Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Jones Beene]

 Frank
Are you saying that Steorn was not a scam ?


Frank Grimer wrote:  
 
 By removing the oscillation he removed the very thing that was causing the 
Steorn effect I seem to remember.
Terry Blanton wrote:

We called it the "Little Effect".  Devices never worked around Scott Little (or 
his daughter?)
Kinda the opposite of the "Hutchison Effect".  :)
  

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Frank Grimer]

By removing the oscillation he removed the very thing
that was causing the Steorn effect I seem to remember.

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 19:52, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> We called it the "Little Effect".  Devices never worked around Scott
> Little (or his daughter?)
>
> Kinda the opposite of the "Hutchison Effect".  :)
>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Jones Beene]

Bob Higgins wrote: 
[snip] The trick is finding the (plus) in Storms' Ni(plus) material.  Anything 
I find that is interesting will also be tested in MOAC.
I will ask Brian Ahern if he has available any left-over nano-nickel (plus Pd) 
to donate to the cause. 

This is the same spin-cast  material that showed good gain in tests done for 
EPRI many years ago. I think the alloy with 5% Pd performed better than higher 
levels, which was an important finding on its own...
Jones












5

Jones



| 
 |  |

  
  
  

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Terry Blanton]

We called it the "Little Effect".  Devices never worked around Scott Little
(or his daughter?)

Kinda the opposite of the "Hutchison Effect".  :)

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Bob Higgins]

Actually, as far as I know, Hal Puthoff was not involved in the
measurement.  The Griggs test was done by well-grounded engineers.  This
was the same team responsible for development of the MOAC calorimeter.
When I heard how they measured the actual mechanical power going into the
pump, I was impressed by the sound basis of their measurement.  Many other
Griggs tests were based on motor electrical input power measurement with
estimates for the motor electrical-to-mechanical conversion efficiency.  I
think it was a reasonable presumption that it was the hydrosonic pump
itself that was potentially overunity, not the big electric motor.  So,
Earthtech measured the pump.

MOAC itself is well grounded in basics.  One of the core difficulties in a
flow calorimeter is accurately measuring the flow.  Most researchers try to
use volumetric flow measurement - which is a mistake.  The heat capacity of
a milliliter of water varies with temperature, dissolved air, and entrained
bubbles.  MOAC measures the mass of the water flowing because the heat
capacity per gram is nearly constant.  Mass flow measurement is hard to
implement, but they went the extra mile to make that kind of measurement.
That is also the way the calorimetry was done at SRI as I understand it.


Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 9:50 AM Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wouldn't worry too much about Puthoff
>
> Puthoff took an interest in the Church of Scientology
>  in the late 1960s
> and reached what was then the top OT VII
>  level by 1971.[3]
>  Puthoff
> wrote up his "wins" for a Scientology publication, claiming to have
> achieved "remote viewing "
> abilities.[4]
>  In 1974,
> Puthoff also wrote a piece for Scientology's *Celebrity* magazine,
> stating that Scientology had given him "a feeling of absolute fearlessness".
> [5]  Puthoff
> severed all connection with Scientology in the late 1970s.[6]
> 
>
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 16:30, Bob Higgins  wrote:
>
>> Hi Jones,
>>
>> I now have Earthtech's MOAC (calorimeter) in my lab and I am refurbishing
>> and re-commissioning it.  Earthtech is now closed and they are emptying
>> their building.
>>
>> The Griggs device was not tested in the MOAC calorimeter.  I spoke with
>> the engineers who built MOAC and who also tested the Griggs device.  They
>> measured the actual torque and RPM going into the cavitator (hence they
>> measured the mechanical input power).  I didn't ask how they measured the
>> heat output.  Their conclusion was no excess heat.  That's about all I know
>> about the experiment.
>>
>>
>> 
>>  Virus-free.
>> www.avg.com
>> 
>> <#m_4416185370211067280_m_5220694793293478513_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 7:41 AM Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Higgins wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW, I was told that Earthtech testing of the Griggs device did NOT show
>>> excess heat.  The testing process was described to me.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Bob - that null result does not surprise me but is it really
>>> meaningful?
>>>
>>> Earthtech has a precision calorimeter which can accommodate small
>>> cavitation devices but as Rothwell has stated in the past, the Griggs
>>> machine is about 1000 times too large to be tested by them. He says that Ga
>>> Tech did test the device and found net thermal gain but, sadly, those
>>> results are not to be found on the WWW for unknown reasons ... so... it
>>> looks like an open issue.
>>>
>>> I wish someone would do the definitive testing of the large machine and
>>> have the courage to defend positive results if found.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Bob Higgins]

