Re: [Vo]:Magnetic pressure and magnetic temperature
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:16 AM, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to David Jonsson's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 00:35:22 +0200: Hi, [snip] Hi Magnetic pressure is a well known concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_pressure It struck me then that other concepts must be applicable to magnetism too like temperature. Temperature is really a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles, so a magnetic temperature may not have a lot of meaning. Then magnetic pressure wouldn't either. I have defined what I mean with magnetic temperature. Pressure and temperature exist whenever energy is distributed on smaller components. Any energy form where the components are interacting have pressure and temperature (or at least heat) and maybe something more. Strike kinetic in your definition and replace it with interchangeable. By the way the kinetic and magnetic energy of an electron are indistinguishable. David
[Vo]:Magnetic pressure and magnetic temperature
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:16 AM, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to David Jonsson's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 00:35:22 +0200: Hi, [snip] Hi Magnetic pressure is a well known concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_pressure It struck me then that other concepts must be applicable to magnetism too like temperature. Temperature is really a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles, so a magnetic temperature may not have a lot of meaning. Then magnetic pressure wouldn't either. I have defined what I mean with magnetic temperature. Pressure and temperature exist whenever energy is distributed on smaller components. Any energy form where the components are interacting have pressure and temperature (or at least heat) and maybe something more. Strike kinetic in your definition and replace it with interchangeable. By the way the kinetic and magnetic energy of an electron are indistinguishable. David
[Vo]:BLP paper on energy production
Can someone comment on the energy density that is reported in this abstract? Abstract: Having the potential for a clean new energy source, rt-plasmas of certain catalysts (Sr+, Ar+, K) with H formed at extraordinary low field strengths of about 1–2 V/cm. Time-dependent, extraordinarily fast H (25 eV), an excess power of 20 mW · cm-3, and characteristic K3+ emission confirmed the resonant nonradiative energy transfer of 3 · 27.2 eV from atomic hydrogen to K as the rt-plasma catalyst. The predicted very stable novel hydride ion H-(1/4) with fractional principal quantum number p = 4 was observed spectroscopically at 110 nm corresponding to its predicted binding energy of 11.2 eV that further matched the 1H MAS NMR spectrum having an extraordinary upfield-shifted peak at –4.4 ppm with the elimination of any known assignment by FTIR. Keywords: H catalysis; fast H; exothermic; novel hydride ions; upfield NMR peaks; FTIR. Reference to this --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Which are the new results at BLP?
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:58:32 -0400: Hi, [snip] This must be what everyone is talking about. The description of the power plant is rather nebulous. The section gets off on the wrong foot with this stateme Nebulous, I like that. Based on what I've read Mills has been claiming just that from the first interview I heard. My friend Leon read his book and is excited by it. Actually, it says that the laws of thermodynamics allow one to go below the ground state. If that is the case, then one of you is wrong. AFAIK, Mills contention is that his hydrino formation process is just that. Then there is the matter of induced LENR's by the hydrinos, which I thought was settled. Ed Storms, are you lurking out there? --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
[Vo]:aurorahunter
But do they involve hydrinos? http://www.aurorahunter.com/ --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic pressure and magnetic temperature
In reply to David Jonsson's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 08:47:15 +0200: Hi, [snip] Magnetic pressure is a well known concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_pressure It struck me then that other concepts must be applicable to magnetism too like temperature. Temperature is really a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles, so a magnetic temperature may not have a lot of meaning. Then magnetic pressure wouldn't either. Pressure is just energy density. While temperature is also a global variable, computing it wouldn't be so easy. E.g. For a gas one can use p*V/(nR) to get T (for a perfect gas). By analogy, one could substitute magnetic pressure for p, and the volume of the magnet for V, but what does one substitute for n, the number of mole of magnetic atoms in the magnet? (not to mention what value to use for R). This is why a precise definition of magnetic temperature is needed. I have defined what I mean with magnetic temperature. Where? Pressure and temperature exist whenever energy is distributed on smaller components. Any energy form where the components are interacting have pressure and temperature (or at least heat) and maybe something more. Strike kinetic in your definition and replace it with interchangeable. By the way the kinetic and magnetic energy of an electron are indistinguishable. ...so n hereabove would be the number of mole of electrons contributing to the magnetic field? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:chg of email address
Dear Vortex, I'm changing my email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can't find any electronic means of doing this, so could you do it? Many Thanks, Stephen R. Lawrence, Cambridge, England.
