date:20140122

History of Water Arc Explosions :


  The unusual strength of explosions caused by a pulsed current flowing
through water plasma was first noticed in 1907 by Trowbridge.  in his early
high voltage laboratory at Harvard University. When he passed an arc
through a spray of water, the resulting explosion was louder than in
ordinary laboratory air.



During the second world war, Frungel measured the strength of water arc
explosions and published his results in 1948. He concluded that they were
not caused by heat and steam and freely admitted that he was unable to
explain the phenomenon. Soon after Frungel's publications, water arc
explosions found applications in electrohydraulic metal forming and
underwater pulse echo sounding.



In 1969, the US Bureau of Mines issued a long report on their investigation
into using water arc explosions for rock fragmentation. In one experiment
the investigators at the Twin City Mining Research Center noticed that the
energy output was apparently 156% of the input.



Not until the mid-1980s was the scientific basis of the puzzling explosions
more extensively researched. At MIT. It was shown that the discharge of 3.6
kJ of stored capacitor energy would create pressures in excess of 20.000
atm. In 7 ml of water. 3.6 gm of water was ejected from an accelerator
barrel at a velocity of the order of 1000m/s, sufficient to penetrate a ¼
thick aluminium plate.



Joe Papp has a patent on this process.



One  story involvine this process was filmed and witnessed by a handful of
impartial observers; that story dealt with his cannon and goes as follows:



Papp decided to add a cannon to his collection of hardware to show all
those that were interested in what he could really do.



So on one early crisp sunny Sunday fall morning in October 1968, Papp
trooped out to the desert with six or eight engineers from the Navy and TRW
with a homemade cannon, powered by his invention.



For this show, Papp decided to pull out all the stops that usually kept his
engines docile and well controlled in the engine application and scaled up
his technology to its maximum power potential.



The barrel was four feet long, four inches in diameter, made of a three
foot length of 3-inch schedule 50 stainless steel pipe (0.6 inch wall
thickness) anchored and totally encased in a heavy one-foot thick
reinforced concrete containment block.



The breech was loaded with just 10cc’s of Papp’s inert water vapor/noble
gas mix. For the breech, he used a spare cylinder head from one of his
engines; for a projectile, he machined a piece of steel.



Papp filled the cylinder head with his gas mix from five separate flasks
and hooked up the power. Then Papp hit the start button.



We heard this tremendous explosion. It was a low rumble, like a bass
sound, one witness there said. The projectile jammed halfway up the barrel
and ripped the cannon in half. The back of the gun flared open like a
stainless steel tulip strewn with  5/8 inch thick metal fragments.



The concrete containment was mostly blasted into the air as a cloud reduced
to rubble and dust. It also punched a crater about 3-feet in diameter and
about 3-feet deep into the rocky desert hardpan and the 1-foot thick
platform of plywood and 2x8 planks upon which all rested was reduced to a
shower of splinters.



This cannon and everything that Papp did was patented. These Patents are an
official validation of a LERN technology that is unprecedented.




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:

  I agree that the patent is written to confuse.

 By carefully selecting a few sentences and paragraphs from the patent I
 think it is possible to find a rather neat semi-continuous flow version of
 an intersting development of the Graneau water arc system, which is
 consistent with the rather sketchy diagrams that they have shown.

 I wonder...

 Nigel


 On 21/01/2014 18:29, Axil Axil wrote:

  Re from the patent:

  The current may be AC, DC or an AC-DC mixture. In

 an embodiment, comprising a magnetohydrodynamic plasma to electric power
 converter, the

 current is DC such that a DC magnetic field is produced by the current.


  The MHD converter is not developed yet so the demo will require external
 power.


  By the way. the patent is written to confuse and it is successful. The
 patent defines every voltage, amperage, pulse rate and arc duration, and
 every chemical that exists. In short, it says everything and its says
 nothing.


 On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 -Original Message-
 From: Nigel Dyer

 The components of the demo don't look to me to be much like, for example
 the Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition Electrochemical Cell, so I was
 trying to work out what what we know about this configuration.

  For example, the energizing electrodes that are mentioned. Do we have
 an idea of what voltages might be involved and exactly how the
 electrodes energize the water?

Re: [Vo]:BLP demo - the energizing electrodes

More...


from a post here on vortex back on 12/31/12
to vortex-l

I looked at the Papp cannon video again. At 3:00 in, Papp is filling the
cannon from one of the flasks. It has a sizable amount of clear liquid at
the bottom of that flask.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2tuk31pS2Mfeature=player_embedded
Is that liquid clorinated water is see?


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 History of Water Arc Explosions :


   The unusual strength of explosions caused by a pulsed current flowing
 through water plasma was first noticed in 1907 by Trowbridge.  in his early
 high voltage laboratory at Harvard University. When he passed an arc
 through a spray of water, the resulting explosion was louder than in
 ordinary laboratory air.



 During the second world war, Frungel measured the strength of water arc
 explosions and published his results in 1948. He concluded that they were
 not caused by heat and steam and freely admitted that he was unable to
 explain the phenomenon. Soon after Frungel's publications, water arc
 explosions found applications in electrohydraulic metal forming and
 underwater pulse echo sounding.



 In 1969, the US Bureau of Mines issued a long report on their
 investigation into using water arc explosions for rock fragmentation. In
 one experiment the investigators at the Twin City Mining Research Center
 noticed that the energy output was apparently 156% of the input.



 Not until the mid-1980s was the scientific basis of the puzzling
 explosions more extensively researched. At MIT. It was shown that the
 discharge of 3.6 kJ of stored capacitor energy would create pressures in
 excess of 20.000 atm. In 7 ml of water. 3.6 gm of water was ejected from an
 accelerator barrel at a velocity of the order of 1000m/s, sufficient to
 penetrate a ¼ thick aluminium plate.



 Joe Papp has a patent on this process.



 One  story involvine this process was filmed and witnessed by a handful of
 impartial observers; that story dealt with his cannon and goes as follows:



 Papp decided to add a cannon to his collection of hardware to show all
 those that were interested in what he could really do.



 So on one early crisp sunny Sunday fall morning in October 1968, Papp
 trooped out to the desert with six or eight engineers from the Navy and TRW
 with a homemade cannon, powered by his invention.



 For this show, Papp decided to pull out all the stops that usually kept
 his engines docile and well controlled in the engine application and scaled
 up his technology to its maximum power potential.



 The barrel was four feet long, four inches in diameter, made of a three
 foot length of 3-inch schedule 50 stainless steel pipe (0.6 inch wall
 thickness) anchored and totally encased in a heavy one-foot thick
 reinforced concrete containment block.



 The breech was loaded with just 10cc’s of Papp’s inert water vapor/noble
 gas mix. For the breech, he used a spare cylinder head from one of his
 engines; for a projectile, he machined a piece of steel.



 Papp filled the cylinder head with his gas mix from five separate flasks
 and hooked up the power. Then Papp hit the start button.



 We heard this tremendous explosion. It was a low rumble, like a bass
 sound, one witness there said. The projectile jammed halfway up the barrel
 and ripped the cannon in half. The back of the gun flared open like a
 stainless steel tulip strewn with  5/8 inch thick metal fragments.



 The concrete containment was mostly blasted into the air as a cloud
 reduced to rubble and dust. It also punched a crater about 3-feet in
 diameter and about 3-feet deep into the rocky desert hardpan and the 1-foot
 thick platform of plywood and 2x8 planks upon which all rested was reduced
 to a shower of splinters.



 This cannon and everything that Papp did was patented. These Patents are
 an official validation of a LERN technology that is unprecedented.




 On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:

  I agree that the patent is written to confuse.

 By carefully selecting a few sentences and paragraphs from the patent I
 think it is possible to find a rather neat semi-continuous flow version of
 an intersting development of the Graneau water arc system, which is
 consistent with the rather sketchy diagrams that they have shown.

 I wonder...

 Nigel


 On 21/01/2014 18:29, Axil Axil wrote:

  Re from the patent:

  The current may be AC, DC or an AC-DC mixture. In

 an embodiment, comprising a magnetohydrodynamic plasma to electric power
 converter, the

 current is DC such that a DC magnetic field is produced by the current.


  The MHD converter is not developed yet so the demo will require
 external power.


  By the way. the patent is written to confuse and it is successful. The
 patent defines every voltage, amperage, pulse rate and arc duration, and
 every chemical that exists. In short, it says everything and its says
 nothing.


 On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at

[Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

Speaking of intentional deception in a patent application ... (which BTW
voids that patent application if it can be proved - and is not tolerated by
USPTO) there is the issue of MHD.

Any patent or claim that proposes to convert heat into electricity based on
MHD is probably nothing but hot air, unless... they have benefitted from the
Russian connection (to be explained). It has been a dozen years since this
first came up, but now, it is all starting to makes sense. (unless, of
course, the following explanation is giving BLP more credit than they
deserve).

Any direct conversion feature (heat into electricity) would be highly
unlikely without the Russian resource, since there is no commercially
available hardware in the USA to accomplish the task. Literally billions of
dollars were been spent over the past 50 years trying to adapt MHD
conversion to coal and natural gas as the first stage of a compound system
with steam second. NASA and DoE both failed. The technical challenges are
overwhelming. 

In fact, the only place where commercial MHD was placed into actual service
was Russia. Japan may have licensed the tech from Russia. This comes to mind
now, since there was indeed a type of direct conversion device which is
similar to MHD and was the primary part of an earlier BLP effort known the
reverse gyrotron. 

To become an informed observer on this demo next week, one can best
understand the present situation with bit of history - and with an
appreciation of Cuccia coupling.  (short summary: Cuccia coupling is the
only known way to convert UV, which is where the hydrino energy originates,
into electron acceleration and it is done via microwave as the coupling
agent). Once UV is absorbed, the hot electrons are separated by vector
alteration and collected on an electrode, just as if we were dealing with a
high powered triode. 

OK - This device may not be part of the upcoming demo, since Mills has
lowered expectations to almost zero - but to my thinking in the historical
context, it would be the one detail which would not only make this demo into
something extremely important, but also clarify what is going on. An
associate who followed BLP closely before he died - related that years ago
(circa 2002) when Mills failed to adapt a gyrotron successfully in his first
version, the Russian group below contacted BLP with a working model of a
device that could do it, but Mills' ego was such that he rebuffed them.
Perhaps he had a change of heart - and now, a decade later - we see the
results. 

I see one of the Russian papers is still up. Pictures of the working model
gyrotron are shown. Maybe BLP came to its senses and is now working with
whatever capitalist company in the New Russia took over this technology.
Or maybe BLP was waiting on their patent to expire, who knows?

http://jre.cplire.ru/jre/sep99/1/text.html

It is possible that Mills has adapted a Russian gyrotron device to do this.
Otherwise, the chances that a home-grown MHD system is being used for direct
conversion seem slim-to-none, due to the extreme technical challenge. Even
Mills does not have the financial resource for that.

Jones



attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

2014-01-22 Thread fznidarsic

Very interesting.  Can such a device convert terahertz radiation into DC power?

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 10:31 am
Subject: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

Speaking of intentional deception in a patent application ... (which BTW
voids that patent application if it can be proved - and is not tolerated by
USPTO) there is the issue of MHD.

Any patent or claim that proposes to convert heat into electricity based on
MHD is probably nothing but hot air, unless... they have benefitted from the
Russian connection (to be explained). It has been a dozen years since this
first came up, but now, it is all starting to makes sense. (unless, of
course, the following explanation is giving BLP more credit than they
deserve).

Any direct conversion feature (heat into electricity) would be highly
unlikely without the Russian resource, since there is no commercially
available hardware in the USA to accomplish the task. Literally billions of
dollars were been spent over the past 50 years trying to adapt MHD
conversion to coal and natural gas as the first stage of a compound system
with steam second. NASA and DoE both failed. The technical challenges are
overwhelming. 

In fact, the only place where commercial MHD was placed into actual service
was Russia. Japan may have licensed the tech from Russia. This comes to mind
now, since there was indeed a type of direct conversion device which is
similar to MHD and was the primary part of an earlier BLP effort known the
reverse gyrotron. 

To become an informed observer on this demo next week, one can best
understand the present situation with bit of history - and with an
appreciation of Cuccia coupling.  (short summary: Cuccia coupling is the
only known way to convert UV, which is where the hydrino energy originates,
into electron acceleration and it is done via microwave as the coupling
agent). Once UV is absorbed, the hot electrons are separated by vector
alteration and collected on an electrode, just as if we were dealing with a
high powered triode. 

OK - This device may not be part of the upcoming demo, since Mills has
lowered expectations to almost zero - but to my thinking in the historical
context, it would be the one detail which would not only make this demo into
something extremely important, but also clarify what is going on. An
associate who followed BLP closely before he died - related that years ago
(circa 2002) when Mills failed to adapt a gyrotron successfully in his first
version, the Russian group below contacted BLP with a working model of a
device that could do it, but Mills' ego was such that he rebuffed them.
Perhaps he had a change of heart - and now, a decade later - we see the
results. 

I see one of the Russian papers is still up. Pictures of the working model
gyrotron are shown. Maybe BLP came to its senses and is now working with
whatever capitalist company in the New Russia took over this technology.
Or maybe BLP was waiting on their patent to expire, who knows?

http://jre.cplire.ru/jre/sep99/1/text.html

It is possible that Mills has adapted a Russian gyrotron device to do this.
Otherwise, the chances that a home-grown MHD system is being used for direct
conversion seem slim-to-none, due to the extreme technical challenge. Even
Mills does not have the financial resource for that.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

2014-01-22 Thread ChemE Stewart

I have 2 years statistics in FL showing accelerated ionization and decay
clustered around microwave radar towers, including algae blooms, fish
kills,increased sinkholes and waterspouts. In Oklahoma and North Texas my 3
year statistics are showing a correlation between microwave radar tower
locations and increased seismic, some locations include chlorinated
fracking water...

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

 Very interesting.  Can such a device convert terahertz radiation into DC
 power?


 -Original Message-
 From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'jone...@pacbell.net');
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
 Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 10:31 am
 Subject: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

  Speaking of intentional deception in a patent application ... (which BTW
 voids that patent application if it can be proved - and is not tolerated by
 USPTO) there is the issue of MHD.

 Any patent or claim that proposes to convert heat into electricity based on
 MHD is probably nothing but hot air, unless... they have benefitted from the
 Russian connection (to be explained). It has been a dozen years since this
 first came up, but now, it is all starting to makes sense. (unless, of
 course, the following explanation is giving BLP more credit than they
 deserve).

 Any direct conversion feature (heat into electricity) would be highly
 unlikely without the Russian resource, since there is no commercially
 available hardware in the USA to accomplish the task. Literally billions of
 dollars were been spent over the past 50 years trying to adapt MHD
 conversion to coal and natural gas as the first stage of a compound system
 with steam second. NASA and DoE both failed. The technical challenges are
 overwhelming.

 In fact, the only place where commercial MHD was placed into actual service
 was Russia. Japan may have licensed the tech from Russia. This comes to mind
 now, since there was indeed a type of direct conversion device which is
 similar to MHD and was the primary part of an earlier BLP effort known the
 reverse gyrotron.

 To become an informed observer on this demo next week, one can best
 understand the present situation with bit of history - and with an
 appreciation of Cuccia coupling.  (short summary: Cuccia coupling is the
 only known way to convert UV, which is where the hydrino energy originates,
 into electron acceleration and it is done via microwave as the coupling
 agent). Once UV is absorbed, the hot electrons are separated by vector
 alteration and collected on an electrode, just as if we were dealing with a
 high powered triode.

 OK - This device may not be part of the upcoming demo, since Mills has
 lowered expectations to almost zero - but to my thinking in the historical
 context, it would be the one detail which would not only make this demo into
 something extremely important, but also clarify what is going on. An
 associate who followed BLP closely before he died - related that years ago
 (circa 2002) when Mills failed to adapt a gyrotron successfully in his first
 version, the Russian group below contacted BLP with a working model of a
 device that could do it, but Mills' ego was such that he rebuffed them.
 Perhaps he had a change of heart - and now, a decade later - we see the
 results.

 I see one of the Russian papers is still up. Pictures of the working model
 gyrotron are shown. Maybe BLP came to its senses and is now working with
 whatever capitalist company in the New Russia took over this technology.
 Or maybe BLP was waiting on their patent to expire, who knows?
 http://jre.cplire.ru/jre/sep99/1/text.html

 It is possible that Mills has adapted a Russian gyrotron device to do this.
 Otherwise, the chances that a home-grown MHD system is being used for direct
 conversion seem slim-to-none, due to the extreme technical challenge. Even
 Mills does not have the financial resource for that.

 Jones

RE: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...