Sorry, Jones;  I only got the MOAC.  Earthtech's facilities were in the
final stages of being cleared out when I got it (and it was a whole trailer
full of stuff).  I was sad to learn that Earthtech had closed.  I can ask
what happened to the Mills gas phase experiment.

The MOAC was configured to examine electrolysis based LENR claims.  I will
be somewhat reconfiguring MOAC to examine gas phase claims similar to those
of Ed Storms - a simple apparatus/experiment.  While I am working on MOAC,
I can still start my gas phase experiments.  Storms-like gas phase
experiments are not complicated - make the pellets, put them in a closed
cell (in this case the cell is just a valve and a 3/8" closed-one-end
tube), add 1 atmosphere of D2 gas, and heat.  Storms showed 0.5W of XH on
1g of a Ni(plus) pellet at 300C.  I will put 3x1g pellets in each cell to
test.  My little insulated oven for this tube cell has a sensitivity of
40C/watt.  If I get 0.5W of heat from each 1g pellet, the temperature rise
of the cell would be 60C - a pretty easy isoperibolic measurement.  The
trick is finding the (plus) in Storms' Ni(plus) material.  Anything I find
that is interesting will also be tested in MOAC.


Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 10:56 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Hi Bob
>
> This is great news. Did you by any chance also get hold of the reactor
> apparatus that they built to replicate the Randell Mills gas phase
> experiment? That was a long time ago and it may have disappeared.
>
> As I recall this kind of experiment could have changed the entire
> landscape of LENR had they done it correctly. However, I have forgotten
> most of the details of how they blew it. They did see a few glimpses of
> gain but failed to pursue obvious ways to improve the results - that much
> was clear. And now with the added input of Holmlid, it could be possible to
> see proven gain from the simple gas phase plus catalyst setup.
>
> It is/was a very simple experimental design but the 'devil is in the
> details' as they say.
>
>
> Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> Hi Jones,
>
> I now have Earthtech's MOAC (calorimeter) in my lab and I am refurbishing
> and re-commissioning it.  Earthtech is now closed and they are emptying
> their building.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Jones Beene]

 Hi Bob
This is great news. Did you by any chance also get hold of the reactor 
apparatus that they built to replicate the Randell Mills gas phase experiment? 
That was a long time ago and it may have disappeared.

As I recall this kind of experiment could have changed the entire landscape of 
LENR had they done it correctly. However, I have forgotten most of the details 
of how they blew it. They did see a few glimpses of gain but failed to pursue 
obvious ways to improve the results - that much was clear. And now with the 
added input of Holmlid, it could be possible to see proven gain from the simple 
gas phase plus catalyst setup.

It is/was a very simple experimental design but the 'devil is in the details' 
as they say.


  Bob Higgins wrote: 
 Hi Jones,
I now have Earthtech's MOAC (calorimeter) in my lab and I am refurbishing and 
re-commissioning it.  Earthtech is now closed and they are emptying their 
building.

| 
 |  |

  
  

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Frank Grimer]

I wouldn't worry too much about Puthoff

Puthoff took an interest in the Church of Scientology
 in the late 1960s and
reached what was then the top OT VII
 level by 1971.[3]
 Puthoff
wrote up his "wins" for a Scientology publication, claiming to have
achieved "remote viewing "
abilities.[4]  In
1974, Puthoff also wrote a piece for Scientology's *Celebrity* magazine,
stating that Scientology had given him "a feeling of absolute fearlessness".
[5]  Puthoff
severed all connection with Scientology in the late 1970s.[6]


On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 16:30, Bob Higgins  wrote:

