[Vo]:I'm at the Rocket Conference and I will speak tomorrow
Thank you Horrace I was given he opportunity to go on stage. This happened because someone else did not show up. I took advantage of the opportunity and gave a lecture that caught many by surprise. George Miley was at one end of the room and Dr Martin Tajmar was at the other. I did OK and screwed up some things as always. I cannot believe that this happened. Miley seemed to like and understand what I was saying. I do not believe that Tajmar was receptive to it. He had his own ideas. There were about 30 other people at my lecture. I know not who they were. Tajmar has detected a small gravitational anomaly in spinning liquid helium. Miley gave a very good talk on fusion powered rockets. Len Danczyk is attempting to replicate Podketnov. Steve Best is working on a Hall Effect ion drive, Alexander Dmitriev is up to something big in Russia. Dirk Laueryssens has invented a nano product to holds carbon dioxide in a liquid form at room temperature. Glen Robertson did a good job pulling this all together. And as far as the rest of it, it has merged onto one big blur. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH
Horace Heffner wrote: I haven't taken the time to look into this in detail, but my first impression . . . With all due respect, it is a bad idea to discuss these things without looking into them in detail, and a person's first impressions are likely to be wrong. is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all to attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1 . . . That is an expectation value. That shows how much helium there would be if the ratio of helium to heat was 23.82 MeV per reaction, and if every atom of helium were recovered. Obviously, not every atom is -- or can be -- recovered. As the text points out a lot of the helium is stuck in the cathode and can only be recovered after the experiment. Perhaps I'm misreading the x axis labeling Excess Power/Current (mW / A), or the intended meaning of the x axis values. To be sensible the x axis should simply be excess energy, i.e. the integral of mW over time. Those are instantaneous power readings taken at different times, arranged in ascending order. The helium does not stay in this cell; it is open, like the Miles cell, and the helium is collected from the effluent gas. This is not a time graph of the run, and that is not the integrated energy. In other words, at one point when the cell was producing about 70 mW the helium reading came out 2.4 +/- 0.8, and another time when power was ~100 mW, a helium reading came out 2.8 +/- 1.2. The points at the bottom are either experimental error or caused by helium being trapped in the cathode. It is difficult to say which. Quoting the paper, p. 2 and 3: Figure 1 presents the results of concurrent excess power and helium measurements performed during open cell electrolysis using two different Pd and Pd-alloy cathodes. In three instances where excess power was measured at statistically significant levels, 4He also was found to be conveyed out of the cell in the electrolysis gases (D2 + O2). The solid line in Figure 1 plots the regression fit of these data to a line passing through the origin; the dashed line is that expected for 4He generation according to the reaction: d + d -- 4He + 23.82 MeV (lattice) [1] It is clear from the slopes of these two lines that the observed 4He constitutes only 76 ± 30% of the 4He predicted by equation [1]. A more significant problem in Figure 1 is that three further 4He samples, taken at times of non-zero excess power (open diamonds), exhibited helium concentrations only at the level of the analytical uncertainty, as did numerous samples taken in the apparent absence of excess power production. Clearly if 4He is produced in association with excess power, it is not released to the gas phase immediately, or completely. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheemergen.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheemergen.pdf That seems pretty clear to me. I do not understand why people here are confused by it. Maybe if someone took the time to look deeper into this they could make some sense of it. I didn't have to look very deeply. Look folks: An author may not present data the way you would choose to present it. I often find that a graph shows something other than what I assumed; i.e., it shows power rather than integrated energy. Oops. I usually have to read a paper several times to figure out what's what. So let's not jump to conclusions about these things, or assume that X or Y doesn't make sense. You need to cut the authors some slack. It is tough writing papers and explaining things. Someone once complained to Oliver Heaviside that his papers were very difficult to read. He responded, That may well be -- but they were much more difficult to write. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Naudin's improved generator
