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

[Michael Foster]

I think the most interesting thing about limelight is how almost all the 
emitted radiation seems to be in the visible spectrum. Carbon arc, for example, 
has lots of UV and IR for the same amount of energy input.  Don't know the 
explanation for that. Those thorium gas mantles seem to have the same property, 
but work at a much lower temperature.

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

[Michael Foster]

 I can just see the oxygen and hydrogen lines running throughout my house, with 
the solar panels powering the electrolysis cell outside. There would be little 
pieces of marble clamped onto ceramic stand-offs with tiny torches aimed at 
them.

"Did you change the marble chips this week, Honey? The light in the kitchen is 
getting a little dim."

Well OK, maybe not. But it solves the battery problem. And the limelight really 
is pleasing compared to carbon arc for example. I can't really explain why.

Who is claiming that lime light is OU?




 Tuesday, July 28, 2020, 09:35:04 PM UTC, Jones Beene  
wrote:

>Maybe not impracticable, Michael, especially given the simplicity. Perhaps a 
>"use" or many uses would materialize if indeed there was found to be an excess 
>photon flux anomaly.

>The bright output of such a light source should be tested using a simple 
>specialty meter against a known incandescent source,for instance. Simply by 
>using a lumen or light meter (less than $100) which are accurate and not 
>complicated by environmental conditions, we would bypass the mystique of 
>proper flow calorimetry.

>Excess photon emission essentially means that the photon flux times the energy 
>per photon would exceed unity which would be the chemical energy of the 
>hydrogen burning in O2. This would seem to be a feasible way to show net 
>energy gain from limelight - and assuming calcium is a catalyst for formation 
>of dense hydrogen, it could be the easiest way... plus maybe the most 
>convincing... when the goal is to show this kind of anomaly.
  

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

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

[Michael Foster]

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

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

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

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Michael Foster<mailto:mf...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 1:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:ThomasGas - is it just another alternative energy scam ?










 On Saturday, July 25, 2020, 03:18:17 PM UTC, Jones Beene  
wrote:


>Wiki has its entry under "Oxyhydrogen" but the explosive mixture has also been 
>called HHO,
"knallgas," town gas, "common manifold electrolysis" and more. Maybe Thomas Gas 
is the breakthrough which will open the subject up again. It is a bit glib to 
lump it all as fringe science since there could be the same kernel of truth as 
in LENR - which generally leads us back to "dense hydrogen" being involved.

Actually, town gas contained CO along with the hydrogen.  You know, as in 
Gaslight, as in stick your head in the unlit oven to commit suicide.  It was 
made by passing hot steam over coke, resulting in a mixture of CO and hydrogen. 
It was used before natural gas became available in the West, although the 
Chinese had been using it centuries before.

If anyone is still interested in dense hydrogen, it seems to me the Langmuir 
atomic hydrogen torch should be the main target of investigation. There have 
been a few claims of OU about Langmuir's torch. Some calorimetry seems in order 
here.


>The original phenomenon - limelight - is 140 years old.Wow. Now we find that 
>Holmlid has given us an alternative explanation for what is going on... hmm 
>... one wonders about those old vaudevillians getting irradiated with muons.

Am I the only one on this list to make a limelight? It's pretty easy. Apply an 
oxyhydrogen torch to a piece of marble, limestone or sea shell and the calcium 
carbonate is converted to calcium oxide on the spot. The resulting brilliant 
white light is a really beautiful form of illumination. Too bad it's 
impractical for everyday use. A few years ago, I was investigating the spectral 
radiance of limelight to see if there were any lines in the spectrum that 
shouldn't be there. Didn't find any. The muons felt great, though.

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

[Jones Beene]

 Michael Foster wrote: 
 > Am I the only one on this list to make a limelight? It's pretty easy. Apply 
 > an oxyhydrogen torch to a piece of marble, limestone or sea shell and the 
 > calcium carbonate is converted to calcium oxide on the spot. The resulting 
 > brilliant white light is a really beautiful form of illumination. Too bad 
 > it's impractical for everyday use.