From: fznidar...@aol.com 

Very interesting.  Can such a device convert terahertz
radiation into DC power?
No. 
An oversimplification of Cuccia coupling (this is from memory so it may not
be accurate) is this: microwaves couple to electrons at very high efficiency
and UV couples to microwaves at very high efficiency. UV does not couple to
electrons directly at high efficiency - therefore another wave geometry must
act as the intermediary. AFAIK terahertz doesn't couple.
If you have an intense source of UV in a plasma (as Mills does) then it is
possible to use a photocell for conversion, but the plasma also has a lot of
+ions which destroy the photocell. A protective window is impossible since
UV is absorbed by the window. 
Thus, one way to do this kind of direct conversion is to have a microwave
powered plasma reactor with a bucking field as in the Russian CWC device ...
in which electrons and positive ions are separated magnetically BUT in
addition, the UV accelerates the electrons by Cuccia coupling to the
microwaves. It is a hybrid.
Microwaves can be generated very efficiently in an external device such as a
microtron, so this helps. In the end, you could apply a power input say 1.3
kW of electricity to generate 1 kW of microwaves, and provide an electron
beam of 300 watts which combine to create a plasma with protons and
electrons being the prime charge carriers. The electrons will come out of
the plasma with thermal energy of 10 kW due to the bucking field - and thus
the gyrotron is very efficient - so in the end we get 6 kW of DC
electricity... at least that is on paper. 
Thus the 1.6 kW is recycled back to make the microwaves and e-beam, and
there is a net energy of 4.4 kW electrical ...all of which originally
started out as UV photons as the OU component, but is now DC current with
about 4 kW of waste heat.
It is beautiful on paper, but how does it work out in practice?
attachment: winmail.dat

[Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two

2014-01-22 Thread Mike Carrell

I am pleased by the stir created by my previous post on this thread. I also
now have a better understanding of the BLP posts. Readers have been fixated
on the press release and the patent application and overlooked the paper
Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst which contains the key  to
understanding.

 

HOH designates *nascent H2O* which must be formed by a chemical reaction
apart from fluid water to have energy level necessary for catalysis. Several
molecules are cited. When fluid water is added, and the mass elevated to an
activation temperature, HOH is formed and available H atoms are induced to
the hydrino state with intense release of energy. This is tested in the
paper.

 

The BLP device forms pellets which are hydrated and then placed in a
reaction chamber where a short, powerful pulse of electric current elevates
the pellet to the activation temperature, causing an explosive release of
energy which is to be captured by an MHD coverter.

 

The megawatts of power cited in the press release is scientifically
accurate, but easily misunderstood in a rush to judgment based on cursory
inspection. Apparently the pellet is not destroyed and can be rehydrated and
reused, so it s not a consumable.

 

The patent application has an illustration of two cylinder reciprocating
engine. I believe that is a 'placeholder' against anyone who claims
something of the sort as an implementation of the BLP process.

 

Members of Vortex may see a semblance to the earlier work of Papp and
Stanley Meyer who produced dramatic demonstrations that could not be
explained or duplicated. The work of Mills has exposed a class of energetic
reactions previously overlooked, but now elucidated by a comprehensive
theory and experimentation and publication.

 

Mike Carrell

RE: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

I have reworded this post below to make it clearer, and
change the dyslexic wording (power - energy) and account for the magnetic
field, all based on original guesstimates of the Russians.


From: fznidar...@aol.com 

Very interesting.  Can such a device convert
terahertz radiation into DC power?
No. 
An oversimplification of Cuccia coupling is this: microwaves
couple to electrons at very high efficiency and UV couples to microwaves at
very high efficiency. UV does not couple to electrons directly at high
efficiency - therefore another wavelength geometry must act as the
intermediary, in order to transfer the mass-energy of photons of UV to
electrons. AFAIK terahertz doesn't couple.
If you have an intense source of UV in a plasma (as Mills
apparently does) then it is possible to use a photocell for conversion, but
the plasma will also have a lot of +ions which destroy the photocell. A
protective window is impossible since UV is absorbed by the window. 
As a result, the best way to achieve this kind of direct
conversion when the excess power is UV in a range of 55 eV and up - is to
have a microwave powered plasma reactor with an e-beam component, and with
modest ion containment via a bucking magnetic field as in the Russian CWC
device. The electrons and positive ions are contained briefly and then
separated magnetically BUT in addition, the UV (excess energy of ground
state redundancy) effectively accelerates the electrons by Cuccia coupling
to the microwaves. It is a hybrid and it only works with UV as the main
gain.
Microwaves can be generated very efficiently in an external
device such as a microtron, so this helps. In the end, you could apply a
power input say 1.3 kW of electricity to generate 1 kW of microwaves, and
provide an electron beam of 300 watts - which combine to create a plasma
with protons and electrons being the prime charge carriers. The electrons
will be accelerated and come out of the plasma with perhaps 10 kW of output
power. The gyrotron configuration with reversed fields (bucking fields) is
efficient for charge separation- so in the end we can removed 6 kW of DC
high voltage electricity... at least that is on paper. 
In operation, at least 1.6 kW is recycled back to make the
microwaves and e-beam, and perhaps 200 watts for the magnetic field, so
there is a net energy of 4.2 kW electrical output DC...all of which
originally started out in the plasma as UV photons (55 eV and up) as the OU
component, with about 4 kW of waste heat.
It is beautiful on paper, but how does it work out in
practice?
attachment: winmail.dat

[Vo]:Observing Dark Matter

2014-01-22 Thread Terry Blanton

20 January 2014 Last updated at 09:05 ET

Cosmic 'web' seen for first time

By Simon RedfernReporter, BBC News

The hidden tendrils of dark matter that underlie the visible Universe
may have been traced out for the first time.

Cosmology theory predicts that galaxies are embedded in a cosmic web
of stuff, most of which is dark matter.

Astronomers obtained the first direct images of a part of this
network, by exploiting the fact that a luminous object called a quasar
can act as a natural cosmic flashlight.

Details of the work appear in the journal Nature.

more

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25809967

RE: RE: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

2014-01-22 Thread Marcus Haber


Quote:



If you have an intense source of UV in a plasma (as Mills
apparently does) then it is possible to use a photocell for conversion, but
the plasma will also have a lot of +ions which destroy the photocell. A
protective window is impossible since UV is absorbed by the window.



Thought about using fused Quartz?

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



It doesnt filter UV radiation and should protoect the photo cell



Gesendet:Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2014 um 18:44 Uhr
Von:Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
An:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Betreff:RE: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

I have reworded this post below to make it clearer, and
change the dyslexic wording (power - energy) and account for the magnetic
field, all based on original guesstimates of the Russians.


From: fznidar...@aol.com

Very interesting. Can such a device convert
terahertz radiation into DC power?
No.
An oversimplification of Cuccia coupling is this: microwaves
couple to electrons at very high efficiency and UV couples to microwaves at
very high efficiency. UV does not couple to electrons directly at high
efficiency - therefore another wavelength geometry must act as the
intermediary, in order to transfer the mass-energy of photons of UV to
electrons. AFAIK terahertz doesnt couple.
If you have an intense source of UV in a plasma (as Mills
apparently does) then it is possible to use a photocell for conversion, but
the plasma will also have a lot of +ions which destroy the photocell. A
protective window is impossible since UV is absorbed by the window.
As a result, the best way to achieve this kind of direct
conversion when the excess power is UV in a range of 55 eV and up - is to
have a microwave powered plasma reactor with an e-beam component, and with
modest ion containment via a bucking magnetic field as in the Russian CWC
device. The electrons and positive ions are contained briefly and then
separated magnetically BUT in addition, the UV (excess energy of ground
state redundancy) effectively accelerates the electrons by Cuccia coupling
to the microwaves. It is a hybrid and it only works with UV as the main
gain.
Microwaves can be generated very efficiently in an external
device such as a microtron, so this helps. In the end, you could apply a
power input say 1.3 kW of electricity to generate 1 kW of microwaves, and
provide an electron beam of 300 watts - which combine to create a plasma
with protons and electrons being the prime charge carriers. The electrons
will be accelerated and come out of the plasma with perhaps 10 kW of output
power. The gyrotron configuration with reversed fields (bucking fields) is
efficient for charge separation- so in the end we can removed 6 kW of DC
high voltage electricity... at least that is on paper.
In operation, at least 1.6 kW is recycled back to make the
microwaves and e-beam, and perhaps 200 watts for the magnetic field, so
there is a net energy of 4.2 kW electrical output DC...all of which
originally started out in the plasma as UV photons (55 eV and up) as the OU
component, with about 4 kW of waste heat.
It is beautiful on paper, but how does it work out in
practice?

[Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/507821/nanoparticles-make-steam-without-bringing-water-to-a-boil/

Nanoparticles can concentrate the energy of photons on a localized
nanometric scale. Here is a application of this ability.

Steam is a key ingredient in a wide range of industrial and commercial
processes—including electricity generation, water purification, alcohol
distillation, and medical equipment sterilization.

Generating that steam, however, typically requires vast amounts of energy
to heat and eventually boil water or another fluid. Now researchers at Rice
University have found a shortcut. Using light-absorbing nanoparticles
suspended in water, the group was able to turn the water molecules
surrounding the nanoparticles into steam while scarcely raising the
temperature of the remaining water. The trick could dramatically reduce the
cost of many steam-reliant processes.

“It’s a new way to make steam without boiling water,” says Naomi Halas,
director of the Laboratory for Nanophotonics at Rice University. Halas says
that the work “opens up a lot of interesting doors in terms of what you can
use steam for.”

The new technique could, for instance, lead to inexpensive steam-generation
devices for small-scale water purification, sterilization of medical
instruments, and sewage treatment in developing countries with limited
resources and infrastructure.

The use of nanoparticles to increase heat transfer in water and other
fluids has been well studied, but few researchers have looked at using the
particles to absorb light and generate steam.

In the current study, Halas and colleagues used nanoparticles optimized to
absorb the widest possible spectrum of sunlight. When light hits the
particles, their temperature quickly rises to well above 100 °C, the
boiling point of water, causing surrounding water molecules to vaporize.

Precisely how the particles and water molecules interact remains somewhat
of a mystery. Conventional heat-transfer models suggest that the absorbed
sunlight should dissipate into the surrounding fluid before causing any
water to boil. “There seems to be some nanoscale thermal barrier, because
it’s clearly making steam like crazy,” Halas says.

The system devised by Halas and colleagues exhibited an efficiency of 24
percent in converting sunlight to steam.

Todd Otanicar, a mechanical engineer at the University of Tulsa who was not
involved in the current study, says the findings could have significant
implications for large-scale solar thermal energy generation. Solar thermal
power stations typically use concentrated sunlight to heat a fluid such as
oil, which is then used to heat water to generate steam. Otanicar estimates
that by generating steam directly with nanoparticles in water, such a
system could see an increased efficiency of 3 to 5 percent and a cost
savings of 10 percent because a less complex design could be used.

Otanicar cautions that durability—the ability of nanoparticles to
repeatedly absorb sunlight and generate steam—still has to be proved, but
adds that the 24 percent efficiency achieved in the current study is
encouraging. “It’s just the beginning for optimizing this approach,” he
says.

Re: RE: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

One of the goals of the dense plasma focus(DPF) reactor design is to
convert the ions produced by the plasmoid directly into electric power
using a MDH. In that system energy comes from two sources, ions and x-rays.


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Marcus Haber tr...@gmx.de wrote:

 Quote:

 If you have an intense source of UV in a plasma (as Mills
 apparently does) then it is possible to use a photocell for conversion, but
 the plasma will also have a lot of +ions which destroy the photocell. A
 protective window is impossible since UV is absorbed by the window.

 Thought about using fused Quartz?
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fused_quartz

 It doesnt filter UV radiation and should protoect the photo cell

 *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2014 um 18:44 Uhr
 *Von:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Betreff:* RE: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...
 I have reworded this post below to make it clearer, and
 change the dyslexic wording (power - energy) and account for the magnetic
 field, all based on original guesstimates of the Russians.


 From: fznidar...@aol.com

 Very interesting. Can such a device convert
 terahertz radiation into DC power?
 No.
 An oversimplification of Cuccia coupling is this: microwaves
 couple to electrons at very high efficiency and UV couples to microwaves at
 very high efficiency. UV does not couple to electrons directly at high
 efficiency - therefore another wavelength geometry must act as the
 intermediary, in order to transfer the mass-energy of photons of UV to
 electrons. AFAIK terahertz doesn't couple.
 If you have an intense source of UV in a plasma (as Mills
 apparently does) then it is possible to use a photocell for conversion, but
 the plasma will also have a lot of +ions which destroy the photocell. A
 protective window is impossible since UV is absorbed by the window.
 As a result, the best way to achieve this kind of direct
 conversion when the excess power is UV in a range of 55 eV and up - is to
 have a microwave powered plasma reactor with an e-beam component, and with
 modest ion containment via a bucking magnetic field as in the Russian CWC
 device. The electrons and positive ions are contained briefly and then
 separated magnetically BUT in addition, the UV (excess energy of ground
 state redundancy) effectively accelerates the electrons by Cuccia coupling
 to the microwaves. It is a hybrid and it only works with UV as the main
 gain.
 Microwaves can be generated very efficiently in an external
 device such as a microtron, so this helps. In the end, you could apply a
 power input say 1.3 kW of electricity to generate 1 kW of microwaves, and
 provide an electron beam of 300 watts - which combine to create a plasma
 with protons and electrons being the prime charge carriers. The electrons
 will be accelerated and come out of the plasma with perhaps 10 kW of output
 power. The gyrotron configuration with reversed fields (bucking fields) is
 efficient for charge separation- so in the end we can removed 6 kW of DC
 high voltage electricity... at least that is on paper.
 In operation, at least 1.6 kW is recycled back to make the
 microwaves and e-beam, and perhaps 200 watts for the magnetic field, so
 there is a net energy of 4.2 kW electrical output DC...all of which
 originally started out in the plasma as UV photons (55 eV and up) as the OU
 component, with about 4 kW of waste heat.
 It is beautiful on paper, but how does it work out in
 practice?

RE: RE: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

If I remember - UV grade fused silica doesn’t filter very much UVA or UVB – 
that much is true, but can filter maybe 75% of EUV at 55 eV. That would be too 
much.

 

It would be worth looking at a spec sheet. The gain in Mills reaction is 
claimed to be in the range called EUV (extreme UV). 

 

From: Marcus Haber 

 

Quote:

 

If you have an intense source of UV in a plasma (as Mills
apparently does) then it is possible to use a photocell for conversion, but
the plasma will also have a lot of +ions which destroy the photocell. A
protective window is impossible since UV is absorbed by the window.

 

Thought about using fused Quartz?

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

 

It doesnt filter UV radiation and should protect the photo cell

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than the input light 
energy.  This is not magic, just a way to concentrate the incoming light.  I am 
assuming that LENR of some sort is not contributing.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



http://www.technologyreview.com/news/507821/nanoparticles-make-steam-without-bringing-water-to-a-boil/
Nanoparticles can concentrate the energy of photons on a localized nanometric 
scale. Here is a application of this ability.  
Steam is a key ingredient in a wide range of industrial and commercial 
processes—including electricity generation, water purification, alcohol 
distillation, and medical equipment sterilization.
Generating that steam, however, typically requires vast amounts of energy to 
heat and eventually boil water or another fluid. Now researchers at Rice 
University have found a shortcut. Using light-absorbing nanoparticles suspended 
in water, the group was able to turn the water molecules surrounding the 
nanoparticles into steam while scarcely raising the temperature of the 
remaining water. The trick could dramatically reduce the cost of many 
steam-reliant processes.

The Rice team used a Fresnel lens to focus sunlight on a small tube of water 
containing high concentrations of nanoparticles suspended in the fluid. The 
water, which had been cooled to near freezing, began generating steam within 
five to 20 seconds, depending on the type of nanoparticles used. Changes in 
temperature, pressure, and mass revealed that 82 percent of the sunlight 
absorbed by the nanoparticles went directly to generating steam while only 18 
percent went to heating water.
“It’s a new way to make steam without boiling water,” says Naomi Halas, 
director of the Laboratory for Nanophotonics at Rice University. Halas says 
that the work “opens up a lot of interesting doors in terms of what you can use 
steam for.”
The new technique could, for instance, lead to inexpensive steam-generation 
devices for small-scale water purification, sterilization of medical 
instruments, and sewage treatment in developing countries with limited 
resources and infrastructure.
The use of nanoparticles to increase heat transfer in water and other fluids 
has been well studied, but few researchers have looked at using the particles 
to absorb light and generate steam.
In the current study, Halas and colleagues used nanoparticles optimized to 
absorb the widest possible spectrum of sunlight. When light hits the particles, 
their temperature quickly rises to well above 100 °C, the boiling point of 
water, causing surrounding water molecules to vaporize.
Precisely how the particles and water molecules interact remains somewhat of a 
mystery. Conventional heat-transfer models suggest that the absorbed sunlight 
should dissipate into the surrounding fluid before causing any water to boil. 
“There seems to be some nanoscale thermal barrier, because it’s clearly making 
steam like crazy,” Halas says.
The system devised by Halas and colleagues exhibited an efficiency of 24 
percent in converting sunlight to steam.
Todd Otanicar, a mechanical engineer at the University of Tulsa who was not 
involved in the current study, says the findings could have significant 
implications for large-scale solar thermal energy generation. Solar thermal 
power stations typically use concentrated sunlight to heat a fluid such as oil, 
which is then used to heat water to generate steam. Otanicar estimates that by 
generating steam directly with nanoparticles in water, such a system could see 
an increased efficiency of 3 to 5 percent and a cost savings of 10 percent 
because a less complex design could be used.
Otanicar cautions that durability—the ability of nanoparticles to repeatedly 
absorb sunlight and generate steam—still has to be proved, but adds that the 24 
percent efficiency achieved in the current study is encouraging. “It’s just the 
beginning for optimizing this approach,” he says.

Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two

The cavitation experiments by LeClair show that water subjected to plasma
cooling will produce nanoparticles of solid water formed from cooling water
plasma.

These small crystalline particles are the active agent in many water based
nanoplasmonic LENR reactions including cavitation.

I believe that water that has undergone of period of cavitation or spark
discharge will contain sufficient numbers of nanoparticles to demonstrate
Papp like water explosions when subjected to intense photon irradiation.

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

A *molecular sieve* is a material with very small holes of precise and
uniform size. These holes are small enough to block large molecules while
allowing small molecules to pass. Many molecular sieves are used as
desiccants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiccant. Some examples
include Activated
charcoal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_charcoal and silica
gelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_gel

As in the movie The *Andromeda
Strain*http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3cad=rjaved=0CEgQFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Andromeda_Strainei=kxLgUoT_BOLjsAT-7IKQDwusg=AFQjCNGjp3IWIwQyDUQcRJrZCUZFU8S53Asig2=AnTTdlHOb36ZT1F6_3KZ-Abvm=bv.59568121,d.cWc,
these sieves can remove the Nano crystals from the cooled plasma flow,
If hydrinos exist, they will not be filtered out of the condensed water.
If the active agent is the nanoparticles, then the reaction will stop.

To prove this, Mills can use a proper sized molecular sieve to determine
experimentally that hydrinos are the active agent in the Mills reaction
(AKA the Papp reaction and/or the LeClair reaction and/or the Santilli
reaction}

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:

I am pleased by the stir created by my previous post on this thread. I
also now have a better understanding of the BLP posts. Readers have been
fixated on the press release and the patent application and overlooked the
paper “Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst” which contains the key to
understanding.

HOH designates **nascent H2O** which must be formed by a chemical
reaction apart from fluid water to have energy level necessary for
catalysis. Several molecules are cited. When fluid water is added, and the
mass elevated to an activation temperature, HOH is formed and available H
atoms are induced to the hydrino state with intense release of energy. This
is tested in the paper.

The BLP device forms pellets which are hydrated and then placed in a
reaction chamber where a short, powerful pulse of electric current elevates
the pellet to the activation temperature, causing an explosive release of
energy which is to be captured by an MHD coverter.

The megawatts of power cited in the press release is scientifically
accurate, but easily misunderstood in a rush to judgment based on cursory
inspection. Apparently the pellet is not destroyed and can be rehydrated
and reused, so it s not a consumable.

The patent application has an illustration of two cylinder reciprocating
engine. I believe that is a ‘placeholder’ against anyone who claims
something of the sort as an implementation of the BLP process.

Members of Vortex may see a semblance to the earlier work of Papp and
Stanley Meyer who produced dramatic demonstrations that could not be
explained or duplicated. The work of Mills has exposed a class of energetic
reactions previously overlooked, but now elucidated by a comprehensive
theory and experimentation and publication.

Mike Carrell

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

In order to understand if over unity power production is occurring, the
energy content of the incoming solar photons shall be determined and
compared to the output energy content of the steam produced.

Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to determine the COP of
solar cells.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than the input
light energy. This is not magic, just a way to concentrate the incoming
light. I am assuming that LENR of some sort is not contributing.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/507821/nanoparticles-make-steam-without-bringing-water-to-a-boil/
Nanoparticles can concentrate the energy of photons on a localized
nanometric scale. Here is a application of this ability.
Steam is a key ingredient in a wide range of industrial and commercial
processes—including electricity generation, water purification, alcohol
distillation, and medical equipment sterilization.
Generating that steam, however, typically requires vast amounts of energy
to heat and eventually boil water or another fluid. Now researchers at Rice
University have found a shortcut. Using light-absorbing nanoparticles
suspended in water, the group was able to turn the water molecules
surrounding the nanoparticles into steam while scarcely raising the
temperature of the remaining water. The trick could dramatically reduce the
cost of many steam-reliant processes.

The Rice team used a Fresnel lens to focus sunlight on a small tube of
water containing high concentrations of nanoparticles suspended in the
fluid. The water, which had been cooled to near freezing, began generating
steam within five to 20 seconds, depending on the type of nanoparticles
used. Changes in temperature, pressure, and mass revealed that 82 percent
of the sunlight absorbed by the nanoparticles went directly to generating
steam while only 18 percent went to heating water.
“It’s a new way to make steam without boiling water,” says Naomi Halas,
director of the Laboratory for Nanophotonics at Rice University. Halas says
that the work “opens up a lot of interesting doors in terms of what you can
use steam for.”
The new technique could, for instance, lead to inexpensive
steam-generation devices for small-scale water purification, sterilization
of medical instruments, and sewage treatment in developing countries with
limited resources and infrastructure.
The use of nanoparticles to increase heat transfer in water and other
fluids has been well studied, but few researchers have looked at using the
particles to absorb light and generate steam.
In the current study, Halas and colleagues used nanoparticles optimized to
absorb the widest possible spectrum of sunlight. When light hits the
particles, their temperature quickly rises to well above 100 °C, the
boiling point of water, causing surrounding water molecules to vaporize.
Precisely how the particles and water molecules interact remains somewhat
of a mystery. Conventional heat-transfer models suggest that the absorbed
sunlight should dissipate into the surrounding fluid before causing any
water to boil. “There seems to be some nanoscale thermal barrier, because
it’s clearly making steam like crazy,” Halas says.
The system devised by Halas and colleagues exhibited an efficiency of 24
percent in converting sunlight to steam.
Todd Otanicar, a mechanical engineer at the University of Tulsa who was
not involved in the current study, says the findings could have significant
implications for large-scale solar thermal energy generation. Solar thermal
power stations typically use concentrated sunlight to heat a fluid such as
oil, which is then used to heat water to generate steam. Otanicar estimates
that by generating steam directly with nanoparticles in water, such a
system could see an increased efficiency of 3 to 5 percent and a cost
savings of 10 percent because a less complex design could be used.
Otanicar cautions that durability—the ability of nanoparticles to
repeatedly absorb sunlight and generate steam—still has to be proved, but
adds that the 24 percent efficiency achieved in the current study is
encouraging. “It’s just the beginning for optimizing this approach,” he
says.

[Vo]:Researchers Split Water into Hydrogen, Oxygen Using Light, Nanoparticles

http://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2013/december/1216baohydrogen

As it happens in LENR. nanoparticles can concentrate the energy of photons
on a localized nanometric scale through super-lensing. Here is yet
another application of this ability.

Researchers from the University of Houston have found a catalyst that can
quickly generate hydrogen from water using sunlight, potentially creating a
clean and renewable source of energy.

Their research, published online Sunday in Nature Nanotechnology, involved
the use of cobalt oxide nanoparticles to split water into hydrogen and
oxygen.

Jiming Bao, lead author of the paper and an assistant professor in the
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at UH, said the research
discovered a new photocatalyst and demonstrated the potential of
nanotechnology in engineering a material’s property, although more work
remains to be done.

Bao said photocatalytic water-splitting experiments have been tried since
the 1970s, but this was the first to use cobalt oxide and the first to use
neutral water under visible light at a high energy conversion efficiency
without co-catalysts or sacrificial chemicals. The project involved
researchers from UH, along with those from Sam Houston State University,
the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Texas State University, Carl Zeiss
Microscopy LLC, and Sichuan University.

Researchers prepared the nanoparticles in two ways, using femtosecond laser
ablation and through mechanical ball milling. Despite some differences, Bao
said both worked equally well.

Different sources of light were used, ranging from a laser to white light
simulating the solar spectrum. He said he would expect the reaction to work
equally well using natural sunlight.

Once the nanoparticles are added and light applied, the water separates
into hydrogen and oxygen almost immediately, producing twice as much
hydrogen as oxygen, as expected from the 2:1 hydrogen to oxygen ratio in H2O
water molecules, Bao said.

The experiment has potential as a source of renewable fuel, but at a
solar-to-hydrogen efficiency rate of around 5 percent, the conversion rate
is still too low to be commercially viable. Bao suggested a more feasible
efficiency rate would be about 10 percent, meaning that 10 percent of the
incident solar energy will be converted to hydrogen chemical energy by the
process.

Other issues remain to be resolved, as well, including reducing costs and
extending the lifespan of cobalt oxide nanoparticles, which the researchers
found became deactivated after about an hour of reaction.

“It degrades too quickly,” said Bao, who also has appointments in materials
engineering and the Department of Chemistry.
 The work, supported by the Welch Foundation, will lead to future research,
he said, including the question of why cobalt oxide nanoparticles have such
a short lifespan, and questions involving chemical and electronic
properties of the material.
--

Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two

Nanoparticle formation, superatoms, and Rydberg matter are an important
subfield in chemistry. Mills, being a master chemist, should have been
familiar with this science and should not have invented his own imaginary
field of chemistry. Nanoparticles and their properties and application can
explain all of the experimental results that Mills says supports the
hydrino theory. IMHO.


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote:

 I am pleased by the stir created by my previous post on this thread. I
 also now have a better understanding of the BLP posts. Readers have been
 fixated on the press release and the patent application and overlooked the
 paper “Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst” which contains the key  to
 understanding.



 HOH designates **nascent H2O** which must be formed by a chemical
 reaction apart from fluid water to have energy level necessary for
 catalysis. Several molecules are cited. When fluid water is added, and the
 mass elevated to an activation temperature, HOH is formed and available H
 atoms are induced to the hydrino state with intense release of energy. This
 is tested in the paper.



 The BLP device forms pellets which are hydrated and then placed in a
 reaction chamber where a short, powerful pulse of electric current elevates
 the pellet to the activation temperature, causing an explosive release of
 energy which is to be captured by an MHD coverter.



 The megawatts of power cited in the press release is scientifically
 accurate, but easily misunderstood in a rush to judgment based on cursory
 inspection. Apparently the pellet is not destroyed and can be rehydrated
 and reused, so it s not a consumable.



 The patent application has an illustration of two cylinder reciprocating
 engine. I believe that is a ‘placeholder’ against anyone who claims
 something of the sort as an implementation of the BLP process.



 Members of Vortex may see a semblance to the earlier work of Papp and
 Stanley Meyer who produced dramatic demonstrations that could not be
 explained or duplicated. The work of Mills has exposed a class of energetic
 reactions previously overlooked, but now elucidated by a comprehensive
 theory and experimentation and publication.



 Mike Carrell

[Vo]:A new LENR Buzzword

I have just run across a new term that describes the a particular Bose
-Einstein condensation characterization of the Ni/H reactor ---
“grand-canonical ensemble”—

See the details here:

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/7

Viewpoint: Statistical flickers in a Bose-Einstein Condensate of Photons

The Ni/H reactor does something that physics thinks can't happen.

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light photons, 
that is not reflected away ends up heating the water.  Anything that 
concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be happening 
with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water.  This is not unusual 
except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine job of 
concentrating the energy; better than most techniques.  And, some of the local 
energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the remaining water 
resulting in its cooling.  Add everything up and you likely have no above unity 
gain.

There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of.  Perhaps Axil has 
seen some reference to this effect to discuss.  At any rate, the total energy 
contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than the input energy 
from the light source unless some mysterious means is present.

I do not see any need to assume LENR is omnipresent in every experiment.  Some 
results are simple physics and the one being discussed here most likely is just 
that.  Where does anyone suggest that excess heat is being generated by this 
process?  You can observe sublimation just by looking at the ice being 
converted directly into vapor.  How is that much different?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



In order to understand if over unity power production is occurring, the energy 
content of the incoming solar photons shall be determined and compared to the 
output energy content of the steam produced.


Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to determine the COP of solar 
cells.




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than the input light 
energy.  This is not magic, just a way to concentrate the incoming light.  I am 
assuming that LENR of some sort is not contributing.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



http://www.technologyreview.com/news/507821/nanoparticles-make-steam-without-bringing-water-to-a-boil/
Nanoparticles can concentrate the energy of photons on a localized nanometric 
scale. Here is a application of this ability.  
Steam is a key ingredient in a wide range of industrial and commercial 
processes—including electricity generation, water purification, alcohol 
distillation, and medical equipment sterilization.
Generating that steam, however, typically requires vast amounts of energy to 
heat and eventually boil water or another fluid. Now researchers at Rice 
University have found a shortcut. Using light-absorbing nanoparticles suspended 
in water, the group was able to turn the water molecules surrounding the 
nanoparticles into steam while scarcely raising the temperature of the 
remaining water. The trick could dramatically reduce the cost of many 
steam-reliant processes.

The Rice team used a Fresnel lens to focus sunlight on a small tube of water 
containing high concentrations of nanoparticles suspended in the fluid. The 
water, which had been cooled to near freezing, began generating steam within 
five to 20 seconds, depending on the type of nanoparticles used. Changes in 
temperature, pressure, and mass revealed that 82 percent of the sunlight 
absorbed by the nanoparticles went directly to generating steam while only 18 
percent went to heating water.
“It’s a new way to make steam without boiling water,” says Naomi Halas, 
director of the Laboratory for Nanophotonics at Rice University. Halas says 
that the work “opens up a lot of interesting doors in terms of what you can use 
steam for.”
The new technique could, for instance, lead to inexpensive steam-generation 
devices for small-scale water purification, sterilization of medical 
instruments, and sewage treatment in developing countries with limited 
resources and infrastructure.
The use of nanoparticles to increase heat transfer in water and other fluids 
has been well studied, but few researchers have looked at using the particles 
to absorb light and generate steam.
In the current study, Halas and colleagues used nanoparticles optimized to 
absorb the widest possible spectrum of sunlight. When light hits the particles, 
their temperature quickly rises to well above 100 °C, the boiling point of 
water, causing surrounding water molecules to vaporize.
Precisely how the particles and water molecules interact remains somewhat of a 
mystery. Conventional heat-transfer models suggest that the absorbed sunlight 
should dissipate into the surrounding fluid before causing any water to boil. 
“There seems to be some nanoscale thermal barrier, because it’s clearly

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

One characterization of the process that you have not considered is
localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average
temperature of the waterdoes not rise.

Another enhancement of the effect is the development of Bose-Einstein
condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots are connected
superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance energy
concentration might result.

Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC
formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC
formation.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light
photons, that is not reflected away ends up heating the water. Anything
that concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be
happening with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water. This is
not unusual except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine
job of concentrating the energy; better than most techniques. And, some of
the local energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the
remaining water resulting in its cooling. Add everything up and you likely
have no above unity gain.

There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of. Perhaps Axil
has seen some reference to this effect to discuss. At any rate, the total
energy contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than the
input energy from the light source unless some mysterious means is present.

I do not see any need to assume LENR is omnipresent in every experiment.
Some results are simple physics and the one being discussed here most
likely is just that. Where does anyone suggest that excess heat is being
generated by this process? You can observe sublimation just by looking at
the ice being converted directly into vapor. How is that much different?

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to determine the COP
of solar cells.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than the
input light energy. This is not magic, just a way to concentrate the
incoming light. I am assuming that LENR of some sort is not contributing.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior associated with 
this material.  The exact mechanism responsible for the generation of water 
vapor may be difficult to discern.

When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking place.  
Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so that a net 
cooling of the remaining water takes place.  If I recall, wind blowing over a 
wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals.  Vapor sprays can be used in 
a similar fashion.

The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano 
particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating much of 
the surrounding water.  If we find that the distance traveled is tiny, then 
there is no big mystery here.  On the other hand, if the vapor travels a 
significant distance through cool water without depositing heat in that water, 
then that should get our attention.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



One characterization of the process that you have not considered is 
localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average 
temperature of the waterdoes not rise.


Another enhancement of the effect is the development of Bose-Einstein 
condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots are connected 
superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance energy concentration 
might result.


Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC 
formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC formation.




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light photons, 
that is not reflected away ends up heating the water.  Anything that 
concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be happening 
with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water.  This is not unusual 
except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine job of 
concentrating the energy; better than most techniques.  And, some of the local 
energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the remaining water 
resulting in its cooling.  Add everything up and you likely have no above unity 
gain.

There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of.  Perhaps Axil has 
seen some reference to this effect to discuss.  At any rate, the total energy 
contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than the input energy 
from the light source unless some mysterious means is present.

I do not see any need to assume LENR is omnipresent in every experiment.  Some 
results are simple physics and the one being discussed here most likely is just 
that.  Where does anyone suggest that excess heat is being generated by this 
process?  You can observe sublimation just by looking at the ice being 
converted directly into vapor.  How is that much different?

Dave

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com


Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



In order to understand if over unity power production is occurring, the energy 
content of the incoming solar photons shall be determined and compared to the 
output energy content of the steam produced.


Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to determine the COP of solar 
cells.




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than the input light 
energy.  This is not magic, just a way to concentrate the incoming light.  I am 
assuming that LENR of some sort is not contributing.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



http://www.technologyreview.com/news/507821/nanoparticles-make-steam-without-bringing-water-to-a-boil/
Nanoparticles can concentrate the energy of photons on a localized nanometric 
scale. Here is a application of this ability.  
Steam is a key ingredient in a wide range of industrial and commercial 
processes—including electricity generation, water purification, alcohol 
distillation, and medical equipment sterilization.
Generating that steam, however, typically requires vast amounts of energy to 
heat and eventually boil water or another fluid. Now researchers at Rice 
University have found a shortcut. Using light-absorbing nanoparticles suspended 
in water, the group was able to turn the water molecules surrounding the 
nanoparticles into steam while scarcely raising the temperature of the 
remaining water. The trick could dramatically reduce the

RE: RE: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

2014-01-22 Thread a.ashfield


Jones Beene,
What Mills talks about is the ejection of very high speed ions from 
which it should be possible to generate electricity.   Has he stated 
that a large proportion of the energy is UV?

