT at the end of a 10 foot hose that has
 condensation going on inside it. . . .

 That is correct.


 I believe that the demo for Essen and Kullander did make the
 measurements of the steam at the chimney...

 They measured the steam quality at the chimney with the meter. I do
 not think they actually saw the steam emerge directly from the chimney.
 Many people have asserted that the two meters used in these studies do
 not measure by mass, or that they cannot combine this measurement with
 the temperature to measure enthalpy. They are saying the manufacturers
 of these meters are wrong, and Galantini are wrong.

 yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality.
 Galantini used the wrong instrument


 I doubt it. In any case, the
 second test proved that the steam is dry. All other discussion is
 obfuscation, handwaving, unfounded accusations of fraud, and a waste
 of time.
 By the way, I have seen 30 kW of steam emerge from a pipe about 1 m
 from the steam generator. It is impressive, but the plume is
 surprisingly small. The vapor is visible ~30 cm from the end of the hose.
 Wet and dry steam generators at dry cleaners are not that large. They
 are 2 to 5 kW. Here is a photo of a 5 kW wet steam stream:
 http://www.chewinggumremovalmachines.com/wet-steam-gum-removal-pressur
 e-washers.php
 1.5 kW steam cleaners for home use are common. They do not produce an
 impressive plume.
 This looks like ~2 kW, used to clean an automobile interior:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pcOgkRbfQfeature=related
 http://wn.com/ICanSteamCleanwow
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:relative humidity

2011-06-22 Thread Jeff Driscoll

It would take a long time for water to evaporate out of any crevices,
so the liquid would stay around a long time,  any probe measuring
steam quality has to do it from below 100 C and above 100 C.

but this is all moot.

Galantini used the wrong instrument.

I can't find the amount of grams per kg of air at 100 C.  But I did
find that air at 50 C and 100% humidity has about 95 grams of water
per kg of Air.  This is a ratio of 10%.  See chart here:

http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/2007/07/humidity-effects-on-tuning-and-intonation/

so at 100 C I'd expect there to be something like 300 or 400 grams of
water per kg of air (that's 30% to 40% which I find amazing!)

Problem is the Ecat puts out microscopic liquid droplets (i.e. fog)
and water vapor.  The humidity meter Galantini used is designed for
humidity in AIR!  The Ecat does not put out any air.


Steam quality requires a complex expensive instrument.  It can be done
by expanding  pressurized steam into a chamber  and measuring the
resulting temperature of the vapor. For this method to work, all the
water has to vaporize during the expansion which requires an adequate
pressure change.




On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 Michele wrote:
 Condense on the probe?  What is the temperature of the probe?   100° C or 
 less?
 Galantini would not make such a mistake...

 Exactly... As soon as the probe was placed in the steam flow, some 
 condensation would occur on it,
 but within seconds the probe would heat up and the condensation will 
 evaporate.

 -Mark


 -Original Message-
 From: Michele Comitini [mailto:michele.comit...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:19 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:relative humidity

 2011/6/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:

 The problem with this is that water would condense on the probe. You
 would always see 100% liquid water, if this is how it's being
 detected, unless you preheated the probe. Tricky. There are
 descriptions on-line of how to measure steam quality, and this approach is 
 not mentioned at all.

 Condense on the probe?  What is the temperature of the probe?   100° C or 
 less?
 Galantini would not make such a mistake...


 When you ask for tech specs of instruments used by people that know
 how to make good experiments search for the physical principles that
 is behind the measure not the range or the main field of application
 of an instrument.Â  I bet Galantini knows how that probe works inside quite 
 well.

 He might and he might not. It depends on his specific experience. He
 might have never made a measurement like this before, though he would
 certainly understand the physics; he might simply assume that g/m^3
 referred to liquid water, without thinking much about it.

 So we should think Galantini setup instruments picking up the first probe 
 without understanding how
 it works.
 Or he always makes this kind of mesures just to fool people?


 Do you see his actual measured values anywhere? Seems to me I saw
 something somewhere.

 I recall that something is on JONP... no time to search in that mess.

 mic

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-22 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 More frustration than confidence!  Jeff kept on insisting that there is no 
 documentation that the
 instrument (actually sensor) can measure the liquid content of steam, to 
 which I AGREED, but I
 requested twice that he read my proposal of a very easily understood method 
 that one could calculate
 that value with information that the instrument DOES give us... And he did 
 not.  He was pretty much
 digging in his heals and refusing to even read and discuss what I was 
 proposing!  Gee, that's real
 open-minded...

 -Mark


 -Original Message-
 From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:28 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

 At 02:25 PM 6/22/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:

AS I ALREADY STATED, I AGREE THAT THE INSTRUMENT DOES NOT MEASURE STEAM
QUALITY!
YOURE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT!  IT DOES GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION
NEEDED TO CALCULATE IT THOUGH!

THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR, AND SUBTRACTING
THAT FROM THE MASS OF WATER GOING IN WILL GIVE YOU THE MASS OF LIQUID
WATER THAT IS COMING OUT!!


Mark,

I read and understand what you wrote.  I know exactly what you are
trying to explain.  But you are not understanding me and you don't
understand that an instrument designed for humid air does not work
with 100% vapor or a mixture of vapor and liquid water.

You literally wrote THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR

But the instrument measures mass of water as vapor in an air and water
vapor mixture.  It is made for measuring only in *humid air* with no
liquid droplets present.   It will not for the Ecat which is putting
out a state of water vapor and liquid water.  And there is no way to
mickey mouse some sort of method.

Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam

2011-06-21 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Abd is right,

I've been trying to say multiple times that the meter measures
humidity of air up to 98% humidity. The probe can go to 150 C without
being broken but that does not mean that it can measure accurately up
to 150 C.
But that's for *air* anyway. We want to know the steam quality. This
probe does *not* do this.

It takes an expensive complicated system to measure steam quality and
even then, the one I found on the market needs an overpressure of some
amount so that it can expand it into a chamber and then measure the
resulting temperature,

It measures *air* humidity. Not steam quality. !

Two months ago I offered to explain this to Jed on the phone and asked
for his phone number - because he kept misinterpreting what I was
writing on this subject. His reply was no and what's the
point?. Well if he keeps promoting Rossi without understanding
humidity vs. steam quality then the point is he is helping Cold Fusion
take a big black eye without learning the difference between humidity
measurements in air and steam quality.

Rossi is dumping the evidence down the drain. Why else would he not
dump it into a big tank and measure the temperature rise of the water?
Abd says he just wants to confuse people and keep competitors away -
I say it's because Rossi is a fraud.

here are excerpts from my previous emails over the past 3 months all
lumped together:

Rossi used this electronic device for electronic measurement (as was
reported) - model HD37AB1347. Relative Humidity probe model HP474AC
was attached to it.

Page three of this link (thanks to Horace) shows details of that probe
connected to the electronic device. HP474AC has the following
specifications:

http://tinyurl.com/45rwsvh

HP474AC Relative Humidity Probe specifications:

5% to 98% RH -40C to 150 C
+/- 2.5% (5%...95%RH)
+/-3.5%(95%...99%RH)
Temp +/-0.3C
=
Here is a link to a description of a throttling calorimeter which is
a device that measures the quality (wetness) of steam. Basically
the throttling calorimeter involves letting the pressurized steam
expand into a cavity and measuring the temperature of the resulting
gas. It only works with pressurized steam such as 30 psia steam or
higher so that it can expand down to 15 psia or atmospheric pressure.

http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2003/378.html?page=full
==

The HD37AB1347 device with the HP474AC probe is designed to measure
air with 0% to 100% humidity. It is not designed to measure pure
water vapor with tiny liquid droplets (including zero liquid droplets)
in it.

It isn't even close - there is no way that measuring Relative
Humidity will give you the quality (mass fraction of vapor) of the
steam. They might have somehow used the device to measure quality of
the steam in a non-standard non-typical manner but I can't think of a
way they might have done that. The capacitance as measured by the
probe would be vastly different when measuring air saturated at 100%
compared to pure water vapor (with or without tiny liquid droplets).

If someone is able to find out what the vapor looked like when it left
the hose then let us know. Was it transparent and high velocity? 12
kW should make a serious sized jet of water vapor that should condense
into whitish cloud some distance from the hose.
==
As far as I can see, they are still making mistakes by using a
humidity meter to test for the mass fraction of vapor to liquid water
- also known as steam quality

from their technical paper:

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.

http://tinyurl.com/68wqoyy

it says:
The system to measure the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo
System, Testo 650, with a probe guaranteed to resist up to 550°C. The
measurements showed that at 11:15 1.4% of the water was non-vaporized,
at 11:30 1.3% and at 11:45 1.2% of the water was non-vaporized.

here is the humidity meter

http://www.instrumart.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=28689gps=1

http://www.instrumart.com/assets/108/650AW.pdf

this does not measure the quality of the steam!

