Harry Veeder wrote:
I think the situation with BLP is very different from that of the Wright
Brothers. As far as I know, BLP is the only group actively researching
hydrinos, whereas the Wrights were not alone in their quest to develop
controlled powered flight.
There is no doubt that BLP is
Mike Carrell wrote:
. . . I have made it clear that I have no interest in their
scientific claims (or any scientific claims), but I fully recognize
the technological implications.
Jed, it did not seem so from the tenor of your comments.
Well, you can ignore the tenor of the comments and
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
Good reply from Jed.
As far as the gibberish factor re Mills, the same can be said of all the
attempts to find a theory for LENR to stand on. Both are outside of the
realm of conventional physics. Therefore one must pay attention to the
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mike Carrell wrote:
...
The new reactor has sufficient energy outout to be self
sustaining with water as an external fuel.
I gather this means: The new reactor produces enough heat with enough Carnot
efficiency to run a conventional small steam turbine
OrionWorks wrote:
I assume you mean a steam generator rather than, say, a thermoelectric
generator, which is less efficient.
Didn't someone donate a Stirling engine to the BLP cause awhile ago? I
wonder if that setup could be used to increase efficiency.
Stirling engines are inefficient.
- Original Message -
From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
Didn't someone donate a Stirling engine to the BLP cause awhile ago? I
wonder if that setup could be used to increase efficiency.
A Stirning engine pix shows up in slideshows. I don't know who owns it.
Efficiency in a
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Carrell wrote:
As far as the gibberish factor re Mills, the same can be said of all the
attempts to find a theory for LENR to stand on.
That is true. If LENR were based on the theories that have devised up
until
From Jed:
Didn't someone donate a Stirling engine to the BLP cause
awhile ago? I wonder if that setup could be used to
increase efficiency.
Stirling engines are inefficient. All small engines are,
but as far as I know, conventional steam turbines are
the best. I don't know what the
OrionWorks wrote:
The Chinese make many small water turbine generators that
produce a few hundred watts I think. . .
Fired by communist coal I would imagine.
No, they are water turbines: small scale hydroelectricity. Very
small; a stream falling 10 or 20 meters is enough as I recall. A
I wrote:
Very small; a stream falling 10 or 20 meters is enough as I recall.
A garden hose is enough. This is easy to arrange in hilly country.
Not a garden hose. 1 PVC piping. You see it all over the place in
Japanese farms, for gravity fed irrigation from cisterns. They also
use it for
Jed said:
This must be what everyone is talking about. The description of the power
plant is rather nebulous. The section gets off on the wrong foot with this
statement:
Atomic hydrogen ordinarily has a stable electronic state that is much
higher in energy than allowed by thermodynamic
Mike Carrell wrote:
In that case it is badly phrased. [M]uch higher than allowed by . .
. sounds like the author thinks the laws of thermodynamics will not
allow this to happen.
The fundamental problem here is that Jed disapproves of Mills'
business strategy and has not adequately studied
I wrote:
I did not miss these statements! I will be thrilled by this
development, as soon as it is independently replicated.
I mean that. I did read these sections, and I do understand why this
breakthrough is important.
I have never depreciated the potential importance of the BLP claims.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this turns out to be right, it will be important to the theorists and
eventually to the engineers, but not to me. Whether the energy comes from
fusion, or the zero point, or whether it is leaking from Mars via a hidden
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:05:14 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is mentioned as
a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor of 4, releasing 435
eV in the process.
435 eV is the potential energy of
And I respect Jed, even if we have differences -- Mike
I wrote:
I did not miss these statements! I will be thrilled by this development,
as soon as it is independently replicated.
I mean that. I did read these sections, and I do understand why this
breakthrough is important.
I have
On 9/4/2008 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Exactly right. That's a huge mistake now, just as it was in 1908. Not
only did the Wrights refuse to demonstrate, they did not bother to
send photos of their flights to the U.S. Army officials. BLP, to its
credit, has published more information than
Without using any recent mathematical trickery. ;-)
As Mr. Carrell initially pointed out, there is a new claim of an
energy production breakthrough listed out at the Blacklight Power
web site. The new process involves the recycling of a solid catalyst.
Recent is perhaps incorrect as I would
In reply to OrionWorks's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:30:55 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I gather it's always been that confounded regenerative step that has
prevented BLP from coming up with an effective path towards commercial
application.
[snip]
Not really. Most BLP catalysts are ions that become even
19 matches
Mail list logo