Maybe not impracticable, Michael, especially given the simplicity. Perhaps a 
"use" or many uses would materialize if indeed there was found to be an excess 
photon flux anomaly.

The bright output of such a light source should be tested using a simple 
specialty meter against a known incandescent source,for instance. Simply by 
using a lumen or light meter (less than $100) which are accurate and not 
complicated by environmental conditions, we would bypass the mystique of proper 
flow calorimetry.

Excess photon emission essentially means that the photon flux times the energy 
per photon would exceed unity which would be the chemical energy of the 
hydrogen burning in O2. This would seem to be a feasible way to show net energy 
gain from limelight - and assuming calcium is a catalyst for formation of dense 
hydrogen, it could be the easiest way... plus maybe the most convincing... when 
the goal is to show this kind of anomaly.

  

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

[Michael Foster]

On Saturday, July 25, 2020, 03:18:17 PM UTC, Jones Beene  
wrote:

>Wiki has its entry under "Oxyhydrogen" but the explosive mixture has also been 
>called HHO,
"knallgas," town gas, "common manifold electrolysis" and more. Maybe Thomas Gas 
is the breakthrough which will open the subject up again. It is a bit glib to 
lump it all as fringe science since there could be the same kernel of truth as 
in LENR - which generally leads us back to "dense hydrogen" being involved.

Actually, town gas contained CO along with the hydrogen.  You know, as in 
Gaslight, as in stick your head in the unlit oven to commit suicide.  It was 
made by passing hot steam over coke, resulting in a mixture of CO and hydrogen. 
It was used before natural gas became available in the West.

If anyone is still interested in dense hydrogen, it seems to me the Langmuir 
atomic hydrogen torch should be the main target of investigation. There have 
been a few claims of OU about Langmuir's torch. Some calorimetry seems in order 
here.



>The original phenomenon - limelight - is 140 years old.Wow. Now we find that 
>Holmlid has given us an alternative explanation for what is going on... hmm 
>... one wonders about those old vaudevillians getting irradiated with muons.


Am I the only one on this list to make a limelight? It's pretty easy. Apply an 
oxyhydrogen torch to a piece of marble, limestone or sea shell and the calcium 
carbonate is converted to calcium oxide on the spot. The resulting brilliant 
white light is a really beautiful form of illumination. Too bad it's 
impractical for everyday use. A few years ago, I was investigating the spectral 
radiance of limelight to see if there were any lines in the spectrum that 
shouldn't be there. Didn't find any. The muons felt great, though.

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

[Michael Foster]

 On Saturday, July 25, 2020, 03:18:17 PM UTC, Jones Beene  
wrote:


>Wiki has its entry under "Oxyhydrogen" but the explosive mixture has also been 
>called HHO,
"knallgas," town gas, "common manifold electrolysis" and more. Maybe Thomas Gas 
is the breakthrough which will open the subject up again. It is a bit glib to 
lump it all as fringe science since there could be the same kernel of truth as 
in LENR - which generally leads us back to "dense hydrogen" being involved.

Actually, town gas contained CO along with the hydrogen.  You know, as in 
Gaslight, as in stick your head in the unlit oven to commit suicide.  It was 
made by passing hot steam over coke, resulting in a mixture of CO and hydrogen. 
It was used before natural gas became available in the West, although the 
Chinese had been using it centuries before.

If anyone is still interested in dense hydrogen, it seems to me the Langmuir 
atomic hydrogen torch should be the main target of investigation. There have 
been a few claims of OU about Langmuir's torch. Some calorimetry seems in order 
here.


>The original phenomenon - limelight - is 140 years old.Wow. Now we find that 
>Holmlid has given us an alternative explanation for what is going on... hmm 
>... one wonders about those old vaudevillians getting irradiated with muons.

