Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
My earlier post was over reacting to a post by Professor Moddel on Huffington post(below) that some bloggers (me) were improperly linking their method to the hydrino. If I interpret the Professors reply correctly he is making this an all or nothing gambit. There may be different ways to describe what is going on inside these cavities and different ways to elicit it to happen but in the end there can be only one and that theory will apply equally to all the claims regarding catalysts and atomic hydrogen. Nature does not pay attention to our theories and I hope the professor is correct that there are different ways to ways to extract energy so that more people can stake a claim but my gut feeling is that all these methods are all just a different perspective on the same underlying physics. Moddel and Haisch may have a better theory than Mills but it was later and neither of them actually nailed it like I feel Naudts and Bourgoin did. Regards Fran FROM HUFFINGTON POST: quote http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/GModdel GModdel Unfan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/sorry-its-malig nant-why-s_b_500733.html I'm not a fan of this user permalink http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/?show_comment_i d=42487436#comment_42487436 Friedfish writes that I believe that our patent was a mistake, but he is incorrect. I certainly don't think that. I wrote a technical article http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/Moddel_VacExtracV1.pdf http://http:/ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/Moddel_VacExtracV1.pdf f) and a version for a non-technical audience http://psiphen.colorado.edu/Pubs/VacEnergyExtrac_Jan10.pdf http://http:/psiphen.colorado.edu/Pubs/VacEnergyExtrac_Jan10.pdf f) describing some errors that zero-point energy proponents have made, but I believe that our patent has avoided those errors. We have carried out some experiments, with limited funding, to see if the concept works and the results are so-far ambiguous. Some bloggers have linked our patent to Blacklight Power's hydrino. I cannot comment on whether the concept of a hydrino is valid, but the physics behind it is certainly different from the physics that supports our concept./unquote From: Francis X Roarty [mailto:froarty...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:03 PM To: 'a...@lomaxdesign.com' Cc: 'vortex-l' Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said on Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:53:48 -0700 It should be possible to get protection on impossible devices. Perhaps some protection from having filed with adequate description to build a device. Even if the patent is not issued; later on, when someone tries to infringe, you'd have evidence that the original filing was actually not of something impossible! And that therefore the patent should have been issued, and that therefore it should be issued now. And the infringer required to pay licensing (perhaps with standing damages ameliorated, since they, too, could be seen to be acting in good faith, after all, there was no patent!) Abd, I totally agree, and frankly think no body except Naudts and Bourgoin really nailed the theory, Mills hydrogen with catalytic action, Haisch Moddels' hydrogen with Casimir cavities, Superwave hydrogen compressed bubbles all seemed to be based on different metrics of the same underlying energy source. If the relativistic concept is correct then all these researchers are employing the same environment. They do use different methods to extract the energy from the catalyzed hydrogen so their patents are differentiated but the right thing to do is acknowledge Mills was first to patent the environment - or I should say was first to try and patent the environment. This probably won't happen until after the technology is proved and the research really explodes. Regards Fran Simulation http://www.byzipp.com/sun30.swf of Fractional Hydrogen ash less chemistry in Flash actionscript
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
Which voltage? 2010/3/20, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: yes. You are aware that the the voltage keeps rises even after the battery is disconnected. harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 3:59:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram What do you mean, the inductor (10 turns of wire on a core) is connected between the positive end of the supply and one end of the switch (drain of the MOSFET) isn't it? 2010/3/20 Harry Veeder href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: The toroid is also wired in differently from the inductor in the wiki diagram, but I suppose that doesn't matter either? harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 1:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram The capacitor on your photo 2 is in parallel with the battery so it's part of the converter's input supply. The capacitor in the operating principles diagram of the wikipedia article is the converter's output capacitor, which might as well not be there in steady state is there is no load (once charged it just stays charged at a high voltage, and the Boost's diode never conducts-- so the diode might as well not be there either). So everything to the right of the switch in the boost converter diagram could be removed in no load condition, that's why I say the circuit operates like a Boost converter without a load. Which explains why it steps up the input voltage, that's what Boost converters do. Michel 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: I'll pass that along. But the capacitor looks like it is in the wrong place to be a booster converter with or without a load. compare photo 2: http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4 with operating principles target=_blank href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter; target=_blank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter Harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com href=mailto: href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: href=mailto: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com ymailto=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com; href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder href=mailto: href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com: This is not a boost converter I said it was a boost converter _without a load_. as none of them will recharge the input source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried. This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents the drain voltage from going below zero. Michel And you wont find any dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;] Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! href= href=http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank href=http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank http://www.flickr.com/gift/ __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! href=http://www.flickr.com/gift/; target=_blank http://www.flickr.com/gift/ __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