[Vo]:Re: BLP paper on energy production
Abstract seems to belong to this 2007 paper (not freely accessible): Catalysis of atomic hydrogen to new hydrides as a new power source http://inderscience.metapress.com/index/X832U331J0R38642.pdf Google scholar found what seems to be an earlier version (April 2005?): http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/CatalysisofAtomicHydrogentoNewHydrides040405.pdf Abstract was a bit longer but said essentially the same things as far as I can tell: ABSTRACT Plasmas of certain catalysts such as Sr + and Ar+ mixed with hydrogen were studied for evidence of a novel energetic reaction. These hydrogen plasmas called resonant transfer- or rt-plasmas were observed to form at low temperatures (e.g. ˜ 103 K ) and an extraordinary low field strengths of about 1-2 V/cm when argon and strontium were present with atomic hydrogen. Time-dependent line broadening of the H Balmer a line was observed corresponding to extraordinarily fast H (25 eV). An excess power of 20 mW ·cm-3 was measured calorimetrically on rt-plasmas formed when Ar+ added to Sr + as an additional catalyst. Substantial evidence of an energetic catalytic reaction was previously reported [1] involving a resonant energy transfer between hydrogen atoms and K to form very stable novel hydride ions H- (1/ p) called hydrino hydrides having a predicted fractional principal quantum number p = 4 . Characteristic emission was observed from K3+ that confirmed the resonant nonradiative energy transfer of 3· 27.2 eV from atomic hydrogen to K. The product hydride ion H- (1/4) was observed spectroscopically at 110 nm corresponding to its predicted binding energy of 11.2 eV . The 1H MAS NMR spectrum of novel compound KH *Cl relative to external tetramethylsilane (TMS) showed a large distinct upfield resonance at -4.4 ppm corresponding to an absolute resonance shift of -35.9 ppm that matched the theoretical prediction of p = 4. The predicted catalyst reactions, position of the upfield-shifted NMR peaks for H- (1/4), and spectroscopic data for H- (1/4) were found to be in agreement with the experimental observations as well as previously reported analysis of KH *Cl containing this hydride ion. Since the comparison of theory and experimental shifts of KH *Cl is direct evidence of lower-energy hydrogen with an implicit large exotherm during its formation, the NMR result were repeated with the further analysis by Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy which eliminated any known explanation such as U centered H for the assignment of the extraordinary upfield-shifted NMR peak. The possibility that a novel catalytic reaction of atomic hydrogen to form more stable hydrides may be a clean new energy source is supported by spectroscopic, chemical, and thermal data. Key Words: H catalysis, fast H, exothermic, novel hydride ions, upfield NMR peaks, FTIR 33 pages, haven't read it personally (not enough faith in hydrinos I guess), maybe Robin has, and is willing to comment it? Michel - Original Message - From: thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:22 AM Subject: [Vo]:BLP paper on energy production Can someone comment on the energy density that is reported in this abstract? Abstract: Having the potential for a clean new energy source, rt-plasmas of certain catalysts (Sr+, Ar+, K) with H formed at extraordinary low field strengths of about 1–2 V/cm. Time-dependent, extraordinarily fast H (25 eV), an excess power of 20 mW · cm-3, and characteristic K3+ emission confirmed the resonant nonradiative energy transfer of 3 · 27.2 eV from atomic hydrogen to K as the rt-plasma catalyst. The predicted very stable novel hydride ion H-(1/4) with fractional principal quantum number p = 4 was observed spectroscopically at 110 nm corresponding to its predicted binding energy of 11.2 eV that further matched the 1H MAS NMR spectrum having an extraordinary upfield-shifted peak at –4.4 ppm with the elimination of any known assignment by FTIR. Keywords: H catalysis; fast H; exothermic; novel hydride ions; upfield NMR peaks; FTIR. Reference to this --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
[Vo]:Re: chg of email address
Just resubscribe with your new address. Michel - Original Message - From: Stephen Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:20 PM Subject: [Vo]:chg of email address Dear Vortex, I'm changing my email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can't find any electronic means of doing this, so could you do it? Many Thanks, Stephen R. Lawrence, Cambridge, England.
Re: [Vo]:aurorahunter
From thomas malloy: But do they involve hydrinos? http://www.aurorahunter.com/ Damned if I know if hydrinos are involved. It's a pretty site, nevertheless. Great aurora photos. Thanks, Thomas. steve Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [VO]: Blowing smoke in the wind
R C Macaulay wrote: The Houston Chronicle article today kinda disputes claims regarding the idea of using windmills. The power produced ain't worth the power to produce without heavy subsidies. This is bunk. First, the wind power subsidies are modest compared to the tax breaks (depletion allowances and so on) for oil, gas, nuclear and coal. Second, government support funding for RD in coal and oil is far higher than for wind. Third, coal is subsidized at infinitely higher rates than wind power: it costs at least 20,000 lives per year. If the families of the victims were compensated for their loss at the normal rates, coal would cost far more than wind or any other source of energy. Add in the costs of global warming and there isn't enough money in the world to pay for coal-fired electricity. Also reports that a norther blew in one day and the wind farm output dropped so low that it upset the grid and almost caused a major blackout. This sort of thing happens with conventional generators too. They drop off line suddenly because of an equipment failure or inclement weather. Some third of the big mills are down for repairs at any one time. Nobody has reliable figures on real operating cost cuz the whole business is sorta off the books.. well... kinda.. That is complete and utter bunk. Detailed information on all generators types is kept and it has been analyzed in detail by the power companies, EPRI, the DoE and many others. The notion that a third of wind turbines are normally down for maintenance is preposterous. This is obviously anti-wind-energy propaganda. I expect it was written by coal industry flacks, who are also busy behind the scenes in the Congress trying to get legislation passed to ban the use of wind energy. Wind now produces ~1% of U.S. power (2% of the coal market) so things are getting ugly. You should apply some common sense to what you read in the newspapers. Reporters have little technical knowledge and they are often misled by industry flacks. Ask yourself: how likely is it that power companies would not keep track of wind turbine performance? How likely is it that power companies worldwide would be building the equivalent of two nuclear power plants per year in wind energy, but it is actually not cost effective? Of course in the U.S. we spend billions on ethanol, which is an energy sink and therefore not cost-effective, but that is nothing more that a gift to OPEC and Big Agriculture. No government or auto manufacturer is gearing up to power a significant fraction of U.S. automobiles on ethanol. No one knowledgeable about energy seriously maintains that ethanol can have any impact, other than to fleece the taxpayers and destroy the environment. Even Time magazine has noticed that it is con job. - Jed
