Lenr has been reinvented many times since the time of tesla. By now after all these years and the many systems that these years have produced there is nothing new under the Sun Cell.
The story is here. http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1.pdf http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part2.pdf http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part3.pdf On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jones, from my perspective - about the only thing this has in common > with the suncell is the electric arc. Everything appears to be quite > different and intended for a different result. This looks like a simple > electrolyzer to me. > > Are you seriously implying that since this Naudin experiment used electric > arcs that it is the "prior art" to the suncell? If so, the spark plug is > prior art to Naudin, and Franklin's flying kite is prior art to the spark > plug, etc. Nothing that uses any sort of electric arc somewhere would be > patentable, cause they're all prior art, right? > > I don't understand this crusade against Mills. This appears to go beyond > professional jealousy into the realm of personal vendetta. Hey, I'm no fan > of RM, but this goes beyond the pale, in your continuing attempts to deny > Mills his rightful due. Let's cut Randy some slack shall we? Cause what he > is doing is unprecedented and revolutionary. It is expected that he would > fail several times before hitting it right. When I look at BLP, I see a man > trying to solve a difficult problem, not one trying to scam investors. > Those investors are not gullible, you know. > > You blame him for not delivering on many past promises; but how many > deadlines has Microsoft missed in their product releases? How many IBM > announced inventions have failed to materialize in the marketplace? How > many flops have Apple had before they hit the sweet spot? And these are > for things that we have good understanding of and with companies that have > virtually unlimited R&D budgets. Randy is trying to produce something that > no one has ever done - produce unlimited energy from water. Considering > the monumental tasks he's trying to achieve, I think he is doing fairly > well. > > > > And need I remind you, that I WANT THE SUNCELL TO FAIL. > > > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:31 AM > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? > > This 11 year old experiment below is basically a type of SunCell > without the titanium catalyst, and using different electrodes. It would > have been easy to surround this reactor with photoelectric cells, for > increased gain, but AFAIK – Naudin never went that far. > > > > http://bingofuel.online.fr/bingofuel/html/bfr10.htm > > > > It was claimed to have an overunity efficiency of about 125% to 150% which > is less than Mills 200% - but it has no catalyst to recondition. Naudin > even used a power supply from an arc welder. > > > > However, this design consumes carbon from the graphite electrodes – as > does the Santilli reaction, but less carbon is consumed than the gain – at > least according to the claim. Mills’ reaction also consumes the catalyst, > at a lesser rate than the gain, at least according to the claim. > > > > Carbon is not a Mills catalyst, unless RM has now added it to the long > list. It would be interesting to see the Naudin’s reactor using titanium in > some form – perhaps in the electrodes. > > > > Naudin did try to close the loop, but was not successful although he did > power the genset with the gas. Who knows how much extra power could have > been obtained from solar cells. > > http://bingofuel.online.fr/bingofuel/videos/5hpgenbfr.rm > > > > Like everything Naudin experimented with, he gave up too soon. > > > > Jones > > > >