Someone asked me what I mean by independent evaluations of the claims. I mean that outside experts plan to go into the lab and observe the experiments, the way Rob Duncan looked at Energetics Technologies. I do not think they intend to do an independent replication. Anyway, if they do this, and give me a report, I will publish it immediately. It is supposed to come in 2 or 3 months. I do not expect a delay, but I have seen situations in which a report is delayed repeatedly without explanation until it fades away. If that happens I will eventually conclude that someone made a mistake. My impression is that Rossi is honest and doing the best he can, but he has difficulty communicating in English. The experts are native speakers of English, so we can expect a clearer description. It may seem odd that a language problem can cloud a scientific presentation, but I have attended cold fusion conferences in Japan in which researchers presented clear, precise, right-to-the-point presentations of their work in Japanese, whereas in English they come across as confused and inconclusive. As I said, I empathize! Heck, I get tongue-tied in English. On the few occasions I have presented in Japanese, I was nervous as a cat. Now that we have e-mail and web sites, I think scientists should write more and lecture less. I can write in Japanese as clearly as I can in English. It just takes longer. It is easier than lecturing. You can have a native speaker correct the mistakes before you upload the report. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
On 03/21/2010 09:55 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Which voltage? Volts on the caps attached to the output -- right, Harry? But the signal generator is still hooked up, and it's coupled to the output (at least) through the gate capacitance of the FET and the linked inductors of the transformer, and the signal generator's output power hasn't been measured or even estimated. So, there's no reason to believe this rig is doing anything other than transforming and rectifying the output of the SG. As I've already said a boringly large number of times, this is the same general sort of system as Stiffler's circuit, where he had a signal generator capacitively coupled to the system, and it was driving a handful of LEDs. The main innovation here comes from Naudin, and it's the use of a toroidal coil as the primary with a neo magnet on the outside of the coil which twists the core's field to allow the toroidal coil to couple to the pickup coil. 2010/3/20, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: yes. You are aware that the the voltage keeps rises even after the battery is disconnected. harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 3:59:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram What do you mean, the inductor (10 turns of wire on a core) is connected between the positive end of the supply and one end of the switch (drain of the MOSFET) isn't it? 2010/3/20 Harry Veeder href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: The toroid is also wired in differently from the inductor in the wiki diagram, but I suppose that doesn't matter either? harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 1:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram The capacitor on your photo 2 is in parallel with the battery so it's part of the converter's input supply. The capacitor in the operating principles diagram of the wikipedia article is the converter's output capacitor, which might as well not be there in steady state is there is no load (once charged it just stays charged at a high voltage, and the Boost's diode never conducts-- so the diode might as well not be there either). So everything to the right of the switch in the boost converter diagram could be removed in no load condition, that's why I say the circuit operates like a Boost converter without a load. Which explains why it steps up the input voltage, that's what Boost converters do. Michel 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: I'll pass that along. But the capacitor looks like it is in the wrong place to be a booster converter with or without a load. compare photo 2: http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4 with operating principles target=_blank href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter; target=_blank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter Harry - Original Message From: Michel Jullian ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com href=mailto: href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com ymailto=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com; href=mailto:michelj...@gmail.com;michelj...@gmail.com To: href=mailto: href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com ymailto=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com; href=mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com;vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder href=mailto: href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com href=mailto: href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com ymailto=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com; href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com: This is not a boost converter I said it was a boost converter _without a load_. as none of them will recharge the input source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried. This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is another hidden component which plays an important role, it
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Someone asked me what I mean by independent evaluations of the claims. I mean that outside experts plan to go into the lab and observe the experiments, the way Rob Duncan looked at Energetics Technologies. Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup is made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it (heating resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be sure there isn't a mundane source of heat such as a some radioisotope hidden in the cell itself, unless Rossi lets them take it apart which is unlikely. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
A quantitative evaluation- see please the claims in the Focardi Rossi paper- is foolproof I think. Heat from radioactive stuff at ths magnitudes is very dangerous, I think. Next week we will celebrate the 21st anniversary of our field- and only the Patterson system in its day of glory was comparable to these claims- if I remember correctly. Is some other breakthrough of this type hidden somewhere? On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Someone asked me what I mean by independent evaluations of the claims. I mean that outside experts plan to go into the lab and observe the experiments, the way Rob Duncan looked at Energetics Technologies. Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup is made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it (heating resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be sure there isn't a mundane source of heat such as a some radioisotope hidden in the cell itself, unless Rossi lets them take it apart which is unlikely. Michel
[Vo]:OT: Angels, ETs, and Nano-Bots, Oh MY!
