[VO]: Ford's New Brazil Plant
Henry has changed his name to Hector http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno depends upon conventional chemical theory
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:32:08 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Well, what are the suggestions? Can they be made without a >spectroanalysis or other extra steps? If so, let us make these suggestions now. > >What I am looking for is some recommendation that would simultaneously: > >1. Confirm the hydrino hypothesis (or at least bolster it). That's what NAA of the putative C13 would do. If real C13 were not present, then NAA would show that clearly. That would then leave a strongly bound Hydrino as a strong contender (but not proven). Note that in phenanthrene there is no carbon atom with more than 1 H attached, so breaking up the molecule forcefully (MS) is likely to produce CH radicals (and unlikely to produce e.g. CH2 (or more) radicals). > >2. Improve performance. (Any aspect of performance: heat output, >control, or some other parameter or set of parameters). 1) Try adding Sr (either the metal itself, or a salt). This needs to be done in such a way that Sr+ vapour exists). 2) Try adding an Ar/He mixture - e.g. 5% of the gas with Ar and He ratio 50:50. These are techniques that enhance Hydrino production. nr. 2 in particular should have little effect if Hydrinos are not responsible. OTOH if phenanthrene turns out to be an excellent molecular catalyst, then Ar/He may not make much difference, even if Hydrinos are involved. As you can see therefore, everything is not as clear cut as we might like it to be. > >3. Plus it would be great if he could implement this without making >too many changes or a great deal of effort. NAA would be outsourced, just as the MS was. Adding an Ar/He mixture to the hydrogen should be simple. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno depends upon conventional chemical theory
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:05:42 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Jones Beene wrote: > >>I have talked to two experts who suspect that the putative 13C+ >>could be molecular 12CH (whether or not the H there is a hydrino - >>it does not matter). >> >>Did Mizuno retain enough of the residue to have a sample >>re-analyzed, perhaps independently - with this single goal of >>looking closely at the mass 13 species? > >Dunno. Will ask. Are these two experts capable of it? Should he send >them the samples? > > From what I have heard, samples tend to get used up in destructive >testing, including testing with mass spectroscopy techniques that >are supposedly not destructive. Maybe he will get some new samples in >the future which you can send to these experts. What is needed is NAA (neutron activation analysis) not MS (the latter has already been done). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Backstory of Phenanthrene excess heat
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:11:30 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] >Secondly - as posted several times by the renegade observers who are trying to >merge CQM and CF into a coherent single theory - and who believe that Mills >got "much of it right", and either missed some of it, or got some of it wrong >-- there is no convincing evidence that has ever appeared in the spectroscopy >on the BLP site that proves the shrinkage reaction is not endothermic, since >he has never shown a clear and unambiguous peak at 27.2 eV AFAIK. [snip] His theory doesn't predict a 27.2 eV peak. It does predict one at 13.6 eV and others at 40.8 eV and higher, though it's possible that it doesn't directly produce any UV at all, just kinetic energy, and that any UV present comes only from recombination reactions (i.e. positive ions capturing free electrons). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
Esa Ruoho wrote: whats hygroscopic? Look it up! This is why God gave us Google! The search term "define: hygroscopic" returns the following in item 2, appropriately from a roofing contractor: attracting, absorbing and retaining atmospheric moisture www.boyercontracting.net/Roofingterms.html This is especially applicable to my roof, specifically the part with a skylight window. It attracts atmospheric moisture from miles around! Incidentally, voice input worked for "hygroscopic" on the first try. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
hi im a ridiculous clueless twat, so here goes: 2008/12/5 Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Heavy water is hygroscopic whats hygroscopic?