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

In the Papp engine, that one of the mysteries of that process is that it
produces little heat. The energy density in the Mills cell indicates the
production of little heat. I think this lack of heat condition is all
connected under the nano-particle causation principle.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior associated
with this material. The exact mechanism responsible for the generation of
water vapor may be difficult to discern.

When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking
place. Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so
that a net cooling of the remaining water takes place. If I recall, wind
blowing over a wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals. Vapor
sprays can be used in a similar fashion.

The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano
particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating much
of the surrounding water. If we find that the distance traveled is tiny,
then there is no big mystery here. On the other hand, if the vapor travels
a significant distance through cool water without depositing heat in that
water, then that should get our attention.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

One characterization of the process that you have not considered is
localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average
temperature of the waterdoes not rise.

Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC
formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC
formation.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to determine the COP
of solar cells.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than the
input light energy. This is not magic, just a way to concentrate the
incoming light. I am assuming that LENR of some sort is not contributing.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

[Vo]:Why plumbers and experiments often run late

The other day I broke the stem on the garden hose faucet outside my house.
It happens my wife is in Guatemala, so like any husband I thought to
myself, I better fix this before she gets home and finds out. It would be
difficult to replace the whole faucet but I thought perhaps I can just
replace the stem.

On Sunday I closed the water main and tried to take apart the faucet. It
was old. I was holding it with one wrench and trying to twist off the nut
with the other. I thought to myself, I am likely to break this thing right
off the pipe. Time to call a plumber. So I did.

The plumber came two hours late on Tuesday. He was a genial, middle aged
fellow with a weathered face.

I said to him, I was thinking maybe you could just replace the stem,
rather than the whole thing.

He said, Sure, we can try that. It'll save time. Looking at the faucet:
That's a Premier brand half-inch. I have one on the truck. The thing is, I
can try and open it up but I am likely to break it right off the pipe. You
get only one chance.

First he had to measure the water pressure. He screwed on the gauge, turned
on the water, tapped the gauge, and said, Huh. It is only 48. Kind of low.
It should be 55. When did you put in the regulator?

A couple of years ago. I have noticed it takes a long time to fill the
bathtub.

Maybe I can adjust it. But you're not supposed to adjust those things
after a year or so. You tend to break them.

Let's live with it then.

We went back to the front of the house. He held the faucet with a heavy
pipe wrench and tried to open the nut with an adjustable wrench. It did not
budge. Like I said, you get one chance at doing this. Let me try soaking
it with WD-40.

While we were waiting for the WD-40 to take, he told me that now that the
kids have grown up he is thinking of dropping cable TV service and
installing a digital antenna. Those cable TV and Internet people charge too
much.

He tried again and lo and behold the nut came off. He said, we can replace
all of the guts and it will be as good as new. He took apart the new
faucet. After a while: Oops. They have changed the design. The new stem
does not fit. We'll have to do it the hard way. I will go under the house
and cut off a foot or so of the pipe. I hope you have copper pipes instead
of PVC. PVC is a pain in the butt to work with.

Don't worry, it's copper.

He got ready to go into the crawl space, and I brought out a 50 foot
extension cord and a powerful fluorescent work light I use under the house.
That looks handy, he said as he tied the work light electric cord to the
extension cord and plugged them together. He went under the house and I
went back to reading a rather dull biography of William Howard Taft.

After a while he called me to the front of the house. He had a new section
of copper pipe and he was soldering on a threaded connector. With admirable
craftsmanship, he wrapped the threads in plumbers tape and then spread some
kind of white goo on top of that, and screwed on the new faucet. That's
not going anywhere, he said, and he pushed the pipe through the hole in
the wall. I noticed that the spigot was previously set at an angle. Do you
want it straight up and down?

I guess so.

I'll go back under the house. I would appreciate it if you would keep an
eye on the spigot here to make sure it stays straight when I solder the
pipes together.

While he was going around to the back yard and under the house again, I
played around with the hose and the faucet. I realized it was too close to
the ground and awkward to screw on. I heard him shout from under the house,
is it okay?

It is hard to screw on the hose when it's straight up and down.

Well then cock it at an angle, the way they had it. . . . Okay, hold it
there.

After a while, there came a muffled voice from the ventilation grill a few
feet away from the faucet. I forgot the solder! Can you hand it to me?

The spool will not fit through this grill. I will have to bring it to you.

Just unwrap it and hand me the end. I poked the end of the solder through
the grill. That's enough. Cut it off there; the cutter is in the toolbox.

I went back to William Taft. A half-hour later I noticed he was not done
and there was a banging noise from under the house. I went under the house
and asked, What's happening?

There was a pinhole leak. I turned the water back on, came back down to
check and it was spraying out. I don't understand why. It wasn't even at
the joint. The pipe must have fractured for some reason. I had to cut
another four inches of copper pipe and I'm putting in another connector.
You better go check to see if the spigot is still at the angle you want it.

I went to the front of the house and found the faucet . . . the spigot was
upside down, and sticking out from the wall about a quarter inch. I yelled
through the ventilator grill, it is upside down, and sticking out!

Huh. I thought I marked the top of the pipe down here. Turn it where it
should be and whack it into the wall.

A

Re: RE: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

A possible connection between the Mills cell and sonoluminescence is the
production of UV. Could a common causation principle  be afoot.


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:25 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote:

 Jones Beene,
 What Mills talks about is the ejection of very high speed ions from which
 it should be possible to generate electricity.   Has he stated that a large
 proportion of the energy is UV?

RE: RE: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

Yes. The gain in the Mills reaction derives from EUV emission initially. 

Plasma ions can absorb EUV - and that is how they are heated and how they
are maintained as a plasma. (EUV can include what is sometimes called soft
x-rays, as they are borderline).


-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 

Jones Beene,
What Mills talks about is the ejection of very high speed ions from 
which it should be possible to generate electricity.   Has he stated 
that a large proportion of the energy is UV?

Re: RE: [Vo]:MHD- from Russia with Love...

Nano-clusters can also absorb EUV and then explode in catastrophic
structural failure producing a plasma shock wave.


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Yes. The gain in the Mills reaction derives from EUV emission initially.

 Plasma ions can absorb EUV - and that is how they are heated and how they
 are maintained as a plasma. (EUV can include what is sometimes called soft
 x-rays, as they are borderline).


 -Original Message-
 From: a.ashfield

 Jones Beene,
 What Mills talks about is the ejection of very high speed ions from
 which it should be possible to generate electricity.   Has he stated
 that a large proportion of the energy is UV?

[Vo]:PESN LENR to Market digest for January

http://pesn.com/2014/01/22/9602426_LENR-to-Market_Digest_January22/

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil.  I do not know what is 
fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of what Mills is stating.  We 
need good data if we are to make much headway in understand these systems.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.


In the Papp engine, that one of the mysteries of that process is that it 
produces little heat. The energy density in the Mills cell indicates the 
production of little heat. I think this lack of heat condition is all connected 
under the nano-particle causation principle.



On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior associated with 
this material.  The exact mechanism responsible for the generation of water 
vapor may be difficult to discern.

When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking place.  
Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so that a net 
cooling of the remaining water takes place.  If I recall, wind blowing over a 
wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals.  Vapor sprays can be used in 
a similar fashion.

The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano 
particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating much of 
the surrounding water.  If we find that the distance traveled is tiny, then 
there is no big mystery here.  On the other hand, if the vapor travels a 
significant distance through cool water without depositing heat in that water, 
then that should get our attention.

Dave

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com


Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



One characterization of the process that you have not considered is 
localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average 
temperature of the waterdoes not rise.


Another enhancement of the effect is the development of Bose-Einstein 
condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots are connected 
superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance energy concentration 
might result.


Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC 
formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC formation.




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light photons, 
that is not reflected away ends up heating the water.  Anything that 
concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be happening 
with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water.  This is not unusual 
except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine job of 
concentrating the energy; better than most techniques.  And, some of the local 
energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the remaining water 
resulting in its cooling.  Add everything up and you likely have no above unity 
gain.

There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of.  Perhaps Axil has 
seen some reference to this effect to discuss.  At any rate, the total energy 
contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than the input energy 
from the light source unless some mysterious means is present.

I do not see any need to assume LENR is omnipresent in every experiment.  Some 
results are simple physics and the one being discussed here most likely is just 
that.  Where does anyone suggest that excess heat is being generated by this 
process?  You can observe sublimation just by looking at the ice being 
converted directly into vapor.  How is that much different?

Dave

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com


Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



In order to understand if over unity power production is occurring, the energy 
content of the incoming solar photons shall be determined and compared to the 
output energy content of the steam produced.


Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to determine the COP of solar 
cells.




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than the input light 
energy.  This is not magic, just a way to concentrate the incoming light.  I am 
assuming that LENR of some sort is not contributing.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Here is some believe your own eyes type data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oPB_iniQ4https


At 2:00 Papp disconnect the batteries and the engine still runs. This was
demonstrated to the patent office and Papp got the best patent of the year
award back in the 70s..

When Mills can do that, Mills will only be 50 years behind Papp.


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil.  I do not know what
 is fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of what Mills is stating.
 We need good data if we are to make much headway in understand these
 systems.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:27 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

  In the Papp engine, that one of the mysteries of that process is that it
 produces little heat. The energy density in the Mills cell indicates the
 production of little heat. I think this lack of heat condition is all
 connected under the nano-particle causation principle.


 On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior associated
 with this material.  The exact mechanism responsible for the generation of
 water vapor may be difficult to discern.

 When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking
 place.  Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so
 that a net cooling of the remaining water takes place.  If I recall, wind
 blowing over a wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals.  Vapor
 sprays can be used in a similar fashion.

 The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano
 particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating much
 of the surrounding water.  If we find that the distance traveled is tiny,
 then there is no big mystery here.  On the other hand, if the vapor travels
 a significant distance through cool water without depositing heat in that
 water, then that should get our attention.

 Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
   Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

  One characterization of the process that you have not considered is
 localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average
 temperature of the waterdoes not rise.

  Another enhancement of the effect is the development of Bose-Einstein
 condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots are connected
 superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance energy
 concentration might result.

  Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC
 formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC
 formation.


  On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light
 photons, that is not reflected away ends up heating the water.  Anything
 that concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be
 happening with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water.  This is
 not unusual except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine
 job of concentrating the energy; better than most techniques.  And, some of
 the local energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the
 remaining water resulting in its cooling.  Add everything up and you likely
 have no above unity gain.

 There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of.  Perhaps
 Axil has seen some reference to this effect to discuss.  At any rate, the
 total energy contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than
 the input energy from the light source unless some mysterious means is
 present.

 I do not see any need to assume LENR is omnipresent in every
 experiment.  Some results are simple physics and the one being discussed
 here most likely is just that.  Where does anyone suggest that excess heat
 is being generated by this process?  You can observe sublimation just by
 looking at the ice being converted directly into vapor.  How is that much
 different?

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
   Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 2:25 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

  In order to understand if over unity power production is occurring,
 the energy content of the incoming solar photons shall be determined and
 compared to the output energy content of the steam produced.

  Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to determine the COP
 of solar cells.


 On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

2014-01-22 Thread torulf.greek



This ability of nano particles to make steam with lesser energy input
may also make it possible to get false positive result in LENR. 

If
nano particles is used and laser or maybe some other simulation is used
and the steam or evaporation is used for calorimetry. 

Torulf 

On Wed,
22 Jan 2014 18:28:22 -0500, Axil Axil  wrote:  

Here is some believe
your own eyes type data:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oPB_iniQ4https [1] 

At 2:00 Papp
disconnect the batteries and the engine still runs. This was
demonstrated to the patent office and Papp got the best patent of the
year award back in the 70s.. 

When Mills can do that, Mills will only
be 50 years behind Papp.  

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM, David
Roberson  wrote:
 It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil. I
do not know what is fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of
what Mills is stating. We need good data if we are to make much headway
in understand these systems.

 Dave

-Original Message-
 From:
Axil Axil 
 To: vortex-l  

Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:27 pm
 Subject:
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

In the
Papp engine, that one of the mysteries of that process is that it
produces little heat. The energy density in the Mills cell indicates the
production of little heat. I think this lack of heat condition is all
connected under the nano-particle causation principle. 

On Wed, Jan 22,
2014 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
 Axil, I realize that there may
be some interesting behavior associated with this material. The exact
mechanism responsible for the generation of water vapor may be difficult
to discern.

 When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process
may be taking place. Heat is extracted from the water remaining during
vaporization so that a net cooling of the remaining water takes place.
If I recall, wind blowing over a wet leaky bag is used for cooling in
some locals. Vapor sprays can be used in a similar fashion.

 The real
question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano
particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating
much of the surrounding water. If we find that the distance traveled is
tiny, then there is no big mystery here. On the other hand, if the vapor
travels a significant distance through cool water without depositing
heat in that water, then that should get our attention.


Dave

-Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil 
 To: vortex-l 


Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make
steam without bring water to a boil.

One characterization of the
process that you have not considered is localization. The water boils
around the nanoparticle but the average temperature of the waterdoes not
rise. 

Another enhancement of the effect is the development of
Bose-Einstein condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots
are connected superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance
energy concentration might result. 

Using water as the reaction
substrate precludes the development of BEC formation due to its cooling
effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC formation.  

On Wed, Jan 22,
2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
 Normally, I assume that all of
the incoming energy, in this case light photons, that is not reflected
away ends up heating the water. Anything that concentrates the energy
into a small region, such as appears to be happening with this device,
will boil a tiny quantity of water. This is not unusual except that the
nano particles appear to be able to do a fine job of concentrating the
energy; better than most techniques. And, some of the local energy used
to boil the water might be extracted from the remaining water resulting
in its cooling. Add everything up and you likely have no above unity
gain.

 There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of.
Perhaps Axil has seen some reference to this effect to discuss. At any
rate, the total energy contained in the boiled water system can not be
greater than the input energy from the light source unless some
mysterious means is present.

 I do not see any need to assume LENR is
omnipresent in every experiment. Some results are simple physics and the
one being discussed here most likely is just that. Where does anyone
suggest that excess heat is being generated by this process? You can
observe sublimation just by looking at the ice being converted directly
into vapor. How is that much different?

 Dave

-Original
Message-
 From: Axil Axil 
 To: vortex-l  

Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014
2:25 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water
to a boil.

In order to understand if over unity power production is
occurring, the energy content of the incoming solar photons shall be
determined and compared to the output energy content of the steam
produced. 

Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to
determine the COP of solar cells.  

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM,
David Roberson

RE: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

Here is some believe your own eyes type data:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oPB_iniQ4https

 

LOL this is your idea of data ? Give me a break. absolutely zero data there.


 

I wish I had that wasted 6 minutes back. What a con artist Papp was. 

 

The longest running scam in alternative energy and investors are still
falling for this scam.

 

Here is your back to reality information on Papp from Feynman himself.

 

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Here is your “back to reality” information on Papp from Feynman himself.



 http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html


If we assume the thing was real, then Feynman was responsible for the
accident. He killed someone. It was criminal. Real or not, you should
NEVER, EVER monkey with equipment or unplug a control unit without asking
permission.

If we assume it was not real, and power in equalled power out, it was still
high powered device under the control of the electronics. Even a fake
machine is dangerous if you suddenly disconnect the controls. It is like
reaching over from the passenger seat and turning off the ignition in a car
driving on a highway.

Feynman was sometimes an arrogant, dismissive, unobservant jerk. He sure
was in this case.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Regarding electronic controls, let me add that there is a difference
between unplugging a device and having a power failure. I don't know about
the Papp machine, but some of my power tools have a brake that engages when
the power fails or when you turn off the power switch. If you unplug the
machine, the brake does not engage. The user manual warns against
unplugging.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Jed,

 

I thought so too, when Gene first published the other side of the story. 

 

But if your read Feynman's account carefully, and you should - then you will
see that Papp himself unplugged engine and handed the plug to Feynman.
Feynman did not unplug the machine - he merely failed to give back the plug
to Papp.

 

BUT FEYNMAN WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO CONTINUE PAPP'S SCAM.

 

Thus the liability is with Papp. If this had gone to trial there is no doubt
Feynman would have prevailed. 

 

However, to settle out of court was probably the best thing for all
concerned since there was a fatality and Cal Tech has deep pockets. 

 

However that death is on Papp. No doubt in my mind that he was legally
responsible.

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 

 

Here is your back to reality information on Papp from Feynman himself.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html

If we assume the thing was real, then Feynman was responsible for the
accident. He killed someone. It was criminal. Real or not, you should NEVER,
EVER monkey with equipment or unplug a control unit without asking
permission. 

 

If we assume it was not real, and power in equalled power out, it was still
high powered device under the control of the electronics. Even a fake
machine is dangerous if you suddenly disconnect the controls. It is like
reaching over from the passenger seat and turning off the ignition in a car
driving on a highway.

 

Feynman was sometimes an arrogant, dismissive, unobservant jerk. He sure was
in this case.