Out in the YAHOO DNNY group, one of the participants recently posted the following plea: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Hi, If you have not already read the new note I have placed on the Notes page at www.godsebook.org, please take a look. It's called, Life-Like Sirian Bots and Self-Replicating Implants http://www.godsebook.org/sirian_bots.html After re-reading the research for this note, I realized that Earth is being converted into programmable synthetic material -- through genetic engineering, nano technology -- and most recently, new forms of humans who have been robotized [in addition to synths who are made as human-like bots]. My work on this article helped me realize that changes are needed in Prayers 2 and 3. [See: Note, March 20, 2010, http://www.godsebook.org/new_edits.html]. My note contains a request that everyone use either of the new sets -- beginning tonight, March 20, 2010 -- at Sun Down. To reach those who are reciting Prayers, I placed an URGENT message on the Home page. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I occasionally peruse what many might be quick to classify as off-the-wall discussion groups, especially if they possess otherworldly alchemical themes. Some of these groups adhere to a belief in the existence of aliens who are often attempting to influence our planet for either good or bad reasons. One of the discussion groups falling into this category is the Yahoo DNNY group. It was originally formed by ... CSETI volunteers who assisted with Dr. Steven Greer's Disclosure Project event at the New York Academy of Medicine on October 26, 2001. For additional details see the Disclosure Project: www.disclosureproject.org and www.dnny.org. It's not clear to me if Dr. Greer remains involved in current activities of the DNNY group or not. As can be seen from this recent DNNY post there have been discussions how to go about protecting one's psyche against unwanted invisible supernatural-like influences. Since the DNNY group, as a whole professes a belief that certain ETs have been attempting to influence our planet for a very long time it is not surprising that they have also collected individuals who appear convinced that much of the evil that exists on our planet can be placed at ET's doorstep. Since ancient times the vast majority of humans have entertained beliefs in the existence of super beings with either good and/or evil intent. These super beings tend to hang out in realms for which we mortal beings are not normally privy to. Such beliefs appear to have been engrained within the psyche of homo-sapiens from the beginning of our specie's inception. It's interesting to see how beliefs in ETs have often become interchangeable with the more enduring and timeless belief in the existence of angels and demons. ETs have become the culprits responsible for influencing our planet in diabolical ways. This may be the case for many who have become uncomfortable with what technology represents. Many fear we have lost our way as a result of an insidious relationship with technology. If we must be clinical for a second, those with an interest in pop-psychology are likely to recognize the mechanisms of projection at work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection Projection becomes even more evident if you browse the DNNY participant's personal web site: http://www.godsebook.org/sirian_bots.html Excerpt: Nano fabrics, like other synthetics, do not allow light to bend in a natural direction that God intended. Terminology like nano fabrics have become contemporary symbols of archetypical proportions. Similar terms, like Nano technology have become the new weapon of fear and ultimate destruction. Nano technology has become the modern spears and pitchforks formally wielded by angels and demons. I suspect Carl Jung would probably have a lot to say as well -possibly pertaining to an unrealized spiritual crisis within the experiencer that has yet to be confronted. As for me and my own thoughts on Angels, ETs, and Nano Bots, Oh My!!! - I would only add that, (being somewhat in sympathy with Jung's holistic perceptions) if we are not willing to confront our innermost fears, the demons they conjure up will project endless dramas within the fabric of our everyday lives. The demons will continue their insidious erosion into the integrity of our lives until they abduct us, or we are forced to realize a terrifying truth: That we are powerless to defeat them. Only then do we realize there is no other choice left but to let go... let go of our precious lives. Accept annihilation. It is preferable when the only other option left would be to continue a losing battle of keeping demons at bay. Be damned the consequences. Either way, fasten your seat belts. We're in for a bumpy ride! * * * * * * * * * * * * A concluding remark for the Vort
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