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno depends upon conventional chemical theory
Jones Beene wrote: I have talked to two experts who suspect that the putative 13C+ could be molecular 12CH (whether or not the H there is a hydrino - it does not matter). Did Mizuno retain enough of the residue to have a sample re-analyzed, perhaps independently - with this single goal of looking closely at the mass 13 species? Dunno. Will ask. Are these two experts capable of it? Should he send them the samples? From what I have heard, samples tend to get used up in destructive testing, including testing with mass spectroscopy techniques that are supposedly not destructive. Maybe he will get some new samples in the future which you can send to these experts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
This document has some important comments by Melvin Miles who is a superb electrochemist and writes some the clearest prose around. People should pay close attention to this: "EarthTech wanted me to supervise setting up the experiment so it would be done the same way as I had done it. The problem was that they didn't have a dry box; we didn't have anything there to keep the heavy water dry like I did at China Lake. Also, it rained all day long, and there was very high humidity. They had the heavy water samples sitting out a lot longer than I would ever have them exposed to the moist atmosphere, but we didn't have any other choice - I had to do this on a weekend, and that's the weather we ended up with." This is a good illustration of why it is difficult to do the same experiment twice, even when you are an expert. The weather really does interfere! Heavy water is hygroscopic and this is a BIG problem in cold fusion, often unrecognized. I do not know how you measure heavy water contamination levels . . . I guess with a precise weight scale? But anyway this will wreck a Pd-bulk experiment, sure as shootin' as Dr. S. Palin might put it. Miles makes other important points so everyone should read his comments carefully. He makes good points in all his papers, including his most recent one in which I made a guest appearance. (Preen, preen.) The only thing I mildly disagree with him about is the choice of calorimeter types. I prefer the Seebeck, as I said, and he likes Fleischmann's design. Of course a researcher should use whatever instrument he feels most comfortable with. He should use an instrument he is experienced with and feel confidence in, as long as it fulfills the requirements of the experiment, allowing sufficient current density, high temperature and so on. As Storms points out in this document, some calorimeter designs (including the MOAC) might have a limitation that prevents a positive result, or reduces the intensity of the reaction. This happens more often than you might think. The instrument itself is a key component in the experiment. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno depends upon conventional chemical theory
From: Jed Rothwell Well, what are the suggestions? Can they be made without a spectroanalysis or other extra steps? If so, let us make these suggestions now. Here is the most basic suggestion - one that he will most likely be interested in doing anyway - for reasons of confirmation. I have talked to two experts who suspect that the putative 13C+ could be molecular 12CH (whether or not the H there is a hydrino - it does not matter). Did Mizuno retain enough of the residue to have a sample re-analyzed, perhaps independently - with this single goal of looking closely at the mass 13 species? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
This document seems to be out of date: http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET23.htm#earthtech In this document from 2007, Letts wrote that he could not make laser stimulation work. It stopped working for years. As I noted here, after he wrote this he discovered the problem (we hope) and he now makes laser stimulation work reliably, and repeatedly with the same sample. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LettsDstimulatio.pdf I have not heard whether he has done this experiment at EarthTech again. He and D2 were doing it in their own lab last I heard. They reported: ". . . increasing cell operating temperature from 62°C to 73°C increased excess power production from 225 mW to 900 mW, a 400% increase." This level of power requires a reasonably good calorimeter, but not a super good one. I am confident that the calorimeter is built by D1 and D2 can measure this much power with assurance. I prefer the Seebeck design over the MOAC style flow calorimeter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno depends upon conventional chemical theory
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >I do not mean, for example, that you should suggest a spectroanalysis >that would confirm these are hydrinos. I do not see how that >knowledge would do Mizuno much good. Knowing what's going on in your experiment narrows down the parameter space, allowing productive results to be achieved sooner. . . . In this case, if Hydrinos are confirmed, and he is still interested in pursuing the matter, then there are suggestions that can be made that might enhance the effect. Well, what are the suggestions? Can they be made without a spectroanalysis or other extra steps? If so, let us make these suggestions now. What I am looking for is some recommendation that would simultaneously: 1. Confirm the hydrino hypothesis (or at least bolster it). 2. Improve performance. (Any aspect of performance: heat output, control, or some other parameter or set of parameters). 3. Plus it would be great if he could implement this without making too many changes or a great deal of effort. Perhaps that is asking too much! I think if you achieve #2 it would automatically imply #1. While of course I do not speak for Mizuno, I am not opposed to the hydrino theory, but merely indifferent to it. I am only interested in theories that offer concrete assistance to the experiment. If the hydrino theory is effective I welcome it, even if it turns out to be wrong. If conventional nuclear theory gives no guidance I have no use for it. Who cares if a theory is true or false, or some mixture of the two? I expect that all theory is a mixture, or an approximation. As I have often pointed out, obsolete theories work fine for some applications and are still used. The late, great Guy Murchie wrote that Ptolemy's astronomy is still the best model for celestial navigation, a subject he taught in the 1940s. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Backstory of Phenanthrene excess heat