 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Still Feynman obstructed Papp from operating a device that Feynman did not
understand.

By doing so he essentially became fully responsible for anything the
machine does due to the power being disconnected for too long.
It was only Feynman's cynicism that would not have him plug it back in
despite Papp's frantic behaviour, Feynman assumed it wasn't anything
serious, it was. Papp obviously knew this and did what he could to stop the
tragic event that followed.

Additionally, can anyone think of a reason why a device designed to dupe
people by appearing OU would suddenly explode without power being supplied?

It sure seems unlikely, but a reaction that needs to be stopped from going
out of control makes more sense as far as I can see.

Can anyone suggest how a non-exotic scam would be likely to explode in such
a fashion?

John



On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Jed,



 I thought so too, when Gene first published the other side of the story.



 But if your read Feynman’s account carefully, and you should - then you
 will see that Papp himself unplugged engine and handed the plug to Feynman.
 Feynman did not unplug the machine – he merely failed to give back the plug
 to Papp.



 BUT FEYNMAN WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO CONTINUE PAPP’S SCAM.



 Thus the liability is with Papp. If this had gone to trial there is no
 doubt Feynman would have prevailed.



 However, to settle out of court was probably the best thing for all
 concerned since there was a fatality and Cal Tech has deep pockets.



 However that death is on Papp. No doubt in my mind that he was legally
 responsible.





 *From:* Jed Rothwell



 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:





 Here is your “back to reality” information on Papp from Feynman himself.

   http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html

  If we assume the thing was real, then Feynman was responsible for the
 accident. He killed someone. It was criminal. Real or not, you should
 NEVER, EVER monkey with equipment or unplug a control unit without asking
 permission.



 If we assume it was not real, and power in equalled power out, it was
 still high powered device under the control of the electronics. Even a fake
 machine is dangerous if you suddenly disconnect the controls. It is like
 reaching over from the passenger seat and turning off the ignition in a car
 driving on a highway.



 Feynman was sometimes an arrogant, dismissive, unobservant jerk. He sure
 was in this case.



 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

If the Papp engine was not producing over unity power, then with the wall
power removed the Papp engine  should have stopped. This is what RF
thought. But unexpectedly, the engine increased its power output until it
blew apart. This is not the behavior of a scam that RF was assuming. This
is the behavior of a gainful LENR system.


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Jed,



 I thought so too, when Gene first published the other side of the story.



 But if your read Feynman’s account carefully, and you should - then you
 will see that Papp himself unplugged engine and handed the plug to Feynman.
 Feynman did not unplug the machine – he merely failed to give back the plug
 to Papp.



 BUT FEYNMAN WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO CONTINUE PAPP’S SCAM.



 Thus the liability is with Papp. If this had gone to trial there is no
 doubt Feynman would have prevailed.



 However, to settle out of court was probably the best thing for all
 concerned since there was a fatality and Cal Tech has deep pockets.



 However that death is on Papp. No doubt in my mind that he was legally
 responsible.





 *From:* Jed Rothwell



 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:





 Here is your “back to reality” information on Papp from Feynman himself.

   http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html

  If we assume the thing was real, then Feynman was responsible for the
 accident. He killed someone. It was criminal. Real or not, you should
 NEVER, EVER monkey with equipment or unplug a control unit without asking
 permission.



 If we assume it was not real, and power in equalled power out, it was
 still high powered device under the control of the electronics. Even a fake
 machine is dangerous if you suddenly disconnect the controls. It is like
 reaching over from the passenger seat and turning off the ignition in a car
 driving on a highway.



 Feynman was sometimes an arrogant, dismissive, unobservant jerk. He sure
 was in this case.



 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

I have to admit that sometimes I do not believe my own eyes.  I once saw what 
some refer to as a UFO and I did not believe what I saw.  In that case, I would 
have had to go up to whatever it was and inspect it in detail before accepting 
that it was real. To believe in a device as revolutionary as the Papp engine 
would take that level of involvement.  It seems too good to be true.


The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did not 
find its way into production if it actually performed as described.  Even an 
idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a great investment 
and money maker.  The videos mentioned that it was demonstrated to at least one 
automaker and they are not stupid.  Why on earth would they let such an 
opportunity get away?  It just doesn't add up.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 6:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



Here is some believe your own eyes type data:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oPB_iniQ4https




At 2:00 Papp disconnect the batteries and the engine still runs. This was 
demonstrated to the patent office and Papp got the best patent of the year 
award back in the 70s..


When Mills can do that, Mills will only be 50 years behind Papp.




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil.  I do not know what is 
fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of what Mills is stating.  We 
need good data if we are to make much headway in understand these systems.

Dave

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com


Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.


In the Papp engine, that one of the mysteries of that process is that it 
produces little heat. The energy density in the Mills cell indicates the 
production of little heat. I think this lack of heat condition is all connected 
under the nano-particle causation principle.



On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior associated with 
this material.  The exact mechanism responsible for the generation of water 
vapor may be difficult to discern.

When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking place.  
Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so that a net 
cooling of the remaining water takes place.  If I recall, wind blowing over a 
wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals.  Vapor sprays can be used in 
a similar fashion.

The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano 
particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating much of 
the surrounding water.  If we find that the distance traveled is tiny, then 
there is no big mystery here.  On the other hand, if the vapor travels a 
significant distance through cool water without depositing heat in that water, 
then that should get our attention.

Dave

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com


Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



One characterization of the process that you have not considered is 
localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average 
temperature of the waterdoes not rise.


Another enhancement of the effect is the development of Bose-Einstein 
condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots are connected 
superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance energy concentration 
might result.


Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC 
formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC formation.




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light photons, 
that is not reflected away ends up heating the water.  Anything that 
concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be happening 
with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water.  This is not unusual 
except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine job of 
concentrating the energy; better than most techniques.  And, some of the local 
energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the remaining water 
resulting in its cooling.  Add everything up and you likely have no above unity 
gain.

There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of.  Perhaps Axil has 
seen some reference to this effect to discuss.  At any rate, the total energy 
contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than the input energy 
from the light source unless some mysterious means is

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

More...

When Papp found out he was going to die, Papp flushed his secret fuel mix
from all his engines three months before he died. If the Papp engine was a
scam, why would Papp go to the trouble just  to keep his secret from the
world?


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 If the Papp engine was not producing over unity power, then with the wall
 power removed the Papp engine  should have stopped. This is what RF
 thought. But unexpectedly, the engine increased its power output until it
 blew apart. This is not the behavior of a scam that RF was assuming. This
 is the behavior of a gainful LENR system.


 On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Jed,



 I thought so too, when Gene first published the other side of the story.



 But if your read Feynman’s account carefully, and you should - then you
 will see that Papp himself unplugged engine and handed the plug to Feynman.
 Feynman did not unplug the machine – he merely failed to give back the plug
 to Papp.



 BUT FEYNMAN WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO CONTINUE PAPP’S SCAM.



 Thus the liability is with Papp. If this had gone to trial there is no
 doubt Feynman would have prevailed.



 However, to settle out of court was probably the best thing for all
 concerned since there was a fatality and Cal Tech has deep pockets.



 However that death is on Papp. No doubt in my mind that he was legally
 responsible.





 *From:* Jed Rothwell



 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:





 Here is your “back to reality” information on Papp from Feynman himself.

   http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html

  If we assume the thing was real, then Feynman was responsible for the
 accident. He killed someone. It was criminal. Real or not, you should
 NEVER, EVER monkey with equipment or unplug a control unit without asking
 permission.



 If we assume it was not real, and power in equalled power out, it was
 still high powered device under the control of the electronics. Even a fake
 machine is dangerous if you suddenly disconnect the controls. It is like
 reaching over from the passenger seat and turning off the ignition in a car
 driving on a highway.



 Feynman was sometimes an arrogant, dismissive, unobservant jerk. He sure
 was in this case.



 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

2014-01-22 Thread a.ashfield


Jones Beene,

Nobody knows if the Papp engine was real.  Papp certainly demonstrated 
some remarkable things like a cannon, with many witnesses,  that blew up 
with more force than a conventional explosive.


Whether Feynman unplugged the wire is secondary to Papp becoming 
agitated when he wouldn't give it back to Papp.   Certainly Papp was 
paranoid and eccentric but that doesn't prove anything.  what will you 
say If Mills manages to demonstrate something real?


I think you have found Papp guilty before (possibly) being proved innocent.

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

I do not think this would be a problem.  Remember, the amount of steam formed 
must still be proportional to the amount of heat energy injected.   A device 
such as this can only make a small quantity of steam from a well defined amount 
of heat energy.  If some method is found to extract heat from the remaining 
liquid somewhat like a heat pump, it would only last for a short time.  The 
deception would also be easy to detect.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: torulf.greek torulf.gr...@bredband.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 6:44 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.


This ability of nano particles to make steam with lesser energy input may also 
make it possible to get false positive result in LENR.
If nano particles is used and laser or maybe some other simulation is used and 
the steam or evaporation is used for calorimetry.
Torulf
 
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:28:22 -0500, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

Here is some believe your own eyes type data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oPB_iniQ4https


At 2:00 Papp disconnect the batteries and the engine still runs. This was 
demonstrated to the patent office and Papp got the best patent of the year 
award back in the 70s..

When Mills can do that, Mills will only be 50 years behind Papp.




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil.  I do not know what is 
fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of what Mills is stating.  We 
need good data if we are to make much headway in understand these systems.

 Dave




-Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:27 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.


In the Papp engine, that one of the mysteries of that process is that it 
produces little heat. The energy density in the Mills cell indicates the 
production of little heat. I think this lack of heat condition is all connected 
under the nano-particle causation principle.



On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior associated with 
this material.  The exact mechanism responsible for the generation of water 
vapor may be difficult to discern.

 When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking place. 
 Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so that a net 
cooling of the remaining water takes place.  If I recall, wind blowing over a 
wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals.  Vapor sprays can be used in 
a similar fashion.

 The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano 
particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating much of 
the surrounding water.  If we find that the distance traveled is tiny, then 
there is no big mystery here.  On the other hand, if the vapor travels a 
significant distance through cool water without depositing heat in that water, 
then that should get our attention.

 Dave



-Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



One characterization of the process that you have not considered is 
localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average 
temperature of the waterdoes not rise.

Another enhancement of the effect is the development of Bose-Einstein 
condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots are connected 
superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance energy concentration 
might result.

Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC 
formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC formation.




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light photons, 
that is not reflected away ends up heating the water.  Anything that 
concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be happening 
with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water.  This is not unusual 
except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine job of 
concentrating the energy; better than most techniques.  And, some of the local 
energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the remaining water 
resulting in its cooling.  Add everything up and you likely have no above unity 
gain.

 There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of.  Perhaps Axil has 
seen some reference to this effect to discuss.  At any rate, the total energy 
contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than the input energy 
from the light source unless some mysterious means is present.

 I do not see any need to assume LENR is

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


 The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did
 not find its way into production if it actually performed as described.
  Even an idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a
 great investment and money maker.  The videos mentioned that it was
 demonstrated to at least one automaker and they are not stupid.  Why on
 earth would they let such an opportunity get away?  It just doesn't add up.


Bob Rohner asked Papp about this. Jo why don't you put your engine into
production:.

Papp said that production is a lot of work and worry. Why go through it
when I can get all the money I need from investors when I need it. Look
around, I have all I can ever want...cars, boat, house...etc. why go
through all the trouble that comes with production.

Maybe Mills thinks in like ways.

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

David, you show a most annoying circular reasoning trap.

First you fail to recognize the obvious resistance to a product that will
put oil and energy companies out of business, one of the biggest there is.

Next you say that you would require an extraordinary level of evidence to
believe in it.

Then you think that surely if real it would have gone into production
without considering the first above point (status quo resistance) and that
others are also doubtful of something so extraordinary and so have
significant resistance to believing it short of exceptional evidence.

I have heard this illogical thought process many times, sadly the utility
of something does not overcome the resistance of belief and powerful
entrenched interests.




On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I have to admit that sometimes I do not believe my own eyes.  I once saw
 what some refer to as a UFO and I did not believe what I saw.  In that
 case, I would have had to go up to whatever it was and inspect it in detail
 before accepting that it was real. To believe in a device as revolutionary
 as the Papp engine would take that level of involvement.  It seems too good
 to be true.

  The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did
 not find its way into production if it actually performed as described.
  Even an idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a
 great investment and money maker.  The videos mentioned that it was
 demonstrated to at least one automaker and they are not stupid.  Why on
 earth would they let such an opportunity get away?  It just doesn't add up.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 6:28 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

  Here is some believe your own eyes type data:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oPB_iniQ4https


  At 2:00 Papp disconnect the batteries and the engine still runs. This
 was demonstrated to the patent office and Papp got the best patent of the
 year award back in the 70s..

  When Mills can do that, Mills will only be 50 years behind Papp.


 On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil.  I do not know what
 is fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of what Mills is stating.
 We need good data if we are to make much headway in understand these
 systems.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
   Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:27 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

  In the Papp engine, that one of the mysteries of that process is that
 it produces little heat. The energy density in the Mills cell indicates the
 production of little heat. I think this lack of heat condition is all
 connected under the nano-particle causation principle.


 On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior associated
 with this material.  The exact mechanism responsible for the generation of
 water vapor may be difficult to discern.

 When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking
 place.  Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so
 that a net cooling of the remaining water takes place.  If I recall, wind
 blowing over a wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals.  Vapor
 sprays can be used in a similar fashion.

 The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano
 particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating much
 of the surrounding water.  If we find that the distance traveled is tiny,
 then there is no big mystery here.  On the other hand, if the vapor travels
 a significant distance through cool water without depositing heat in that
 water, then that should get our attention.

 Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
   Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

  One characterization of the process that you have not considered is
 localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average
 temperature of the waterdoes not rise.

  Another enhancement of the effect is the development of Bose-Einstein
 condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots are connected
 superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance energy
 concentration might result.

  Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC
 formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC
 formation.


  On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

I look at this issue from another angle.  If Papp had a real engine, then why 
would he want to keep it from humanity?  It seems more likely that he wanted to 
prevent others from seeing that his device was a fake and the liquids would 
make that obvious. Many people would like to prevent being viewed as having 
committed a fraud or being a faker, even when they face death.  I for one would 
want the future generations to benefit from my work.  It is selfish to do 
otherwise.


Feynmann, on the other hand, should not have acted as he did during that 
demonstration.  He may have been correct in assuming that the device was a 
fraud, but there is no way to be positive about that belief.  He should have 
found other ways to prove his point since he could not know the consequences of 
the action he took.  I hope he learned an important lesion.



Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:05 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



More...


When Papp found out he was going to die, Papp flushed his secret fuel mix from 
all his engines three months before he died. If the Papp engine was a scam, why 
would Papp go to the trouble just  to keep his secret from the world?  




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

If the Papp engine was not producing over unity power, then with the wall power 
removed the Papp engine  should have stopped. This is what RF thought. But 
unexpectedly, the engine increased its power output until it blew apart. This 
is not the behavior of a scam that RF was assuming. This is the behavior of a 
gainful LENR system.




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


Jed,
 
I thought so too, whenGene first published the other side of the story. 
 
But if your read Feynman’saccount carefully, and you should - then you will see 
that Papp himself unpluggedengine and handed the plug to Feynman. Feynman did 
not unplug the machine –he merely failed to give back the plug to Papp.
 
BUT FEYNMAN WAS UNDER NO LEGALOBLIGATION TO CONTINUE PAPP’S SCAM.
 
Thus the liability is withPapp. If this had gone to trial there is no doubt 
Feynman would have prevailed.
 
However, to settle out ofcourt was probably the best thing for all concerned 
since there was a fatalityand Cal Tech has deep pockets. 
 
However that death is onPapp. No doubt in my mind that he was legally 
responsible.
 
 
From:Jed Rothwell 

 


Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 
 
Here is your “back to reality” information on Pappfrom Feynman himself.



http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html



If we assume the thing was real, then Feynman wasresponsible for the accident. 
He killed someone. It was criminal. Real or not,you should NEVER, EVER monkey 
with equipment or unplug a control unit withoutasking permission. 

 

If we assume it was not real, and power in equalledpower out, it was still high 
powered device under the control of theelectronics. Even a fake machine is 
dangerous if you suddenly disconnect thecontrols. It is like reaching over from 
the passenger seat and turning off theignition in a car driving on a highway.

 

Feynman was sometimes an arrogant, dismissive,unobservant jerk. He sure was in 
this case.

 

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

If the Papp engine was not producing over unity power, then with the wall
power removed the Papp engine should have stopped. 

 

Not if there was a battery and other circuitry designed to cause a
catastrophic failure after a burst of acceleration; so apparently you did
not read RF's explanation either. 

 

Feynman suspected that the engine was intentionally rigged to do what it
did, via an internal battery or capacitor and a small explosive. The
motivation was to avoid having to face certain exposure during independent
testing at SRI, which the investors had already demanded, and which was
scheduled soon after this demo. Testing would have effectively ended the
scam, and Papp's income stream, according to Feynman.

 

We know for sure that testing was scheduled at SRI after this demo, so we
must give this hypothesis the same consideration as anything else, as to
motivation. Feynman believed that everything except the fatality itself
actually happened according to plan, and that he was set up as a patsy by a
consummate con artist - to make it all more believable. But not of course
Papp was not expecting that a fatality would occur.