Re: [VO]: Blowing smoke in the wind
I wrote: If the families of the victims were compensated for their loss at the normal rates, coal would cost far more than wind or any other source of energy. Oops. I take that back. I miscalculated. The average wrongful death compensation is around $800,000. Multiply by 20,000 and that is a modest $16 billion, which the power companies could easily afford. They prefer to pay nothing -- which is the present arrangement. The cost of ill-health might add a hundred billion to that number. Fortunately, the number of coal miners killed and incapacitated per year has fallen to record lows. It is now 50 - 100 killed per year, and 13,000 injured. See: http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT2.HTM Wind energy kills very few people; mainly a handful of workers who fall from towers or are electrocuted. In any case, my point is that the cost of coal-fired electricity is borne by the public. We pay not with money, but with our lives and health. This cost is not factored into the balance when people compare the cost of wind versus coal energy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Which are the new results at BLP?
thomas malloy wrote: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:58:32 -0400: Hi, [snip] This must be what everyone is talking about. The description of the power plant is rather nebulous. The section gets off on the wrong foot with this stateme Nebulous, I like that. Based on what I've read Mills has been claiming just that from the first interview I heard. My friend Leon read his book and is excited by it. Actually, it says that the laws of thermodynamics allow one to go below the ground state. If that is the case, then one of you is wrong. AFAIK, Mills contention is that his hydrino formation process is just that. Then there is the matter of induced LENR's by the hydrinos, which I thought was settled. Ed Storms, are you lurking out there? Yes, I'm lurking. I did not say that LENR was caused by hydrinos. I said that of the various theories proposed to explain LENR, the Mills theory has the fewest problems, provided you accept hydrinos as being real. Therefore, the role of hydrinos needs to be explored. Ed --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [VO]: Blowing smoke in the wind
Jed wrote: This is bunk. First, the wind power subsidies are modest compared to the tax breaks (depletion allowances and so on) for oil, (snip) While I'm no fan of Big Oil, I think it's important to point out that the oil depletion allowance has been virtually nil since 1978. Third, coal is subsidized at infinitely higher rates than wind power: it costs at least 20,000 lives per year. I'm not sure what figures you're using here. If it's coal mining accidents, the yearly figures for that are trivial, because the number of people it takes to mine coal is a tiny fraction of what it used to be on account of mechanization. If it's black lung disease, everyone should know that this is a smoking related disorder. People who don't smoke don't get it. Ditto brown lung disease and mesothelioma. I'm not touting the glories of coal. I just don't know how you could come up with this number of related deaths. If you mean projected or estimated deaths from coal burning air pollution, that might be true, but people who make such estimates are normally prone to exaggeration. And one thing is never ever included in the evils of various energy sources. That is the number of deaths that would occur if the energy were not available or were too expensive. And that is a very large figure indeed. I agree with you about the ethanol. Even now people are dying because world food prices have ramped up quickly from the wasting of corn to make ethanol. M. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
Jed said: This must be what everyone is talking about. The description of the power plant is rather nebulous. The section gets off on the wrong foot with this statement: Atomic hydrogen ordinarily has a stable electronic state that is much higher in energy than allowed by thermodynamic laws. Even if you believe that you can violate the laws of thermodynamics, you shouldn't say so in the first sentence. Robin wrote: Actually, it says that the laws of thermodynamics allow one to go below the ground state. Jed wrote: In that case it is badly phrased. [M]uch higher than allowed by . . . sounds like the author thinks the laws of thermodynamics will not allow this to happen. The fundamental problem here is that Jed disapproves of Mills' business strategy and has not adequately studied Mills' and BLP's work. Thus Jed misunderstands available evidence. Jed goes on to write: This part gives me a headache: BlackLight intends to incrementally pursue commercial development of power plants of all useful scales. This will be done through a combination of internal engineering and development, external consultants and outsourcing, licensed joint ventures and acquisition of engineering and design companies. BlackLight intends to own an interest in power production businesses at the distributed and central power station scale (see Licensing Strategy). BlackLight anticipates contracting for turnkey plants to be built and operated by architect and engineering firms and original equipment manufacturers. Some of BLP's original investors were electric utilities who hoped that BLP would provide a heat source that could replace fossil fuel in boilers in conventional steam-based power plants. Such has been a theme in BLP's position which only now appears within grasp. The thermal and microwave-gas research reactors have shown power densities in the range of thermal boilers and fission reactors, but the net energy yield -- after subtracting the energy needed for electrolysis to get H and sustain the vacuum conditions -- with no direct means of extracting electricity from the UV energy of the reactions -- except a lossy thermal cycle -- meant that water could