Am I the only one on this list to make a limelight? It's pretty easy. Apply an 
oxyhydrogen torch to a piece of marble, limestone or sea shell and the calcium 
carbonate is converted to calcium oxide on the spot. The resulting brilliant 
white light is a really beautiful form of illumination. Too bad it's 
impractical for everyday use. A few years ago, I was investigating the spectral 
radiance of limelight to see if there were any lines in the spectrum that 
shouldn't be there. Didn't find any. The muons felt great, though.

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

[Michael Foster]

On Saturday, July 25, 2020, 03:18:17 PM UTC, Jones Beene  
wrote:


>Wiki has its entry under "Oxyhydrogen" but the explosive mixture has also been 
>called HHO,
"knallgas," town gas, "common manifold electrolysis" and more. Maybe Thomas Gas 
is the breakthrough which will open the subject up again. It is a bit glib to 
lump it all as fringe science since there could be the same kernel of truth as 
in LENR - which generally leads us back to "dense hydrogen" being involved.

Actually, town gas contained CO along with the hydrogen.  You know, as in 
Gaslight, as in stick your head in the unlit oven to commit suicide.  It was 
made by passing hot steam over coke, resulting in a mixture of CO and hydrogen. 
It was used before natural gas became available in the West, although the 
C*e had been using it centuries before.

If anyone is still interested in dense hydrogen, it seems to me the Langmuir 
atomic hydrogen torch should be the main target of investigation. There have 
been a few claims of OU about Langmuir's torch. Some calorimetry seems in order 
here.



>The original phenomenon - limelight - is 140 years old.Wow. Now we find that 
>Holmlid has given us an alternative explanation for what is going on... hmm 
>... one wonders about those old vaudevillians getting irradiated with muons.


Am I the only one on this list to make a limelight? It's pretty easy. Apply an 
oxyhydrogen torch to a piece of marble, limestone or sea shell and the calcium 
carbonate is converted to calcium oxide on the spot. The resulting brilliant 
white light is a really beautiful form of illumination. Too bad it's 
impractical for everyday use. A few years ago, I was investigating the spectral 
radiance of limelight to see if there were any lines in the spectrum that 
shouldn't be there. Didn't find any. The muons felt great, though.

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

[Jones Beene]

Nigel Dyer wrote:
 
 > This has much the same feel as Brown's gas, including similar supposed 
 > health benefits that others have claimed for Browns gas.
Another option is Santilli's "magnegas" but it contains a significant amount of 
carbon monoxide. Yet there is a point to be made that there must be some 
anomaly in all this noise, even if it is also true that PT Barnum was right. 
One can actually purchase magnegas for welding at many welding shops - but 
there is no study that indicates a strong thermal anomaly.

Wiki has its entry under "Oxyhydrogen" but the explosive mixture has also been 
called HHO,"knallgas," town gas, "common manifold electrolysis" and more. Maybe 
Thomas Gas is the breakthrough which will open the subject up again. It is a 
bit glib to lump it all as fringe science since there could be the same kernel 
of truth as in LENR - which generally leads us back to "dense hydrogen" being 
involved. 

The original phenomenon - limelight - is 140 years old.Wow. Now we find that 
Holmlid has given us an alternative explanation for what is going on... hmm ... 
one wonders about those old vaudevillians getting irradiated with muons. 

My guess is that Gracie was right (back in the day)... "Never place a period 
where God has placed a comma" - Gracie Allen.
IOW - do not write off the possibility of any of these hydrogen anomalies just 
yet - there is still a comma there.


 > This turned up today - a "new" hydrogen based fuel... shades of Brown's Gas ?
  
  https://thomasinstitute.weebly.com/ 
 

 

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

[Nigel Dyer]

This has much the same feel as Brown's gas, including similar supposed 
health benefits that others have claimed for Browns gas.


