Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:NanoSpire
Jones Beene wrote: From the evidence and tests which were run at the time, and Jed may have more to say about this, many careful observers were open to the conclusion that Griggs may have seen OU at time, but unreliably. That is correct. It was unreliable or sporadic. When the apparent OU started up, the sound and performance changed markedly. It would sometimes last a half hour or so, but then suddenly revert. His active cavitation elements was a large rotor with milled indentations. These were not small. The device resemble an old fashioned siren. It is consistent with all we know to suggest that during the time spans that the Griggs pump worked reliably for excess heat - these coincided to self-created nano-pitting in the metal stator, and/or colloidal particles in the water. The test-bed device used a tank of dirty, rusty water. However, I think the most reliable and consistent results were reported by the county facility manager at the local fire department. The system inputs tap water and outputs hot water for the showers and other uses. So the water is clean. The device apparently produces only a small amount of over unity energy; so small that it has no economic or technological significance. When it produced excess heat, output was roughly 103% to 107% of input electricity. That is not impressive until you realize that without excess heat it is roughly 85% to 95% of input electricity because the device radiates a tremendous amount of heat and it is not insulated. The device gets hot enough that it would produce severe burns if you touched it. As far as the facilities manager and others (including me) can tell, there is error measuring input or output power. Hydrodynamics is still selling these devices and doing well. They do not advertise the fact that the machines apparently produce more energy out than in. Such claims are not good for business. See: http://hydrodynamics.com/ - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:NanoSpire
Unreliable yes but it was demonstrated over a much longer period than the bursts seen in Rowan confirmations of Rayney nickel and atomic hydrogen. I still contend that this process by it's very nature is destructive because it will runaway and destroy the geometry responsible for the OU. The Griggs device gives hope that the process can be damped and harnessed but the more energy produced by an individual cavity the more the energy producing geometry gets eroded. Perhaps Griggs should try tungsten or other high strength metals with high melting point? I don't think the effect can occur directly in water but his device probably alternates the contents of the cavity between water, vapor and disassociated gas atoms that is helping to cool the cavity and delay the break down. Fran Jed Rothwell Thu, 04 Nov 2010 06:55:41 -0700 Jones Beene wrote: From the evidence and tests which were run at the time, and Jed may have more to say about this, many careful observers were open to the conclusion that Griggs may have seen OU at time, but unreliably. That is correct. It was unreliable or sporadic. When the apparent OU started up, the sound and performance changed markedly. It would sometimes last a half hour or so, but then suddenly revert. His active cavitation elements was a large rotor with milled indentations. These were not small. The device resemble an old fashioned siren. It is consistent with all we know to suggest that during the time spans that the Griggs pump worked reliably for excess heat - these coincided to self-created nano-pitting in the metal stator, and/or colloidal particles in the water. The test-bed device used a tank of dirty, rusty water. However, I think the most reliable and consistent results were reported by the county facility manager at the local fire department. The system inputs tap water and outputs hot water for the showers and other uses. So the water is clean. The device apparently produces only a small amount of over unity energy; so small that it has no economic or technological significance. When it produced excess heat, output was roughly 103% to 107% of input electricity. That is not impressive until you realize that without excess heat it is roughly 85% to 95% of input electricity because the device radiates a tremendous amount of heat and it is not insulated. The device gets hot enough that it would produce severe burns if you touched it. As far as the facilities manager and others (including me) can tell, there is error measuring input or output power. Hydrodynamics is still selling these devices and doing well. They do not advertise the fact that the machines apparently produce more energy out than in. Such claims are not good for business. See: http://hydrodynamics.com/ - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:NanoSpire
Only looked at the first patent so far but the concept of milling/high speed mixing a colloid of nano suspended catalyst would certainly seem to trump the Griggs idea using just water. Fran -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 2:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:NanoSpire -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Getting back to the important details - there are the 3 patents: http://www.google.com/patents?tbs=bks%3A1tbo=1q=%22Mark%20L%20Leclair%22b tnG=Search%20Patentsrview=1 And the old one from 1994 seems to have been overlooked, but could be important IF there are trade secrets being left out of the account. Why ? Well this patent combines nanoparticles and cavitation in a way that would not be obvious if you are assuming that this work was only about sonoluminescence and not about hybrid energy techniques. If we can assume that there are trade secrets; and that LeClair is basically an honest man; then this work is extremely important. There is a wealth of information on the acceleration of catalysis during cavitation in the field of sonochemistry. One way to look at this would be as a process that uses cavitation and sonochemistry and nano-technology - to produces either pycnodeuterium and/or fractional hydrogen and/or LENR (perhaps step-wise) using a hybrid approach, some of which is NOT being disclosed by the inventor, so far. If there is any way that Mark LeClair is for real - then this hybrid approach could be extremely important as it shows how to go from nanoparticles, let's say something like the Arata nanopowder alloy, and to apply mechanical energy to a colloid of that powder in such a way that nuclear reactions are massively accelerated. Given that Arata claims helium, and after what is essentially zero power input (after triggering) - think of the implications of increasing the rate of helium production by a factor of 10e6, which not an uncommon ratio for such known increases in sonochemistry. Twenty years ago, the question was cynically asked by skeptics about the whereabouts of the dead graduate assistant and now we could be seeing a partial answer to the reality of that assumed risk. If Mark LeClair is genuinely honest. Jones
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:NanoSpire
-Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X the concept of milling/high speed mixing a colloid of nano suspended catalyst would certainly seem to trump the Griggs idea using just water. A few points worth mentioning wrt Griggs. From the evidence and tests which were run at the time, and Jed may have more to say about this, many careful observers were open to the conclusion that Griggs may have seen OU at time, but unreliably. His active cavitation elements was a large rotor with milled indentations. These were not small. Nanotechnology was in its infancy and never mentioned AFAIK. It is consistent with all we know to suggest that during the time spans that the Griggs pump worked reliably for excess heat - these coincided to self-created nano-pitting in the metal stator, and/or colloidal particles in the water. There are a number of instances of iron oxide colloid in water (brown NOT red) being associated with water energy anomalies. Jones
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:NanoSpire
I wonder if Yuri Potapov is selling his heater still? T