Harry will need to confirm this, but I believe the diagram in question is only for the input side. The output side, which isn't shown, consists of a pickup coil, some related circuitry, and the aforementioned capacitors. If I'm wrong, then I'm confused (no great surprise there). On 03/21/2010 11:56 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Wait a minute, I see no cap attached to the output on Harry's diagram photo 2discussed here (haven't followed the other discussions), only one capacitor on the input side, in parallel with the battery until the latter is disconnected, which BTW isn't explained on the diagram. Is the diagram not complete? 2010/3/21 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com: On 03/21/2010 09:55 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Which voltage? Volts on the caps attached to the output -- right, Harry? But the signal generator is still hooked up, and it's coupled to the output (at least) through the gate capacitance of the FET and the linked inductors of the transformer, and the signal generator's output power hasn't been measured or even estimated. So, there's no reason to believe this rig is doing anything other than transforming and rectifying the output of the SG. As I've already said a boringly large number of times, this is the same general sort of system as Stiffler's circuit, where he had a signal generator capacitively coupled to the system, and it was driving a handful of LEDs. The main innovation here comes from Naudin, and it's the use of a toroidal coil as the primary with a neo magnet on the outside of the coil which twists the core's field to allow the toroidal coil to couple to the pickup coil. 2010/3/20, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: yes. You are aware that the the voltage keeps rises even after the battery is disconnected.
[Vo]:ACS press release for the upcoming cold fusion session
See: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/acs-fm030810.php This was also copied to: http://www.physorg.com/news188377829.html I find it a little disturbing that they put the word calorimeter in quotes, in the figure caption. It gives the impression they have never heard of a calorimeter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
Michel Jullian wrote: Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup is made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it (heating resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be sure there isn't a mundane source of heat such as a some radioisotope hidden in the cell itself, unless Rossi lets them take it apart which is unlikely. You need not worry about that sort of thing. I have been in contact with both parties, and they have already taken apart the cells. These people are not fools, and Rossi is clearly not trying to scam anyone. Also, as cousin Peter points out, you would need ~7 kg of plutonium-238 to do this without killing the observers, and I do not think Uncle Sam would lend it to you. As I said about Mills, the only thing that is absolutely foolproof is a fully independent replication. But an independent evaluation is pretty darn good, and better than what we have now. Rossi knows that. You may get a bad impression of Rossi because of the patent and paper. I certainly did. Ed Storms said -- with considerable justification -- that the paper proves nothing. Okay, so please suspend judgement and wait for a paper from people who write in English better than he does. If it never appears, draw your own conclusions. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Re: Lomax ideas for cheap SPAWAR type cell: Murray 2010.03.12
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell Ed Storms sometimes reads the messages here [snip] and says that this issue comes up only because of total ignorance and it should be answered in the same way as if a person suggested the moon was made of cheese. You mean it's not cheese ? :) Even so, isn't total ignorance tantamount to total bliss? Seriously, there is at least one way that oxygen near the cathode could be relevant - that is, if one subscribes to Mills' theory. On special occasions like St Patty's Day, even Ed gives it some credence. Well ... maybe that's after a couple of green beers. And it's tomorrow. The O++ ion, which would be attracted to the negative charge, could provide the so-called energy-hole necessary to shrink a nascent deuteron, according to CQM. This could be the predecessor event to pycnodeuterium, deuteron clusters and so on. At least it is worth the mention. If I'm not mistaken, the ionization potential is precisely 54.4 eV or 4Ry, but - yes - oxygen wants to go the other way on ion binges (electron affinity) so one would think that the ++ would be rare in electrolysis, but who knows that there is not some secondary mechanism to help with this? Maybe the secret can be found in green beer, ladies. Have one on me. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
