[Vo]: Deuterium analysis
Hi, Does anyone know of a SIMS analysis run on either pure deuterium or a metal deuteride, where *only* the deuteride went in, but some Hydrogen came out? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Deuterium analysis
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:07:07 +1100: Hi, [snip] Hi, Does anyone know of a SIMS analysis run on either pure deuterium or a metal deuteride, where *only* the deuteride went in, but some Hydrogen came out? [snip] I meant but some protium came out. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Deuterium analysis
Hi Robin, I know of no such analysis but I am intrigued by your question SIMS analysis run on either pure deuterium In which form ? Can one run a SIMS analysis on a gas? where *only* the deuteride went in, but some H (1H) came out? You mean HD goes into the metal and H comes out? Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Deuterium analysis In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:07:07 +1100: Hi, [snip] Hi, Does anyone know of a SIMS analysis run on either pure deuterium or a metal deuteride, where *only* the deuteride went in, but some Hydrogen came out? [snip] I meant but some protium came out. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
[Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
I am not pressing you for an answer Ed, but I Googled for your book soon to be published you advertised here the other day: The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and found its home page here: http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6425.html It says Pub. date: Scheduled Fall 2007, hopefully it is not too late to correct it for such errors? Or have you had it proofread by an electrochemist maybe? I imagine you hadn't taken such precaution for the paper you submitted last year to Thermochimica Acta whose terminology of title and abstract we are discussing (haven't read it further yet BTW, waiting until we agree on the definition of electrolysis since that's what the paper is about). A pity since the thermochemists who reviewed that paper probably read no further than the title and abstract before rejecting it, whereas apart from terminology the paper may be quite good on the merits! Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:05 AM Subject: [Vo]: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) Do you still not see it Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer I'll let you find the error yourself it's quite obvious. Same error in the two quotes. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... - Ed The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel
Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
On 3/15/2007, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zachary Wrote.. Have you ever talked with any of the TExas AM boys working on NASA's vortex phase separator? No I have not. Tell me something about it or the people involved. The project director is Fred Best, who is a nuclear engineer with a focus in multi-phase flows. http://nuclear.tamu.edu/home/people/faculty/best/index.php Their work is with a a cylinder that injects a moist vapor / liquid froma tangent and sucks it out a port in the botom-center of the cylinder. A vortex flow forms in the process and they study it to understand phase transport effects (how stuff separates) in Zero-G. The system particularly focuses on liquid / gas separations. It system is on track for integration into NASA's Immobilized Microbe Microgravity Water Processing System (IMMWPS), for sustained living in space. It only works in microgravity Most of their work was done aboard parabolic trajectory planes. The work was done through his Interphase Transport Phenomena Laboratory http://itp.tamu.edu/ The only papers put out are from the ITP lab manager, Cable Kurwitz. I get the impression that the work they did was 'frozen' so it could enter NASA's pipeline to get flown. I've never spoken with Best or Kurwitz, though, so I can't comment on whether they've stalled recently, or are just in a holding pattern. Best also launched the Center for Space Power, which does a bunch of corporate stuff http://engineer.tamu.edu/tees/csp/index.html If I had to wager somewhere, I'd say Best's recent time in this area has been spent working with industry - even beyond the CSP thanks for the EDAV link, it's cute. Kim's EDAV has some ideas.. not to be discounted.. he has some people that he claims has a working Implosion device.. he's been working on it long enough but health has sidetracked him. Hopefully he'll make more strides. What kind of 'implosion device'? That has been used to name a range of mechanisms. Zak
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Harry Veeder wrote:- Perhaps the critical temperature of a given NAE is more like temperature range. When the NAE is below a certain temperature it is too cold for cold fusion, and when it is above a certain temperature it is too hot for cold fusion If you've been around since the beginning Harry, you will remember that there does indeed appear to be a temperature range for electrolytical CF to manifest itself but, while the temperature of the cell is indeed influenced by the input electrical power, it is not necessary for the raised temperature of the cell to be created by the electrolysis - it is a misleading side effect. It takes a temperature of at least 60 degrees C to fire off (that is from memory/educated guess) - I'm sure Jed knows the correct figure. Actually, there is a danger here that Mitchell Swartz will swoop in with his OOP theory (optimal operating point) so don't shout it out too loudly... Oh BTW Ed, Michel is pointing out that the palladium itself is not electrolysed, although this is what the title of the paper appears to say. I would prefer a scientist to be doing these experiments, rather than a linguist...
Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
Howdy Zac, The links you gave for Texas AM research in two phase separation shows that Aggies are beginning to learn how to attract research money... err.. well.. maybe after they learn how to spell seperate grin. I don't know any of these guys but if you do, you may mention they can contact me regarding their water in space recovery system . They will need to add shapes inside the cyclone separator to produce sympathetic vortexes to position the gas and solids for extraction in a zero grav regime. Suspect the project they are working on is mostly for a search for the next funding stage. Have to remember how NASA has morphed . Richard
[Vo]:
- Original Message - From: Nick Palmer To: Vortex-L Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... Oh BTW Ed, Michel is pointing out that the palladium itself is not electrolysed, although this is what the title of the paper appears to say. I would prefer a scientist to be doing these experiments, rather than a linguist... If by this you mean that a scientist can be approximative, or even plain wrong as is the case here (not just in the title but throughout the whole paper), wrt the terminology of his own research field, I fully agree with you (although Michael Faraday who finely chiseled the vocabulary in question here, cf refs below, probably wouldn't appreciate), provided he acknowledges the error goodheartedly. What I find dangerous for the field, and for science in general, is when as seems to be the case here a scientist won't admit a minor error, because this implies that a fortiori he will be unable to admit a major one. I am not saying that Ed has committed such a major error since I haven't studied his work yet, only that he cannot be trusted to retract if he finds such. Someone wrote to me privately you are being quite merciless to poor Ed Storms. I am of the opinion that letting silently a colleague err in science is more damaging to him than pointing out matter-of-factedly his errors. Note I only point out such errors publicly when the work itself has been made public. CF right or wrong is not my philosophy, but of course I may be wrong :) Michel References 1.. ^ Ross, S, Faraday Consults the Scholars: The Origins of the Terms of Electrochemistry in Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (1938-1996), Volume 16, Number 2 / 1961, Pages: 187 - 220, [1] consulted 2006-12-22 2.. ^ Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity. Seventh Series, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1776-1886), Volume 124, 01 Jan 1834, Page 77, [2] consulted 2006-12-27 (in which Faraday introduces the words electrode, anode, cathode, anion, cation, electrolyte, electrolyze) 3.. ^ Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Volume 1, 1849, reprint of series 1 to 14, freely accessible Gutenberg.org transcript [3] consulted 2007-01-11 - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:24 AM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) I am not pressing you for an answer Ed, but I Googled for your book soon to be published you advertised here the other day: The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and found its home page here: http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6425.html It says Pub. date: Scheduled Fall 2007, hopefully it is not too late to correct it for such errors? Or have you had it proofread by an electrochemist maybe? I imagine you hadn't taken such precaution for the paper you submitted last year to Thermochimica Acta whose terminology of title and abstract we are discussing (haven't read it further yet BTW, waiting until we agree on the definition of electrolysis since that's what the paper is about). A pity since the thermochemists who reviewed that paper probably read no further than the title and abstract before rejecting it, whereas apart from terminology the paper may be quite good on the merits! Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:05 AM Subject: [Vo]: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) Do you still not see it Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer I'll let you find the error yourself it's quite obvious. Same error in the two quotes. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... - Ed The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Harry Veeder wrote: Cold fusion does not seem to require the temperatures and pressures of hot fusion, but is an NAE enough? Well, higher temperatures do promote the reaction. Fleischmann and Pons used to trigger a boil off reaction by heating up the cell rapidly with a pulse of joule heating. Lasers and other methods have also been use to trigger or enhance reactions, so perhaps it does take some external energy to get the reaction going, but after that it goes by itself. That is is, it self-sustains or as Martin Fleischmann put it: Afficionados of the field of Hot Fusion will realise that there is a large release of excess energy during Stage 5 at zero energy input. The system is therefore operating under conditions which are described as 'Ignition' in 'Hot Fusion'. It appears to us therefore that these types of systems not only 'merit investigation' (as we have stated in the last paragraph) but, more correctly, 'merit frantic investigation'. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf I do not know of anyone who has tried to start a cold fusion reaction at freezing or cryogenic temperatures. It would be interesting to see if you could. Perhaps the critical temperature of a given NAE is more like temperature range. When the NAE is below a certain temperature it is too cold for cold fusion, and when it is above a certain temperature it is too hot for cold fusion. That's plausible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