 

This is what RF thought. But unexpectedly, the engine increased its power
output until it blew apart. This is not the behavior of a scam that RF was
assuming. This is the behavior of a gainful LENR system.

 

No that is not accurate. You either did not read Feynman's explanation, or
else you choose to reject it. Everyone knows that Feynman, like Mills was
arrogant due to a superior intellect, but this is not a good reason to
overlook the small fact that he was probably correct in this case, since
Papp was already PROVED TO BE a con artist of the highest order - with his
300 MPH submarine. You simply cannot overlook this.

 

There is no doubt of Papp's lack of credibility, due to the widely
publicized falsehood about the submarine crash in France, and when this is
shown in a court trial, it would have made the verdict fall in Feynman's
favor. It is absurd to think Papp could excluded that evidence, as it goes
to credibility.

 

For years, I believed Gene Mallove's account in IE, too, and posted several
favorable things about Papp here year ago - but now, having thought about it
for many years in the context of probability and believability, and the lack
of any real data favoring Papp, it seems that the weight of evidence falls
on the side of the hated (envied) Feynman. 

 

Heck, I envy that the guy too - he was too damn smart. but geeze get over it
and look at the probabilities. 

 

Feynman was right about many things (not all) and Papp was probably one of
the things he was right about. It does the field of LENR no good -zero- to
support a known con-artist who claimed to have piloted a 300 MPH submarine
to France where he had to scuttle it so the Soviet's would not get hold of
it. Geeze - this story of Papp's is hard to rationalize in any other way
that the guy was a pathological liar.

 

And Feynman can be believed, even if he was wrong about LENR. At least to my
second-rate brain power. 

 

However, one thing that I have learned on this forum - and it never fails to
be true, is this: all of us are smarter than any one of us. This should be
the motto of vortex. If we ever reach a consensus on anything, it is
probably correct. 

 

The only problem is that it is never clear how to apply that maxim, other
than to say that experiment always trumps theory . which should favor
Papp, but for the little unforgettable incident of the 300 MPH submarine and
what that does to one's credibility.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

RF was delusional. The engine was inspected after the incident and no
battery was found and not explosive residue either. That is why RF's
employer settled with Papp out of court for big money.


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:



 *From:* Axil Axil



 If the Papp engine was not producing over unity power, then with the wall
 power removed the Papp engine should have stopped.



 Not if there was a battery and other circuitry designed to cause a
 catastrophic failure after a burst of acceleration; so apparently you did
 not read RF’s explanation either.



 Feynman suspected that the engine was intentionally rigged to do what it
 did, via an internal battery or capacitor and a small explosive. The
 motivation was to avoid having to face certain exposure during independent
 testing at SRI, which the investors had already demanded, and which was
 scheduled soon after this demo. Testing would have effectively ended the
 scam, and Papp’s income stream, according to Feynman.



 We know for sure that testing was scheduled at SRI after this demo, so we
 must give this hypothesis the same consideration as anything else, as to
 motivation. Feynman believed that everything except the fatality itself
 actually happened according to plan, and that he was set up as a patsy by a
 consummate con artist - to make it all more believable. But not of course
 Papp was not expecting that a fatality would occur.



 This is what RF thought. But unexpectedly, the engine increased its power
 output until it blew apart. This is not the behavior of a scam that RF was
 assuming. This is the behavior of a gainful LENR system.



 No that is not accurate. You either did not read Feynman’s explanation, or
 else you choose to reject it. Everyone knows that Feynman, like Mills was
 arrogant due to a superior intellect, but this is not a good reason to
 overlook the small fact that he was probably correct in this case, since
 Papp was already PROVED TO BE a con artist of the highest order - with his
 300 MPH submarine. You simply cannot overlook this.



 There is no doubt of Papp’s lack of credibility, due to the widely
 publicized falsehood about the submarine crash in France, and when this is
 shown in a court trial, it would have made the verdict fall in Feynman’s
 favor. It is absurd to think Papp could excluded that evidence, as it goes
 to credibility.



 For years, I believed Gene Mallove’s account in IE, too, and posted
 several favorable things about Papp here year ago - but now, having thought
 about it for many years in the context of probability and believability,
 and the lack of any real data favoring Papp, it seems that the weight of
 evidence falls on the side of the hated (envied) Feynman.



 Heck, I envy that the guy too – he was too damn smart… but geeze get over
 it and look at the probabilities.



 Feynman was right about many things (not all) and Papp was probably one of
 the things he was right about. It does the field of LENR no good –zero- to
 support a known con-artist who claimed to have piloted a 300 MPH submarine
 to France where he had to scuttle it so the Soviet’s would not get hold of
 it. Geeze – this story of Papp’s is hard to rationalize in any other way
 that the guy was a pathological liar.



 And Feynman can be believed, even if he was wrong about LENR. At least to
 my second-rate brain power.



 However, one thing that I have learned on this forum - and it never fails
 to be true, is this: “all of us are smarter than any one of us.” This
 should be the motto of vortex. If we ever reach a consensus on anything, it
 is probably correct.



 The only problem is that it is never clear how to apply that maxim, other
 than to say that “experiment always trumps theory” … which should favor
 Papp, but for the little unforgettable incident of the 300 MPH submarine
 and what that does to one’s credibility.



 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Papp never made things easy for those who seek his secrets. After the
disastrous demo in which the Nobel laureate Richard Feynman attended and
witnessed the explosion that killed and maimed a few of those in
attendance, Papp never could be persuaded to give the engine up for an
independent evaluation and test.

Depression, too: He would talk about his misery, how he was so badly
treated, says John Phillips, an attorney who spent years trying to repair
Papp's relations with his backers.

And paranoia, especially: He was scared from his shadow, Szabo, an
erstwhile Papp acquaintance says. He feared the oil companies or the Mafia
would come after him. Nobody could explain that nobody wanted to shoot
him.

In one of the depositions he gave during his suit in court, Papp left a
glimpse of this. I am a scientist and I try to fight for United States and
I am willing to work with United States, you understand, because I lost my
country. . .  But you have to think who is the troublemaker and who tried
to cut my throat.


His engine was his life; his pride was fully invested in his engine and his
soul lived in its works.

''He believed fervently that if he ever gave up the secrets, he would be
totally out, Phillips says.  . . . If he lost that, nobody would ever be
interested in Joe Papp.


In a final paranoid irony, the true danger that stalked Papp finally
revealed itself in a pain deep in his stomach. Those radioactive elements
he loved so much in their lethal nature did their deadly work. In the end,
it was not a bullet that finally laid Papp low; it was colon cancer that
eventually brought him down.


Why did he work so hard on an engine he could never give up, and share his
secret with the world desperate for it?

And worse of all,  when he knew he was going to die, three months before
his end, in a final act of ultimate selfishness, he flushed that precious
mix of noble gases from his engines into the heartless air to guard his
secret unto himself forever into eternity.


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I look at this issue from another angle.  If Papp had a real engine, then
 why would he want to keep it from humanity?  It seems more likely that he
 wanted to prevent others from seeing that his device was a fake and the
 liquids would make that obvious. Many people would like to prevent being
 viewed as having committed a fraud or being a faker, even when they face
 death.  I for one would want the future generations to benefit from my
 work.  It is selfish to do otherwise.

  Feynmann, on the other hand, should not have acted as he did during that
 demonstration.  He may have been correct in assuming that the device was a
 fraud, but there is no way to be positive about that belief.  He should
 have found other ways to prove his point since he could not know the
 consequences of the action he took.  I hope he learned an important lesion.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:05 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

  More...

  When Papp found out he was going to die, Papp flushed his secret fuel
 mix from all his engines three months before he died. If the Papp engine
 was a scam, why would Papp go to the trouble just  to keep his secret from
 the world?


 On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 If the Papp engine was not producing over unity power, then with the wall
 power removed the Papp engine  should have stopped. This is what RF
 thought. But unexpectedly, the engine increased its power output until it
 blew apart. This is not the behavior of a scam that RF was assuming. This
 is the behavior of a gainful LENR system.


 On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Jed,

 I thought so too, when Gene first published the other side of the story.

 But if your read Feynman’s account carefully, and you should - then you
 will see that Papp himself unplugged engine and handed the plug to Feynman.
 Feynman did not unplug the machine – he merely failed to give back the plug
 to Papp.

 BUT FEYNMAN WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO CONTINUE PAPP’S SCAM.

 Thus the liability is with Papp. If this had gone to trial there is no
 doubt Feynman would have prevailed.

 However, to settle out of court was probably the best thing for all
 concerned since there was a fatality and Cal Tech has deep pockets.

 However that death is on Papp. No doubt in my mind that he was legally
 responsible.


 *From:* Jed Rothwell

   Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Here is your “back to reality” information on Papp from Feynman himself.

   http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html

  If we assume the thing was real, then Feynman was responsible for the
 accident. He killed someone. It was criminal. Real or not, you should
 NEVER, EVER monkey with equipment or unplug

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

I sure hope not!  If Mills really has a device that performs as he indicates, 
then I will be super pleased.


There is great pleasure in seeing something you helped design go into 
production and be used by thousands of happy clients.  Nothing feels better 
than seeing your design out in public performing a task that is needed and I 
can not imagine someone willing to forgo that pride just to cheat others out of 
their investment funds.  I say cheat because the guys that supported Papp, in 
the case you mention, had a right to make a profit on their money.  Papp should 
have been ashamed to take the money that these investors entrusted to him with 
that type of attitude.  I know many people who have accepted funds to start 
companies and they typically worry more about the people who trust them that 
they worry about their own situation.


If Papp had the attitude you attribute to him, then he appears more like a 
fraud than otherwise.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.







On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:



The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did not 
find its way into production if it actually performed as described.  Even an 
idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a great investment 
and money maker.  The videos mentioned that it was demonstrated to at least one 
automaker and they are not stupid.  Why on earth would they let such an 
opportunity get away?  It just doesn't add up.



Bob Rohner asked Papp about this. Jo why don't you put your engine into 
production:.


Papp said that production is a lot of work and worry. Why go through it when I 
can get all the money I need from investors when I need it. Look around, I have 
all I can ever want...cars, boat, house...etc. why go through all the trouble 
that comes with production.


Maybe Mills thinks in like ways.

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

2014-01-22 Thread torulf.greek



If I remember it right. 

There was relatively newly at PES, much
about an Papp-engine called noble gas engine. The PES people appears
to believe in all weird things but they 

exposed this as a simple
fraud. 

Torulf 

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:43:05 -0500 (EST), David
Roberson  wrote: I sure hope not! If Mills really has a device that
performs as he indicates, then I will be super pleased. 

There is great
pleasure in seeing something you helped design go into production and be
used by thousands of happy clients. Nothing feels better than seeing
your design out in public performing a task that is needed and I can not
imagine someone willing to forgo that pride just to cheat others out of
their investment funds. I say cheat because the guys that supported
Papp, in the case you mention, had a right to make a profit on their
money. Papp should have been ashamed to take the money that these
investors entrusted to him with that type of attitude. I know many
people who have accepted funds to start companies and they typically
worry more about the people who trust them that they worry about their
own situation. 

If Papp had the attitude you attribute to him, then he
appears more like a fraud than otherwise. 

Dave

-Original
Message-
 From: Axil Axil 
 To: vortex-l 
 Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014
8:15 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water
to a boil.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

The
other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did not
find its way into production if it actually performed as described. Even
an idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a great
investment and money maker. The videos mentioned that it was
demonstrated to at least one automaker and they are not stupid. Why on
earth would they let such an opportunity get away? It just doesn't add
up.  

Bob Rohner asked Papp about this. Jo why don't you put your
engine into production:. 

Papp said that production is a lot of work
and worry. Why go through it when I can get all the money I need from
investors when I need it. Look around, I have all I can ever
want...cars, boat, house...etc. why go through all the trouble that
comes with production. 

Maybe Mills thinks in like ways.   


Links:
--
[1] mailto:dlrober...@aol.com

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

You should further your education into human nature by dealing with a
criminal psychopath. Bernie Madoff is not available anymore but I am sure
there are many more doing business on wall street.



On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I sure hope not!  If Mills really has a device that performs as he
 indicates, then I will be super pleased.

  There is great pleasure in seeing something you helped design go into
 production and be used by thousands of happy clients.  Nothing feels better
 than seeing your design out in public performing a task that is needed and
 I can not imagine someone willing to forgo that pride just to cheat others
 out of their investment funds.  I say cheat because the guys that supported
 Papp, in the case you mention, had a right to make a profit on their money.
  Papp should have been ashamed to take the money that these investors
 entrusted to him with that type of attitude.  I know many people who have
 accepted funds to start companies and they typically worry more about the
 people who trust them that they worry about their own situation.

  If Papp had the attitude you attribute to him, then he appears more like
 a fraud than otherwise.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:15 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.




 On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:


 The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did
 not find its way into production if it actually performed as described.
  Even an idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a
 great investment and money maker.  The videos mentioned that it was
 demonstrated to at least one automaker and they are not stupid.  Why on
 earth would they let such an opportunity get away?  It just doesn't add up.


  Bob Rohner asked Papp about this. Jo why don't you put your engine into
 production:.

  Papp said that production is a lot of work and worry. Why go through it
 when I can get all the money I need from investors when I need it. Look
 around, I have all I can ever want...cars, boat, house...etc. why go
 through all the trouble that comes with production.

  Maybe Mills thinks in like ways.

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

2014-01-22 Thread pagnucco

Pardon - this has probably already been mentioned before, but could this
be related to the alleged excess energy released in water arc explosions?

I do not know how real the results are, but some papers that
directly or indirectly reference them follow:

The Alternative to Nuclear Energy - Peter Graneau
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue82/alternativetonuclearenergy.html

Reaching 2,000 M.P.H. - With a Little Water
http://www.csmonitor.com/1996/0401/01142.html

POSSIBILITY OF LIBERATING SOLAR ENERGY VIA WATER ARC EXPLOSIONS
http://www.free-energy-info.com/P2.pdf

Do water arc explosions release internal water energy? If so, what is the
source of the released energy?
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Electrolysis_Water_Arc_and_Dielectric_Breakdown/Leavitt%20-%20Do%20water%20arc%20explosions%20release%20internal%20water%20energy%20-%202013.pdf

Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy
http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/pdffiles/Arc-liberated%20chemical%20energy.pdf

Dipole electromagnetic forces on thin wires under transient high
voltage pulses
http://www.academia.edu/5346976/THE_EUROPEAN_PHYSICAL_JOURNAL_APPLIED_PHYSICS_Dipole_electromagnetic_forces_on_thin_wires_under_transient_high_voltage_pulses

Renewable energy liberation by nonthermal intermolecular bond
dissociation in water and ethanol
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224219386_Renewable_energy_liberation_by_nonthermal_intermolecular_bond_dissociation_in_water_and_ethanol/file/d912f511285da85c2d.pdf

How credible are the excess energy claims?

-- Lou Pagnucco

David Roberson wrote:
 It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil.  I do not know what
 is fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of what Mills is stating.
  We need good data if we are to make much headway in understand these
 systems.

 Dave
 [...]

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

This angle was covered in the BLP demo - the energizing electrodes thread
to some degree.

Water arcs have been know to produce over unity power production.

In 1969, the US Bureau of Mines issued a long report on their investigation
into using water arc explosions for rock fragmentation. In one experiment
the investigators at the Twin City Mining Research Center noticed that the
energy output was apparently 156% of the input.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:07 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 Pardon - this has probably already been mentioned before, but could this
 be related to the alleged excess energy released in water arc explosions?

 I do not know how real the results are, but some papers that
 directly or indirectly reference them follow:

 The Alternative to Nuclear Energy - Peter Graneau

 http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue82/alternativetonuclearenergy.html

 Reaching 2,000 M.P.H. - With a Little Water
 http://www.csmonitor.com/1996/0401/01142.html

 POSSIBILITY OF LIBERATING SOLAR ENERGY VIA WATER ARC EXPLOSIONS
 http://www.free-energy-info.com/P2.pdf

 “Do water arc explosions release internal water energy? If so, what is the
 source of the released energy?”

 http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Electrolysis_Water_Arc_and_Dielectric_Breakdown/Leavitt%20-%20Do%20water%20arc%20explosions%20release%20internal%20water%20energy%20-%202013.pdf

 Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy

 http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/pdffiles/Arc-liberated%20chemical%20energy.pdf

 Dipole electromagnetic forces on thin wires under transient high
 voltage pulses

 http://www.academia.edu/5346976/THE_EUROPEAN_PHYSICAL_JOURNAL_APPLIED_PHYSICS_Dipole_electromagnetic_forces_on_thin_wires_under_transient_high_voltage_pulses

 Renewable energy liberation by nonthermal intermolecular bond
 dissociation in water and ethanol

 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224219386_Renewable_energy_liberation_by_nonthermal_intermolecular_bond_dissociation_in_water_and_ethanol/file/d912f511285da85c2d.pdf

 How credible are the excess energy claims?

 -- Lou Pagnucco

 David Roberson wrote:
  It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil.  I do not know what
  is fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of what Mills is
 stating.
   We need good data if we are to make much headway in understand these
  systems.
 
  Dave
  [...]

RE: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com 

 How credible are the excess energy claims?