On Feb 24, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 24, 2010, at 5:58 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From: Horace: ... The site says Wooww, the power at the OUTPUT is greatly increased without significant change at the DC input , yet there is no effort made to measure input power, only current. The above should say RMS current and RMS voltage, which is not necessarily the same thing as power. It would make more sense to get the I and V traces for the input coil. It pretty obvious how the thing works. The torus field, which remains inside the torus, deflects the permanent magnet field away from the torus, and thus the permanent magnet's field oscillates, cutting back and forth across the secondary coil windings and generating power there. Can you clarify something for me, Horace. The conjecture that the field oscillates, as you state, cutting back and forth across the secondary coil windings... is intriguing, particularly since you seem to be saying the field is dynamically oscillating even though there are no moving parts. In layman's terms - what does that mean, particularly energy-wise. My prosaic thinking patterns keep wanting to envision MOVING magnets passing across coils of wire that in turn generate electricity. But nothing seems to be physically moving in this configuration. I'm confused! /:-\ I haven't been following any of this so I should have kept quiet. Sorry if I duplicate what has been said. Also, I should have answered this more thoroughly, sorry. Transformer parts don't move, but they still get energy transferred from a primary to a secondary. They can be viewed as creating magnetic field line loops that cut through the secondary coils and then retreat, cutting the coil again. These field lines can be visualized as moving through the center of the transformer core - even though it has a low mu, in order to form the flux loop that goes through the core. Their density in the hole of the core is low so they have to move faster when traversing the hole in the core. It appears the primary core in the video is small compared to the magnets. This means there is magnetic flux that extends out beyond the core and circles back to the south end of the permanent magnet stack, i.e. that does not go through the core. When the current is high in the primary coil, then only one return leg through the primary torus core is available, thus even more flux is diverted out into the space around the primary. To the degree the primary current plus permanent B field saturates the core then even more flux is diverted out into the nearby space. The nearby space is occupied by the primary. . . The last sentence above should read: The nearby space is occupied by the secondary. . . As the primary current oscillates, the B field that projects into the secondary coil grows large to the side of the primary where the primary flux opposes it, and diminishes where the primary flux reinforces it, but then increases on that side if saturation occurs. I just posted a drawing, Fig. 3, in a separate email that shows how the ejected flux cuts through the secondary coil. The alternating current in the primary ejects one side of the flux and then the other, cutting the secondary coils in the process. It would be interesting to know how much power is being drawn by the LEDs. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:SRI Case Expt 4He
From: Steven Krivit http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Case-Repl/SRI-Case.shtml Has anybody ever noticed that 2 out of 3 runs that show 4He growth in the SRI Case replication show a peak and then a decrease in 4He? This is a helium leak-tight chamber. Where does the 4He go? Two explanations come to mind. 1)There is no such thing as leak proof for helium - in the ppb range, and that is why it is called leak-tight. A few ppb per week would be expected. 2)The measurement itself removes the missing helium which otherwise would be flat.
Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH
On Feb 25, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: I haven't taken the time to look into this in detail, but my first impression . . . With all due respect, it is a bad idea to discuss these things without looking into them in detail, and a person's first impressions are likely to be wrong. If I were afraid of being wrong it would destroy my creativity, I would learn little, and I would post nothing at all. That of course might be a good thing from your perspective, but not mine. 8^)In this particular case, for example, I would have no excuse for procrastinating on doing my tax return! is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all to attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1 . . . That is an expectation value. Here you have missed the point entirely. There is no such expected value of energy per helium atom as a function of excess heat power. There is an expected value of energy per helium atom as a function of excess heat *energy*. That shows how much helium there would be if the ratio of helium to heat was 23.82 MeV per reaction, and if every atom of helium were recovered. Apparently it does not. It shows a ratio of helium to excess power, not excess heat. Obviously, not every atom is -- or can be -- recovered. As the text points out a lot of the helium is stuck in the cathode and can only be recovered after the experiment. Perhaps I'm misreading the x axis labeling Excess Power/Current (mW / A), or the intended meaning of the x axis values. To be sensible the x axis should simply be excess energy, i.e. the integral of mW over time. Those are instantaneous power readings taken at different times, arranged in ascending order. . This makes the graph seem nonsensical. . The helium does not stay in this cell; it is open, like the Miles cell, and the helium is collected from the effluent gas. This is not a time graph of the run, and that is not the integrated energy. . Then the green line makes no sense at all without a further explanation. . In other words, at one point when the cell was producing about 70 mW the helium reading came out 2.4 +/- 0.8, and another time when power was ~100 mW, a helium reading came out 2.8 +/- 1.2. These numbers do not relate to The points at the bottom are either experimental error or caused by helium being trapped in the cathode. It is difficult to say which. Quoting the paper, p. 2 and 3: Figure 1 presents the results of concurrent excess power and helium measurements performed during open cell electrolysis using two different Pd and Pd-alloy cathodes. In three instances where excess power was measured at statistically significant levels, 4He also was found to be conveyed out of the cell in the electrolysis gases (D2 + O2). This makes total sense. The solid line in Figure 1 plots the regression fit of these data to a line passing through the origin; the dashed line is that expected for 4He generation according to the reaction: d + d -- 4He + 23.82 MeV (lattice) [1] This is the part that needs clarification. There is no clear link established between helium concentration and power produced. It is clear from the slopes of these two lines that the observed 4He constitutes only 76 ± 30% of the 4He predicted by equation [1]. The helium concentration is not predicted by equation 1. Equation 1 only establishes a relationship between helium atoms created and excess *energy* produced. It has nothing to do with power. A more significant problem in Figure 1 is that three further 4He samples, taken at times of non-zero excess power (open diamonds), exhibited helium concentrations only at the level of the analytical uncertainty, as did numerous samples taken in the apparent absence of excess power production. Clearly if 4He is produced in association with excess power, it is not released to the gas phase immediately, or completely. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheemergen.pdf That seems pretty clear to me. I do not understand why people here are confused by it. Maybe if someone took the time to look deeper into this they could make some sense of it. I didn't have to look very deeply. And you didn't make any sense. Look folks: An author may not present data the way you would choose to present it. I often find that a graph shows something other than what I assumed; i.e., it shows power rather than integrated energy. Oops. I usually have to read a paper several times to figure out what's what. So let's not jump to conclusions about these things, or assume that X or Y doesn't make sense. You need to cut the authors some slack. It is tough writing papers and explaining things. Someone once complained to Oliver Heaviside that his papers were very difficult to read. He responded, That may well be -- but they were much more difficult to write. -
Re: [Vo]:SRI Case Expt 4He
On Feb 24, 2010, at 7:37 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Case-Repl/SRI-Case.shtml Has anybody ever noticed that 2 out of 3 runs that show 4He growth in the SRI Case replication show a peak and then a decrease in 4He? This is a helium leak-tight chamber. Where does the 4He go? s The helium flows out of the cell with the evolved H2 and O2 gasses. If helium production slows and cell gas production remains constant then the concentration of helium in the gas produced diminishes. Modeling this over time is not so simple in the real case, as it is a multi-compartment flow model, and one in which one of the flow compartments (the Pd) performs in an unpredictable manner. To answer your question more directly, the helium continually flows out of the cell with the effluent, which is sampled periodically. If helium production stops, then the helium concentration necessarily must eventually drop to zero because the cell gas is continually produced and water is periodically added to the electrolyte to continue operation. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:SRI Case Expt 4He