So they are again using a crappy temperature probe to figure out steam
quality (dry versus wet steam)?

This is so bogus.

If the boiling water has a back pressure of 0.6 psi, the temperature
will be raised by 1 degree C

see here:

http://www.broadleyjames.com/FAQ-text/102-faq.html
Is this the third time they have done this stupid method of
measuring evaporation of steam? Or is more than 3 times. Does anyone
have the correct count of times they have done this?

Why don't they feed the steam into a 55 gallon water tank and then
measure the temperature rise of the water as *everyone* has been
suggesting? They probably don't and won't because they are frauds.

Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam

2011-06-21 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Okay, Krivit got a mail from Galantini:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/galantini-sends-e-mail-about-rossi-steam-measurements-today/

Galantini wrote:

Good morning, on the request made to me today, as I have repeatedly
confirmed to me that many people have requested in the past, I repeat that
all the measurements I did, during tens of tests done to measure the amount
of not evaporated water (read liquid water, TN) present in the steam
produced by “E-Cat” generators, always was made providing results in “% of
mass”, since the used device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of
steam.
I confirm that the measured temperature always was higher than 100,1Â°C
and that the measured pression in the chimney always was equal to the
ambient pressure.

The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish
teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 .

The used device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam.

The device is the Testo (that's a translation artifact, the Text Code.
This is
http://www.testosites.de/export/sites/default/datalogger2011/en_INT/local_downloads/brochure_EN.pdf
Testo 176 H2 in this brochure.

The device does log (it's a data logger) g/m^3. But I'm pretty sure that
this is a calculated measurement, it's grams of water *vapor* per cubic
meter of *air.* Not steam as he says. I can't find any hint that this
device is intended to measure steam quality. I was unable to find an
operating manual.

There is no sensor in the device that would detect other than water vapor.
It's an RH meter!

It's looking now like Galantini did err.

Maybe some hero will appear with magic confirmation of how to measure steam
quality with an RH meter!

http://www.testosites.de/export/sites/default/datalogger2011/en_INT/local_downloads/brochure_EN.pdf
yes, this device, and its probes, measure the relative humidity of
*air* . It does not measure steam quality. What is Galantini
doing?

Re: [Vo]:New tests- by Nyteknyk

2011-05-02 Thread Jeff Driscoll

So they are again using a crappy temperature probe to figure out steam
quality (dry versus wet steam)?

This is so bogus.

If the boiling water has a back pressure of 0.6 psi, the temperature will be
raised by 1 degree C
see here:
http://www.broadleyjames.com/FAQ-text/102-faq.html

  Is this the third time they have done this stupid method of measuring
evaporation of steam? Or is more than 3 times.  Does anyone have the correct
count of times they have done this?

Why don't they feed the steam into a 55 gallon water tank and then measure
the temperature rise of the water as *everyone* has been suggesting?  They
probably don't and won't because they are frauds.

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 see please:

 http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece

  http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece
 Peter

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

Re: [Vo]:Why NyTeknik tests did not include a sparge test

2011-05-02 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Gaseous water vapor has 537 times more energy than liquid water droplets on
a gram for gram comparison (you wrote 20 times)

Jed, you wrote If he had used the RH meter used previously, the skeptics
would not have believed him any case, even though various experts has said
that meter is fine for this purpose. 

Can you explain this better as to what you meant so that I can zero in on
the important facts?  Relative Humidity meters do *not* tell you the quality
of the steam.

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 When I heard about these tests, I suggest they sparge the steam into a
 bucked. (You would not need a 55 gallon drum at this power level.) It turns
 out my message arrived after the tests were complete. That's a shame.

 Here is the procedure I suggested:

 1. Weigh the container.
 2. Add water, weigh it again.
 3. Measure temperature of the water in the container.
 4. When full steam production is reached, insert the end of the hose to
 bottom of the container. (This should be a short hose.)
 5. Hold it for a short, measured time, say 5 or 10 minutes. (This is
 important -- a long test does not work.)
 6. Remove hose. Measure the temperature again, and weigh everything again.
 7. The increase in weight and temperature gives the full enthalpy and the
 extent to which the steam was wet.

 Here is what Mats Lewan wrote to me today:

 The mass [of water in the bucket] was about 5 kg, including some vapor
 that was condensed in the bucket (the hose was kept under water). Impossible
 of course to say exactly how much was condensed in the tube and how much in
 the bucket.

 We did not measure the temperature.

 I cannot see that this could give much information as the bucket in no way
 is an isolated system. We have a completely uncontrolled loss of heat from
 the bucket.


 He also mentioned that the hose is long, as you see in the video.

 I wrote back:

 You did a pretty good job!

 If you have a chance to do it again, the trick is to measure the mass and
 temperature of the water in bucket *over a short period of time*, say 5 or
 10 minutes, close to the start of the test. The reasons is -- as you say --
 there is uncontrolled heat loss from the bucket. So, you start when the
 temperature difference between the bucket and the room air is small. And you
 continue for only a short while, so that not much heat is lost.

 Stir the bucket vigorously to be sure the water temperature is uniform.

 The heat lost in the hose is a problem, so it is better to do this test
 with a short hose.

 It is not the most accurate method, but it is a good back up, or secondary
 confirmation, of your primary method.


 People here who are complaining about wet versus dry steam should note that
 the heat required to heat the water to boiling exceeds input power by a
 small margin, and you can see for yourself there was steam coming out of the
 end of the long hose. I realize there are claims that wet steam can have
 only 1/20th as much enthalpy as dry steam, but even at that ratio there is
 still significant heat from this test. In any case, the engineering
 textbooks disagree with that hypothesis. I am sure the enthalpy of that
 steam was reasonably close to the amount estimated by Lewan.

 If he had used the RH meter used previously, the skeptics would not have
 believed him any case, even though various experts has said that meter is
 fine for this purpose. The sparge test would have underestimated the
 enthalpy by a large fraction, with such a long hose.

 Anyway, there have been plenty of other tests previously with both flowing
 water and steam, and there will plenty more tests in the future.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:New tests- by Nyteknyk

2011-05-02 Thread Jeff Driscoll

you wrote People who understand these meters tell me it is not a joke at
all. The meter with that probe is fine for that purpose. There would not be
much point to making an RH meter probe is intended for a range of
temperature up to 300°C that does not work with steam.

My guess (without digging up the probe manual which I've read some weeks
ago) is the probe is capable of surviving up to 300 C, not that it correctly
measures relative humidity up to 300 C.

But this is a moot point because any test that Rossi does is going to have
100% Relative humidity at the end of the hose because the steam is partially
condensing already when it leaves the hose.

see here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity

How can a Relative Humidity probe measure the ratio of the mass of vapor to
the mass of liquid droplets when it is pegged at 100%?  If Noone Noone comes
back with some capacitance thing I'm going to ask him to do some more
research because I can't explain science to him.

Re: [Vo]:Why NyTeknik tests did not include a sparge test

2011-05-02 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I wrote too quickly without thinking when I wrote 537 times more energy,

It takes about 537 times more energy to vaporize 1 gram of water than to
raise that same gram of water by 1 degree C, but this is not that
relevant.
What is more relevant is that it takes 1 unit of energy to raise the
temperature of water from 10 C to 100 C and then 6 units of energy to
completely vaporize that water.

Knowing how much was vaporized is extremely important and ca not be left to
a Relative Humidity meter that withstands 300 C but was not built to measure
steam quality.  If you can, go back and ask those experts again regarding
this RH meter.  I'm guessing they might not be so sure that the probe is
appropriate.

I'm absolutely certain that the RH probe is not giving *any* useful
information on the steam quality.




On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

  Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:

  Gaseous water vapor has 537 times more energy than liquid water droplets
 on a gram for gram comparison (you wrote 20 times)


 Various people have come up with different numbers. I think I recall 20
 times.



 Jed, you wrote If he had used the RH meter used previously, the skeptics
 would not have believed him any case, even though various experts has said
 that meter is fine for this purpose. 

 Can you explain this better as to what you meant so that I can zero in on
 the important facts?