Nigel

On 22/07/2020 14:57, Jones Beene wrote:
This turned up today - a "new" hydrogen based fuel... shades of 
Brown's Gas ?


https://thomasinstitute.weebly.com/

Thomas Gas has all the hallmarks of the typical alternative energy 
scam, including no independent verification, no useful data, no peer 
reviewed paper and absurd health claims. But unlike most of these 
scams - is alluring in that they claim to have a long running working 
device. Also - a few other details do check out, so at least it is an 
above-average scam.


Plus - if there is anything to it at all - the description makes it 
sound like it could involve dense hydrogen in some way, but that too 
is not clear. Any new tech with overtones of dense hydrogen gets my 
interest.


Quote:"The prototype of the Thomas Gas Generator is now working for 
over 5 years."


Whoa. That should be easy enough to document, yet there is no 
indication from a reputable source that it is true and no images of 
the device. They have a Facebook page, but I am anti-FB so that is no 
help.


​They continue: "Thomas Gas (TG) is a hydrogen derivative 
 
that is 100 % green, clean, environmentally safe, and has higher 
energy potential than typical hydrogen gas...TG has a net charge of 
+1, non-combustible, superconductor versus Hydrogen with 0 net charge, 
highly combustible, and high conductivity.


The British thermal unit (BTU) is a measure of energy production.  
Molecular hydrogen (H2) carries 2.7X higher energy per unit mass than 
gasoline (1 kg of H2 has approximately the energy content of one 
gallon (2.7 kg) of gasoline).


*Energy Generated by Combustion of Fuels and Hydrogen*
Fuels       BTU/lb.
Gasoline (n-Heptane)  19,314
Natural gas                                      20,267
Conventional gasoline                     18,679
U.S. conventional diesel                  18,397
Crude oil                                           18,352
Hydrogen (H2)                                  52,200
Thomas Gas (TG)                           196,200

As depicted, the energy contained in 1 pound of TG is 10.5 X greater 
than conventional gasoline and

*3.75X greater than H2*.

Is this complete BS?

My guess is that the odds of it being real are slim, but there is 
possibly something there and I am willing to waste a few hours of 
Covid time, trying to find out.

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

[Robin]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 22 Jul 2020 21:39:22 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]

If you mix hydronium cations with hydrino hydride, the excess proton from the 
hydronium will combine with the
hydrino-hydride to create a hydrino molecule, releasing a lot of energy in the 
process. It won't be a stable mixture. 

>Well, we could cut them some slack by assuming that the density is one kg/L. A 
>most interestingpossibility, for those who believe in Randell Mills concept of 
>hydrino hydride would be this:
>Given that hydrino hydride is an anion, according to Mills, then that species 
>could balance the 
>charge of the hydronium cation. That way, a 1/1 mix should be neutral in 
>charge. 
>
>There would still be a problem of phase separation  - gas phase and liquid 
>phase but perhapsthis mix could be frozen or otherwise absorbed.
>Ice-nine comes to mind   
>Signed
>Felix Hoenikker
>
>  

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

[Jones Beene]

 Robin wrote: 
One typical sign of BS is that they can't distinguish between L & kg. Quote:-

"Seconds or 400 liters per hour ( 9,600 kgs in 24 hours) at 20 psi."
also, good luck trying to compress positively charged ions. :)

Well, we could cut them some slack by assuming that the density is one kg/L. A 
most interestingpossibility, for those who believe in Randell Mills concept of 
hydrino hydride would be this:
Given that hydrino hydride is an anion, according to Mills, then that species 
could balance the 
charge of the hydronium cation. That way, a 1/1 mix should be neutral in 
charge. 