Steven Krivit wrote: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Case-Repl/SRI-Case.shtml Has anybody ever noticed that 2 out of 3 runs that show 4He growth in the SRI Case replication show a peak and then a decrease in 4He? Yes. Many people have noted this. At ICCF-15 Tom Passell distributed a paper about this, which McKubre and Storms disagreed with. As I recall he said the helium was there all along and it was freed up and then sequestered again. This is a helium leak-tight chamber. Nothing is perfectly leak-tight, and helium is the most difficult element to contain, according to Morrison. The steel cylinders used by Miles contained the stuff for months with remarkably little leaking, but they were less complicated than a working cell. For Run SC4.2, they drew 9 samples. Anything you can draw a sample out of 9 times is bound to leak. Where does the 4He go? I do not know. I think that is unclear to the researchers. I think it is either sequestered or leaked. I do not think it is lost to the sampling technique, per Jones Beene, but I could be wrong about that. Since the concentration is above atmosphere (5 ppm), any leaks would be out, not in. No doubt there is some freeing up followed by sequestering going on here, as you see from SC1, in which the helium level fluctuates slightly below 1 ppm. It can't be leaking out, since this is so far below atmospheric concentration. It can only leak in. This is the first question regarding helium that you have raised that is not answered, or at least addressed to my satisfaction, in the literature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH
Horace Heffner wrote: is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all to attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1 . . . That is an expectation value. Here you have missed the point entirely. There is no such expected value of energy per helium atom as a function of excess heat power. Obviously I meant that. Please do not nitpick. That shows how much helium there would be if the ratio of helium to heat was 23.82 MeV per reaction, and if every atom of helium were recovered. Apparently it does not. It shows a ratio of helium to excess power, not excess heat. I meant that was the power (or I guess the average power) during the time it takes to collect the sample of effluent gas. They let the collection cylinder fill up many times, to purge atmospheric helium. If this were Arata he would list the energy and time unit, with some unit that is hard to translate back into power, such as kilojoules per hour. This is technically correct because of course helium is proportional to energy not power, but I find it confusing. 60 minutes time 60 seconds and so on . . . As I recall we have the Mesopotamians to thank for that. Why we can't have time in base-10 I do not know. They tried it after the French Revolution but people didn't buy it. But I digress. Those are instantaneous power readings taken at different times, arranged in ascending order. . This makes the graph seem nonsensical. It doesn't seem nonsensical to me. Maybe those are average power readings during the time they collected the sample. Excess power does not fluctuate quickly with a Fleischmann Pons bulk palladium cell, so it could be both. Quoting the paper, p. 2 and 3: Figure 1 presents the results of concurrent excess power and helium measurements performed during open cell electrolysis using two different Pd and Pd-alloy cathodes. In three instances where excess power was measured at statistically significant levels, 4He also was found to be conveyed out of the cell in the electrolysis gases (D2 + O2). This makes total sense. Good. Next time read the paper before commenting. This is the part that needs clarification. There is no clear link established between helium concentration and power produced. Well, it isn't clear, because helium production is so complicated, but I think it is a pretty strong case. I would say the whole paper is an attempt at clarification. A pretty good one at that, but you can't expect much detail from only 9 pages. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:SRI Case Expt 4He
Horace Heffner wrote: Has anybody ever noticed that 2 out of 3 runs that show 4He growth in the SRI Case replication show a peak and then a decrease in 4He? . . . The helium flows out of the cell with the evolved H2 and O2 gasses. Nope. This is the Case cell: D2 gas loaded, no evolved gas. This is done with a direct, on-line, high-resolution mass spectrometric measurement of [4He]. I figure something like that has gotta leak. I mean, it must leak more than a simple collection flask that you send off to the Bureau of Mines. Those tubes running up to a mass spectrometer with Swarlok connections can't be as air-tight as a flask. The last experiment shown in this paper is the Arata double-structured cathode. That's really a gas loading experiment, not electrolysis. From the perspective of a helium study it is more like gas loading. The helium should be trapped inside the double structure walls. The latest Arata experiments are gas loading no matter how you look at them. This paper covers a lot of ground in 9 pages. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Response from McKubre regarding the Case cell
