Jer, et al,
Some time ago (years), jnlabs did experiments with 'CFR' using tungsten
as the cathode, with COP>1 results proportional to voltage (current)
input. Results seemed to indicate that a very hot plasma cathode is
needed, and that hydrogen trapped around the cathode is excited and
gives the incandescence glow - which then produces the results. From
these experiments, he moved on to Free Energy from Atomic Hydrogen with
the ( MAHG )http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/index.htm leaving CFR behind.
Before these experiment, or sometime around them, he had used a Carbon
Rod to make Bingo Fuel COH2. In all these experiments, however, the
cathode is giving up 'matter', resulting in pitting plating of residual
matter. If the cathode is not replaced after XX hours, the experiment
slowly fades and does not give COP>1 results. What is missing from the
equations of energy is this missing pitting. Is the cathode 'chemically'
giving up energy from the pitting? Both tungsten and carbon cathodes are
eaten away and must form part of the resultant energy gain. The Bingo
fuel uses this carbon cathode to form hydro carbons, and then reburned.
So the carbon depletion of the cathode is necessary and forms part of
the energy balance equation. Take away from one, to form something else,
one has to consider and take account for all matter/energy used in the
experiment. No free lunches, and certainly no free energy. The loss of
carbon from the cathode equates to loss of energy from the cathode, I
suspect the same is true for the tungsten rod. If platinum were to be
used, it might not give up matter - only electrons, but then again,
COP>1 will probably not occur do to the cathode not giving up matter.

It is the weak electromagnetic force which holds atoms and molecules
together which is unaccounted for in each of these experiments, and the
recombination of cathode atoms into lower/higher form of
energy/molecules. The Cathode is not a catalyst.

v/r
Ken Carrigan

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marshall Dudley
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:45 AM
To: interact
Subject: Re: [Keelynet] anomolous energy research

His work is interesting, but I am going more for a steady state effect,
whereas most of his research is directed I believe toward rail gun and
water explosion drilling and launching systems.  I am aware of the
carbon arc phenomena, and am considering trying it under water as well
as testing the tungsten rods and titanium core spark plug I have.

One paper I find intriguing is at
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/samplearticle.pdf page 79,
"Nuclear Transmutation Reaction Caused by Light Water Electrolysis on
Tungsten Cathode Under Incandescent Conditions".  Many others have
repeated these experiments and gotten over 200% energy out vs in, but no
one that I know of has exceeded 300%.

Then on http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue32/iccf8.html we
have this tidbit of interesting information:
-------------------------------
An interesting connection: Storms discovered that the excess heat effect
does not take place in the Pt bulk, but rather in layers of deposited
material on the surface of the Pt. When he cleaned this Pt surface off
by scrubbing the metal and placing it in boiling water, the effect went
away for a while until another layer of deposited material grew on the
metal surface. Mobberley takes this a step further, moving the reaction
site away from the metal to holes in a ceramic--in fact, he employs a
pepper-shaker (known as a "pepper-pot" in the UK). Rothwell's first
reaction was to say that this removes metal from the picture altogether
and makes the effect look like something that happens in water, but
Mallove reminded him that there is a great deal of lithium in the highly
concentrated electrolyte used by Mobberley.
-------------------------------

Additional information on these experiments can be found at:

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/74naudin.html
http://www.amasci.com/weird/anode.txt
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf
http://www.rexresearch.com/eccles/1eccles.htm
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTconfirmatia.pdf
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue26/deviceupdate.html
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/files/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/html/cfr10.htm
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/html/cfrtpwr.htm

Some of these experiments have deteremined that a glow extends out 1/2
inch or so from the plasma into the water, a possible indicate of
Cherenkov radiation.

>From what I have been able to determine, it is necessary to get an area
of plasma to get these anomalous results.  In the experiments referenced
above this is accomplished by letting the solution reach temperatures
near boiling, so that at the cathode, or the hole in the pepper shaker,
steam is produced, forcing the current to travel through the steam,
producing an arc or plasma.  Another possible way to do this would be to
use the "ampere longitudinal force" to separate a column of liquid
inside a tube to produce the same effect, but at temperatures far below
that of boiling water.
However this would likely have to be done with a pulsating current, so
that the column collapses and then blows apart again. The simple act of
blowing apart a column using these forces also appears to generate
anomalous energy as evidenced by experiments with thin wires using
ampere longitudinal force to segment the wires. This is more like what
Graneau was doing, and I will likely blow my column container (a glass
or ceramic rod) apart if I can get the currents up high enough to get
this force to separate the column of water, but I am wanting to try it
anyway.  I have a 15 KV @ 120 mA supply, and plan to construct a .1 or
.2 uF 20 KV cap to supply large pulse currents.

I have acquired lithium carbonate to experiment with as one of the
electrolytes (baking soda, or sodium hydrogen carbonate, and sodium
chloride will be another ones), but lithium carbonate is sparingly
soluble.  I plan to react it with vinegar (acetic acid), to produce
lithium acetate, which is highly soluble, and will also provide some
carbon atoms, which may enhance the effect (carbon arcs as you indicated
below can also give excess energy).

I will keep everyone posted on the results.

BTW, I have an article that is to be published in the Jan/Feb issue of
Infinite Energy (they keep pushing it back though) on a simply and
repeatable way to use a form of Maxwell's demon to produce electricity
directly from ambient temperature with no "cold sink" in violation of
the second law of thermodynamics.  Once it is published I will make
details of the experiment known to this group.  Unfortunately the amount
of power this produces is minuscule, but is still sufficient to
demonstrate the falsification of the second law in a macro system.

Marshall



Jerry Decker - KN wrote:

> Hola Marshall!
>
> I'm not but be sure to get whatever you can on the experiments of 
> Peter Graneau with water arcs...and there is a company or two I can't 
> recall the name of offhand that uses carbon arcs to burn hotter and 
> produce more energy...as I recall there are disputes between claimants

> of this technology but it held promise as everything converts back to 
> carbon according to Walter Russell.
>
> Marshall Dudley wrote:
> > Is anyone here doing any experimenting with incandescent 
> > electrolysis, underwater arcs, or Ampere Longitudal Forces for 
> > anomolous energy generation.  I have purchased a number of items to 
> > begin experimenting on these subjects, and was wondering if anyone 
> > else has done so, or is planning on doing do.  If so, exchanging 
> > information on what works and what doesn't will assist us along our
path.
> >
> > Marshall
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>                Jerry Decker - http://www.keelynet.com Donations to 
> support KeelyNet: http://www.keelynet.com/donate1.htm
>       Public Archive http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet
>             Order out of Chaos - From an Art to a Science



Reply via email to