 Sorry, I do not know. A couple of people who seem to know a lot about
 meters contacted me and said that this probe is intended to work with steam
 up to a high temperature (I think it was 300°C) and the purpose of it is to
 determine how wet the steam is. Apparently, Prof. Galantini knows what he is
 doing.

 In the EK report they cite a simple equation showing that if 2% if the
 steam is wet, the other 98% is dry, so you take the enthalpy as 98% of the
 rated value. That same equation is shown in various on-line reference books
 about steam. So I assume it is right.



   Relative Humidity meters do *not* tell you the quality of the steam.


 Apparently they do have a mode for that, but I do not know the details.

 Anyway, there is plenty of other evidence that the machine produces the
 level of heat the steam tests indicate, especially the flowing water test of
 Feb. 10. Various skeptics here have claimed it might be wrong, but they have
 not shown how any of the 4 parameters might be significantly wrong, so I do
 not think they have made their case.

 A 55-gallon tank would not be needed for this volume of steam. The bucket
 they used would suffice, since you can only do the test for 5 or 10 minutes.
 At hydrodynamics they do it for about 15 minutes as I recall. That machine
 produces a huge volume of steam.

 - Jed

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Swedish physicists on the E-cat: “It’s a nuclear reaction” / The used powder contains ten percent copper

2011-04-06 Thread Jeff Driscoll

As far as I can see, they are still making mistakes by using a humidity
meter to test for the mass fraction of vapor to liquid water - also known as
steam quality

from their technical paper:

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29
.

http://tinyurl.com/68wqoyy
it says:

The system to measure the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo
System, Testo 650, with a probe guaranteed to resist up to 550°C. The
measurements showed that at 11:15 1.4% of the water was non-vaporized, at
11:30 1.3% and at 11:45 1.2% of the water was non-vaporized.
here is the humidity meter
http://www.instrumart.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=28689gps=1

this does not measure the quality of the steam!

the E-cat could just be squirting liquid water out and into the sink drain
without converting it to steam

they also write in the technical paper

To the right at the chimney, a black hose of heavy rubber, for high
temperatures, carries the hot water/steam to the sink on the wall of the
adjacent room.

why don't they make 55 gallons of hot water? dump the steam into a copper
tube that is in a 55 gallon drum of water

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:58 AM, SHIRAKAWA Akira
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote:

On 2011-04-06 13:51, Terry Blanton wrote:

Ah! Piccys of naked ECats!

In the technical report itself there are even more pictures of them:

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29
.

http://tinyurl.com/68wqoyy

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device

2011-03-11 Thread Jeff Driscoll

This link describes the difficulties of burning boron (forms molten layer
that shields the remaining boron from oxygen) and says that by adding some
percentage of magnesium the burning issues are better.
http://www.afsbirsttr.com/Library/Documents/Innovation-050610-MACHI-OSD05-T001.pdf

Also the same link lists the kJ/g for solid boron,  59 kJ/g.   Solid Boron
is 2.35 g/cm^3 and this works out to about 138 MJ/liter which is the same
value found on wikipedia

But I can't find the kJ/g or MJ/liter for powdered Boron.

Note that powdered Aluminum is 3.8 times less dense than solid aluminum.

So is Boron 3 to 4 times less dense than solid Boron?  If so,  Alan's number
of 53 hours of run time should be reduced by a factor of 3 down to 17.6
hours.There is no way to ignite solid Boron - it has to be powder.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  At 05:54 PM 3/11/2011, Jones Beene wrote:

 Well, yes. Borates may be non-toxic, but how cleanly do you think a boron
 fill in this kind of configuration could burn in air?
 Think about it!  It’s completely out of the question !


 http://www.islandone.org/Launch/boron-sharp-article.htm

 Boron combustion (including air) is a very rich research field,
 particularly in rocketry.
 They don't seem to think it's a problem leaving boron combustion products
 in the atmosphere.

Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device

2011-03-05 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Alan's website seems to have mistakes -

http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Alan does calculations assuming that Rossi's 1 liter reactor (as described
by professor Levi) was filled with some type of chemical that could heat the
water.  Supposedly the February test ran 16 kW on average for 18 hours.
(16,000 W) x (18 hour) x (3600 sec/hour) x (1 J/sec per Watt) x (1
MJ/100 W) = 1037 MJ emitted by 1 liter.  This means there needs to be a
chemical that has an energy density of 1037 MJ/liter

Diesel equals 32 MJ/liter

For example at the end of his website Alan incorrectly writes that 1 liter
of diesel would run 7.25 hours if it were producing 16 kW and using external
air.  The correct number is that 1 liter of diesel could run only 0.55 hours
at 16 kW.  This is 17.45 hours short of the actual run of 18 hours.

So diesel has an energy density (MJ/liter) that is off by a factor of 33
(because 18 hours divided by 0.55 hours equals 33).  In other words, burning
diesel would not explain Rossi's test.

Beryllium at 125 MJ/l would last 2.2 hours so it is too low by a factor of 8
(because 18 hours divided by 2.2 hours equals 8.6)

Aluminum at 83.8 MJ/l would last 1.45 hours so it is too low by a factor of
12 (because 18 hours divided by 1.45 hours equals 12).  But this is for
solid aluminum and solid aluminum is almost 4 times more dense than powdered
aluminum.  So if Rossi had used 1 liter of powdered aluminum he would only
get 0.38 hours  (or 23 minutes) of 16 kW of heat output.  It would be
impossible to ignite solid aluminum - but I assume easy to ignite powdered
aluminum.  I assume powdered aluminum would make a lot of Al2O3 smoke -
which is white (like steam).  Did anyone smell the steam output?  Did they
smell steam or anything else?

I assume the same would apply for extremely toxic Beryllium which would have
to be in powdered form for it to ignite with air.  The product is Beryllium
Oxide which is not toxic in solid form from what I read.  But I don't know
if this produces Beryllium Oxide smoke which may or may not be toxic.

16 kW using the following would be:
Boron at 138 MJ/l would last 2.4 hours (but would have to be in powdered
form and this lessens the energy density)
Graphite at 72.9 MJ/l would last 1.3 hours (about same as anthracite coal)
 Nitroglycerine at 65 MJ/l would last 1.1 hours
TNT at 32 MJ/l would last .55 hours (33 minutes)
Liquid H2 at 10.1 MJ/l would last .17 hours (10 minutes)

Note that the different numbers for MJ/l for  diesel, gasoline, H2 etc. used
by wikipedia and Alan can be attributed to Higher Heating Value versus Lower
Heating Value (I assume).

Higher Heating Value assumes the products of combustion are cooled to 25 C
(room temp) while the Lower Heating Value assumes the resulting water vapor
is not condensed (so I assume that means the gasses stay above 100 C - but I
see references to 150 C also - and I assume that is to make sure nothing
condenses)

If Rossi's reactor were 2 liters rather than 1 liter then all the
calculations of  run time hours can be multiplied by two (such as diesel
could run for 1.1 hours instead of .55 hours).  But still, how do you burn
diesel without a combustion chamber and various air and fluid pumps?

this is from Alan's website:
If the ENTIRE *1 liter* volume is composed of the fake material :
Lithium ion battery : 0.81 hours
Diesel, external oxygen : 7.25 hours
Compressed Hydrogen, external oxygen : 0.81 hours
Beryllium, external oxygen : 28.1 hours
(I haven't set up the calculations for Beryllium with Compressed Oxygen).

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 Thanks for your comments.  I think it's worth finishing this up.

 I've taken the liberty of renaming the subject line to separate it from the
 1MW discussion and to add keywords

 Previous discussion started at :
 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43298.html

 The index remains as :
 http://lenr.qumbu.com/  (which will pick up the latest version).

 I've posted a new version V2 :
 http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php

 Main changes :

 a) On re-reading the Feb report, I see that Levi was allowed to look INSIDE
 the reactor chamber
 The bad news is that he doesn't provide a volume for the reactor as a
 whole!

 b) I've summarized some of the discussions (mainly with Jed Rothwell)

Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device

2011-03-05 Thread Jeff Driscoll

to do the calculations in my previous email I used 16 kW = 57.6 MJ/hour
because:

(16,000 W) x (3600 sec/hour) x (1 MJ/100 J) x (1 J/sec per Watt) = 57.6
MJ/hour

Boron (137.8 MJ/liter) and Berylium (125.1 MJ/liter) have the highest energy
densities that I listed.But note that this is for the solid form only.
Powdered form would be 3 or 4 times less dense (assuming the same change in
density as aluminum to aluminum powder) in terms of energy per volume.  That
puts them in the 30 to 50 MJ/liter range and means they would not last more
than 1 hour at 16 kW.