not yet be used as the ultimate fuel. Jed, and other casual observers who have not done their homework on BLP, miss critical statements in the new release. Quoting about the solid fuel = that uses conventional chemical reactions to generate the catalyst and atomic hydrogen at high reactant densities that in turn controllably achieves very high power densities. The energy gain is well above that required to regenerate the solid fuel, and experimental evidence confirms the theoretical energy balance per weight of the hydrogen consumed of 1000 times that of the most energetic fuel known. = In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is mentioned as a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor of 4, releasing 435 eV in the process. That is enough energy to overcome heat-engine thermal losses and electrolyze water and regenerate the solid fuel. No vacuum pump is shown in the process overview. This, and the above phrases at hight reactant densities and reactions to generate the catalyst and atomic hydrogen imply that H and [catalyst] are generated *in proximity* and do not rely on radom encounters in a soft vacuum as in the research reactors. This lends credence to the claim of ...experimental evidence...energy balance...per weight of hyrdrogen...1000 times the most energetic fuel known. The website is of course skimpy on some details until patents are granted. Jed contunes: I have said it before, and I'll say it again: this notion of incremental commercial development masterminded by Mills makes about as much sense as letting the Wright brothers mastermind the development of airplanes, or putting Martin Fleischmann in charge of cold fusion. Incremental* implies blending with the existing infrastructure in a non-disruptive way. Energy packages are scalable from the shopping center to regional utility level. I don't know if it will be optimum for households and when it will be appropriate for automobiles. For each, vendors will have to establish reliability, which may take years of prototype development and testing. I am well familiar with the difference between RD and production and marketing -- few entrepreneurs have mastered both. Jed is fond of using the Wright Brothers as examples of what to do and not to do. They did not make a real impact until a critical demonstration before goverment officials. Even after that, and after patents were issued, there were still eperimenters doing their own thing and failing. BLP has not yet made the cooresponding demostration before *officials*. The Wrights wanted delay, delay and delay, and Martin told me that in 1989 he wanted another five years of secrecy -- peace and quiet, in other words -- before
[Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word
High gas prices are opening up (so to speak) another kind of oil gas extraction technique, called fracture drilling, which was alluded to in a recent thread on the new oil discovery in the Dakotas and Montana (Williston Basin) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/business/08gas.html?emex=1207886400en=3513e391adf7ae70ei=5087%0A At one time (before the negative publicity of TMI and the ranting of Jane Fonda) small nuclear bombs were considered as the ideal solution for deep shale extraction, but oil was too cheap then. In fact, there is evidence that despite all the nuclear test ban treaties in place, that the Russians routinely use small nukes to increase hydrocarbon output from deep shale. What better way to get rid of their excess inventory of weapons? ;-) A tamer version of fracture drilling, not involving nukes, was invented by Halliburton (more like the concept was partly bought and partly stolen). However, due to the chemicals used, I am not so sure that nukes aren't preferable in terms of actual toxicity in the finished product. It should be possible, even easy, to purposely design a small (suitcase) nuke that is actually much less toxic to the *surface* environment, for the same amount of hydrocarbons which are recovered ... except for objections of the Sierra Club (and even many green Vorticians, including moi). It is even possible that our beloved Petro-Mafia does NOT want this, since the net effect might serve to bring down per barrel oil prices (and obscene profits). It is true that we spent billions to develop the so-called neutron bomb and it is clear that hydrocarbons do not absorb many neutrons and become radioactive ... and most of all - in terms of realistic comparisons - that there is more natural radioactivity in many kinds of oil-bearing shale than the amount that a small nuke would ever produce, anyway. The average concentration of uranium in Chattanooga Shale, which covers most of the SouthEastern USA is .006 percent, or 60 ppm ! That is incredibly high, and is far more, orders of magnitude more per volume, than the amount which a small nuke would add to shale which had no natural U. If a small nuke is used to fracture deep shale, surrounding rock would be activated but that could be dealt with adequately with in situ filtration. However, despite this - there is little realistic way our government would ever allow it here, and that is probably a good thing, at least for now. Let the Russians et al. work out all the bugs first. At some future time, without a breakthrough in LENR or hydrino-tech, for instance, we may be forced to do it here. But as always, the optimists on this forum see better possibilities on the immediate horizon: Algoil being one of them. It should be mentioned that there are a few folks, formerly associated with the Phillips Petroleum Company of Oklahoma, who might admit (deathbed confessional) that the small-nuke fracturing technique has been widely used in the Middle East, S. Africa, and elsewhere (probably because they sold licenses and the expertise to do it overseas years ago, or know that the Russians got there first): http://tinyurl.com/5sm3eo Anyway - this could be one reason that Arabia has so much recoverable oil relative to non-recoverable. One can reasonably suspect that some of the Middle Eastern oil we import now in the USA was recovered this way, and that our government knows this, but perhaps does not want this factoid publicly revealed, and would likely deny it strongly if asked. Quien sabe? Jones
Re: [Vo]:chg of email address
You can unsubscribe and subscribe automatically by using those words in the subject line of a null message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Terry On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Stephen Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Vortex, I'm changing my email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can't find any electronic means of doing this, so could you do it? Many Thanks, Stephen R. Lawrence, Cambridge, England.
Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word
Quien sabe? Jones At the end of the day the solution to the supply of energy will be based on cost. Allow the price of fuel to rise to prohibitive use and viola! , amount consumed falls. We will see gas and diesel retail prices rise ( above and beyond the shrinking dollar) as a function of this strategy. The same has already happening in strategic minerals and exotic metals. A variation of this strategy is now beginning to work with the illegal worker in the US. The game plan is now to punish the employer. Selective raids on key job providers work because the word gets around quick. Jail time, confiscation and heavy fines for firms that employ non documented workers is beginning to have a major impact. Notice the sudden silence by our politicios on the subject of illegal immigration... that means the strategy is working. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word
Jones sez: High gas prices are opening up (so to speak) another kind of oil gas extraction technique, called fracture drilling, which was alluded to in a recent thread on the new oil discovery in the Dakotas and Montana (Williston Basin) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/business/08gas.html?emex=1207886400en=3513e391adf7ae70ei=5087%0A ... Interesting article. The new bonanza of gas extraction going on in Pennsylvania doesn't seem to bare any relationship to what's allegedly going on up in North Dakota. I assume we are dealing with two completely different geological processes. Regarding the NY article... As always, it comes down to the bottom line. The final sentence: When Range came in a lot of people didn't like it, Mr. Deiseroth said, But things changed when they started getting their checks. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word
--- R C Macaulay wrote: At the end of the day the solution to the supply of energy will be based on cost. Well... cost AND politics... and cost (greed) works both ways; therefore it is possible that you would see Exxon funding the Sierra Club to keep this kind of thing from happening here. BTW - courtesy of Fred, here is the site for the only (reported) US trial of this technique: http://www.atomictourist.com/gasbug.htm The project GASBUGGY shot was part of the overall Operation PLOWSHARE (Atoms for Peace) program. It is not clear if Phillips was paid a royalty for the IP or not. This occured on December 10, 1967 and was a 29 kiloton nuclear explosive detonated at a depth of 4222 feet. There are now available the so-called suitcase weapons of a few kt or less, which would be better suited for minimal irradiation of the well. This would be the ideal use for the so-called PFB or pure fusion bomb, if such a weapon is more than myth (not clear but unlikely) ... ... which mythological weapon reputedly has NO fission trigger! only high explosives for igniting the fusion reaction -- and consequently leaves an almost undetectable footprint in the oil itself. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word
Jones, Do a search on Project Rulison: Underground stimulation in a tight sand formation. Ron --On Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:30 AM -0700 Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- R C Macaulay wrote: At the end of the day the solution to the supply of energy will be based on cost. Well... cost AND politics... and cost (greed) works both ways; therefore it is possible that you would see Exxon funding the Sierra Club to keep this kind of thing from happening here. BTW - courtesy of Fred, here is the site for the only (reported) US trial of this technique: http://www.atomictourist.com/gasbug.htm The project GASBUGGY shot was part of the overall Operation PLOWSHARE (Atoms for Peace) program. It is not clear if Phillips was paid a royalty for the IP or not. This occured on December 10, 1967 and was a 29 kiloton nuclear explosive detonated at a depth of 4222 feet. There are now available the so-called suitcase weapons of a few kt or less, which would be better suited for minimal irradiation of the well. This would be the ideal use for the so-called PFB or pure fusion bomb, if such a weapon is more than myth (not clear but unlikely) ... ... which mythological weapon reputedly has NO fission trigger! only high explosives for igniting the fusion reaction -- and consequently leaves an almost undetectable footprint in the oil itself. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
Mike Carrell wrote: In that case it is badly phrased. [M]uch higher than allowed by . . . sounds like the author thinks the laws of thermodynamics will not allow this to happen. The fundamental problem here is that Jed disapproves of Mills' business strategy and has not adequately studied Mills' and BLP's work. Hold on. There are three separate issues here: 1. This sentence on the web site. This is poorly phrased and it gives the wrong impression. (Assuming Robin is correct and it does not mean what it seems to mean). That has nothing to do with my opinion of the business strategy. 2. I have not adequately studied Mills and BLP because most of their work is theoretical. I do not understand it, and I could not care less about theory. Whether atoms shrink below ground state or not is no concern of mine. I care about that issue roughly as much as I care about Contract Bridge (interest level = 0 to 3 significant digits). If they do shrink, and if this is in some sense a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, I would suggest to BLP that they refrain from mentioning it in this section of the web page because it is bad Public Relations. 