> Hi Jones,
>
> I now have Earthtech's MOAC (calorimeter) in my lab and I am refurbishing
> and re-commissioning it.  Earthtech is now closed and they are emptying
> their building.
>
> The Griggs device was not tested in the MOAC calorimeter.  I spoke with
> the engineers who built MOAC and who also tested the Griggs device.  They
> measured the actual torque and RPM going into the cavitator (hence they
> measured the mechanical input power).  I didn't ask how they measured the
> heat output.  Their conclusion was no excess heat.  That's about all I know
> about the experiment.
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> 
> <#m_5220694793293478513_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 7:41 AM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>> BTW, I was told that Earthtech testing of the Griggs device did NOT show
>> excess heat.  The testing process was described to me.
>>
>>
>> Hey Bob - that null result does not surprise me but is it really
>> meaningful?
>>
>> Earthtech has a precision calorimeter which can accommodate small
>> cavitation devices but as Rothwell has stated in the past, the Griggs
>> machine is about 1000 times too large to be tested by them. He says that Ga
>> Tech did test the device and found net thermal gain but, sadly, those
>> results are not to be found on the WWW for unknown reasons ... so... it
>> looks like an open issue.
>>
>> I wish someone would do the definitive testing of the large machine and
>> have the courage to defend positive results if found.
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Frank Grimer]

I believe it does. See the following article in
Infinite Energy magazine.
Grimer, Frank J. Aether Vacua and Cold Fusion, 2002, 8, 46, 28

I also think that Cold Fusion and the Griggs effect are connected
as will be clear from the article.

Mind you. I can well understand poor Griggs not wanting to venture
so far away from the engineering scale.
To do that you have to be as insane as I am. :-)

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 13:54, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Hi Frank,
>
> I had not seen your Russian reference about the Potapov device. (which
> needs a bit of editing, probably due to poor translation)
>
> This brings ti mind one curious detail in the Griggs/Potapov results - as
> well as some Casimir force, magnetic motor, Maxwell's demon, and even a few
> LENR experiments - is that the upper range of thermal gain (output over
> input) seems to be limited to something like 1.25 or so.
>
> Which is to say that there is some real gain (overunity) - but not much.
>
> Does you beta atmosphere theory address this point?
>
> Jones
>
>
> Frank Grimer wrote:
>
>
> https://remontideas.ru/en/warm-floor/vechnyi-dvigatel-potapova-generator-svobodnoi-energii-s-samozapitkoi.html
>
> A bit of history.
>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Bob Higgins]

Hi Jones,

I now have Earthtech's MOAC (calorimeter) in my lab and I am refurbishing
and re-commissioning it.  Earthtech is now closed and they are emptying
their building.

The Griggs device was not tested in the MOAC calorimeter.  I spoke with the
engineers who built MOAC and who also tested the Griggs device.  They
measured the actual torque and RPM going into the cavitator (hence they
measured the mechanical input power).  I didn't ask how they measured the
heat output.  Their conclusion was no excess heat.  That's about all I know
about the experiment.


Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 7:41 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> BTW, I was told that Earthtech testing of the Griggs device did NOT show
> excess heat.  The testing process was described to me.
>
>
> Hey Bob - that null result does not surprise me but is it really
> meaningful?
>
> Earthtech has a precision calorimeter which can accommodate small
> cavitation devices but as Rothwell has stated in the past, the Griggs
> machine is about 1000 times too large to be tested by them. He says that Ga
> Tech did test the device and found net thermal gain but, sadly, those
> results are not to be found on the WWW for unknown reasons ... so... it
> looks like an open issue.
>
> I wish someone would do the definitive testing of the large machine and
> have the courage to defend positive results if found.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Jones Beene]

 Bob Higgins wrote:  
 BTW, I was told that Earthtech testing of the Griggs device did NOT show 
excess heat.  The testing process was described to me.

Hey Bob - that null result does not surprise me but is it really meaningful?

Earthtech has a precision calorimeter which can accommodate small cavitation 
devices but as Rothwell has stated in the past, the Griggs machine is about 
1000 times too large to be tested by them. He says that Ga Tech did test the 
device and found net thermal gain but, sadly, those results are not to be found 
on the WWW for unknown reasons ... so... it looks like an open issue. 

