harry
From: francis <froarty...@comcast.net>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, January 15, 2011 12:58:15 PM
Subject: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?From Goat Guy on Next Big Future:
·
Well... I smell a rat, unfortunately.
FIRST, the rapidly technology "turned off" when the hydrogen supply was cut. Anyone else catch the slip? If the reaction is hydrogen-atomic consolidation with nickel nuclei, and it is presupposed that upon entering the metallic-valence sea of electrons, the 1H protons are both shielded and able to tunnel past the pretty substantial coulomb barrier of the 58Ni nuclei then ... turning "off the hydrogen" should not quench the reaction for minutes, or hours. Either the hydrogen is being consumed (burned, chemical heat, making the "steam'), or the nickel reactant is at such an elevated temperature (1000ºK ?) that hydrogen's surface absorption is only measured in half-life seconds (instead of the usual hours at 373ºK / 100ºC). So, there could be an explanation for the rapid turn off.
SECOND, I'm having serious doubts regarding the gamma-ray measurement. Rising 50% above background levels is completely inconsistent with the 6,000 watt (proposed) output. Back-calculating the earlier work I did, there should be roughly 2e14 to 3e16 gamma rays per second for the power level achieved. 50% is nothing. The meter should have been pegged.
THIRD (but not mentioned, so this is a surmise), elevated gamma output should have remained for many minutes (essentially 3-4 hours, in a classic half-life decaying curve, with an initial short half-life spike). But there was no mention of this.
FOURTH were they condensing the water-vapor into a vessel for weighing? The heat-of-vaporization of water is very well known, and a very useful proxy for figuring out thermal-energy production rates. It isn't (unfortunately) a very quick responder to thermal-generator fluctuations, but at least when a final quantity has been condensed and measured, the conversion to joules, calories, kilowatt-hours is straight forward.
FIFTH the picograms per kilowatt is (by my calcs) way off. WAY off - by a lot! I estimated that 10,000 watts for 1 hour (36 MJ) would consume some 17 milligrams of nickel. (hey, it would be a good result - I'm not complaining). Assuming that the researcher is talking about "grams per second", then its easy to convert:
17,000 µg × (6,000 / 10,000) watts × (1 / 3600) hour =2.8 µg per second
Not picograms, in any way, shape or form. More like 2,800,000 pg/sec ...
SO THEREFORE I AM LEAD TO BELIEVE that the researcher is deluded, that his collaborative senior professor is also deluded, and that they're somehow on a far limb that is not nuclear.
Sorry goats. I'm expecting more from all this.
PS: (and this is almost amusing) - if the nuclear reaction was really kicking out kilowatts of nuclear energy, the gamma ray flux would be essentially lethal at table-top distances. 1 Sievert (100 REM) is 1.0 J/kg. In an isotropic gamma radiation field (dominated by 511 keV and 720 keV positron annihilation and k-shell electron capture or nuclear rearrangement photons), at a rate of over (pessimistically) 2,000 joules/second of emission to achieve their claimed 6,000± watt output (and allowing for their fantasy of significantly lowered gamma output due to some atomic nuclei rebounding effect!) ... at tabletop distances (2 meters) the gamma flux would be over (... hmmm 4πr², r=2, surface area of sphere of radius 2 m is about 50 m², 2000 joules / 50 = 40 joules per square meter. Human frontal area is about 1 m², 511 keV absorption is about 80% in body... so, if the espresso quaffers weigh in at 165 pounds (75 kg), then their whole-body absorption would be 0.4 Sv/sec. To put that in perspective, 1 Sv rapid exposure leads to nausea. 3 Sv is the LD50 (50% of people die) level, and no one has survived over 10 Sv. )
So ... unless they have a LOT of lead in that tin-foil masked reaction container (which of course, physically they simply cannot have), if it were nuclear and generating all these kilowatts, then this would be one hell of a dangerous desktop demo. Kind of like the sieverts that were absorbed by the poor researcher who dropped a tungsten block onto a sub-critical-mass sphere of plutonium in the 1950s, only to have it go critical and irradiate everyone in a matter of seconds with a lethal dose of neutrons and gamma radiation.
If it was nuclear and not particularly well shielded - I'd not want to be in the same BUILDING as the thing.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
G O A T G U Y
Froarty in reply to goat guy:
· I would agree they don't have the correct theory and that the energy SOURCE is not nuclear - But - I believe they are unknowingly extracting energy from an interaction of a synthetic skeletal catalyst with different bond states of hydrogen along the lines of Moller's MAHG, Lyne's Furnace or Mill's BLP reactor. No one has totally nailed the theory yet (Jan Naudts may be real close with relativistic hydrogen) but it doesn't matter, if they have learned to reliably reproduce the energy at this level, the race for low hanging IP will ensue.
· The fall-back position, isn't it? Well, it doesn't really have a nuclear signature, so, hmmm... yeah, that's it... its probably related to the work by Mills 'n' Dunderhead(s) AKABlacklight Power, etc Little hydrino fairies that everyone in physics somehow missed (except Mills, Moller, Naudts...) that using nothing more intriguing than a bottle of powdered metals and a magic wand, create kilowatts of thermal heat. (For how long? - never for days, that's for sure!)
The same goes for the whole hydrino thing. Hell, I'm not even seriously "taking on the proof", just noodling on the backs of napkins with my trusty spreadsheet calcs.
BLP and its derivatives have exactly the same "problem" - they bear the burden-of-proof in either 'fessing to having none of the byproducts expected from their theory, or, having an abundance of easily quantifiable data that supports their contention. It is a matter (per another of my posts) of scale. You simply cannot produce kilowatts of heat - even for periods as short as "minutes" - and not have macroscopically observable changes in reactant density, consumed hydrogen, and if nuclear in nature, all sorts of alarmingly nasty radioactive byproducts. No significant radiation == no nuclear signature. In the case of BLP, either the magic pixie powder gains weight (bonding to hydrogen), which can be weighed - and reversed by applying high heat (which then isn't very magic at all, but clearly just good old hydrogen surface adsorption) - or there is the presence of a stunning new form of hydrogen (the hydrinos) that necessarily exhibit all sorts of OMG, wow! behavior.
NOTHING can be subtle about "new physics", goats - and still get away with producing kilowatts of thermal signature. It is upon this fulcrum that I balance the claims versus the results. Hard radiation ("peg the needle"), copious byproducts, milligram-to-kilogram changes of mass, intense UV, X-rays, ... but not "oooh, we think we might have seen an increase in neutrons but our detector was having calibration issues; we're buying new, more sensitive equipment."
froarty
13 minutes ago
- AS I SAID , Mills has it wrong also - You seem to insist on painting me as a supporter of Mills theory -I am not! He and others do seem to have physical DEVICES that rectify energy from an environment which is NOT included in their theories. I have my own theory based on Naudts concept of relativistic hydrogen which led me to a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect in skeletal catalysts. The nuclear effects being only side effects of an ashless oscillation between h1 and h2 due to gas molecules opposing migration between changes in vacuum energy densitycaused by changes in casimir geometry inside a skeletal catalyst. The cavity represents abrupt changes in energy density/isotropy of gravity - something that focardi seems to be noticing with references to
gravitational changes in the device - he is on the right path IMHO.
Regards
Fran
http://froarty.scienceblog.com.../
http://byzipp.com/energy/