3. I do disagree with their business strategy, as I said. The thermal and microwave-gas research reactors have shown power densities in the range of thermal boilers and fission reactors, but the net energy yield -- after subtracting the energy needed for electrolysis to get H and sustain the vacuum conditions -- with no direct means of extracting electricity from the UV energy of the reactions -- except a lossy thermal cycle -- meant that water could not yet be used as the ultimate fuel. Jed, and other casual observers who have not done their homework on BLP, miss critical statements in the new release. Quoting about the solid fuel I did not miss these statements! I will be thrilled by this development, as soon as it is independently replicated. I never believe any claim until it is independently replicated several times. I remain un-thrilled by their business strategy, which is a completely unrelated subject. Jed is fond of using the Wright Brothers as examples of what to do and not to do. They did not make a real impact until a critical demonstration before goverment officials. Even after that, and after patents were issued, there were still eperimenters doing their own thing and failing. BLP has not yet made the cooresponding demostration before *officials*. Exactly right. That's a huge mistake now, just as it was in 1908. Not only did the Wrights refuse to demonstrate, they did not bother to send photos of their flights to the U.S. Army officials. BLP, to its credit, has published more information than the Wrights did. However, it is mainly academically oriented, scientific information, similar to what the Wrights published in the proceedings of the Western Society of Engineers, 1901. This is an excellent paper: http://www.wright-house.com/wright-brothers/Aeronautical.html . . . but in 1901 you had to be an attentive expert to see that it represents most of the solution to the problem of flight. Note that this paper is similar to the seminal papers on computers by von Neumann, Goldstein and others in 1946, such as First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC. These papers are easy for us to understand because we know all about computers. But they were difficult for people to grasp when they were written. Novelty impedes comprehension. The Wrights wanted delay, delay and delay, and Martin told me that in 1989 he wanted another five years of secrecy -- peace and quiet, in other words -- before revealing the process. It might have saved everybody a lot of trouble if Martin had that quiet time. I disagree. I think he would still be puttering away on it in isolation, making little progress, just as most cold fusion researchers are doing today. This kind of research will have no impact because no one pays any attention, and whatever they discover they will with them to the grave. I think the reaction against cold fusion would have been as violent and irrational 10 or 20 years later as it was in 1989. The proof that the effect is real has not improved much since 1992, and it has not convinced a single harsh opponent as far as I know -- and never will. Only two things will sway these people: a commercial product, or some organization such as the APS or Nature magazine giving its blessing. Two hundred replications have not convinced them, and neither would 2,000 or 20,000. By the way, one of the reasons Martin wanted to keep it secret was for national security. He was -- and still is -- concerned that it might have weapons applications. If the airplane had been developed at this rate of progress, the first public demonstration of flight would have been after 1933, and the first practical airplane would have been scheduled for 1953. Jed, how long did it take for Babbage Ada's ideas get the
Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word
--- Ron Wormus wrote: Jones, Do a search on Project Rulison Wiki has an entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Rulison When they say the gas was too radioactive to sell, the reference is to the gaseous fission ash from the fission of the explosive, including such isotopes as tritium, Radon and Xenon which are mixed in with the methane. The particulate ash would be easy to filter out. Most natural gas is slightly radioactive anyway (mostly tritium and some natural radon) but to a lesser extent. I can measure about double the background level at the exhaust vent of my gas water-heater, immediately when it turns on, but never when it is off - using a GM meter. That is something the gas supplier does not want to be publicized, but it is an absolute certainty that natural gas is slightly radioactive. Methane itself, however, does not become significantly radioactive. The problem is always derived from other gaseous isotopes which are trapped in the same formations as the methane. It turns out that these two elements, Radon and Xenon are easily removed due to extremely higher density, but at a price which was probably too high 30 years ago when natural gas was a small fraction of today's price. Tritium is more difficult to get out but has a very high value in its own right. If the Russians are selling methane from nuked-deposits to the EU, and there are plenty of people who believe that to be true (despite their denials) then they are removing all traces of Radon, Xenon, and tritium before sending it to Europe. In fact, the gas they get in Europe is cleaner than natural gas in the USA, and really too clean to be natural which indicates that it has been intentionally cleaned up. Makes perfect sense because the Russians can then sell the EU the removed isotopes at an even higher price for medical uses. Everybody is happy. Don't ask, don't tell ;-) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
I wrote: I did not miss these statements! I will be thrilled by this development, as soon as it is independently replicated. I mean that. I did read these sections, and I do understand why this breakthrough is important. I have never depreciated the potential importance of the BLP claims. I disagree with their business strategy, and I have made it clear that I have no interest in their scientific claims (or any scientific claims), but I fully recognize the technological implications. Mike Carrell realizes that I take BLP seriously, so I think it is a little unfair for him to say that I am a casual observer or that I have not adequately studied Mills' and BLP's work. That is a bit like saying that Truman did not have an adequate grasp of nuclear physics. He knew what he had to know to judge the situation. In other words, I understand this part perfectly: The energy gain is well above that required to regenerate the solid fuel, and experimental evidence confirms the theoretical energy balance per weight of the hydrogen consumed of 1000 times that of the most energetic fuel known. This part means little to me, and most physicists would say it is gibberish: In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is mentioned as a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor of 4, releasing 435 eV in the process. If this turns out to be right, it will be important to the theorists and eventually to the engineers, but not to me. Whether the energy comes from fusion, or the zero point, or whether it is leaking from Mars via a hidden 5th dimension would not make the slightest difference to me. Mills might be utterly wrong about the source of energy he has observed, but his discovery might be perfectly valid and important despite this. In the book by J. Sandford, Heat Engines chapter 1 is titled Primitive Heat Engines. It