There would still be a problem of phase separation  - gas phase and liquid 
phase but perhapsthis mix could be frozen or otherwise absorbed.
Ice-nine comes to mind   
Signed
Felix Hoenikker

  

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

[Robin]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:57:20 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]

One typical sign of BS is that they can't distinguish between L & kg. Quote:-

"Seconds or 400 liters per hour ( 9,600 kgs in 24 hours) at 20 psi."

also, good luck trying to compress positively charged ions. :)

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

[Jones Beene]

 Terry Blanton wrote: 
 
 > Did you check out the article they referenced:
https://phys.org/news/2020-07-liquid-hydrogen-oxygen-molecules.html 
> Considering the energy densities envolved, it looks more like HP than dense 
> H2. 


Yes, that reference is interesting in a general way, but in terms of specific 
implementation as an affordable fuel - the only real choice would seem to be 
hydronium (as a cation). It is a natural component of water. Catch 22. The 
hydronium cation is not stable and quickly neutralizes, BUT maybe they have 
found a way to stabilize it? 

Here is an paper on hydronium metastability.
"Metastable hydronium ions in UV-irradiated ice"

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4768418

Curiously, since the topic of electrets came up, that could possibly be another 
way.

Given that Thomas is not pleading for investment, it could be that he is being 
somewhat less than open in the details, but why publish anything at all? 

Maybe he is looking for the rare investor who is actively looking for such a 
solution and can fill in the blanks.




  

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

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:57 AM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> This turned up today - a "new" hydrogen based fuel... shades of Brown's
Gas ?
>
> https://thomasinstitute.weebly.com/

Very interesting, Mr. Beene.  I filled out the contact information and will
let you know if I hear from them.

I must admit that I am suspicious since the domain

thomasinstitute.net

is available but they chose to use weebly.com, a low cost service
provider.  Further research is warranted.  Did you check out the article
they referenced:

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-liquid-hydrogen-oxygen-molecules.html

Considering the energy densities envolved, it looks more like HP than dense
H2.

Thanks, Jones.

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

[Jones Beene]

This turned up today - a "new" hydrogen based fuel... shades of Brown's Gas ?

https://thomasinstitute.weebly.com/
Thomas Gas has all the hallmarks of the typical alternative energy scam, 
including no independent verification, no useful data, no peer reviewed paper 
and absurd health claims. But unlike most of these scams - is alluring in that 
they claim to have a long running working device. Also - a few other details do 
check out, so at least it is an above-average scam.

Plus - if there is anything to it at all - the description makes it sound like 
it could involve dense hydrogen in some way, but that too is not clear. Any new 
tech with overtones of dense hydrogen gets my interest.

Quote: "The prototype of the Thomas Gas Generator is now working for over 5 
years."
Whoa. That should be easy enough to document, yet there is no indication from a 
reputable source that it is true and no images of the device. They have a 
Facebook page, but I am anti-FB so that is no help.

​They continue: "Thomas Gas (TG) is a hydrogen derivative that is 100 % green, 
clean, environmentally safe, and has higher energy potential than typical 
hydrogen gas...TG has a net charge of +1, non-combustible, superconductor 
versus Hydrogen with 0 net charge, highly combustible, and high conductivity. 

The British thermal unit (BTU) is a measure of energy production.  Molecular 
hydrogen (H2) carries 2.7X higher energy per unit mass than gasoline (1 kg of 
H2 has approximately the energy content of one gallon (2.7 kg) of gasoline).

Energy Generated by Combustion of Fuels and Hydrogen
              Fuels                                BTU/lb.
Gasoline (n-Heptane)                     19,314
Natural gas                                      20,267
Conventional gasoline                     18,679  
U.S. conventional diesel                  18,397
Crude oil                                           18,352
Hydrogen (H2)                                  52,200
Thomas Gas (TG)                           196,200

As depicted, the energy contained in 1 pound of TG is 10.5 X greater than 
conventional gasoline and3.75X greater than H2.
Is this complete BS?
My guess is that the odds of it being real are slim, but there is possibly 
something there and I am willing to waste a few hours of Covid time, trying to 
find out.