Michel, electrolysis is a process. When I said palladium was electrolyzed, I'm saying that palladium was subjected to the process of electrolysis. This is a common usage that I don't think is important enough to debate. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: I am not pressing you for an answer Ed, but I Googled for your book soon to be published you advertised here the other day: The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and found its home page here: http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6425.html It says Pub. date: Scheduled Fall 2007, hopefully it is not too late to correct it for such errors? Or have you had it proofread by an electrochemist maybe? I imagine you hadn't taken such precaution for the paper you submitted last year to Thermochimica Acta whose terminology of title and abstract we are discussing (haven't read it further yet BTW, waiting until we agree on the definition of electrolysis since that's what the paper is about). A pity since the thermochemists who reviewed that paper probably read no further than the title and abstract before rejecting it, whereas apart from terminology the paper may be quite good on the merits! Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:05 AM Subject: [Vo]: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) Do you still not see it Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer I'll let you find the error yourself it's quite obvious. Same error in the two quotes. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... - Ed The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel
[Vo]: Di-Ozone
The O6 molecular isomer is also-known-as diozone - which to the word-phreak, has a peculiar negative connotation - kind of like being caught between the death-zone and the outer ozone layer of Chem-E stoners ... g... and/or other assorted slackers: http://imdb.com/title/tt0102943/ ...(for those who saw/were the prototype of this category) ...not to offend an associate in Austin who has made-amends, later in life, as is often the case with the maturation of misspent-youth. Now, more to the point: here is something else from the not-quite-either extreme of the ozone connotation spectrum - but yet it creates its own category of subtle alternative extreme, as most Vo's will no doubt agree. http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/ozone.htm We believe that our ozone generator is producing significant amounts of O6 or diozone. It looks like this diozone can be used as a leash to capture and manipulate the ORMUS atoms. Here is a bit more background information on this concept. Slackingly yours, Jones
Re: [Vo]: Deuterium analysis
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:22:54 +0100: Hi Michel, Hi Robin, I know of no such analysis but I am intrigued by your question SIMS analysis run on either pure deuterium In which form ? Can one run a SIMS analysis on a gas? where *only* the deuteride went in, but some H (1H) came out? You mean HD goes into the metal and H comes out? No, I mean D2 goes in and H is detected by SIMS. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Shadow Marketing Inc. Offers to Acquire D2Fusion, Inc.
Say what??? Who's buying whom here? And who is buying it? New Energy Times investigates. March 18.
Re: [Vo]: Deuterium analysis
Er, D2 is not a deuteride is it? That's why I thought you meant HD (hydrogen deuteride). Anyway so you mean molecular deuterium D2 goes into e.g. the palladium (thus forming a palladium deuteride PdD), and H comes out? By which mechanism? Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Deuterium analysis In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:22:54 +0100: Hi Michel, Hi Robin, I know of no such analysis but I am intrigued by your question SIMS analysis run on either pure deuterium In which form ? Can one run a SIMS analysis on a gas? where *only* the deuteride went in, but some H (1H) came out? You mean HD goes into the metal and H comes out? No, I mean D2 goes in and H is detected by SIMS. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Re: JHS questions on evolved gas energy in CF
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:19:31 +0100: Hi, [snip] Please note that the -285.83 kJ/mol reaction enthalpy this calculation is based on is for STP conditions 1atm and 25°C, so for different conditions e.g. 1atm and 100°C the appropriate reaction enthalpy must be used and will yield a different thermo-neutral voltage value. Most definitions of STP that I am aware of use 0 C as the temperature, though according to Wiki, there is an old US version that uses 60 F (15.56 C). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_conditions_for_temperature_and_pressure Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
[Vo]: Compulsator, railguns and Graneau
For all the big-water (Graneau) water-arc aficionados in Volandia... ...ever have that sudden urge to go out and build yourself a railgun? I know I do ;-) [Note to MIB - this particular symbol: ;-) in email messages, means that the writer intended the comment as a joke, more or less] Problem is, if powering a rail gun were all that easy, then any terrorist worth his Baba Ghanoush would be raining projectiles across the Potomac in no time. Osama would be using Gmail and Google to triangulate and inform his associates of their chosen target. And caveman-Bin-L can't be stopped by the FBI with the Patriot Act, at least, as they are too busy using up their eavesdropping resources to spy on the Democrats and other assorted Bush-Bashers. No, making a rail gun isn't for sissies anymore, nor camel-jocks. But the geek answer to this problem is the compulsator. Bet you have never heard of it. However, the compulsator is worth a mention here, as it may have alternative energy aspects as well. Yes. In keeping with a previous message - that alternative energy aspect is to be found in the Graneau water-arc, already thought to have a COP=2. And if hydrinos are involved, the more the merrier. More on that in a later posting. In an EM device, the compulsator is the name for a compensated pulsed alternator, a pulse power supply that is mechanically compensated to make it better at delivering spiked pulses of intense electrical energy. US Patent #4200831: Compensated Pulsed Alternator US Patent #4935708: High Energy Pulse Forming Generator ... or more references are here: http://www.rollette.com/railgun/compulsator/ The idea is to morph an alternator, flywheel and capacitor. The compulsator is used like a capacitor-on-steroids which is combined with a flywheel to store energy input over time - from a lower-power source to dump in a short period -- only at a higher level and far cheaper than your normal large cap array. 