describes the early engines and nascent thermodynamic theory -- which was completely wrong. Having the wrong theory was an impediment, and it made the early heat engines inefficient, but in the early stages people managed to make enough progress to make heat engines practical. Sandford writes: . . . If you could have asked Mr. Savery to describe the operation of his engine, he would have used such expressions as 'incensed and inflamed air,' 'intercourse of the two contraries,' and 'frustrated ascent of water,' amusing fancies but meaningless today. Nevertheless, Savery's fire engine was a financial success. . . . Once the machine succeeded financially, it attracted capital and eventually its successors attracted the attention of smart people such as Watt, who improved thermodynamic theory. That outcome was inevitable. If cold fusion or the BLP effect can be made practical, I expect that the early commercial implementations will be extremely inefficient, just as the early heat engines were. Even if the BLP theory is right, it will not lead to optimized engines in the early stages. It does not have to do that. All we need is an engine that works well enough to convince many people that the effect is real. Improved theory and engineering will follow inevitably. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If this turns out to be right, it will be important to the theorists and eventually to the engineers, but not to me. Whether the energy comes from fusion, or the zero point, or whether it is leaking from Mars via a hidden 5th dimension would not make the slightest difference to me. Ah, Mars! You don't happen to have a citation on this one do you? ;-) Terry
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:05:14 -0400: Hi, [snip] In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is mentioned as a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor of 4, releasing 435 eV in the process. 435 eV is the potential energy of H[n=1/4], not the energy released during formation. The latter is actually 217.7 - 13.6 = 204.1 eV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Re: Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
Mills, get out of Mike's body! Michel - Original Message - From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 5:05 PM Subject: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP ... The fundamental problem here is that Jed disapproves of Mills' business strategy and has not adequately studied Mills' and BLP's work. Thus Jed misunderstands available evidence. Jed goes on to write: ... Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP_ Robin's correction
Robin, thank you for your correction. 204 eV is still a lot of energym much more so than with H(1/2). The important thing is that it gives credence to the statements about electrolysis and regeneration of the solid fuel -- with surplus power for externalk work. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:05:14 -0400: Hi, [snip] In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is mentioned as a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor of 4, releasing 435 eV in the process. 435 eV is the potential energy of H[n=1/4], not the energy released during formation. The latter is actually 217.7 - 13.6 = 204.1 eV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
And I respect Jed, even if we have differences -- Mike I wrote: I did not miss these statements! I will be thrilled by this development, as soon as it is independently replicated. I mean that. I did read these sections, and I do understand why this breakthrough is important. I have never depreciated the potential importance of the BLP claims. I disagree with their business strategy, and I have made it clear that I have no interest in their scientific claims (or any scientific claims), but I fully recognize the technological implications. Jed, it did not seem so from the tenor of your comments. Mike Carrell realizes that I take BLP seriously, so I think it is a little unfair for him to say that I am a casual observer or that I have not adequately studied Mills' and BLP's work. That is a bit like saying that Truman did not have an adequate grasp of nuclear physics. He knew what he had to know to judge the situation. Jed, on a number of occasions you have not seemed to grasp BLP's situation. In other words, I understand this part perfectly: The energy gain is well above that required to regenerate the solid fuel, and experimental evidence confirms the theoretical energy balance per weight of the hydrogen consumed of 1000 times that of the most energetic fuel known. This part means little to me, and most physicists would say it is gibberish: And you still say you understand? And are sure that others would say it is gibberish? Does experimental evidence confirms mean nothing? If your position is that no statement is meaningful until confirmed, this is perfectly safe. The specific data is not given in this summary, and may be contained in reports not yet published. Does the term energy balance mean nothing to you? It means for a given weight of hydrogen the energy yield is 1000 times the energy yield of the same weight of the most energetic fuel known. This would include rocket propellants and explosives. Are you saying this is fiction, or gibberish, or what? In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is mentioned as a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor of 4, releasing 435 eV in the process. Robin has corrected me: the energy yield is 204 eV. That is still a *lot* of energy. If this turns out to be right, it will be important to the theorists and eventually to the engineers, but not to me. Whether the energy comes from fusion, or the zero point, or whether it is leaking from Mars via a hidden 5th dimension would not make the slightest difference to me. Mills might be utterly wrong about the source of energy he has observed, but his discovery might be perfectly valid and important despite this. Yes. In the book by J. Sandford, Heat Engines chapter 1 is titled Primitive Heat Engines. It describes the early engines and nascent thermodynamic theory -- which was completely wrong. Having the wrong theory was an impediment, and it made the early heat engines inefficient, but in the early stages people managed to make enough progress to make heat engines practical. Sandford writes: . . . If you could have asked Mr. Savery to describe the operation of his engine, he would have used such expressions as 'incensed and inflamed air,' 'intercourse of the two contraries,' and 'frustrated ascent of water,' amusing fancies but