Hi Peter, nice to see you here! 2010/3/21 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: A quantitative evaluation- see please the claims in the Focardi Rossi paper- is foolproof I think. Heat from radioactive stuff at ths magnitudes is very dangerous, I think. Not really, there are off the shelf radioisotope heat sources of this kind of power magnitude which are quite safe even though they are quite compact (~6 Kg per kW) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Purpose_Heat_Source The General Purpose Heat Source is a stackable, compact unit (module) designed to deliver over 600 degrees Celsius to a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) or an Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (SRG), generating 250 watts per module at the beginning of a mission when used with an RTG or ASRG. These units are designed to supply heat consistently and safely over a wide range of extreme conditions. They measure 9.948 cm wide x 9.32 cm deep x 5.82 cm high and weigh no more than 1.44 kg each. GPHS of this, or very similar, design were used in the GPHS-RTGs of the following missions : Cassini-Huygens, New Horizons, Galileo probe, Ulysses probe. Safety: GPHSs are designed with safety in mind and employ plutonium-238 pellets encased in iridium to generate alpha particles which are completely absorbed in the heat source to produce heat; thus, no special radiation shielding is necessary to absorb these particles. The resulting iridium-clad plutonium pellets are encased within nested layers of carbon-based material and placed within an aeroshell housing to comprise the complete GPHS-module. But it occurs to me that there would be an easy way to discriminate between such a constant heat source and a controllable one, which presumably a genuine LENR cell would be: turn the heat off. If this can be done, and full access is granted to the cell's environment to check for an external hidden power source (AC current in the cell's heater resistor monitored by a DC ammeter, hidden heater in the water cooling circuit, microwaves, IR beam, witricity, whatever), then yes such an evaluation can be foolproof. If the experts are good at detecting trickery that is, i.e. they can never be fooled by a magician. A much more foolproof evaluation, for this or any other device claiming excess heat, would be to take it to Earthtech's lab. They will test it for free(*), and a positive evaluation from them would be worth billions for the device's inventor, and zillions for the entire field. Why people like Ed Storms or Mike McKubre don't take up Earthtech's offer, which I am told is still open, is beyond me. Any idea why Peter? Michel (*) http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2005/NET12.shtml#earthtech Earthtech hereby offers to test promising cells in MOAC free. We believe that the opportunity of observing a genuine excess heat effect in an accurate calorimeter is well worth the time, energy, and money we will expend in the process. Next week we will celebrate the 21st anniversary of our field- and only the Patterson system in its day of glory was comparable to these claims- if I remember correctly. Is some other breakthrough of this type hidden somewhere? On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Someone asked me what I mean by independent evaluations of the claims. I mean that outside experts plan to go into the lab and observe the experiments, the way Rob Duncan looked at Energetics Technologies. Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup is made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it (heating resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be sure there isn't a mundane source of heat such as a some radioisotope hidden in the cell itself, unless Rossi lets them take it apart which is unlikely. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
Michel Jullian wrote: Not really, there are off the shelf radioisotope heat sources of this kind of power magnitude which are quite safe even though they are quite compact (~6 Kg per kW) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Purpose_Heat_Source Off of which shelf? Plutonium-238 costs approximately $10 million per kilogram. The exact cost is secret because of national security. Only the U.S. government has the stuff, and I do not think they will lend Rossi $60 million worth so he can scam someone. Please do a reality check on your hypotheses. Regarding the Earthtech MOAC, it is a remarkable instrument with some fine qualities, but I believe the calorimeters made by Storms and McKubre are more accurate and precise, and they are better suited to these experiments. The calorimeter is an innate part of the experiment. Its performance affects the outcome of the experiment. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi
Taken at face value, the large claimed gains should easily allow a self-running device, even if resorting to a TEG to convert the heat to electricity at 5% efficiency or less. A self-running device should remove all skepticism and doubt (except for the possibility of criminal fraud) so why not make the self-runner your immediate goal? The most obvious answer is that the claimed gain, which may be real on occasion, is extremely unreliable - and the average gain is far less. Jones From: Peter Gluck A quantitative evaluation- see please the claims in the Focardi Rossi paper- is foolproof I think.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi
Merci beaucoup, Michel... My interest is in technology and this resurrection or rejuvenation of the Piantelli system is the first really interesting event after many years. It is a great mystery what has happened between 1994 and 2008, it is crucial to know when (and how) was total reproducibility achieved. Piantelli who is the Father of this system advices for a careful, stepwise scale up- due to serious risks as sudden uncontrolable heat release and radiation. The system is in a pre-commercial phase and has a very promising future. Patents are interesting bu their reliabilty is low (to quote myself *the study of patents give you the mythology NOT the history of a process *For products it is better. The value of a patent without a critical know-how feature is low. I would not bother much with good English papers either, I think the setup is already described in the very first Piantelli- Focardi- Habel paper. In the Focardi Rossi paperthe results- if true are esential. Without the secret ingredient, recipe, surface treatment or magic spell it will be quite difficult to perform any independent validation. With or without Scott's Wundercalorimeter. Metrologomania- obsession with very sensitive measurement has disfocussed the research in the field. A means became an aim. There is only one proof- a commercial heater and a firts factory of such heaters leading to a new branch of industry. We have waited 21 years for this, and as our Italian friends would say: Basta! I hope you will agree too cousin Jed, and this will be our line of thinking and action. On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Peter, nice to see you here! 2010/3/21 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: A quantitative evaluation- see please the claims in the Focardi Rossi paper- is foolproof I think. Heat from radioactive stuff at ths magnitudes is very dangerous, I think. Not really, there are off the shelf radioisotope heat sources of this kind of power magnitude which are quite safe even though they are quite compact (~6 Kg per kW) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Purpose_Heat_Source The General Purpose Heat Source is a stackable, compact unit (module) designed to deliver over 600 degrees Celsius to a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) or an Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (SRG), generating 250 watts per module at the beginning of a mission when used with an RTG or ASRG. These units are designed to supply heat consistently and safely over a wide range of extreme conditions. They measure 9.948 cm wide x 9.32 cm deep x 5.82 cm high and weigh no more than 1.44 kg each. GPHS of this, or very similar, design were used in the GPHS-RTGs of the following missions : Cassini-Huygens, New Horizons, Galileo probe, Ulysses probe. Safety: GPHSs are designed with safety in mind and employ plutonium-238 pellets encased in iridium to generate alpha particles which are completely absorbed in the heat source to produce heat; thus, no special radiation shielding is necessary to absorb these particles. The resulting iridium-clad plutonium pellets are encased within nested layers of carbon-based material and placed within an aeroshell housing to comprise the complete GPHS-module. But it occurs to me that there would be an easy way to discriminate between such a constant heat source and a controllable one, which presumably a genuine LENR cell would be: turn the heat off. If this can be done, and full access is granted to the cell's environment to check for an external hidden power source (AC current in the cell's heater resistor monitored by a DC ammeter, hidden heater in the water cooling circuit, microwaves, IR beam, witricity, whatever), then yes such an evaluation can be foolproof. If the experts are good at detecting trickery that is, i.e. they can never be fooled by a magician. A much more foolproof evaluation, for this or any other device claiming excess heat, would be to take it to Earthtech's lab. They will test it for free(*), and a positive evaluation from them would be worth billions for the device's inventor, and zillions for the entire field. Why people like Ed Storms or Mike McKubre don't take up Earthtech's offer, which I am told is still open, is beyond me. Any idea why Peter? Michel (*) http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2005/NET12.shtml#earthtech Earthtech hereby offers to test promising cells in MOAC free. We believe that the opportunity of observing a genuine excess heat effect in an accurate calorimeter is well worth the time, energy, and money we will expend in the process. Next week we will celebrate the 21st anniversary of our field- and only the Patterson system in its day of glory was comparable to these claims- if I remember correctly. Is some other breakthrough of this type hidden somewhere? On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/3/21 Jed
[Vo]:Were You Abducted?