I wish someone would do the definitive testing of the large machine and have 
the courage to defend positive results if found.


| 
 | 
 |

  

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Bob Higgins]

BTW, I was told that Earthtech testing of the Griggs device did NOT show
excess heat.  The testing process was described to me.


Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 6:54 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Hi Frank,
>
> I had not seen your Russian reference about the Potapov device. (which
> needs a bit of editing, probably due to poor translation)
>
> This brings ti mind one curious detail in the Griggs/Potapov results - as
> well as some Casimir force, magnetic motor, Maxwell's demon, and even a few
> LENR experiments - is that the upper range of thermal gain (output over
> input) seems to be limited to something like 1.25 or so.
>
> Which is to say that there is some real gain (overunity) - but not much.
>
> Does you beta atmosphere theory address this point?
>
> Jones
>
>
> Frank Grimer wrote:
>
>
> https://remontideas.ru/en/warm-floor/vechnyi-dvigatel-potapova-generator-svobodnoi-energii-s-samozapitkoi.html
>
> A bit of history.
>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Jones Beene]

 Hi Frank,
I had not seen your Russian reference about the Potapov device. (which needs a 
bit of editing, probably due to poor translation)
This brings ti mind one curious detail in the Griggs/Potapov results - as well 
as some Casimir force, magnetic motor, Maxwell's demon, and even a few LENR 
experiments - is that the upper range of thermal gain (output over input) seems 
to be limited to something like 1.25 or so. 

Which is to say that there is some real gain (overunity) - but not much.
Does you beta atmosphere theory address this point?
Jones


Frank Grimer wrote:  
 
https://remontideas.ru/en/warm-floor/vechnyi-dvigatel-potapova-generator-svobodnoi-energii-s-samozapitkoi.html

A bit of history.  

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Frank Grimer]

https://remontideas.ru/en/warm-floor/vechnyi-dvigatel-potapova-generator-svobodnoi-energii-s-samozapitkoi.html

A bit of history.

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 14:16, Jones Beene  wrote:

> David Jonsson wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> The concept vortex seems to be used in different ways.
>
> How is it used on this list?
>
>
> > As Bill B sez: Vortex-L was created for discussions of research into
> vortex or cavitation devices like that of Griggs which exhibit apparent
> anomalous energy it evolved into a discussion into all kinds of "taboo"
> physics like cold fusion.
>
> For instance, I joined out of interest in the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube
> which still may harbor a few mysteries despite not being efficient as a
> cooling device ...
>
>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Frank Grimer]

A good example of getting energy from the Beta-atmosphere.
Beene knows what I'm talking about.

https://assets.markallengroup.com//article-images/1085/f-hydro.htm

"Hydro Sonic’s unit has been the subject of three tests by a leading US
technical university. The university apparently demonstrated a coefficient
of performance of 1.28:1 meaning there was a case for over unity. Kelly
Hudson, of Hydro Sonics, says, *"Unfortunately Einstein has more
credibility than me." *Which is why the company are actively pursuing its
commercial potential before the over unity question comes into play."

And shed loads more than me. :-)


On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 14:16, Jones Beene  wrote:

> David Jonsson wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> The concept vortex seems to be used in different ways.
>
> How is it used on this list?
>
>
> > As Bill B sez: Vortex-L was created for discussions of research into
> vortex or cavitation devices like that of Griggs which exhibit apparent
> anomalous energy it evolved into a discussion into all kinds of "taboo"
> physics like cold fusion.
>
> For instance, I joined out of interest in the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube
> which still may harbor a few mysteries despite not being efficient as a
> cooling device ...
>
>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Jones Beene]

 David Jonsson wrote: 
 
 Hi
The concept vortex seems to be used in different ways.
How is it used on this list?

> As Bill B sez: Vortex-L was created for discussions of research into vortex 
> or cavitation devices like that of Griggs which exhibit apparent 
> anomalousenergy it evolved into a discussion into all kinds of"taboo" 
> physics like cold fusion.

For instance, I joined out of interest in the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube which 
still may harbor a few mysteries despite not being efficient as a cooling 
device ...