In the balance of credibility - towards water arc gainfulness, you should
also consider George Hathaway's retraction of the Graneau work. He was
coauthor.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg26685.html

The case for gain is there but it is flimsy

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Sorry John.  You are correct about what you say to a certain extent.  How much 
resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a vehicle 
that runs virtually for free?  This is the same group that will ensure that 
LENR does not get hidden behind closed doors.  It is far more likely that the 
engine does not work than that the automobile companies would fail to realize 
the prize before them since the first one to put such an engine into their 
vehicles is the one that makes an enormous windfall and I find it difficult to 
believe that those guys do not understand that.


If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to buy the 
engine themselves to keep it out of use.  That is one of the main concerns that 
LENR will face once the companies realize that this technology is real.  So 
far, no one has convinced the oil industry that they are doomed.  Hopefully, it 
will be too late for them to slam shut the doors in time to save themselves.  
Are you aware of any past attempt to prevent Papp from marketing his engine?


I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is as 
revolutionary as the Papp engine.  How can I or anyone else trust our normal 
senses to be right about such a device?  From what I read, Papp did not go out 
of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and tested by anyone 
out of his control.  Who are we to trust to make a determination that that 
device was not a fraud?  Apparently Feynmann did not believe in the device and 
he was well respected in the physics community.


So yes, I will require plenty of proof before I accept the Papp concept.  That 
proof will begin when someone can demonstrate that the COE is preserved in such 
a system.  Mills might turn out to be that guy, and I wish him plenty of luck.  
But, until strong evidence is presented I will harbor significant doubt.  I 
have a suspicion that you are also not convinced that the Papp engine is 
totally above board.  Am I right?


Also, consider that action of Papp just before his death.  Hiding the secret 
that might save millions of lives and bring on a new world is not the kind of 
action taken by a reasonable, caring individual.  Instead, it is exactly what I 
would expect for one hoping to keep his soon to be tarnished reputation intact 
into the future.  Apparently he did a great job of hiding his secret liquid 
brew along with his submarine scam.  Maybe that one was real and I just do not 
understand it either?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.


David, you show a most annoying circular reasoning trap.


First you fail to recognize the obvious resistance to a product that will put 
oil and energy companies out of business, one of the biggest there is.


Next you say that you would require an extraordinary level of evidence to 
believe in it.


Then you think that surely if real it would have gone into production without 
considering the first above point (status quo resistance) and that others are 
also doubtful of something so extraordinary and so have significant resistance 
to believing it short of exceptional evidence.


I have heard this illogical thought process many times, sadly the utility of 
something does not overcome the resistance of belief and powerful entrenched 
interests. 








On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I have to admit that sometimes I do not believe my own eyes.  I once saw what 
some refer to as a UFO and I did not believe what I saw.  In that case, I would 
have had to go up to whatever it was and inspect it in detail before accepting 
that it was real. To believe in a device as revolutionary as the Papp engine 
would take that level of involvement.  It seems too good to be true.


The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did not 
find its way into production if it actually performed as described.  Even an 
idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a great investment 
and money maker.  The videos mentioned that it was demonstrated to at least one 
automaker and they are not stupid.  Why on earth would they let such an 
opportunity get away?  It just doesn't add up.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com


Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 6:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



Here is some believe your own eyes type data:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oPB_iniQ4https




At 2:00 Papp disconnect the batteries and the engine still runs. This was 
demonstrated to the patent office and Papp got the best patent of the year 
award back in the 70s..


When Mills can do that, Mills will only be 50 years behind Papp.




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

I have dealt with crooks before Axil.  On several occasions I designed radio 
devices that worked as advertised but the clients realized that I was too busy 
to spend the time and effort suing them to collect the bonus payment earned.  
You can understand why they found themselves having to maintain the software 
designed into the product when upgrades were desired.  I suppose they made a 
business decision that was not honest, but saved them capital.


The behavior I described above was not typical of most companies.  I can't 
recall working with a criminal psychopath in the past, but I have certainly met 
some strange owners.  I steered clear of anyone I found to be dishonest at the 
first hint of that behavior.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 9:07 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



You should further your education into human nature by dealing with a criminal 
psychopath. Bernie Madoff is not available anymore but I am sure there are many 
more doing business on wall street.






On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I sure hope not!  If Mills really has a device that performs as he indicates, 
then I will be super pleased.


There is great pleasure in seeing something you helped design go into 
production and be used by thousands of happy clients.  Nothing feels better 
than seeing your design out in public performing a task that is needed and I 
can not imagine someone willing to forgo that pride just to cheat others out of 
their investment funds.  I say cheat because the guys that supported Papp, in 
the case you mention, had a right to make a profit on their money.  Papp should 
have been ashamed to take the money that these investors entrusted to him with 
that type of attitude.  I know many people who have accepted funds to start 
companies and they typically worry more about the people who trust them that 
they worry about their own situation.


If Papp had the attitude you attribute to him, then he appears more like a 
fraud than otherwise.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.









On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:



The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did not 
find its way into production if it actually performed as described.  Even an 
idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a great investment 
and money maker.  The videos mentioned that it was demonstrated to at least one 
automaker and they are not stupid.  Why on earth would they let such an 
opportunity get away?  It just doesn't add up.



Bob Rohner asked Papp about this. Jo why don't you put your engine into 
production:.


Papp said that production is a lot of work and worry. Why go through it when I 
can get all the money I need from investors when I need it. Look around, I have 
all I can ever want...cars, boat, house...etc. why go through all the trouble 
that comes with production.


Maybe Mills thinks in like ways.

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

I have a possible take on a man like Mills who has invested so much into
this theory that might be Papp like. If his world saving invention  was
found to contradict the hydrino theory, he might pull a Papp and kill the
project to maintain his place in history.

When a man ties his ego so very tightly to something, then to protect that
beloved thing, the welfare of the world can go to hell.


Just a thought...


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Sorry John.  You are correct about what you say to a certain extent.  How
 much resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a
 vehicle that runs virtually for free?  This is the same group that will
 ensure that LENR does not get hidden behind closed doors.  It is far more
 likely that the engine does not work than that the automobile companies
 would fail to realize the prize before them since the first one to put such
 an engine into their vehicles is the one that makes an enormous windfall
 and I find it difficult to believe that those guys do not understand that.

  If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to
 buy the engine themselves to keep it out of use.  That is one of the main
 concerns that LENR will face once the companies realize that this
 technology is real.  So far, no one has convinced the oil industry that
 they are doomed.  Hopefully, it will be too late for them to slam shut the
 doors in time to save themselves.  Are you aware of any past attempt to
 prevent Papp from marketing his engine?

  I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is
 as revolutionary as the Papp engine.  How can I or anyone else trust our
 normal senses to be right about such a device?  From what I read, Papp did
 not go out of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and
 tested by anyone out of his control.  Who are we to trust to make a
 determination that that device was not a fraud?  Apparently Feynmann did
 not believe in the device and he was well respected in the physics
 community.

  So yes, I will require plenty of proof before I accept the Papp concept.
  That proof will begin when someone can demonstrate that the COE is
 preserved in such a system.  Mills might turn out to be that guy, and I
 wish him plenty of luck.  But, until strong evidence is presented I will
 harbor significant doubt.  I have a suspicion that you are also not
 convinced that the Papp engine is totally above board.  Am I right?

  Also, consider that action of Papp just before his death.  Hiding the
 secret that might save millions of lives and bring on a new world is not
 the kind of action taken by a reasonable, caring individual.  Instead, it
 is exactly what I would expect for one hoping to keep his soon to be
 tarnished reputation intact into the future.  Apparently he did a great job
 of hiding his secret liquid brew along with his submarine scam.  Maybe that
 one was real and I just do not understand it either?

  Dave



 -Original Message-
 From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:28 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

  David, you show a most annoying circular reasoning trap.

  First you fail to recognize the obvious resistance to a product that
 will put oil and energy companies out of business, one of the biggest there
 is.

  Next you say that you would require an extraordinary level of evidence
 to believe in it.

  Then you think that surely if real it would have gone into production
 without considering the first above point (status quo resistance) and that
 others are also doubtful of something so extraordinary and so have
 significant resistance to believing it short of exceptional evidence.

  I have heard this illogical thought process many times, sadly the
 utility of something does not overcome the resistance of belief and
 powerful entrenched interests.




 On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 I have to admit that sometimes I do not believe my own eyes.  I once saw
 what some refer to as a UFO and I did not believe what I saw.  In that
 case, I would have had to go up to whatever it was and inspect it in detail
 before accepting that it was real. To believe in a device as revolutionary
 as the Papp engine would take that level of involvement.  It seems too good
 to be true.

  The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine
 did not find its way into production if it actually performed as described.
  Even an idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a
 great investment and money maker.  The videos mentioned that it was
 demonstrated to at least one automaker and they are not stupid.  Why on
 earth would they let such an opportunity get away?  It just doesn't add up.

  Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To:

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

2014-01-22 Thread James Bowery

WD Hamilton, in Innate Social Aptitudes of Man wrote about the tendency
of civilization to breed cultural creativity out of the gene pool for the
simple and obvious reason that the benefits of invention do not go to the
inventor's genetic correlates while the inventor bears the costs of
invention to his evolutionary fitness.

This kind of phenomenon hits some inventors harder than others and in
Papp's case, I can believe that if he had what he claimed to have, and was
seeing the way inventors were being treated in the US, that he might have
gone from despising the Soviet takeover of Hungary to despising
civilization itself, and decided he would rather not feed the beast that is
consuming its life-support.


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 ...Why did he work so hard on an engine he could never give up, and share
 his secret with the world desperate for it?

 And worse of all,  when he knew he was going to die, three months before
 his end, in a final act of ultimate selfishness, he flushed that precious
 mix of noble gases from his engines into the heartless air to guard his
 secret unto himself forever into eternity.

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

That may be the solution Axil.  Pride can make people do things that they would 
not do otherwise.  I am sure most of us have said of done things that we later 
realized was not entirely accurate but failed to set the record straight.  
Perhaps, as more of your existence becomes entangled in the idea, you do not 
allow yourself to fail and loose face.  I suspect there are a number of 
physicists that we all know that are beginning to understand that they have 
essentially made fools of themselves by their opposition to LENR and can not 
allow themselves to admit their long time errors.  Most will go to their graves 
with the secret.


My two cents worth.



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 9:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



I have a possible take on a man like Mills who has invested so much into this 
theory that might be Papp like. If his world saving invention  was found to 
contradict the hydrino theory, he might pull a Papp and kill the project to 
maintain his place in history.


When a man ties his ego so very tightly to something, then to protect that 
beloved thing, the welfare of the world can go to hell. 




Just a thought...




On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Sorry John.  You are correct about what you say to a certain extent.  How much 
resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a vehicle 
that runs virtually for free?  This is the same group that will ensure that 
LENR does not get hidden behind closed doors.  It is far more likely that the 
engine does not work than that the automobile companies would fail to realize 
the prize before them since the first one to put such an engine into their 
vehicles is the one that makes an enormous windfall and I find it difficult to 
believe that those guys do not understand that.


If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to buy the 
engine themselves to keep it out of use.  That is one of the main concerns that 
LENR will face once the companies realize that this technology is real.  So 
far, no one has convinced the oil industry that they are doomed.  Hopefully, it 
will be too late for them to slam shut the doors in time to save themselves.  
Are you aware of any past attempt to prevent Papp from marketing his engine?


I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is as 
revolutionary as the Papp engine.  How can I or anyone else trust our normal 
senses to be right about such a device?  From what I read, Papp did not go out 
of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and tested by anyone 
out of his control.  Who are we to trust to make a determination that that 
device was not a fraud?  Apparently Feynmann did not believe in the device and 
he was well respected in the physics community.


So yes, I will require plenty of proof before I accept the Papp concept.  That 
proof will begin when someone can demonstrate that the COE is preserved in such 
a system.  Mills might turn out to be that guy, and I wish him plenty of luck.  
But, until strong evidence is presented I will harbor significant doubt.  I 
have a suspicion that you are also not convinced that the Papp engine is 
totally above board.  Am I right?


Also, consider that action of Papp just before his death.  Hiding the secret 
that might save millions of lives and bring on a new world is not the kind of 
action taken by a reasonable, caring individual.  Instead, it is exactly what I 
would expect for one hoping to keep his soon to be tarnished reputation intact 
into the future.  Apparently he did a great job of hiding his secret liquid 
brew along with his submarine scam.  Maybe that one was real and I just do not 
understand it either?


Dave




-Original Message-
From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.


David, you show a most annoying circular reasoning trap.


First you fail to recognize the obvious resistance to a product that will put 
oil and energy companies out of business, one of the biggest there is.


Next you say that you would require an extraordinary level of evidence to 
believe in it.


Then you think that surely if real it would have gone into production without 
considering the first above point (status quo resistance) and that others are 
also doubtful of something so extraordinary and so have significant resistance 
to believing it short of exceptional evidence.


I have heard this illogical thought process many times, sadly the utility of 
something does not overcome the resistance of belief and powerful entrenched 
interests. 








On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I have to admit that sometimes I do not believe

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 But if your read Feynman’s account carefully, and you should - then you
 will see that Papp himself unplugged engine and handed the plug to Feynman.
 Feynman did not unplug the machine – he merely failed to give back the plug
 to Papp.


No, sorry, that is equally unforgivable. Papp was clearly in a panic
wanting the power restored. Feynman should have handed it over the plug
immediately, whether he thought the machine was real or fake. Actually,
real or fake has nothing to do with it. As I said, even a fake machine
might be dangerous. For all anyone knows, it might be more dangerous than a
real one -- depending on how it works.

To change my analogy a little, if the two of them had been flying a dual
control biplane at Peachtree Dekalb Airport (PDK), and Papp as pilot had
handed over the controls momentarily, Feynman would have to hand back
control immediately upon request, and not do anything to interfere with the
flight after that. (PDK is where my office is, and they actually do have
WWII dual control biplanes here. During the war, students would sometimes
freeze up and crash those planes, killing the instructors.)



 BUT FEYNMAN WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO CONTINUE PAPP’S SCAM.


Giving the plug back would not, in any way, make him legally obligated or
guilty of anything.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

2014-01-22 Thread Lennart Thornros

I cannot determine if Papp was a fraud or not. However,  I do agree ego is
far more important than logic or the good for others.
In the sevenntoies I met aguy who offered me to be his partner
mmanufacturing and selling the best wind xcreen cleaner stuff I have seen.
However, his conditions was I cannot let you in on the manufacturing
process. When I told him that was not acceptable. He answered, does not
matter , I will never let anyone know, I rather take my drawings and jump
in the deepest point in the Baltic than showing anyone. I lived in Sweden
at thetime why the Baltic. I guess the drawing went away as I never sawthe
9products again. I used it on a car myself and it was fantastic so. ?
This about the mindset of some smart ,  misdirected guys.
Lennart Thornros
On Jan 22, 2014 7:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 That may be the solution Axil.  Pride can make people do things that they
 would not do otherwise.  I am sure most of us have said of done things that
 we later realized was not entirely accurate but failed to set the record
 straight.  Perhaps, as more of your existence becomes entangled in the
 idea, you do not allow yourself to fail and loose face.  I suspect there
 are a number of physicists that we all know that are beginning to
 understand that they have essentially made fools of themselves by their
 opposition to LENR and can not allow themselves to admit their long time
 errors.  Most will go to their graves with the secret.

  My two cents worth.


 -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 9:54 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

  I have a possible take on a man like Mills who has invested so much into
 this theory that might be Papp like. If his world saving invention  was
 found to contradict the hydrino theory, he might pull a Papp and kill the
 project to maintain his place in history.

  When a man ties his ego so very tightly to something, then to protect
 that beloved thing, the welfare of the world can go to hell.


  Just a thought...


 On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Sorry John.  You are correct about what you say to a certain extent.  How
 much resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a
 vehicle that runs virtually for free?  This is the same group that will
 ensure that LENR does not get hidden behind closed doors.  It is far more
 likely that the engine does not work than that the automobile companies
 would fail to realize the prize before them since the first one to put such
 an engine into their vehicles is the one that makes an enormous windfall
 and I find it difficult to believe that those guys do not understand that.

  If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to
 buy the engine themselves to keep it out of use.  That is one of the main
 concerns that LENR will face once the companies realize that this
 technology is real.  So far, no one has convinced the oil industry that
 they are doomed.  Hopefully, it will be too late for them to slam shut the
 doors in time to save themselves.  Are you aware of any past attempt to
 prevent Papp from marketing his engine?

  I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is
 as revolutionary as the Papp engine.  How can I or anyone else trust our
 normal senses to be right about such a device?  From what I read, Papp did
 not go out of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and
 tested by anyone out of his control.  Who are we to trust to make a
 determination that that device was not a fraud?  Apparently Feynmann did
 not believe in the device and he was well respected in the physics
 community.

  So yes, I will require plenty of proof before I accept the Papp
 concept.  That proof will begin when someone can demonstrate that the COE
 is preserved in such a system.  Mills might turn out to be that guy, and I
 wish him plenty of luck.  But, until strong evidence is presented I will
 harbor significant doubt.  I have a suspicion that you are also not
 convinced that the Papp engine is totally above board.  Am I right?