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [snip] The problem with this is that Hydrogen bound in a molecule has a different ionization energy than free Hydrogen, which means that it can no longer function as a Mills catalyst (unless coincidentally the molecule has become a Mills catalyst analogous to NaH). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Some interesting possibilities hereabouts. Mills has been explicit about the 2H+H reaction possibilities, pointing out that where there is a high density of H atoms there is opportunity for hydrino formation and cascades. One such place is the cathode of an electrolytic cell. I have speculated that such may the source of excess heat in LENR experiments. Mills has made a clever step with NaH, which in a concerted reaction moves the Na and H together into a energy state where the H catalyzes to H[1/3]. Neat trick to flind it, since it apparently deos not happen in the normal uses of NaH. There may be compounds where the 2H+H catalysis can occur undedr the right conditons. If Mills can find the conditions, it might be very interesting indeed. Mike Carrell This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Backstory of Phenanthrene excess heat
Robin, > The problem with this is that Hydrogen bound in a molecule has a different > ionization energy than free Hydrogen, which means that it can no longer > function as a Mills catalyst (unless coincidentally the molecule has become a > Mills catalyst analogous to NaH). Yes. That is exactly why I proposed getting the same energy transfer via FRET and the sequential 3.4 eV fluorescent ZPE pumping, instead of catalysis. Of course, the inherent fluorescence of phenanthrene could be coincidental. If you believe in coincidence. In the end, this is an alternative and isn't CQM at all as I stated several times, but is CQM-influenced or CQM-inspired. Note that the method proposed by Mills is never actually suggested as being the only way that the same end result can happen in practice. Secondly - as posted several times by the renegade observers who are trying to merge CQM and CF into a coherent single theory - and who believe that Mills got "much of it right", and either missed some of it, or got some of it wrong -- there is no convincing evidence that has ever appeared in the spectroscopy on the BLP site that proves the shrinkage reaction is not endothermic, since he has never shown a clear and unambiguous peak at 27.2 eV AFAIK. Sure, there is lots of UV in his charts but none of it proves an exotherm - especially so long as there could be disguised LENR as the power source. We should be open to the viewpoint that the source of energy could ultimately be nuclear in the LENR sense of no gammas or real neutrons - which is a divergence that Mills does not want to hear. Until more is known there is little harm in providing alternatives, or in trying to reconcile similar theories. Maybe, if nothing else - it will spur Mills into publishing a good MS analysis of his solid fuel ash... which has never appeared. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno depends upon conventional chemical theory
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:17:09 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I do not mean, for example, that you should suggest a spectroanalysis >that would confirm these are hydrinos. I do not see how that >knowledge would do Mizuno much good. [snip] Knowing what's going on in your experiment narrows down the parameter space, allowing productive results to be achieved sooner. Indeed, this is the very reason people do experiments in the first place. It's all about eliminating false hypotheses, so that eventually only the truth is left. In this case, if Hydrinos are confirmed, and he is still interested in pursuing the matter, then there are suggestions that can be made that might enhance the effect. If not, then all the missing energy needs to be explained, and in so doing, new possibilities for improvement are likely to become apparent. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:30:39 -0800: Hi, [snip] >EarthTech Assessment >http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET23.htm#earthtech Perhaps Dennis Letts laser triggered experiment only works around "Solar max"? (Increased quantities of Solar neutrinos?) If so, then he should start to see results again within a few years. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Backstory of Phenanthrene excess heat
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 4 Dec 2008 08:39:02 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] >***hydrogen-to-hydrino 3-body reactions*** > >I say this because precise three body reaction of hydrogen in a gas or plasma >are extremely rare, since each of the protons has 3 degrees of freedom... > >BUT > >... in the case where two protons are bound to a rather stable carbon >structure of benzene rings with a small gap between them (vastly limiting >their degrees of freedom)- as in the image above -- and then realizing that >when a third proton arrives (from the interaction of the hot H2 gas on the Pt >catalyst) then VOILA >the table is set for robust 3-body reactions in a fashion where the >statistical or QM probability of interaction has been increased by a massive >factor. [snip] The problem with this is that Hydrogen bound in a molecule has a different ionization energy than free Hydrogen, which means that it can no longer function as a Mills catalyst (unless coincidentally the molecule has become a Mills catalyst analogous to NaH). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