Note that thermite (powdered aluminum and iron oxide)  at 18.4
MJ/liter would last 19 minutes when producing 16 kW from 1 liter of
material.



On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Alan's website seems to have mistakes -

 http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

 Alan does calculations assuming that Rossi's 1 liter reactor (as described
 by professor Levi) was filled with some type of chemical that could heat the
 water.  Supposedly the February test ran 16 kW on average for 18 hours.
 (16,000 W) x (18 hour) x (3600 sec/hour) x (1 J/sec per Watt) x (1
 MJ/100 W) = 1037 MJ emitted by 1 liter.  This means there needs to be a
 chemical that has an energy density of 1037 MJ/liter

 Diesel equals 32 MJ/liter

Re: [Vo]:Replicating Rossi at home

2011-01-31 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Most likely there is some secret ingredient and / or method that Rossi uses
that we don't know.  What are the chances that you will replicate it?  How
about trying to reproduce Mills / BLP experiment ? The ingredients are
listed in his paper and Mills told me that it works every time.  He steered
me towards the chemical mixtures listed below for experiment that I'm
planning to do.

This is the BLP paper that gives details:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/Eng%20Power050410S.pdf

The method I plan to use to replicate it is on my website:

www.waterarc.com

I'm setting up to do the one listed under Fall/Winter 2010 Experiment #1

There are 4 different scenarios (you can pick A,B,C or D)

(A)   KH, Mg, TiC, AgCl
(B)   KH, Mg, TiC, EuBr2
(C)   KH, Mg, TiC, MgF2
(D)   NaH, Mg, TiC, LiCl

where KH = Potassium Hydride, Mg = Magnesium, TiC = Titanium Carbide, LiCl =
Lithium Chloride, MgF2 = Magnesium Flouride, EuBr2 = Europium Bromide,  AgCl
= Silver Chloride

I was going to do scenario (A)

I'm still in the beginning stages of my experiment - designing the vessel
etc.  Mainly because of funding issues.  In the meantime I'm making a
website that better explains Mills hydrino theory to the lay person (just
the basics, nothing fancy). It should be ready in a few weeks.


On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:44 PM, dang...@scrilab.org wrote:

 Gentlemen, I am a gadgeteer (ex JPL in the '80s, worked on Shuttle
 experiments) with a small shop and I try to replicate claims such as
 Rossi-Focardi and other affordable setups.
 I got a 2 deg. C anomalous rise from the Les Case deuterium/palladium doped
 activated charcoal device 10 years ago, but it was not scalable and the
 delta T was minuscule for practical purposes.
 I have purchased some 3u Ni powder and will make a metal block to house a
 small ceramic tube holding the Ni with plugs of qtz wool at the ends to
 allow H2 passage.  The block will also house a cartridge heater and a
 thermocouple.  All this contained in a pipe with electrical and H2
 feedthroughs in the caps.

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion

2011-01-28 Thread Jeff Driscoll

don't (or you may not want to)  click on that tinyurl website from Horace's
email,

it might have trojans or virus,

(I'm not referring to his website in his signature, just the tinyurl one
regarding shoes)

when I clicked on it, my virus software said that a .exe file was
communicating with outside websites, so I powered down my computer by
pushing the power button,




On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:

 Having Known Terry for a long time, I expect  Lynch shoes might be of more
 interest than Byrne coffee cups:

 (Warning!  Don't look if erotica offends):

  *http://tinyurl.com/4b3osvb*
 *
 *
  Best regards,

 Horace Heffner
 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/



  On Jan 28, 2011, at 2:37 PM, albedo5 wrote:

 Don't you mean David Byrne?

 http://www.1stincoffee.com/alien-byrne-cups.htm

 (I still have one.)

 On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Could Rossi be from the future?

 No, David Lynch.



  Best regards,

 Horace Heffner
 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Vo]:HP474AC probe measures Relative Humidity, not steam quality

2011-01-22 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Rossi used this electronic device for electronic measurement (as was
reported) - model  HD37AB1347.   Relative Humidity probe model HP474AC
was attached to it.
Page three of this link (thanks to Horace) shows details of that probe
connected to the electronic device.  HP474AC has the following
specifications:

http://tinyurl.com/45rwsvh
HP474AC Relative Humiditiy Probe specifications:
5% to 98% RH   -40C to 150 C
+/- 2.5% (5%...95%RH)
+/-3.5%(95%...99%RH)
Temp +/-0.3C
This probe does not measure the amount of liquid water droplets in the
steam (ie. mass fraction of water vapor to to total water).  It measures
Relative Humidity (Relative Humidity measures how saturated the air is for a
given temperature).
What we want is a a device that measures quality of the steam.  For
reference, 100% quality = 100% vapor.
How did they confirm that the water vapor was truly vapor?  A visual
description would go a long way.
As was calculated in a previous email (and shown below), at a hose  diameter
of .44 (1 cm^2), the velocity of the water vapor should be 198 mph. At .63
inner diameter (2 cm^2)  for the hose, the water vapor will be exiting at 94
mph.  Also the vapor should be transparent as it leaves the hose until it
starts to condense in the air.  I read that the steam was vented outside the
room.  What did it look like in terms of volume and transparentness?
I tend to believe that Rossi is legitimate (from what I hear on the
grapevine).  But we have to have our facts straight when it comes to listing
devices that measure relative humidity and saying they measure the quality
of the steam.  I'm open to the possibility that this probe can measure
quality of the steam in some undocumented manner, but let's hear how that is
done. The documentation does not say it.


from a previous email, below are the assumptions used to calculate the vapor
velocity:

Jeff D. wrote:
The calculations of the steam velocity below translates to a 188 mph jet of
steam coming out of a hose having an area of 1 cm^2  (equates to a 1.13 cm
inner diameter hose or .44 inner diameter)
Double the area of the hose and the velocity will drop by a factor of 2 to
94 mph.
Jones Beene wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Here are some calculations that imply certain water/humidity effects which
should have been observed at the demo.
This is from an associate LENR researcher - Jeff Morriss, in response to the
other issues on steam/vapor raised by Jeff Driscoll and Peter van Noorden,
which so far do not have convincing answers.

Jeff M. wrote:
Nagel states that 150 grams of water are boiled every 30 sec, or 5 cc/sec.
Taking the density of steam at 100C as .590 Kg/m**3 and ratio-ing it against
the density of liquid water as 1000 kG/m**3 yields a volume increase of
1690. So each 5 cc of water is converted into 8450 cc of steam every second.
If we estimate the area of the vent hose at ~1 cm**2, then the steam
velocity must be 8450 cm/sec of 84.5 m/sec. This is about 1/4 the speed of
sound and should produce quite a jet of steam. Did anyone observe this?
Also, the steam would condense and quickly produce a saturated atmosphere
and condensation on metal surfaces. Again, did anyone observe this?

Re: [Vo]:HP474AC probe measures Relative Humidity, not steam quality

2011-01-22 Thread Jeff Driscoll

So, reiterating what others are saying in reply to my email:

The HD37AB1347 device with the HP474AC probe is designed to measure air with
0% to 100% humidity.  It is not designed to measure pure water vapor with
tiny liquid droplets (including zero liquid droplets) in it.

 It isn't even close - there is no way that measuring Relative Humidity will
give you the quality (mass fraction of vapor) of the steam.  They might have
somehow used the device to measure quality of the steam in a non-standard
non-typical  manner but I can't think of a way they might have done that.
The capacitance as measuared by the probe would be vastly different when
measuring air saturated at 100% compared to pure water vapor (with or
without tiny liquid droplets).

If someone is able to find out what the vapor looked like when it left the
hose then let us know.  Was it transparent and high velocity?  12 kW should
make a serious sized jet of water vapor that should condense into whitish
cloud some distance from the hose.
here again, are the specifications on that probe:
http://tinyurl.com/45rwsvh

HP474AC Relative Humiditiy Probe specifications:
5% to 98% RH @  -40C to 150 C
+/- 2.5% (5%...95%RH)
+/-3.5%(95%...99%RH)
Temp +/-0.3C
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:44 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:36:13 -0800
 (PST):
 Hi,
  
 
 
 Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
 
 Consider that droplets can't form unless the RH is 100%. Anything less
 than
 that
 and no droplets form.
 In short if they measure an RH  100% then the steam must be dry.
 