10-1 cost advantage minimum(maybe 50-1 if you already have a rotary device as part of a larger system). The windings of a compulsator are different from an alternator in that they have minimal inductance, allowing the current in the windings to change and discharge very rapidly. The kinetic energy of a rotating object depends on the mass and the square of the speed of rotation. Therefore, compulsators tend to have rotors that spin rapidly - and in principle a turbine alone, or one driven by diesel exhaust at 100,000 RPM is a nice starting point for this double-duty device. One military possibility (probability) in these days of reduced budgets for the Army brass - is an electric tank which uses a diesel-electric generator for propulsion, like a Prius on steroids, and then double duty to charge and turn the compulsator, which is itself used to power a railgun -- instead of the normal cannon. Saves a lot of bucks on brass, for brass so to speak. My biggest question for using a hybrid compulsator to drive a Graneau style water-arc explosion, perhaps repetitively in a hybrid-hybrid turbine generator: Do you get the same energy anomaly (COP=2) with HOOH as with HOH, on top of the COP=5 of the fuel (based on relative heat content), or has that extra hidden energy in H2O already been used up in the manufacture of the HOOH? If the full double advantage is there (due to natural on manufactured hydrinos) - then Halliburton of Dubai may loose its main big brass-in-pocket account... heck, they are big-oil 'Pretenders' anyway, at least without the help of their inside man, soon to be emasculated by a little Italian woman. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Re: JHS questions on evolved gas energy in CF
Thanks Robin. I think the H2O formation enthalpy figure I quoted is for 1 atm and 25°C as I wrote (someone kindly confirm), but indeed those conditions are not STP (which is 1atm and 0°C as you say), my mistake. Replace 'STP' by 'reference'. Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: JHS questions on evolved gas energy in CF In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:19:31 +0100: Hi, [snip] Please note that the -285.83 kJ/mol reaction enthalpy this calculation is based on is for STP conditions 1atm and 25°C, so for different conditions e.g. 1atm and 100°C the appropriate reaction enthalpy must be used and will yield a different thermo-neutral voltage value. Most definitions of STP that I am aware of use 0 C as the temperature, though according to Wiki, there is an old US version that uses 60 F (15.56 C). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_conditions_for_temperature_and_pressure Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Deuterium analysis
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:24:40 +0100: Hi, [snip] Er, D2 is not a deuteride is it? That's why I thought you meant HD (hydrogen deuteride). Anyway so you mean molecular deuterium D2 goes into e.g. the palladium (thus forming a palladium deuteride PdD), and H comes out? Yes, and no. I mean D2 goes in forming e.g. PdD, but SIMS analysis turns up some H as well. Then I would need to know the % of the Hydrogen that turned up as H (as opposed to D), and also the purity of the original D2. I'm both looking for evidence of Faux D, and trying to determine what percentage it is of real D. A related question is how is the purity of heavy water determined? By which mechanism? The primary ions used in SIMS have enough energy to convert most Faux D into H + Hydrino, so an increase in the H content would indicate how much Faux D was present. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Compulsator, railguns and Graneau
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:54:17 -0700: Hi, [snip] My biggest question for using a hybrid compulsator to drive a Graneau style water-arc explosion, perhaps repetitively in a hybrid-hybrid turbine generator: Do you get the same energy anomaly (COP=2) with HOOH as with HOH, on top of the COP=5 of the fuel (based on relative heat content), or has that extra hidden energy in H2O already been used up in the manufacture of the HOOH? [snip] If the extra boost in the Graneau experiments comes from Hydrino formation, then I would expect HOOH to work even better than H2O, because under plasma conditions O should readily be released from HOOH, and consequently O++ would seem more likely to form, and hence Hydrino formation would also be more likely. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Aether Theory
David Thomson wrote: Hi Thomas, Does one of you have a website about the Aether? I have a web site on the Aether Physics Model at www.16pi2.com Thanks for the info David. I forwarded your info to Hal Puthoff, www.earthtech.org , perhaps he will comment on your theories. Our interest is cohereing the energy in the Aether. I've been following the work of Dale Pond who claims to have replicated the Dynasphere of John E W Keely, www.svpvril.com . He claims that the Dynasphere taps the Strong Force. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