Steven Krivit wrote: > Excerpt from: http://newenergytimes.com/tgp/2007TGP/2007TGP-Report.htm > > * > I asked the skeptic whether he could come up with any explanation, > besides a nuclear particle emission, for this effect. > > Not only did he fail to provide a reasonable alternative explanation, > but he also was unable to provide even a speculative, imaginary > explanation for how a ordinary effect from the cathode could go through > or around the CR-39 and create the spatially correlated tracks. (The > lack of backside tracks from silver is understood as a distinct effect > of that material relative to gold or platinum.) > > I asked him whether, considering his stated objective to search for new > energy sources, he is excited to see such proof of this phenomenon. I > also asked whether he accepts that something nuclear is happening. > > He responded that he is unable to accept the claim of a genuine nuclear > effect until it is replicated and published. > > I found his response revealing. His actions have confirmed that he is > truly interested in the field but not in leading it or advancing it. > * > > The skeptic was Scott Little. Earthtech ... hmmm ... I just ran across this little tidbit in New Energy Times, which some folks here might not be aware of: "EarthTech's founder is Hal Puthoff, considered by the Department of Energy an authority ..." Puthoff is in back of Earthtech?? I had no idea! For some reason I foolishly assumed that Little was in it on his own nickel. Perhaps I'm a tad biased, but learning this doesn't do my positive view of Earthtech a lot of good. And I suddenly have rather more sympathy for researchers whose work has been trashed by Earthtech. > The related SPAWAR work has now been published in two peer-reviewed > journals, replicated by SRI and confirmed by RAS. Do the SRI replications include replication of the Forsley's observation of backside tracks being correlated with the frontside tracks? That looked like an *extremely* compelling bit of evidence! (Apologies if you've already answered this!) > > Steve >
[Vo]:Mizuno depends upon conventional chemical theory
I wrote: "Here is a hypothetical situation to ponder. Suppose Mizuno uses conventional nuclear theory as a working model for his experiments. Suppose this 'works' in the sense that he makes progress toward better control of the excess heat and higher power levels. . . ." In real life Mizuno depends entirely on chemical theory. He assumes that whatever the effect is, it is being produced (or triggered) by conventional chemical catalysis. So he is doing all that he can to enhance the catalytic effect, such as cleaning off the platinum screen and raising the temperature. This seems to be working. As far as I know, he does not have a working model of the nuclear reaction, although he does speculate about it. He has discussed this experiment with Takahashi and other physicists, but as far as I know they have not given him useful advice. When I say "useful advice," I mean something like: "try increasing the gas pressure" "mix in more helium" "give the cell a heat pulse" or what-have-you. You might call this "actionable" advice. If hydrino theorists can come up with something along these lines, perhaps you should communicate with Mizuno and suggest that he try it. I mean concrete, specific suggestions that can be implemented and will produce a measurable results with this experimental setup. (To be accurate I should say: "steps that you predict or hope will produce a measurable result . . ." It is understood that you may be wrong.) I do not mean, for example, that you should suggest a spectroanalysis that would confirm these are hydrinos. I do not see how that knowledge would do Mizuno much good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FW: PHYSICS on the TORAH CODE & the HEBREW LANGUAGE=Lensing-Deciphering OMNIVERSE-energy-sheet-CONTIGUOUS DATA-STREA
APUA, PÄÄ
2008/12/4 Harbach Jak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> * * * The Infinite/Timeless Omniverse{Aexoverse & Bubble Multiverse(s)} is
> ONE HUGE CONTIGUOUS ENERGY-SHEET(membrane) RESONANT DATA-STREAM and the
> HEBREW LANGUAGE is THE DIVINING ROSETTA STONE * * *
>
Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
EarthTech Assessment http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET23.htm#earthtech
[Vo]:FW: PHYSICS on the TORAH CODE & the HEBREW LANGUAGE=Lensing-Deciphering OMNIVERSE-energy-sheet-CONTIGUOUS DATA-STREAM
RE: MICHIO KAKU/U of NYC//YITSHAK BEN YISRAEL * * * The Infinite/Timeless
Omniverse{Aexoverse & Bubble Multiverse(s)} is ONE HUGE CONTIGUOUS
ENERGY-SHEET(membrane) RESONANT DATA-STREAM and the HEBREW LANGUAGE is THE
DIVINING ROSETTA STONE * * *
~Jake Lev-Zuckerman/Harbach-O'Sullivan~(check my physics in the Torah Code &
with Prof. Michio Kaku of U of NYC) TORAH CODE is HEBREW LANGUAGE ITSELF is
the lensing access to UNIVERSAL DIVINE MIND PATTERN MATRIX in 'ALL' HUMAN
LITERARY TEXT <-->SACRED OR COMMON (yet it would be a valid assumption that the
MULTIPLIED RESONANCE of Inspired-Enlightened & Optimally
Sychronistically-Resonant 'Minds' using the HEBREW LANGUANGE to scribe
INSPIRED TEXT would allow said LENS OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE TRANSLATION to yield
the MOST ACCURATE & SIGNIFICANTLY CLEAR data per a PATTERN MATRIX
RESONANT-SYNCHRONICITY of EXPONENTIAL PROPORTIONS)(and from certain Pattern
Matrixes of Hebrew Language MIGHT be FURTHER DEVELOPED even more illucidative
statistical analysis software.