Were you fortunate enough to be abducted on abduction day? http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/19/alien-abduction-day/?test=latestnews Alien Abduction Day Arrives, But Will Little Green Men? Clamp on your foil hat and cower under your bed, Alien Abduction Day is here! March 20 is Alien Abduction Day, when the skies are carefully watched by those expecting / wishing to be abducted by an alien life form, states eHow.com. The strange holiday's origins are unclear, though it was clearly popularized by the 2008 Alien Abduction Day festival in Toronto. (See 2008's promotional poster.) That means no Free UFO Rides, Random Abduction Incidents or getting in touch with your inner-extraterrestrial, which were highlighted on a flyer for a past festival. more
[Vo]:A different kind of Orbo
In this concept drawing I use a toroidal coil with a core like Steorn's Orbo,but instead of using it to move a rotor I use it to move a linear oscillator. http://tinyurl.com/yjytv2o It works like a stone sitting on a coil spring. Imagine you can switch gravity off so it expands to its uncompressed height because the stone is now weightless. At this height you switch gravity on again, and the coil spring is compressed again. If the energy to switch gravity off is less than the work doneby the stone to compress the spring, then free energy will be produced when the coil spring expands. The magnet and spring behave the same way. If the energy to switch off the magnetism (i.e. rotate the domains in the core) is less than the work done by the magnet compressing the spring, free energy will be produced when the spring expands. Harry __ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
The capacitor is on the input side. A pick up coil was added later to see if it is possible to close the loop and generate OU. He tried in test 10 but didn't succeed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7CsBr7ouPE harry - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 2:51:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram Harry will need to confirm this, but I believe the diagram in question is only for the input side. The output side, which isn't shown, consists of a pickup coil, some related circuitry, and the aforementioned capacitors. If I'm wrong, then I'm confused (no great surprise there). On 03/21/2010 11:56 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Wait a minute, I see no cap attached to the output on Harry's diagram photo 2discussed here (haven't followed the other discussions), only one capacitor on the input side, in parallel with the battery until the latter is disconnected, which BTW isn't explained on the diagram. Is the diagram not complete? 2010/3/21 Stephen A. Lawrence href=mailto:sa...@pobox.com;sa...@pobox.com: On 03/21/2010 09:55 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Which voltage? Volts on the caps attached to the output -- right, Harry? But the signal generator is still hooked up, and it's coupled to the output (at least) through the gate capacitance of the FET and the linked inductors of the transformer, and the signal generator's output power hasn't been measured or even estimated. So, there's no reason to believe this rig is doing anything other than transforming and rectifying the output of the SG. As I've already said a boringly large number of times, this is the same general sort of system as Stiffler's circuit, where he had a signal generator capacitively coupled to the system, and it was driving a handful of LEDs. The main innovation here comes from Naudin, and it's the use of a toroidal coil as the primary with a neo magnet on the outside of the coil which twists the core's field to allow the toroidal coil to couple to the pickup coil. 2010/3/20, Harry Veeder href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: yes. You are aware that the the voltage keeps rises even after the battery is disconnected. __ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
Re: [Vo]:A different kind of Orbo
Hmmm now I can't view the image without logging into facebook. That shouldn't happen. Anyway, my drawing is also about a third of the way down this page: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8892.240 Harry - Original Message From: Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 7:13:46 PM Subject: [Vo]:A different kind of Orbo In this concept drawing I use a toroidal coil with a core like Steorn's Orbo,but instead of using it to move a rotor I use it to move a linear oscillator. http://tinyurl.com/yjytv2o It works like a stone sitting on a coil spring. Imagine you can switch gravity off so it expands to its uncompressed height because the stone is now weightless. At this height you switch gravity on again, and the coil spring is compressed again. If the energy to switch gravity off is less than the work doneby the stone to compress the spring, then free energy will be produced when the coil spring expands. The magnet and spring behave the same way. If the energy to switch off the magnetism (i.e. rotate the domains in the core) is less than the work done by the magnet compressing the spring, free energy will be produced when the spring expands. Harry __ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at href=http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/; target=_blank http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ __ Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
03/21/2010 11:56 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Wait a minute, I see no cap attached to the output on Harry's diagram photo 2discussed here (haven't followed the other discussions), only one capacitor on the input side, in parallel with the battery until the latter is disconnected, which BTW isn't explained on the diagram. Is the diagram not complete? I assumed you were following the video updates and would have known. harry __ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
[Vo]:made the world news
_http://article.wn.com/view/2009/12/25/Energy_Alley_Perhaps_Americas_most_im portant_stretch_of_spac/_ (http://article.wn.com/view/2009/12/25/Energy_Alley_Perhaps_Americas_most_important_stretch_of_spac/)
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