 So, if the RH is below 100% you can surmise the steam is fully dry (0%
 wet)but
 if the RH is above 100% the RH meter is uselss for telling you
 
 how much less dry (or more wet) the steam is ?
 Harry
 
 You can't have RH  100%, but it could be exactly 100%, in which case you
 are
 indeed no wiser.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

2011-01-18 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Was the steam exiting the Rossi device transparent or was it an opaque
white? (right at the top where it transitions from the aluminum foil covered
chimney to the black hose)

If it is transparent then that would mean it is water vapor - and truly 12
kW of steam.

But if it was white then that would indicate condensed tiny
liquid droplets (or ultrasonic fogging) and fraudulent scamming.

Water vapor is virtually invisible.

On a tea kettle, the steam immediately coming out of the kettle is
transparent but roughly 1 or 2 inches away the vapor condenses to tiny
droplets which become a white fog.



On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:49 AM, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote:



 I wondered why people had no problems with the 8 liters of watervapour
 which was released into the room during the Rossi experiment. A simple
 experiment in which I evaporised 8 liters of water in a room of 100 m3 with
 a powersource of 9 kW ( 3 heaters of each 3 kW) did produce a very humid
 atmosphere ( approaching RH 90%) and the temperature rose to more then 30
 degr.
 Why wasn`t this detected during the experiment of Rossi?  If the aircon
 was powerfull enough one would still notice a turbulence of warm and cold
 airflow in the room.

 Peter

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:08 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

 That meter that was listed can measure Relative Humidity but it can not
 measure the quality of the steam.   As you know, relative humidity just
 means how saturated the air is for for the given temperature - it says
 absolutely nothing about the quality (dryness or wetness) of the steam.
 The quality of the steam (a.k.a. dryness on Vortex) gives you the ratio of
 the mass of vapor to the total mass of water (liquid and vapor) in a given
 sample.

 It takes complicated expensive instruments to measure the quality of steam
 (one device is called a throttling calorimeter).   A common or even
 expensive Relative Humidity instrument can not do it.

 If Rossi used an ultrasonic fogger in boiling water, he could get micron
 sized droplets at 100 C.  That's close enough to 101 C with errors due to
 calibration. They should insulate the black hose and stick it in a barrel of
 water.   12 kW of steam that is fed into 50 gallons of water (or some number
 of gallons) will raise the temperature at rate that could be easily
 measurable.
  If it can be done, find out exactly what information rules out wet
 steam.

 Here is a photo of an ultrasonic fogger using water to produce what looks
 like steam, but is in fact micron sized water droplets:

 http://www.buzzle.com/articles/ultrasonic-fogger-how-does-it-work.html

 Here is a link to a description of a throttling calorimeter which is a
 device that measures the quality (wetness) of steam.  Basically the
 throttling calorimeter involves letting the pressurized steam expand into a
 cavity and measuring the temperature of the resulting gas.  It only works
 with pressurized steam such as 30 psia steam or higher so that it can expand
 down to 15 psia or atmospheric pressure.

 http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2003/378.html?page=full



 On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

  Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:


 How can you use an indoor air quality meter (listed in Jed's email) to
 measure the dryness of the steam? (you can't)


 Apparently you can. The person who did this is reportedly an expert in
 steam. I gather this meter measures RH in steam as well as air.



 Can it be faked the following way:

 Use an ultrasonic fogger operating at 1.6 MHz to create micron size
 droplets.  Heat the droplets to 90 C and then send it down the black hose.


 The temperature of the steam out the outlet is measured with a
 thermocouple. It is 101 deg C. So it is definitely steam, or a mixture of
 steam and water. The RH meter ensures that is all dry steam.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

2011-01-18 Thread Jeff Driscoll

The calculations of the steam velocity below translates to a 188 mph jet of
steam coming out of a hose having an area of 1 cm^2  (equates to a 1.13 cm
inner diameter hose or .44 inner diamter)

Double the area of the hose and the velocity will drop by a factor of 2 to
94 mph.

The steam should be transparent for many inches beyond the end of the hose
if sprayed into the room - did it?   How do people describe the velocity and
volume of the steam?

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Here are some calculations that imply certain water/humidity effects
 which should have been observed at the demo.

 This is from an associate LENR researcher - Jeff Morriss, in response to
 the other issues on steam/vapor raised by Jeff Driscoll and Peter van
 Noorden, which so far do not have convincing answers.



 Nagel states that 150 grams of water are boiled every 30 sec, or 5 cc/sec.
 Taking the density of steam at 100C as .590 Kg/m**3 and ratio-ing it
 against the density of liquid water as 1000 kG/m**3 yields a volume increase
 of 1690. So each 5 cc of water is converted into 8450 cc of steam every
 second. If we estimate the area of the vent hose at ~1 cm**2, then the steam
 velocity must be 8450 cm/sec of 84.5 m/sec. This is about 1/4 the speed of
 sound and should produce quite a jet of steam. Did anyone observe this?
 Also, the steam would condense and quickly produce a saturated atmosphere
 and condensation on metal surfaces. Again, did anyone observe this?



 Here is a second sanity check. The specific heat of dry air at 1 atm is
 1.14 kJ/Km**3. If we assume a room volume of 300 m**3 (about the size of
 an average classroom) then it takes

  (300 m**3)*(1.14 kJ/Km**3) = 342 kJ

 to raise the temperature of the room by one degree.  The energy required to
 boil 18 liters of water is 4.7E4 kJ. So if no heat escaped the room and we
 ignored the additional energy change due to an increase in relative
 humidity then the ambient temperature should have increased by 4.7e4/342 or
 about 137 degrees C.  Even if the air in the room cycled every 6 minutes
 (and that would require special ventilation) the ambient would still rise
 by 13.7C, which would be noticeably hot and muggy.



 Finally, the 4.7E4 kJ/hour is equivalent to 1.31E4J/sec. As a basis of com
 parison, it would be equivalent to 240V at 54 Amps, which is the capacity
 of an electric furnace for a large house.

 You may want to pass my calculations by someone else for checking, but I
 believe they are correct.

 Jeff

 From: Jeff Driscoll

 Was the steam exiting the Rossi device transparent or was it an opaque
 white? (right at the top where it transitions from the aluminum foil
 covered chimney to the black hose) …If it is transparent then that would
 mean it is water vapor - and truly 12 kW of steam… But if it was white
 then that would indicate condensed tiny liquid droplets (or ultrasonic
 fogging) and fraudulent scamming.



 Water vapor is virtually invisible…. On a tea kettle, the steam immediately
 coming out of the kettle is transparent but roughly 1 or 2 inches
 away the vapor condenses to tiny droplets which become a white fog.



 On Tue, Jan 18, P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote:





 I wondered why people had no problems with the 8 liters of watervapour
 which was released into the room during the Rossi experiment. A simple
 experiment in which I evaporised 8 liters of water in a room of 100 m3 with
 a powersource of 9 kW ( 3 heaters of each 3 kW) did produce a very humid
 atmosphere ( approaching RH 90%) and the temperature rose to more then 30
 degr.

 Why wasn`t this detected during the experiment of Rossi?  If the aircon
 was powerfull enough one would still notice a turbulence of warm and cold
 airflow in the room.



 Peter

 - Original Message -

 From: Jeff Driscoll

 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

 Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:08 AM

 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

 That meter that was listed can measure Relative Humidity but it can not
 measure the quality of the steam.   As you know, relative humidity just
 means how saturated the air is for for the given temperature - it says
 absolutely nothing about the quality (dryness or wetness) of the steam.

 The quality of the steam (a.k.a. dryness on Vortex) gives you the ratio of
 the mass of vapor to the total mass of water (liquid and vapor) in a given
 sample.

 It takes complicated expensive instruments to measure the quality of steam
 (one device is called a throttling calorimeter).   A common or even
 expensive Relative Humidity instrument can not do it.

 If Rossi used an ultrasonic fogger in boiling water, he could get micron
 sized droplets at 100 C.  That's close enough to 101 C with errors due to
 calibration. They should insulate the black hose and stick it in a barrel of
 water.   12 kW of steam that is fed into 50 gallons of water (or some
 number of gallons) will raise the temperature

[Vo]:Have the Professors gone over the setup with a fine tooth comb?

2011-01-17 Thread Jeff Driscoll

This email questions whether or not the sensor described in Rossi's setup
can measure the dryness of the steam and whether or not there was a double
check on the steam calorimetry by using the amount of cooling water along
with the change in temperature of the cooling water to calculate energy.