And QUITE POSSIBLY HEBREW WAS LEFT WITH US as somewhat of a TIME-CAPSULE
awaited the advent of our MORE DEVELOPED INTELLECTS as a FUTURE/NOW springboard
to ferrett out some REALLY COOL STUFF that has been obscured from our scrutiny
until END AND THE PASSING OF SPACE-TIME NORMAL constraints of human perception.
HENSE: An Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Tesla, lucid Dalai Lama,
Mystic-Prophetic, statistical savant, &/or John Forbesf Nash or other talented
remote viewer(s) & ///(not to mention Geshtalt-of-Aboriginal-Shamans) might
tend to GET IT somewhat more readily than the rest of us. Greetings; As a
physicist,to me--->the universally resonant "Hebrew Language" just may actually
be the CODE itself. AT FIRST when significant 'data' appears in a Hebrew
Translation of ANY HUMAN LITERARY WORK as the Producet of HUMAN MIND
ENERGY> it tends to be used by 'debunkers' as a psuedo-proof and mockery of
the UNIVERSAL DIVINE MIND Bible Code premise.MAYBE WE ARE SELF-FOOLED HERE
while honestly and legitimately eeking to refute 'mockery' we tend to OVERLOOK
maybe even a MORE PROFOUND INDICATOR THE THE 'TORAH CODE' is indeed the HEBREW
LANGUAGE as DIVINE MIND TRANSLATION MEDIUM ITSELF. And the particular
'origins' of the unique nature of the SOURCE of that particular linguistic gift
to mankind is a COMPLETE FIELD OF STUDY IN ITSELF. * * * PHYSICS: ALL
INFINITY-ETERNITY IS A SINGLE SHEET-FABRIC of ENERGY. . . And the obvious
supposition of the GREAT THEOLOGICAL & PHYSICS "IF" IS; is that if indeed it is
FACT that ALL ENERGY IS THE VERY STUFF OF DIVINE SENTIENCE it then FOLLOWS that
indeed the 'DIVINE MATRIX ENERGY PATTERN PERMEATES the INFINITE 'ALL in ALL.'
TAKING THE ABOVE INTO ACCOUNT: Then quite possibly the INSPIRATION-MECHANISM
of the HEBREW LANGUAGE ITSELF is THAT VERY and most SYNCHRONOS LINGUISTIC LENS
to the ACCURATE DECIPHERING of the very INFINITE DIVINED ubiquitous ENERGY
PATTERN MATRIX OF THE UNIVERSE. . . And that this pattern matrix should
obviously penetrate the very mind-and substant of creative human energies and
its respective literary text/products on the most fundamental quasi-unconscious
level is EASILY IMAGINABLE(dicernable) as REFLEXIVE REFLECTION of those
FUNDAMENTAL OMNIVERSAL ubiquitous ENERGY MATRX PATTERNS which exist as the
INFINITE MEGA-CONSCIOUSNESS/MEGA-SENTIENT ASPECT AS THE GESTALT of INFINITE
TOTALITY. . . Some call this the TAO TE CHING while others say GOD, ALLAH,
YHWH, ELOHIM, etc. . . BUT THE EXPANDING OUTLOOK is that mankind's expanding
CONSCIOUSNESS of matters of SUPER-PHYSICS tend to make the old 'mysticisms' now
RE-EPIPHANIED in expanded clarification as ENLIGHTENED SCIENCE/PHYSICS. And
mankind could be accurately described as 'butterfly-like morphing' into a
GLOBAL UNIFIED GESTALT OF EXPANDED CONCIOUSNESS. And our here to fore TIME
LINEAR constraints rapidly become revealed as merely a 'limited' state of mind
which we are shedding like 'old-skin.' AND THUSLY EVEN OUR EXPERIENCE OF TIME
is about to become 'spherical' rather than being locked into those age-old
shackles of time-linearity. . . . THANKYOU ALBERT EINSTEIN!~:-) AND HENSE:
'ANY' LITERARY PRODUCT OF THE CREATIVE MINDs OF SENTIENT ENERGY CREATURES
within the ubiquitous energy fabric of the DIVINE INFINITE ALL will tend to
elicite in pattern(! ! ! EVEN if NOT in CONCIOUS INTENT ! ! ! ) and also even
in absolute relatively innocent unconsciousness; the generated text WILL STILL
ELICITE RELECTED DATA THAT RESONATES WELL BEYOND THE UNSUAL SPACE TIME
LIMITATION OF HUMAN CONCIOUSNESS. . . SO THE CODE IS INBEDDED INTO EVERY
NUNANCE OF ENERGY(atomic & otherwise)within INFINITY/ETERNITY & SPACE-TIME
SPACE and BEYOND TIME SUPERSPACE & the HEBREW LANGUAGE tends LENS OUT THAT
DIVINE PATTERN MATRIX whereever in text it is aimed at by the researcher! ALSO
HENSE: THE LENS FOR DECIPHERING RESONATING INBEDDED QUASI-DIVINE DATA PATTERNS
that permea
Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
Excerpt from: http://newenergytimes.com/tgp/2007TGP/2007TGP-Report.htm * I asked the skeptic whether he could come up with any explanation, besides a nuclear particle emission, for this effect. Not only did he fail to provide a reasonable alternative explanation, but he also was unable to provide even a speculative, imaginary explanation for how a ordinary effect from the cathode could go through or around the CR-39 and create the spatially correlated tracks. (The lack of backside tracks from silver is understood as a distinct effect of that material relative to gold or platinum.) I asked him whether, considering his stated objective to search for new energy sources, he is excited to see such proof of this phenomenon. I also asked whether he accepts that something nuclear is happening. He responded that he is unable to accept the claim of a genuine nuclear effect until it is replicated and published. I found his response revealing. His actions have confirmed that he is truly interested in the field but not in leading it or advancing it. * The skeptic was Scott Little. The related SPAWAR work has now been published in two peer-reviewed journals, replicated by SRI and confirmed by RAS. Steve