So the voltage which rises after disconnection of the battery is that of the single capacitor shown on the diagram, which was initially in parallel with the battery? 2010/3/22 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: The capacitor is on the input side. A pick up coil was added later to see if it is possible to close the loop and generate OU. He tried in test 10 but didn't succeed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7CsBr7ouPE harry - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 2:51:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram Harry will need to confirm this, but I believe the diagram in question is only for the input side. The output side, which isn't shown, consists of a pickup coil, some related circuitry, and the aforementioned capacitors. If I'm wrong, then I'm confused (no great surprise there). On 03/21/2010 11:56 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Wait a minute, I see no cap attached to the output on Harry's diagram photo 2discussed here (haven't followed the other discussions), only one capacitor on the input side, in parallel with the battery until the latter is disconnected, which BTW isn't explained on the diagram. Is the diagram not complete? 2010/3/21 Stephen A. Lawrence href=mailto:sa...@pobox.com;sa...@pobox.com: On 03/21/2010 09:55 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Which voltage? Volts on the caps attached to the output -- right, Harry? But the signal generator is still hooked up, and it's coupled to the output (at least) through the gate capacitance of the FET and the linked inductors of the transformer, and the signal generator's output power hasn't been measured or even estimated. So, there's no reason to believe this rig is doing anything other than transforming and rectifying the output of the SG. As I've already said a boringly large number of times, this is the same general sort of system as Stiffler's circuit, where he had a signal generator capacitively coupled to the system, and it was driving a handful of LEDs. The main innovation here comes from Naudin, and it's the use of a toroidal coil as the primary with a neo magnet on the outside of the coil which twists the core's field to allow the toroidal coil to couple to the pickup coil. 2010/3/20, Harry Veeder href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: yes. You are aware that the the voltage keeps rises even after the battery is disconnected. __ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
[Vo]:I even a bit hit in the far east
3 down on the left _http://movie.teacup.com/search?kw=zpt_ (http://movie.teacup.com/search?kw=zpt) Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
On 03/21/2010 07:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The capacitor is on the input side. A pick up coil was added later to see if it is possible to close the loop and generate OU. Interesting. Sorry for my confusion; I didn't watch the videos where he had no pickup coil (video 4 already had the extra coil, of course). Is this circuit, which charges the cap, the same as the diagram you showed but with the battery snipped out? If so, it's surprising (to me) that the thing can produce DC on the input side; I don't see an obvious mechanism for rectifying the signal generator output. The same argument still applies, in any case -- the power output of the signal generator hasn't been measured. Measure that, compare it with the energy appearing the capacitor and being dissipated in the coil, and *then* see if it still looks like anything funny is going on. Strange coupling is the order of the day when working with AC and coils, but you should always be able to find the source of the energy which comes out of the system. If you can't get the books to balance at least to within the margin of error of the instruments, that's something worth pursuing. But if power in equals power out (within instrument error) then the question becomes, How is the power getting from the input to the output?, rather than, Where is the power coming from?. Instrument error may be pretty substantial when measuring high frequency AC with out of phase volts and amps, by the way. As another aside, you can certainly boost voltage with just a single coil. Put volts across the coil for a while, allowing the current to ramp up, then chop off the drive voltage abruptly. Current continues to flow through the coil, and if the load which the coil sees after the power supply is cut off is high impedence, a large voltage will appear across the load. This is why, for instance, you can get arcing across switch contacts when shutting off power to a large electromagnet, even if you're energizing it with a low voltage source. The fact that the signal generator which is driving this circuit is apparently making square waves, not sine waves, is what makes this relevant. He tried in test 10 but didn't succeed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7CsBr7ouPE harry - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 2:51:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram Harry will need to confirm this, but I believe the diagram in question is only for the input side. The output side, which isn't shown, consists of a pickup coil, some related circuitry, and the aforementioned capacitors. If I'm wrong, then I'm confused (no great surprise there). On 03/21/2010 11:56 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Wait a minute, I see no cap attached to the output on Harry's diagram photo 2discussed here (haven't followed the other discussions), only one capacitor on the input side, in parallel with the battery until the latter is disconnected, which BTW isn't explained on the diagram. Is the diagram not complete? 2010/3/21 Stephen A. Lawrence href=mailto:sa...@pobox.com;sa...@pobox.com: On 03/21/2010 09:55 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Which voltage? Volts on the caps attached to the output -- right, Harry? But the signal generator is still hooked up, and it's coupled to the output (at least) through the gate capacitance of the FET and the linked inductors of the transformer, and the signal generator's output power hasn't been measured or even estimated. So, there's no reason to believe this rig is doing anything other than transforming and rectifying the output of the SG. As I've already said a boringly large number of times, this is the same general sort of system as Stiffler's circuit, where he had a signal generator capacitively coupled to the system, and it was driving a handful of LEDs. The main innovation here comes from Naudin, and it's the use of a toroidal coil as the primary with a neo magnet on the outside of the coil which twists the core's field to allow the toroidal coil to couple to the pickup coil. 2010/3/20, Harry Veeder href=mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com;hlvee...@yahoo.com: yes. You are aware that the the voltage keeps rises even after the battery is disconnected. __ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