Here are two links that describe the dry steam sensor that was listed as
being used in Rossi's setup .  I googled  HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor

http://www.wandbinstruments.com.au/Websites/wbinstruments/Images/HD37AB1347_Ing.pdf

http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347

I can't tell if this sensor (and its various probes) can measure the dryness
of the steam.  Basically the HD37AB1347 is an electronic device that can be
hooked up to various probes which can measure all sorts of things including
temperature, relative humidity, Carbon Dioxide and pressure.  Various other
probes can be connected so as to measure more things. But can it measure the
dryness of steam? I'm initially skeptical until someone has a good
explanation that it can.

Measuring steam quality is hard.  Steam quality is defined as the fraction
of liquid water compared to total water in the sample (i.e. mass of liquid
water divided by the mass of liquid water plus water vapor where water vapor
is H2O gas).
I know that it has been written that a person that is a professional in
calorimetry set up Rossi's test. I'd like to know if that person did a
double check on the calorimetry by measuring the temperature change of the
cooling water and the mass of the cooling water and compared this to the
energy calculated by the mass of water converted to steam.  Or are they
using room air to cool the condensing steam?  If they are using room air to
condense the steam then this double check method can not be done.

Below is a method of measuring the dryness of steam if you have PRESSURIZED
steam (Rossi is not using pressurized steam).  It uses a device called a
throttling calorimeter.   I don't know how the simple probe
listed (HD37AB1347) in Rossi's setup can measure the dryness of the steam
without starting with pressurized steam (steam having a pressure at least 15
psi above atmospheric pressure) but I'm sure someone will respond with an
answer.  Is Rossi using a different sensor?

  The following link is a description of a throttling calorimeter:

http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2003/378.html?page=full

The equations  hold for steam ranging from 30 psia to to 600 psia (where
atmospheric is 14.7 psia).   But the key here is you have to start with
pressurized steam - which Rossi is not doing so obviously he is using
another method.  If you have pressurized steam at a starting pressure (PS)
you can measure the steam quality using the throttling calorimeter (Note -
Rossi is NOT using pressurized steam).  Steam quality is defined as the
fraction of liquid water compared to total water in the sample (i.e. mass
liquid water divided by the mass of liquid water plus water vapor where
water vapor is H2O gas).  The method involves throttling down to 1
atmosphere of pressure and measuring the resulting temperature of the H2O
gas.  The throttling will result in all of the liquid phase turning to gas
(if the sample does not ALL turn to gas then this method of measuring steam
quality WILL NOT work).  This method results in two pieces of data - the
starting pressure (PS) before throttling and the final temperature (TE) of
the H2O gas after it has been throttled.  Using steam tables or simplified
equations (shown below  - from the web page listed) will give the steam
quality.
So my question is this:  Could Rossi's device use ultrasonic devices that
convert liquid water into tiny droplets and then condense that into an
exterior bucket or a drain pipe?  Tiny droplets do not go through a heat of
vaporization phase change and therefore it takes less energy to create
them. Rossi's setup would have to heat the tiny droplets some amount so as
to fool people into thinking that it is steam.  Also, are they measuring
both the amperage and the voltage into the 400 Watt heater?  Or just the
amperage but not the voltage becaue the the voltage could be higher than is
standard?  I will take a guess that a scammer could safely send in 400 volts
at 15 amps for 6 kW of power through a high quality but still relatively
small wire (something as thick as a typical 50 foot, 15 Amp extension cord
bought at Home Depot would be plenty thick for 400 volts and 15 amps -
someone please correct me if I am wrong).  Is there any chance of a hidden
wire that is feeding in more power that we don't know about?

I believe that the professors helping Rossi are competent and not scammers -
but did they go over the set up with a fine tooth comb or did they stay at a
distance?  What do they say? What are the facts of these previous long term
experimental runs that lasted hours?

=
The rest of this email gives

Re: [Vo]:Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011

2011-01-17 Thread Jeff Driscoll

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

  Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

  How do we know that all the water ( 8.8 l)  evaporated?

 That's what the RH meter is for. (May have answered already.)

 This is another example of the disastrous consequences of depending on a
 black box test.  The stuff coming out could have been dry steam, or it
 could have been hot air.

 No, for two reasons: 1. You can tell the difference between steam and hot
 air. 2. The volume of the machine is much smaller than the 18 liters of
 water injected into it over the course of an hour. There is no place inside
 it to hide the water. The fact that it is a black box does not reduce the
 certainty of this particular factor in any way.





A relative humidity sensor does not measure the dryness of the steam.
Here are links to ultrasonic foggers - they make tiny water droplets that
look like steam. These droplets are liquid water - these are not using
glycol, mineral oil or other fluids.  It is water being exposed to a 1.6 MHz
piezoelectric vibrating surface.  They don't go through a phase change from
liquid to gas.  So if the droplets condense in a bucket or a drain pipe then
the energy transported is a tiny fraction of boiling water.  If these tiny
droplets were heated to 80 C or 100 C then someone feeling them would think
they were being exposed to pure vaporized (gaseous) water.

from the website:

The fog units of an ultrasonic fogger use a piezoelectric transducer
that has a resonating frequency of around 1.6MHz. These high energy
vibrations cause the water to turn into a fog-like cloud, thus generating
fog. These foggers use ultrasonic waves to produce fog that consists of
water particles of the size of less than 5 microns. This fog can penetrate
to the minutest of spaces, thus eliminating chances of any free water. The
ultrasonic fogger circuit is not very difficult to design. These foggers
have very few moving parts and require no special temperature and pressure
conditions. This kind of design and working of ultrasonic foggers makes them
a low-maintenance and economical appliance. Moreover, they are easy to
install and use.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/ultrasonic-fogger-how-does-it-work.html

http://www.mainlandmart.com/foggers.html

here is a link to the glycol or mineral oil type foggers - which is not
based on ultrasonics but on heating and cooling (and obviously not what
Rossi would be using)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_machine

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

2011-01-17 Thread Jeff Driscoll

As was mentioned by others, they should Insulate the black hose and drop it
into 30 gallons of room temperature water and measure the temperature rise
of the water.

How can you use an indoor air quality meter (listed in Jed's email) to
measure the dryness of the steam? (you can't)

 How was the dryness measured?

Can it be faked the following way:

Use an ultrasonic fogger operating at 1.6 MHz to create micron size
droplets.  Heat the droplets to 90 C and then send it down the black hose.
Anyone touching this steam would feel it as being extremely hot but it is
NOT vaporized (gaseous) water and did not go through a phase change.
Letting it drift into the air out of the black hose would probably look just
like real steam with no droplets hitting the floor.

This would take 16% of the energy compared to boiling it.  I'm using the
numbers from Jed's report:

6.5 kJ/mol to heat the water from 13.3 C to 100 C.
40.9 kJ/mol to boil the water (heat of vaporization).

This is a ratio of 6.5 / 40.9 = .16  which equals 16%.  So, in this case,
ultrasonic-fogging-heating the water would take 16% of the energy compared
to truly boiling it.   16% multiplied by 12 kW equals 1.9 kW.

Insulate the black hose and drop it into 30 gallons of water and measure the
temperature rise of the water - this is the best way!

here is a link to an ultrasonic fogger (using water)  - it looks like steam!

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/ultrasonic-fogger-how-does-it-work.html

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

2011-01-17 Thread Jeff Driscoll

That meter that was listed can measure Relative Humidity but it can not
measure the quality of the steam.   As you know, relative humidity just
means how saturated the air is for for the given temperature - it says
absolutely nothing about the quality (dryness or wetness) of the steam.
The quality of the steam (a.k.a. dryness on Vortex) gives you the ratio of
the mass of vapor to the total mass of water (liquid and vapor) in a given
sample.

It takes complicated expensive instruments to measure the quality of steam
(one device is called a throttling calorimeter).   A common or even
expensive Relative Humidity instrument can not do it.

If Rossi used an ultrasonic fogger in boiling water, he could get micron
sized droplets at 100 C.  That's close enough to 101 C with errors due to
calibration. They should insulate the black hose and stick it in a barrel of
water.   12 kW of steam that is fed into 50 gallons of water (or some number
of gallons) will raise the temperature at rate that could be easily
measurable.
 If it can be done, find out exactly what information rules out wet
steam.

Here is a photo of an ultrasonic fogger using water to produce what looks
like steam, but is in fact micron sized water droplets:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/ultrasonic-fogger-how-does-it-work.html

Here is a link to a description of a throttling calorimeter which is a
device that measures the quality (wetness) of steam.  Basically the
throttling calorimeter involves letting the pressurized steam expand into a
cavity and measuring the temperature of the resulting gas.  It only works
with pressurized steam such as 30 psia steam or higher so that it can expand
down to 15 psia or atmospheric pressure.

http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2003/378.html?page=full



On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

  Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:


 How can you use an indoor air quality meter (listed in Jed's email) to
 measure the dryness of the steam? (you can't)


 Apparently you can. The person who did this is reportedly an expert in
 steam. I gather this meter measures RH in steam as well as air.