[Vo]:Floating water bridge effect
floating water bridge effect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhBn1ozht-E&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gozw-TxeX9w&feature=related paper: http://eloah.at/waterbridge/Water_Bridge_JOPDAP.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Backstory of Phenanthrene excess heat
Jones Beene wrote: > Mizuno is only vaguely aware of Mills and has not read any of his work as far as I know. Then he has regrettably put himself at great disadvantage- given the obvious similarities ... That would only be true if the theory is correct and if it makes useful predictions. (I have no idea whether it makes useful predictions in this case or not.) but ... since he surely does have graduate assistants, then at least one of them should be able to read English, and know how to Google, no? His students are all doing conventional electrochemistry. They have no time to read obscure, disputed physics theories in English. One can only hope this is not some kind of "professional jealousy" situation, since it makes little logical sense otherwise. How can someone be professionally jealous of an author he knows nothing about? This makes no logical sense. Mizuno is an experimentalist and Mills is a theoretician. In my experience the two groups seldom communicate. Experimentalists want specific suggestions to guide their work, which theoretician seldom offer, so most experimentalists I know ignore theory. It probably amounts to nothing, but we cannot know unless the experimenter is fully aware of CQM and the implications of the hydrino. I am sure Mizuno (and I) are fully unaware of the implications of hydrinos. They don't even exist as far as we know! If they do exist but theories about them offer no practical guidance to experimentalists, they might as well not exist. Here is a hypothetical situation to ponder. Suppose Mizuno uses conventional nuclear theory as a working model for his experiments. Suppose this "works" in the sense that he makes progress toward better control of the excess heat and higher power levels. Later on it is shown that this conventional theory is wrong and hydrinos are right. I submit that that would make no difference, unless it can be shown that with hydrino theory progress would have been faster, and the results better. Progress in early steam engines was made using premodern caloric heat theory. It worked well enough for a while, and progress in heat engines eventually gave rise to modern thermodynamics. IOW there could easily be an alternative explanation for what is seen and reported by Mizuno as true isotope shifting - IF - and only if, one understands hydrino technology - which as Jed admits, Mizuno does not. I do not "admit" it, I state it as a fact -- to the best of my knowledge, anyway. Neither of us understands hydrino technology and until hydrino technology is independently replicated and thereby proved genuine, I expect neither of us will give a fig about it. There are many claims in cold fusion such as those made by Mills and Swartz which have not been independently replicated yet as far as I know. I give no credence to such claims. I have no interest in them. I will be very interested the moment I learn they have been replicated! (From time to time Mills and Swartz say they have been replicated, but I have yet to see a paper from an independent source. This could be my fault; I may have misunderstood or failed to notice a paper. I am not omniscient.) Mizuno's own claims are an independent replication of work done in the 1930s, as noted. If he were the only one ever to see this, I would be extremely wary of believing it. I certainly do not fully believe it now! Arata's previous work was independently replicated at SRI, and I consider his present work similar enough that I would classify it as partially, somewhat, sorta replicated, but there are so many problems with his technique that I have little confidence in the result, as I said in the paper by Rothwell & Storms. I have seen many dramatic claims of success which turned out to be nothing more than bad calorimetry, and Arata's calorimetry is about the worst I have seen in a peer-reviewed journal. The very worst was Caltech (wrong) and MIT (fake). Mizuno may not care what the rest of the world thinks about him or his work . . . He does care but he has no control over that. . . . but if this experiment were to be replicated, then it could be of the very highest importance in opening up a new era in Physics . . . That's true. (It has nothing to do with hydrinos, but it is true.) Mizuno has been working on this for eight years and he has made efforts to have the experiment replicated elsewhere, but the experiment is difficult, expensive, and somewhat dangerous, so he is not making much progress in that. We need full clarification before a skeptic who does know about the hydrino can say that what Mizuno was really measuring in the ICP mass spectroscopy (Finnigan Mat Element: outsourced) . . . Mizuno himself did not perform the measurement. As noted it was outsourced. I do not know who did it. I can probably find out more if anyone is interested. And least of all, the full realization of these spectacular resul