At 09:54 AM 2/25/2010, you wrote: Okay, I asked McKubre why he thinks the helium in the Case cell declined. Here is part of his response, edited to remove irrelevant comments: . . . I am glad [Krivit and the rest of you people] are encouraged to read the paper . . . Our gas cells are helium-leak-tight. The 4He is actually being absorbed in the carbon substrate at ~200°C. This confused me at first but there is literature on this process from the old days Jed, ask for a citation on the literature. (1950's, Los Alamos I think) -- and we checked it out by direct measurement using 4He in D2 at temperature. The 4He really does absorb slowly -- but only at temperature. Jed, ask for the publication or conference presentation of this check out. So our measurement of 4He rise was something of an underestimate. We also looked at the 4He in the starting material (Case Pd on C catalyst) and found that the solid contained less 4He per unit VOLUME than air, so this was not the source. I still don't understand why Tom [Passell, et al.] made the mistake [in their ICCF-15 paper] . . . They saw the pressure going down and did not guess that the starting 4He was simply being concentrated in the residuum. If we made a mistake (which I cannot rule out, but doubt) then it was not this one. . . . Now that he told me this, about carbon absorbtion, I recall he did discuss it in lectures or papers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH
On Feb 25, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all to attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1 . . . That is an expectation value. Here you have missed the point entirely. There is no such expected value of energy per helium atom as a function of excess heat power. Obviously I meant that. Please do not nitpick. That shows how much helium there would be if the ratio of helium to heat was 23.82 MeV per reaction, and if every atom of helium were recovered. Apparently it does not. It shows a ratio of helium to excess power, not excess heat. I meant that was the power (or I guess the average power) during the time it takes to collect the sample of effluent gas. They let the collection cylinder fill up many times, to purge atmospheric helium. If this were Arata he would list the energy and time unit, with some unit that is hard to translate back into power, such as kilojoules per hour. This is technically correct because of course helium is proportional to energy not power, but I find it confusing. 60 minutes time 60 seconds and so on . . . As I recall we have the Mesopotamians to thank for that. Why we can't have time in base-10 I do not know. They tried it after the French Revolution but people didn't buy it. But I digress. Those are instantaneous power readings taken at different times, arranged in ascending order. . This makes the graph seem nonsensical. It doesn't seem nonsensical to me. Maybe those are average power readings during the time they collected the sample. Excess power does not fluctuate quickly with a Fleischmann Pons bulk palladium cell, so it could be both. Quoting the paper, p. 2 and 3: Figure 1 presents the results of concurrent excess power and helium measurements performed during open cell electrolysis using two different Pd and Pd-alloy cathodes. In three instances where excess power was measured at statistically significant levels, 4He also was found to be conveyed out of the cell in the electrolysis gases (D2 + O2). This makes total sense. Good. Next time read the paper before commenting. Never!! 8^) Well, maybe sometimes. Jed, that is only one sentence that makes sense without further explanation, not the whole paper or even just the graph. I think this issue was well worth discussing, and I feel totally justified in discussing it at even a superficial level since the question had been put the list. It seemed to me reasonable to comment on the obvious elephant in the room because it appeared there was a present tendency to ignore it. This is the part that needs clarification. There is no clear link established between helium concentration and power produced. Well, it isn't clear, because helium production is so complicated, but I think it is a pretty strong case. Again I think you miss my point, or I didn't make it clear. I agree there is a good case for helium production. There is even some support for sporadic proportional heat to helium production. The point was in regard to the sensibility of the graph axes and the green line. The complexity of helium production and even measurement is a side issue. I would say the whole paper is an attempt at clarification. A pretty good one at that, but you can't expect much detail from only 9 pages. - Jed So true. It seems to me most scientific papers leave out critical details or explanations. I think writers are too close to their own thoughts, assumptions, and expectations, and don't even realize what has been left out or what help the reader might need for easy comprehension. When I read my stuff after it has aged I'm amazed at the critical things I left unsaid, how far what I actually said was from the meaning I intended to convey, and how many ways my remarks could be easily misinterpreted. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:SRI Case Expt 4He
On Feb 24, 2010, at 7:37 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Case-Repl/SRI-Case.shtml Has anybody ever noticed that 2 out of 3 runs that show 4He growth in the SRI Case replication show a peak and then a decrease in 4He? This is a helium leak-tight chamber. Where does the 4He go? s Oooops! I didn't notice the subject was on the Case experiment. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