 Can it be faked the following way:

 Use an ultrasonic fogger operating at 1.6 MHz to create micron size
 droplets.  Heat the droplets to 90 C and then send it down the black hose.


 The temperature of the steam out the outlet is measured with a
 thermocouple. It is 101 deg C. So it is definitely steam, or a mixture of
 steam and water. The RH meter ensures that is all dry steam.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Randell Mills GUTCP theory book - streaming download

2011-01-08 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I should add that I noticed the streaming GUTCP book on BLP's What's new
web page - I'm not connected with BLP or anything.  I find the theory
interesting because it is so elegant - no uncertaincy principle and no
playing dice with the Universe.



On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Blacklight Power and Randell Mills GUTCP (Grand Unified Theory of Classical
 Physics) July 2010 edition is available by streaming or full pdf download.
 Streaming version makes it easy to just take a quick look without having to
 download 38 Megabytes of the book and then storing it somewhere on your
 computer.  As a result, that makes it easier and faster to look up something
 specific on the spur of the moment.

 Here is the streaming version for the first 10 chapters (though there are
 more chapters):


 http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/vol1?mode=embedlayout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Fcolor%2Flayout.xmlbackgroundColor=31558BshowFlipBtn=true

 all chapters and volumes are located here:

 http://blacklightpower.com/theory/bookdownload.shtml

Re: [Vo]:Attempting to replicate BlackLight Power experiment

2010-10-26 Thread Jeff Driscoll

This is in response to Steven Vincent Johnson's email below (I don't
have Steven's specific email in my inbox to respond to so I'm responding to
my original email)

Yes, I plan to post my proposal on Society for Classical Physics which I
am a member of (though note that anyone can read the discussion group
Society for Classical Physics without signing up as far as I know).

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/

I'll also post it on the Hydrino Study Group Forum
http://forum.hydrino.org/

I was hoping to get constructive criticism on my proposal and my website so
that I can make it better before I posted it on Society for Classical
Physics

Have you considered contacting Society for Classical Physics

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/

This is Randy Mills exclusive group, and it is moderated. (Ardent
skeptics are not welcome.)

It's possible you might find a sympathetic ear here, or perhaps
someone on the list could point you in an opportunistic direction.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks




On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:

 I’m a long time cold fusion researcher – mostly as a hobby.  Are there any
 venture capital investors or angel investors that want to help me find out
 if the claims of BlackLight Power Inc. (BLP) are real?  My proposed
 attempt at BLP’s experiment is detailed here:

 http://www.waterarc.com



 Blacklight Power’s website is here:

 http://www.blacklightpower.com

 BLP claims 200 times more energy is released per hydrino reaction compared
 to a Hydrogen atom combining with an Oxygen atom.  Their claims are far
 beyond any known chemistry (by a factor of 200).  My plan is not to
 develop patents or intellectual property but just to verify the claims with
 an experimental set up that could be transported to another lab for
 verification.  I’m looking for $15k to $50k so that I can replicate BLP’s
 experimental claims.  I’m slowly setting up the experiment now in my spare
 time but it would go faster and I could try more variations if I had
 funding.   My website describes how I plan to do the experiment.

[Vo]:Attempting to replicate BlackLight Power experiment

2010-10-24 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I’m a long time cold fusion researcher – mostly as a hobby.  Are there any
venture capital investors or angel investors that want to help me find out
if the claims of BlackLight Power Inc. (BLP) are real?  My proposed attempt
at BLP’s experiment is detailed here:

http://www.waterarc.com



Blacklight Power’s website is here:

http://www.blacklightpower.com

BLP claims 200 times more energy is released per hydrino reaction compared
to a Hydrogen atom combining with an Oxygen atom.  Their claims are far
beyond any known chemistry (by a factor of 200).  My plan is not to develop
patents or intellectual property but just to verify the claims with an
experimental set up that could be transported to another lab for
verification.  I’m looking for $15k to $50k so that I can replicate BLP’s
experimental claims.  I’m slowly setting up the experiment now in my spare
time but it would go faster and I could try more variations if I had
funding.   My website describes how I plan to do the experiment.



I’m including an email below that I plan to send to angel investors.



===

Jeff Driscoll

hcarb...@gmail.com

Boston, MA

http://www.waterarc.com

10/24/2010



Dear Sirs,



I am looking for funding to replicate an experiment done by a company that
may have cracked the puzzle of “Cold Fusion”.  Cold Fusion is potentially
a new, safe, clean and cheap energy source that first made headlines back in
1989.  The name of the company that may have solved the puzzle is BlackLight
Power Inc., which is based in New Jersey.  They have spent 60 million
dollars perfecting their discovery.



Their website can be seen here:

http://www.BlackLightpower.com http://www.blacklightpower.com/



My website with details on how I plan to replicate BlackLight Power’s
experiment  is shown here:

http://www.waterarc.com



I am not affiliated with BlackLight Power in any way but if I am able to
independently confirm BlackLight Power’s claims, then you would have the
knowledge on how to best take advantage of the breakthrough.  My home
laboratory is located in Boston, Massachusetts.



I don’t offer any intellectual property or patents.  I will help you confirm
that a multi  billion dollar market is going to take off sometime in the
future.  I am only looking for a limited amount of money, anywhere
between *$15k
and $50k* so that I can attempt to replicate the experiment.  My experiment
can then easily be transported to another laboratory for additional
independent verification.

BlackLight Power:

   - Claims to have found a new way of producing energy from Hydrogen that
   could result in home heaters that have little or no fuel costs.
   - Claims 200 times more energy is released per Hydrogen atom compared to
   burning the Hydrogen with Oxygen.
   - Has attracted more than $60 million in investments (investments
   specifically for their energy discovery).
   - Has numerous (80+) published scientific papers showing details of their
   experiments.
   - Claims that the release of energy is the result of physical contact
   between Hydrogen and specific catalyzing atoms, such as Potassium and
   Sodium, when at temperatures of 500 Celsius and higher (typically).
   - Claims the electron in the Hydrogen atom falls to a lower orbit than
   was previously thought possible and becomes what they term a Hydrino.
   - Claims that “Dark Matter” detected in other galaxies can be explained
   by their discovery.
   - Has well known leaders of industry on their board.



 I am not affiliated with BlackLight Power in any way and a google search of
my name and the words cold fusion, such as “Jeff Driscoll Cold Fusion” will
show my long term association in the field of Cold Fusion as an independent
researcher.



Cold Fusion first gained fame in 1989 when noted chemists Stanley Pons and
Martin Fleischman first announced they had discovered a cheap energy source
that was safe and virtually unlimited based on laboratory experiments. This
was headline news for many weeks but the excitement died down as scientific
groups and universities could not replicate the results.



Regarding my experience,   I have a masters degree in mechanical engineering
and 20 years of experience in different industries.  I have followed the
claims of BlackLight Power closely for 18 years while also doing some
experiments to replicate BlackLight Power's work and the work of Cold
Fusion scientists.



*Below is my proposal for funding*.



thank you



Jeff Driscoll

hcarb...@gmail.com









*Request for funding to replicate the experimental claims of the company
named BlackLight Power.*



Jeff Driscoll,  10/24/2010,hcarb...@gmail.com Boston, MA



There are reports from international groups that the world needs to reduce
its CO2 output by 50% to 80% by the year 2050 in order to reduce the major
effects of global warming.  This will likely cost trillions of dollars

[Vo]:6 minute video on Cold Fusion ---- from Discovery Science Channel show Brink

2009-04-13 Thread Jeff Driscoll

The show Brink on the Science Discovery channel did a short 6 minute
**positive** piece on Cold Fusion 2 weeks ago.

video here:
http://science.discovery.com/videos/brink-news-evidence-of-nuclear-fusion.html

http://science.discovery.com/




From Brink's website:

Everything you ever wanted to know about Brink

Designed as the next-generation source of interactive science
information on television and on the web, Brink is the premier series
for immersing viewers on the frontlines of cutting-edge breakthroughs
in technology, research, inventions, discoveries and the mysteries of
the scientific world.

The series explores people who are on the brink of changing our lives,
and will also include content generated from scientists,
organizations, universities and viewers from around the world.

The series provides viewers with a clear understanding of the impact
and relevance science has in our lives today, and offers significant
insights into how science may profoundly change our lives tomorrow.