Re: [Vo]:Backstory of Phenanthrene excess heat
In re: why phenanthrene? (aside from its fluorescence) ... is phenanthrene unique in the world of nuclear chemistry? ... and even more tantalizing- is it a "record" of an ancient biological pathway? (since it is found in the 'fossil record' as a component of coal). QTAIM - This is one further quantum physical process to add into the mental-mix for a complete understanding of what is going on at the QM level in this reaction- via the Forster radius: that is- when phenanthrene is heated and pressurize with H2 past a resonant (kinetic) threshold... ... then, once the threshold is reached, it undergoes most unusual low energy nuclear changes, which seem to include massive isotopic shifts in carbon - with only modest excess energy release. Check out the Wiki page on QTAIM which is "quantum theory of atoms in molecules". This approach is a quantum chemical model that characterizes the chemical bonding of a system based on the topology of the quantum charge density when there are two *loosely bound* interacting protons, which become variably bound under pressure. It is so hard to explain this without the image - which you must view to understand the dynamics of this: see image #2 on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-hydrogen_bond which is under "Applications" - and then merge this visual image information with what you know about FRET, and also what you know about the hydrino- and especially keeping the following in mind: ***hydrogen-to-hydrino 3-body reactions*** I say this because precise three body reaction of hydrogen in a gas or plasma are extremely rare, since each of the protons has 3 degrees of freedom... BUT ... in the case where two protons are bound to a rather stable carbon structure of benzene rings with a small gap between them (vastly limiting their degrees of freedom)- as in the image above -- and then realizing that when a third proton arrives (from the interaction of the hot H2 gas on the Pt catalyst) then VOILA the table is set for robust 3-body reactions in a fashion where the statistical or QM probability of interaction has been increased by a massive factor. This sets the stage for two distinct overlapping functions - without ever needing the Mills' "energy hole" of 27.2 eV (Hartree energy) since instead, and all the while the threshold parameters of the phenanthrene - i.e. its inherent fluorescence - is pumping "virtual" 3.4 eV photons from the "quantum foam" the Dirac epo field into this same geometric 3-body space... and where effectively this resonant transfer takes 8 of these virtual photons via the FRET resonance to power the "shrinkage of free monatomic hydrogen, step-by-step down to the VN stage (virtual neutron). However, despite the seeming delay - this complete sequence can happen in far less than a nanosecond. This very robust mechanism also indicates where the missing "excess energy" goes- and that is back to the source of the photon transfer: the "quantum foam" or the Dirac epo field - from whence it was borrowed. This assumes that VN formation (via the hydrino), at least in this particular non-Millsean modality, is completely endothermic and rather highly endothermic but sequential - and the resultant VN transmutation - the terminus - is able to balance th books with a slight positive gain. As Robin may be realizing, based on the above, if he believes it, there is a most obvious way to boost the energy beyond what the transmutation to 13C can provide. But that would assume that the reaction is independent of the carbon itself. It may not be. This could be a near singularity in that the only targets (carbon being one of them) are those where the net disruption to the Dirac epo field are minimized. I am saying "near singularity" because these is still the sneaky suspicion that "mother nature" is the real discoverer of Phenanthrene transmutation and that the reason we find it is coal - is that it is a fossil record of a real life process. That real life process may not have died out with the dinosaurs, either. More fascinating "fringe science" to ponder ! And the best part is that if you do not buy it as science - then imagine it in a good Sci-Fi story... Jones
[Vo]:Backstory of Phenanthrene excess heat