  Also, consider that action of Papp just before his death.  Hiding the
 secret that might save millions of lives and bring on a new world is not
 the kind of action taken by a reasonable, caring individual.  Instead, it
 is exactly what I would expect for one hoping to keep his soon to be
 tarnished reputation intact into the future.  Apparently he did a great job
 of hiding his secret liquid brew along with his submarine scam.  Maybe that
 one was real and I just do not understand it either?

  Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:28 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

  David, you show a most

RE: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

2014-01-22 Thread pagnucco

That does cast some doubt on the original claims.
Some of Graneau's papers are more recent than Hathaway's retraction, so
Graneau is either stubborn, or maybe correct after all.  Quite possible
that the authors were pressured to retract or suffer consequences.

An interesting paper that, while written by a very young science student,
uses fairly simple energy measurements confirming Graneau's is -

Do water arc explosions release internal water energy? If so, what is the
source of the released energy?
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Electrolysis_Water_Arc_and_Dielectric_Breakdown/Leavitt%20-%20Do%20water%20arc%20explosions%20release%20internal%20water%20energy%20-%202013.pdf

Quite possibly, all is just measurement error.
Still since these results seem (at least superficially) related to BLP and
Papp experiments, it might be worth suspending both belief and doubt for
a while longer.
 -- LP

Jones Beene wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

 How credible are the excess energy claims?


 In the balance of credibility - towards water arc gainfulness, you should
 also consider George Hathaway's retraction of the Graneau work. He was
 coauthor.

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg26685.html

 The case for gain is there but it is flimsy

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

2014-01-22 Thread Eric Walker

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Why on earth would they let such an opportunity get away?  It just doesn't
 add up.


Just to play devil's advocate, perhaps Papp had onerous licensing terms.
 Given that he is reported by Axil to have taken the specific step of
making it more difficult to work out the composition of the full three
months before his death, onerous terms would not be a surprise.  Inventors
can be a little unbalanced.

I'm not arguing here that Papp had something; only that there might be a
good reason people didn't take him up on his offer unrelated to the
technology itself.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Sorry John.  You are correct about what you say to a certain extent.  How
 much resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a
 vehicle that runs virtually for free?


Virtually zero, BUT that is the end process of it being developed into an
acceptable mass market proven product.

People have tried to sell free energy devices that are at the 'built by
someone in a shed' stage and not attracted many sales apparently.

 This is the same group that will ensure that LENR does not get hidden
 behind closed doors.


Erm, no.
Because it needs to go a long way BEFORE it gets to this stage.
Consider that there are people dying of many diseases and there are
alternative methods for treatment for these.
Additionally some have rather impressive track records far beyond
conventional treatments.

BUT despite this, MOST people with a death disease sentence do not
investigate alternatives, and many if told just ignore them.

LERN needs a great deal of investment and approval and agreement from many
people before it is going to power anyones home.

 It is far more likely that the engine does not work than that the
 automobile companies would fail to realize the prize before them since the
 first one to put such an engine into their vehicles is the one that makes
 an enormous windfall and I find it difficult to believe that those guys do
 not understand that.


I completely disagree.


  If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to
 buy the engine themselves to keep it out of use.

Things are bought by oil and car companies and shelved.
Inventors have sold out for hundreds of millions,

I recall reading that Archie Blue, water car inventor sold out for a nice
sum, though I can't find anything to support this at the moment.

If you doubt that the automotive industry isn't in bed with the oil
industry, I suggest you look at 'Who killed the electric car'.


  That is one of the main concerns that LENR will face once the companies
 realize that this technology is real.  So far, no one has convinced the oil
 industry that they are doomed.  Hopefully, it will be too late for them to
 slam shut the doors in time to save themselves.  Are you aware of any past
 attempt to prevent Papp from marketing his engine?

  I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is
 as revolutionary as the Papp engine.  How can I or anyone else trust our
 normal senses to be right about such a device?  From what I read, Papp did
 not go out of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and
 tested by anyone out of his control.  Who are we to trust to make a
 determination that that device was not a fraud?  Apparently Feynmann did
 not believe in the device and he was well respected in the physics
 community.


He is also heavily invested in physics the way it was.
I would not trust a sceptical person about something not being real...

Any more than I'd trust a true believer in their subject (UFO's, God,
etc...) that they are right.

Both are horribly biased.

I'd look at the evidence on a level playing field, not assume that my
prejudices were meaningful (not let that tilt the playing field) and let
the evidence speak for it's self.


  So yes, I will require plenty of proof before I accept the Papp concept.
  That proof will begin when someone can demonstrate that the COE is
 preserved in such a system.


Why do you believe that it MUST be preserved?
The idea that it is is just an idea.

The belief that energy might be created isn't illogical, it merely goes
against the assumption and general observation that it is conserved.

Consider that you could have a monetary system in a computer simulation,
and within the rules of the game money can't be created or destroyed,
merely moved from one place to another...

But a programmer could also setup a hotkey to increase money in a certain
part of the simulation.
Now money normally follows the observed rules that it is only moved around,
pays off debts and is loaned out, spent etc, and sometimes illogically in
seeming violation of the rules just appears out of nowhere.

The same could be true with energy, it might be costless to produce energy
if we are working at a sufficiently deep level, going beyond the rules of
the game and into the underlying system literally changing the rules,
working from a different level.

Now I have no idea if this is so, but neither do you.

Additionally even if God existed, he couldn't comment on the impossibility
that anything could exist outside of the everything s/he thinks he knows.
Indeed this idea even exists in religion and is related gnosticism, the
idea that maybe the God that made the physical universe might not really
know it all.

Now recognizing this, you could always argue that energy that seems to be
created is actually coming from some unseen source of energy.

In the end the creation or conservation can't

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Perhaps so Eric.  Many have been blinded by the need to acquire great wealth to 
such an extent that they missed achieving modest wealth altogether.  I do not 
know much about Papp other than what I have read and that is limited.  If his 
engine actually performed as he claimed it is a shame that it did not come into 
widespread use.  Let's all hope that the major players in the LENR field do not 
fall into that same trap.  Patterson may have been another inventor that could 
not accept anything less than all the marbles so he ended up with a few.  I 
have concerns about some of the other major players as well, but so far they 
keep improving their designs.  The competition is heating up and that might 
make this year the one we have all been anticipating.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


Why on earth would they let such an opportunity get away?  It just doesn't add 
up.




Just to play devil's advocate, perhaps Papp had onerous licensing terms.  Given 
that he is reported by Axil to have taken the specific step of making it more 
difficult to work out the composition of the full three months before his 
death, onerous terms would not be a surprise.  Inventors can be a little 
unbalanced.


I'm not arguing here that Papp had something; only that there might be a good 
reason people didn't take him up on his offer unrelated to the technology 
itself.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

Here are some thoughts on the CoE.

What major quantum physics theory would drastically oppose the CoE?

The many worlds interpretation of quantum physics, One instant you have one
universe, next instant you have thousands that have split off due to
probabilities.

Does this mean that the many worlds theory is incorrect?

Mass sure looked like it was conserved until physics showed that if you
smash particles into other particles it can be created.
Can you create matter by moving atoms around?
Of course not, but can mass be created outside of the atomic system, by
speeding protons to hit into other protons, or annihilation etc..

Nobel Prize winning physicist Frank Wilczek has shown that matter can be
shown to fit perfectly with the model that matter is made from fluid
dynamics in a type of medium, the aether, or higgs field etc..

My belief is that matter and electromagnetism are just a tiny example of
the number of ways that this fluid can move, and that other options might
make for dark matter etc... (or Chi and other names given for non physical
energy).

If this substance is compelled into the right form, perhaps it is possible
to form it into the right dynamics to be recognized by us as energy, but
would it require energy to do that?

Possibly not, maybe such a form can be made at little to no cost.

Maybe it can not.

But the point is that just like mass being conserved until you breach the
boundary conditions where matter stops behaving in it's conserved manner
and can suddenly be created and destroyed.

Once you break beyond the game as usual and through the underlying
mechanics of what keeps a proton as a proton, as a given mass and allows it
to manifest as something else your views on matter change.

There wasn't a law for the conservation of mass when the CoE was proposed,
but probably only because it would have seemed obvious.




On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:10 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Sorry John.  You are correct about what you say to a certain extent.  How
 much resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a
 vehicle that runs virtually for free?


 Virtually zero, BUT that is the end process of it being developed into an
 acceptable mass market proven product.

 People have tried to sell free energy devices that are at the 'built by
 someone in a shed' stage and not attracted many sales apparently.

  This is the same group that will ensure that LENR does not get hidden
 behind closed doors.


 Erm, no.
 Because it needs to go a long way BEFORE it gets to this stage.
 Consider that there are people dying of many diseases and there are
 alternative methods for treatment for these.
 Additionally some have rather impressive track records far beyond
 conventional treatments.

 BUT despite this, MOST people with a death disease sentence do not
 investigate alternatives, and many if told just ignore them.

 LERN needs a great deal of investment and approval and agreement from many
 people before it is going to power anyones home.

   It is far more likely that the engine does not work than that the
 automobile companies would fail to realize the prize before them since the
 first one to put such an engine into their vehicles is the one that makes
 an enormous windfall and I find it difficult to believe that those guys do
 not understand that.


 I completely disagree.


  If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to
 buy the engine themselves to keep it out of use.

 Things are bought by oil and car companies and shelved.
 Inventors have sold out for hundreds of millions,

 I recall reading that Archie Blue, water car inventor sold out for a nice
 sum, though I can't find anything to support this at the moment.

 If you doubt that the automotive industry isn't in bed with the oil
 industry, I suggest you look at 'Who killed the electric car'.


   That is one of the main concerns that LENR will face once the companies
 realize that this technology is real.  So far, no one has convinced the oil
 industry that they are doomed.  Hopefully, it will be too late for them to
 slam shut the doors in time to save themselves.  Are you aware of any past
 attempt to prevent Papp from marketing his engine?

  I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is
 as revolutionary as the Papp engine.  How can I or anyone else trust our
 normal senses to be right about such a device?  From what I read, Papp did
 not go out of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and
 tested by anyone out of his control.  Who are we to trust to make a
 determination that that device was not a fraud?  Apparently Feynmann did
 not believe in the device and he was well respected in the physics
 community.


 He is also heavily invested in physics the way it was.
 I would not trust a sceptical person about something not being real...

 Any more than I'd trust

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

BTW, I looked into WMI and found that the only real answer to it (that does
not limit the CoE to applying within each universe only) is that the worlds
don't split off (branch) but that they are already separate but identical.

This has 2 issues, first it means that a universe will finally stop working
(or at least work very differently) once it has run out of other shared
history universes to interact with.

The end of wave function sounds to me like something that probably would by
non-survivable.

And secondly, this end could possibly be hastened by creating complex
quantum conditions that have billions of possible outcomes every
millisecond, this would split off universes in a perhaps more rapid way
than happens with natural phenomena. (or not?)

Hastening the quantum apocalypse!





On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:36 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Here are some thoughts on the CoE.

 What major quantum physics theory would drastically oppose the CoE?

 The many worlds interpretation of quantum physics, One instant you have
 one universe, next instant you have thousands that have split off due to
 probabilities.

 Does this mean that the many worlds theory is incorrect?

 Mass sure looked like it was conserved until physics showed that if you
 smash particles into other particles it can be created.
 Can you create matter by moving atoms around?
 Of course not, but can mass be created outside of the atomic system, by
 speeding protons to hit into other protons, or annihilation etc..

 Nobel Prize winning physicist Frank Wilczek has shown that matter can be
 shown to fit perfectly with the model that matter is made from fluid
 dynamics in a type of medium, the aether, or higgs field etc..

 My belief is that matter and electromagnetism are just a tiny example of
 the number of ways that this fluid can move, and that other options might
 make for dark matter etc... (or Chi and other names given for non physical
 energy).

 If this substance is compelled into the right form, perhaps it is possible
 to form it into the right dynamics to be recognized by us as energy, but
 would it require energy to do that?

 Possibly not, maybe such a form can be made at little to no cost.

 Maybe it can not.

 But the point is that just like mass being conserved until you breach the
 boundary conditions where matter stops behaving in it's conserved manner
 and can suddenly be created and destroyed.

 Once you break beyond the game as usual and through the underlying
 mechanics of what keeps a proton as a proton, as a given mass and allows it
 to manifest as something else your views on matter change.

 There wasn't a law for the conservation of mass when the CoE was proposed,
 but probably only because it would have seemed obvious.




 On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:10 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Sorry John.  You are correct about what you say to a certain extent.
  How much resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to
 owning a vehicle that runs virtually for free?


 Virtually zero, BUT that is the end process of it being developed into an
 acceptable mass market proven product.

 People have tried to sell free energy devices that are at the 'built by
 someone in a shed' stage and not attracted many sales apparently.

  This is the same group that will ensure that LENR does not get hidden
 behind closed doors.


 Erm, no.
 Because it needs to go a long way BEFORE it gets to this stage.
 Consider that there are people dying of many diseases and there are
 alternative methods for treatment for these.
 Additionally some have rather impressive track records far beyond
 conventional treatments.

 BUT despite this, MOST people with a death disease sentence do not
 investigate alternatives, and many if told just ignore them.

 LERN needs a great deal of investment and approval and agreement from
 many people before it is going to power anyones home.

   It is far more likely that the engine does not work than that the
 automobile companies would fail to realize the prize before them since the
 first one to put such an engine into their vehicles is the one that makes
 an enormous windfall and I find it difficult to believe that those guys do
 not understand that.


 I completely disagree.


  If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to
 buy the engine themselves to keep it out of use.

 Things are bought by oil and car companies and shelved.
  Inventors have sold out for hundreds of millions,

 I recall reading that Archie Blue, water car inventor sold out for a nice
 sum, though I can't find anything to support this at the moment.

 If you doubt that the automotive industry isn't in bed with the oil
 industry, I suggest you look at 'Who killed the electric car'.


   That is one of the main concerns that LENR will face once the
 companies realize that this technology is real.  So far, no

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.

It is obvious that we are in disagreement on plenty of issues and I will leave 
it at that.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 11:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.



On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Sorry John.  You are correct about what you say to a certain extent.  How much 
resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a vehicle 
that runs virtually for free?


Virtually zero, BUT that is the end process of it being developed into an 
acceptable mass market proven product.


People have tried to sell free energy devices that are at the 'built by someone 
in a shed' stage and not attracted many sales apparently.


  This is the same group that will ensure that LENR does not get hidden behind 
closed doors.


Erm, no.
Because it needs to go a long way BEFORE it gets to this stage.
Consider that there are people dying of many diseases and there are alternative 
methods for treatment for these.
Additionally some have rather impressive track records far beyond conventional 
treatments.


BUT despite this, MOST people with a death disease sentence do not investigate 
alternatives, and many if told just ignore them.


LERN needs a great deal of investment and approval and agreement from many 
people before it is going to power anyones home.



  It is far more likely that the engine does not work than that the automobile 
companies would fail to realize the prize before them since the first one to 
put such an engine into their vehicles is the one that makes an enormous 
windfall and I find it difficult to believe that those guys do not understand 
that.


I completely disagree. 



If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to buy the 
engine themselves to keep it out of use.

Things are bought by oil and car companies and shelved.
Inventors have sold out for hundreds of millions,


I recall reading that Archie Blue, water car inventor sold out for a nice sum, 
though I can't find anything to support this at the moment.


If you doubt that the automotive industry isn't in bed with the oil industry, I 
suggest you look at 'Who killed the electric car'.
 

  That is one of the main concerns that LENR will face once the companies 
realize that this technology is real.  So far, no one has convinced the oil 
industry that they are doomed.  Hopefully, it will be too late for them to slam 
shut the doors in time to save themselves.  Are you aware of any past attempt 
to prevent Papp from marketing his engine?


I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is as 
revolutionary as the Papp engine.  How can I or anyone else trust our normal 
senses to be right about such a device?  From what I read, Papp did not go out 
of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and tested by anyone 
out of his control.  Who are we to trust to make a determination that that 
device was not a fraud?  Apparently Feynmann did not believe in the device and 
he was well respected in the physics community.



He is also heavily invested in physics the way it was.
I would not trust a sceptical person about something not being real...


Any more than I'd trust a true believer in their subject (UFO's, God, etc...) 
that they are right.


Both are horribly biased.


I'd look at the evidence on a level playing field, not assume that my 
prejudices were meaningful (not let that tilt the playing field) and let the 
evidence speak for it's self.





So yes, I will require plenty of proof before I accept the Papp concept.  That 
proof will begin when someone can demonstrate that the COE is preserved in such 
a system.



Why do you believe that it MUST be preserved?
The idea that it is is just an idea.


The belief that energy might be created isn't illogical, it merely goes against 
the assumption and general observation that it is conserved.


Consider that you could have a monetary system in a computer simulation, and 
within the rules of the game money can't be created or destroyed, merely moved 
from one place to another...


But a programmer could also setup a hotkey to increase money in a certain part 
of the simulation.
Now money normally follows the observed rules that it is only moved around, 
pays off debts and is loaned out, spent etc, and sometimes illogically in 
seeming violation of the rules just appears out of nowhere.


The same could be true with energy, it might be costless to produce energy if 
we are working at a sufficiently deep level, going beyond the rules of the game 
and into the underlying system literally changing the rules, working from a 
different level.


Now I have no idea if this is so, but neither do you.


Additionally even if God existed, he couldn't comment on the impossibility that 
anything could exist outside of the everything s/he thinks

Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.