Each half-hour episode combines short-form reports on the latest
global science news with vital interviews with prominent scientists.
Brink's innovative format will also include unusual segments covering
a range of subjects from peculiar, avant-garde research to backyard
inventors who are pushing the limits of science in their own way -
such as building their own space craft.

[Vo]:6 minute video on Cold Fusion ---- from Discovery Science Channel show Brink

2009-04-13 Thread Jeff Driscoll

The show Brink on the Science Discovery channel did a short 6 minute
**positive** piece on Cold Fusion 2 weeks ago.

video here:
http://science.discovery.com/videos/brink-news-evidence-of-nuclear-fusion.html

http://science.discovery.com/




From Brink's website:

Everything you ever wanted to know about Brink

Designed as the next-generation source of interactive science
information on television and on the web, Brink is the premier series
for immersing viewers on the frontlines of cutting-edge breakthroughs
in technology, research, inventions, discoveries and the mysteries of
the scientific world.

The series explores people who are on the brink of changing our lives,
and will also include content generated from scientists,
organizations, universities and viewers from around the world.

The series provides viewers with a clear understanding of the impact
and relevance science has in our lives today, and offers significant
insights into how science may profoundly change our lives tomorrow.

Each half-hour episode combines short-form reports on the latest
global science news with vital interviews with prominent scientists.
Brink's innovative format will also include unusual segments covering
a range of subjects from peculiar, avant-garde research to backyard
inventors who are pushing the limits of science in their own way -
such as building their own space craft.

[Vo]:Discovery Show Brink does short, positive piece on Cold Fusion

2009-03-28 Thread Jeff Driscoll

The show Brink on the Science Discovery channel did a short 7 minute
**positive** piece on Cold Fusion at 10 pm Friday night (last night).

http://science.discovery.com/

here is the schedule of a repeat of the show

=
Sunday Mar 29,   5:00 am   30 min(s)
Brink: Season 2
Episode 5
Cover Story: Mushrooms Save the World. BRINK is the premiere seri
=
Monday Mar 30,
5:00 pm  30 min(s)
Brink: Season 2
Episode 5
Cover Story: Mushrooms Save the World. BRINK is the premiere seri
 =

From Brink's website:

Everything you ever wanted to know about Brink

Designed as the next-generation source of interactive science
information on television and on the web, Brink is the premier series
for immersing viewers on the frontlines of cutting-edge breakthroughs
in technology, research, inventions, discoveries and the mysteries of
the scientific world.

The series explores people who are on the brink of changing our lives,
and will also include content generated from scientists,
organizations, universities and viewers from around the world.

The series provides viewers with a clear understanding of the impact
and relevance science has in our lives today, and offers significant
insights into how science may profoundly change our lives tomorrow.

Each half-hour episode combines short-form reports on the latest
global science news with vital interviews with prominent scientists.
Brink's innovative format will also include unusual segments covering
a range of subjects from peculiar, avant-garde research to backyard
inventors who are pushing the limits of science in their own way -
such as building their own space craft.

[Vo]:hydrogen Balmer line broadening in plasmas

2008-10-30 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Here is a paper that just came out regarding Balmer line broadening in
Hydrogen plasmas - written by Jonathan Phillips.
He describes Mills theory in this paper and shows data.


http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.5280.pdf

[Vo]:Sodium Hydride and Differential Scanning Calorimetry - no Raney Nickel involved

2008-10-26 Thread Jeff Driscoll

Does someone have the capability of doing a Differential Scanning
Calorimeter measurement on Sodium Hydride (NaH)?  NaH can be bought
from chemical suppliers where it is sold as 60% weight NaH and 40%
weight mineral oil.  The oil keeps air and water from contacting it
and chemically reacting with it.  There is no Raney Nickel involved.
According to wikipedia, the oil can be rinsed off the NaH with pentane
or tetrahydrofuran.

Mills gets an exothermic reaction of 354 kJ/mole H2 (or 177 kJ/mole H)
when he put .067 grams of Sodium Hydride in the Differential Scanning
Calorimeter (reaction started at 640 C).  That's 45% higher energy
than the 242 kJ/mole for burning hydrogen in air - even though the
sample volume had been flushed with helium twice before the start of
the test.

 Is it possible that there was enough oxygen contamination (from
leaking or whatever) to burn with the hydrogen?  Could they  have
incorrectly measured the amount of NaH in their sample?  If not, then
this test (when carefully done) could be a verification method of
Mills data.  Just rule out oxygen contamination and weight measuring
mistakes.

Magnesium Hydride (MgH2) was used in a separate test and displayed the
predicted endothermic reaction of decompisition and endothermic
reaction of melting magnesium.  Since this test didn't have oxygen
contamination issues then I would assume the NaH test didn't either.

look at page 21 here from BLP's paper regarding this differential
scanning calorimeter test:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/WFC101608WebS.pdf

One thing I don't understand is that there was an endothermic reaction
at 350 C where sodium hydride decomposed before the exothermic
reaction (hydrino creation) starting at 640 C.  If the sodium hydride
decomposed then all of the hydrogen has evaporated and there is no
longer a NaH molecule.  According to Mike Carrell the NaH molecule is
necessary for the hydrogen shrinkage reaction because  the breaking of
the bond energy between the Na and H is involved in absorbing a
portion of the 54.4 eV from the hydrogen shrinkage (along with double
ionization of Na to Na++).

Does the monatomic hydrogen released during decomposition recombine
with another H to make H2?  That would prevent the hydrino reaction.
Somehow the monatomic H has to recombine with the Na to make NaH at
640 C so as to trigger the hydrino reaction.

Does this mean you could coat sodium metal onto nanoparticles and
expose them to hydrogen at 640 C and trigger the hydrino reaction?

you can read about differential scanning calorimetry here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_scanning_calorimetry

Jeff D.

[Vo]:What are the best papers on cold fusion and their web links?

2008-06-13 Thread Jeff Driscoll

What are the best papers in cold fusion and what are the web links to them?
Preferably web links that won't change over long periods time. Base it on
the reputation of the researcher (even if that is subjective) and the
quality of the work.  I've listed one below.  Can people find others that
they think are good and briefly summarize the paper?   I'd like to see
responses to this email have a lot of good information as opposed to short,
unhelpful comments.

Here is one of my choices:
Anomalous heat from atomic hydrogen in contact with potassium carbonate.
Robert Shaubach at Thermacore wrote this paper sometime in the early
1990's.  In it, 6 meters of nickel tubing is wound into a coil, pressurized
with 1030 psi of hydrogen, submerged in a solution of 0.6 M potassium
carbonate and heated to steady state with 35 watts.  They measure 50 watts
of excess heat over 5 hours and they only measure 3 watts of excess heat
using sodium carbonate as the liquid surrounding the nickel tube.
http://www.hydrino.org/Labs/Anomalous-Heat-from-Atomic-Hydrogen.pdf

What happened with this experiment?  Is Shaubach still doing this type of
research?

Mizuno experiment - neutron bursts with deuterium, 0.8 Tesla field, 77 K

2005-11-01 Thread Jeff Driscoll

I'd like to reproduce Tadahiko Mizuno's experiment where he exposed 
deuterium gas to a 0.8 Tesla magnetic field at liquid nitrogen temperatures 
and got bursts of neutrons.  No electrolysis or glow discharges were 
involved  just 3 things, 0.8 Tesla field, 77 K (liquid nitrogen), and 
deuterium gas.  The link to his paper is here:


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

I'm trying to get access to a superconducting magnetic system with a 
strength equal to or greater than 1 Tesla.  I can get the neutron counters 
and the deuterium gas (and the hydrogen gas for the null experiment).   
Typically these superconducting magnet systems use a NbTi (Niobium Titanium) 
magnet in a liquid helium container and can generate a  field in the 4 - 10 
Tesla range with some as high as 17 Tesla.  The cost of a low priced system 
is 30 k$ though the cheapest complete system I've seen is 17 k$.


I dont have that kind of money so Im hoping someone will let me use their 
system wherever it is located  Id work with them to set up the experiment.


The following link describes a superconducting magnet system:

http://www.janis.com/p-sms3.html

Mizuno used liquid nitrogen temperatures (77 K) and using liquid helium (4 
K) is a departure from his experiment.  I think the liquid helium NbTi 
superconducting magnet systems are more common but I dont know that for 
sure.


I live in Somerville  Massachusetts so a magnet nearby would be best - but I 
could travel.


My email is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

1 2 >

100 matches

Mail list logo