meaningless today. Nevertheless, Savery's fire engine was a financial success. . . . Once the machine succeeded financially, it attracted capital and eventually its successors attracted the attention of smart people such as Watt, who improved thermodynamic theory. That outcome was inevitable. If cold fusion or the BLP effect can be made practical, I expect that the early commercial implementations will be extremely inefficient, just as the early heat engines were. Even if the BLP theory is right, it will not lead to optimized engines in the early stages. It does not have to do that. All we need is an engine that works well enough to convince many people that the effect is real. Improved theory and engineering will follow inevitably. Of course. What has held up BLP demonstrations, etc., was inability to use water as a fuel and produce useful output while supporting internal needs. With this new data, it appears that barrier has been surmounted. Always, business plans will be shaped by the actual nature of the technology in hand. - Jed This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
Michel, there is nobody here but me. Mike Mills, get out of Mike's body! Michel - Original Message - From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
On 9/4/2008 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Exactly right. That's a huge mistake now, just as it was in 1908. Not only did the Wrights refuse to demonstrate, they did not bother to send photos of their flights to the U.S. Army officials. BLP, to its credit, has published more information than the Wrights did. However, it is mainly academically oriented, scientific information, similar to what the Wrights published in the proceedings of the Western Society of Engineers, 1901. This is an excellent paper: http://www.wright-house.com/wright-brothers/Aeronautical.html . . . but in 1901 you had to be an attentive expert to see that it represents most of the solution to the problem of flight. Note that this paper is similar to the seminal papers on computers by von Neumann, Goldstein and others in 1946, such as First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC. These papers are easy for us to understand because we know all about computers. But they were difficult for people to grasp when they were written. Novelty impedes comprehension. I think the situation with BLP is very different from that of the Wright Brothers. As far as I know, BLP is the only group actively researching hydrinos, whereas the Wrights were not alone in their quest to develop controlled powered flight. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
Without using any recent mathematical trickery. ;-) As Mr. Carrell initially pointed out, there is a new claim of an energy production breakthrough listed out at the Blacklight Power web site. The new process involves the recycling of a solid catalyst. Recent is perhaps incorrect as I would assume BLP has clandestinely been working on this process for, oh, I would imagine over a year, and probably a lot longer. Perhaps BLP has finally stumbled across the right combination of secret incantations. The web site claims the amount of energy released is more than sufficient to simultaneously sustain two key elements: (1) The ability to heat traditional boilers such as those belonging to power plants, and (2) of particular interest to us (as well I would imagine it might be to certain BLP critics), the ability to regenerate the catalyst using processes that presumably involve conventional and well understood chemistry. This is what has been implied. I gather it's always been that confounded regenerative step that has prevented BLP from coming up with an effective path towards commercial application. BLP has tried so many different approaches over the years that no doubt they have lost many a cheerleader due to an extended version of ADD. But hey! In six or seven years of personally watching BLP, and I've noticed that my own attention span has occasionally wandered! Continuing my personal speculations, I would suspect that most of BLP's investors really don't give a rats #ss what the BLP Web site's has to say on the subject, particularly if they signed NDAs, and as such, are privy to what's really going on down in Baron Von Mills' secret laboratory. Perhaps some are even amused. Assuming they really are convinced, they would likely believe that the turkey they helped buy many years ago will eventually come out of the oven. More stuffin'n'gravy for them. In the meantime, we in the peanut gallery can only do what we have been trained to do: Speculate, dream, fret, and squabble amongst each other. ...at least until that damned turkey is placed on the table. Shoot! I'm hungry and I just ran out of peanuts, again. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
In reply to OrionWorks's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:30:55 -0500: Hi, [snip] I gather it's always been that confounded regenerative step that has prevented BLP from coming up with an effective path towards commercial application. [snip] Not really. Most BLP catalysts are ions that become even further ionized during the BLP reaction. E.g. Ar+ - Ar++. Since this usually takes place in a plasma, there are plenty of free electrons hanging around that the Ar++ can latch on to, to reform Ar+ (or even Ar). IOW in a plasma the catalyst reforms almost instantaneously. In the case of the solid however I believe they are making a fuss because the solid itself is not actually the catalyst. IOW it only creates the catalyst when heated, and hence special steps need to be taken to reconstitute the solid later. I think what's prevented them before is that so few hydrinos usually form (mostly due to competing reactions), that the energy liberated wasn't enough to pay back the energy investment. (As Mike has already explained). e.g. if you have to create 1000 ions just to get one to undergo the requisite reaction, then your process overall will not be OU, even though it is OU as far as the single H atom involved is concerned. This is the main reason that KH - K + H should work well. The resultant gas (K + H) has no competing reactions, aside from H + H + H - H2 + H (a rare three body reaction). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word
Jones Beene wrote: --- Ron Wormus wrote: Jones, Do a search on Project Rulison It turns out that these two elements, Radon and Xenon are easily removed due to extremely higher density, It's occurred to me that the radon might make a good core for a Brown Nuclear Battery. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---