Jed Rothwell wrote: Mizuno is only vaguely aware of Mills and has not read any of his work as far as I know. Jones Beene wrote: ... This quote from the paper bears repeating: ... "Solids found in the cell after the reaction were analyzed. Before the experiment, the carbon in the cell was 99% 12C, but after heat was produced in the example shown in Fig. 20, more than 50% of the carbon in the phenanthrene sample was 13C+." WOW WOW WOW this is absolutely phenomenal. After a 10 day run more than 50% of the carbon in the phenanthrene sample was apparently transmuted to 13C, or was it? ... We need full clarification before a skeptic who does know about the hydrino can say that what Mizuno was really measuring in the ICP mass spectroscopy ... was merely some new type of ionized molecule ... Robin van Spaandonk wrote: This is essentially what I was referring to in my previous post where I wrote:- "There another possibility that keeps nagging at me. Mills claims the production of e.g. KHyI. It occurs to me that perhaps there is something like CHy, with a strong bond between the Hy and the C, which would have a mass of 13, and would pass for C13. That would also explain the dearth of fusion energy." This is what I have been saying on Vortex for years. It is precisely why a measurement from a MS is not sufficient for work in this field. It needs to be backed up by alternative methods which directly access the nucleus, such as NAA. NAA would clearly distinguish between a Hydrino bound to C12, and real C13, because adding a neutron to a C12 nucleus simply yields stable C13, whereas adding one to C13 yields C14 which is radioactive. Note also that the bond between the C12 and the Hy could be much stronger than an ordinary chemical bond, and hence have a good chance of surviving the ion creation process in a MS. BTW, since Mizuno probably still has the C13 (or can readily make more), this option is still open. Jones wrote: Well - the problem is that the (hypothetical) molecular ion 12C(Hy)+ would not have the identical mass of atomic 13C+, but in fact would be slightly less. The instrument used - so I am told - should be of a precision to be able to differentiate the two if it were calibrated to do so, and if the operator was so instructed to look for it. Apparently two different instruments were used, and the results with the most precision was done by an outside contractor and specialist who perhaps should have noticed a variance. This is not clear however ... BTW - the "smoking gun" for this convoluted chain of cause and effect, mentioned earlier - is the 3.4 eV mass-energy transfer of pairs from the disrupted "quantum foam" of virtual positronium (aka the Dirac epo field) via FRET to induce a similar kind of "shrinkage" that Mills has found, which serve the purpose of reducing the Bohr orbital - but in the totally NON-Millsean way of "ZPE pumping." ZPE (epo field) --> FRET --> H --> Hydrino --> virtual neutron --> transmutation 6.8 eV is the ionization potential of positronium. Half of that is the rest mass of the electron anti-neutrino. Twice that value is the IP of hydrogen (13.2 eV) also known as Ry The Rydberg constant, which can be calculated from more fundamental constants using quantum mechanics; and twice Ry is the the Hartree energy E(subH) employed by Mills - which is equal to the absolute value of the electric potential energy of the hydrogen atom in its traditional ground state. The absorption spectrum of the phenanthrene cation has been computed to have its stongest resonance at 3.4 eV and its initial fluorescence can lie in photon radiation at 3.4 eV. That is the reason it works so well to catalyze the virtual neutron - as it can supply a rest mass equivalent energy (and perhaps QM spin as well) for the electron anti-neutrino in addition to pumping the hydrino ever lower and lower in radius. And to think - this chemical is found in common creosote, coal, and asphalt. Hey, even that may be no accident if some early forms of life actually used this energy or transmutation pathway (Kervan's chicken ancestors ) IOW what I am hypothesizing here, is that Mills 27.2 eV does not need to be supplied in a single dose resoant hole or photon as he suggests -- but instead can easily and more elegantly be "pumped" from the epo field using a FRET intermediary such as phenanthrene. This would be a most amazing and elegant coincidence, if even partly accurate... BTW - I would be remiss in not mentioning my 3.4 eV "connection" in this evolving hypothesis - none other than Fred Sparber, who convinced me of the importance of this value, which is found all over physics (like the smile of the Cheshire cat). We used it in another wild invention of his, which if memory serves - we called at one time the "sparberino"... which is not a bad name for the ZPE pump. The sparberino-pump - like it! Robin wrote: "There another possibility that keeps nagging at me It occurs to me that perhaps there is
