Re: [Vo]:Nathan Lewis: Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom
Alain, Facebook took off a the black hole of social media, not because it was the first or the best but because its core was Harvard's social network. QED On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > Just a question to people who watched the controversy, especially with > lewis. > > Beaudette says that there was only 4 critics, all rebutted, especially > lewis critics which was just of his incompetence in calorimetry, added to > huge ego and lack of ethic. > > being attorney of the devil, do you confirm that position really? > is there any solid critic on some calorimetry that is still open? was > there at least one that survived some time ? that appeared recently (CCS > for example - is it closed) > > what is shocking me is that i see no serious critics reported by skeptics, > and for example the Pomp&Eriksson critics agains Levi&al/Enforsk/E-cat, was > really pathetic for professional scientists... > I'm shocked to see that official critics ignore many cross checking done, > and ignore even the error value they claim, compared to the observation. > > On Levi&al even critics on blog were better informed and more realist than > this pretended Wikipedia-stamped paper. > > Beaudette says that no critics was really published, or else was quickly > rebutted? > > It seems skeptics pretend to be "rigorous" but they looks less strict on > reasoning and evidences than some conspiracy theory fans. amazing. > > I'm just trying to find opposite vision, because it looks so weird. > > if confirmed this is more generally a question on how science can call in > delusion and groupthink, incompetent, dishonest, anti-scientific, loose and > unaware of it. > > > > 2014/1/16 Foks0904 . > > Not really because I would be rich, old, and living in an academic bubble >> where I would be shielded from accountability by other like-minded ladder >> climbers. Also, most people in the United States of Amnesia don't even >> remember who the hell I am; they just remember the residual superficial >> mythology that Cold Fusion is "pathological science". That's why its on >> those of us who are aware to constantly point out the jack-assery of >> two-faced opportunists like Lewis. >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:12 PM, James Bowery wrote: >> >>> Wouldn't you be getting nervous about now if you were Nathan Lewis? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >>> Wow the producers of BigThink are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I remember him being much more articulate and less nervous looking. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, James Bowery wrote: > Erratum: He said "hundred" not "thousand". I guess the 900 he left > off were cold fusion. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: > >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=55KoDmTxaUI#t=1176 >> > > >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Nathan Lewis: Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom
Just a question to people who watched the controversy, especially with lewis. Beaudette says that there was only 4 critics, all rebutted, especially lewis critics which was just of his incompetence in calorimetry, added to huge ego and lack of ethic. being attorney of the devil, do you confirm that position really? is there any solid critic on some calorimetry that is still open? was there at least one that survived some time ? that appeared recently (CCS for example - is it closed) what is shocking me is that i see no serious critics reported by skeptics, and for example the Pomp&Eriksson critics agains Levi&al/Enforsk/E-cat, was really pathetic for professional scientists... I'm shocked to see that official critics ignore many cross checking done, and ignore even the error value they claim, compared to the observation. On Levi&al even critics on blog were better informed and more realist than this pretended Wikipedia-stamped paper. Beaudette says that no critics was really published, or else was quickly rebutted? It seems skeptics pretend to be "rigorous" but they looks less strict on reasoning and evidences than some conspiracy theory fans. amazing. I'm just trying to find opposite vision, because it looks so weird. if confirmed this is more generally a question on how science can call in delusion and groupthink, incompetent, dishonest, anti-scientific, loose and unaware of it. 2014/1/16 Foks0904 . > Not really because I would be rich, old, and living in an academic bubble > where I would be shielded from accountability by other like-minded ladder > climbers. Also, most people in the United States of Amnesia don't even > remember who the hell I am; they just remember the residual superficial > mythology that Cold Fusion is "pathological science". That's why its on > those of us who are aware to constantly point out the jack-assery of > two-faced opportunists like Lewis. > > Regards, > John > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:12 PM, James Bowery wrote: > >> Wouldn't you be getting nervous about now if you were Nathan Lewis? >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >>> Wow the producers of BigThink are really scraping the bottom of the >>> barrel. I remember him being much more articulate and less nervous looking. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, James Bowery wrote: >>> Erratum: He said "hundred" not "thousand". I guess the 900 he left off were cold fusion. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=55KoDmTxaUI#t=1176 > >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
On bottom of page 165 and the top page 166, is that a description of a Papp engine that I see? I thought that the Papp engine was open source. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:59 AM, wrote: > The BLP website is down as I write this, but yesterday the > "What’s New" tab on their homepage led to this entry dated 1/14/14 - > > Patent Application – Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same. > > http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Power%20Generation%20Systems%20and%20Methods%20Patent%20Application.pdf > > I am unsure whether this untitled 324 page document is an existing > patent application, one just submitted, or is pending submission. > > What I found especially interesting is that it credits the anomalous > energy generation, and hydrino formation to an extremely wide range of > plasma currents, and current pulse widths. For example, on p.107, > the following excerpt appears - > > "The current density may be in the range of at least one of > 100A/cm^2 to 1,000,000 A/cm^2, 1000 A/cm^2 to 100,000 A/cm^2, > [...] > The pulse time may be in at least one range chosen from about > 10^-6 s to 10s, 10^-5s to 1s, 10^-4s to 0.1s, and 10^-3s to 0.01s. > [...] > The magnetic flux may be in the range of about 10 G to 10 T, > 100 G to 5 T, or 1 kG to 1 T." > > The huge current densities and sharp rise/fall times should create > very large magnetic forces that, if focused, impart huge momenta > and energies to charged particles that are in, or impacted, by the > plasma current filaments. > > Possibly, BLP's upcoming demo will be a more systemic version of > the 1922 Wendt-Irion experiment that vindicates W-I's conclusions? > > -- Lou Pagnucco > > > >
[Vo]:Observation on a BLP (patent?) document
The BLP website is down as I write this, but yesterday the "Whats New" tab on their homepage led to this entry dated 1/14/14 - Patent Application Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Power%20Generation%20Systems%20and%20Methods%20Patent%20Application.pdf I am unsure whether this untitled 324 page document is an existing patent application, one just submitted, or is pending submission. What I found especially interesting is that it credits the anomalous energy generation, and hydrino formation to an extremely wide range of plasma currents, and current pulse widths. For example, on p.107, the following excerpt appears - "The current density may be in the range of at least one of 100A/cm^2 to 1,000,000 A/cm^2, 1000 A/cm^2 to 100,000 A/cm^2, [...] The pulse time may be in at least one range chosen from about 10^-6 s to 10s, 10^-5s to 1s, 10^-4s to 0.1s, and 10^-3s to 0.01s. [...] The magnetic flux may be in the range of about 10 G to 10 T, 100 G to 5 T, or 1 kG to 1 T." The huge current densities and sharp rise/fall times should create very large magnetic forces that, if focused, impart huge momenta and energies to charged particles that are in, or impacted, by the plasma current filaments. Possibly, BLP's upcoming demo will be a more systemic version of the 1922 Wendt-Irion experiment that vindicates W-I's conclusions? -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
See element list from TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS & PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION’S HYPERION PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT TABLE II XRF ANALYSIS OF NAE5 (BEFORE A TEST RUN) TEST ID: 07/18/12 #25 >From iccf 17 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> They both use low boiling point metals to catalyze copious nanoparticle >> production. This helps a great deal. >> > Can you provide a reference for the "low boiling point" part? To the > extent that the active materials Rossi and DGT use are not refractory, I do > not believe this is a desired characteristic. Defkalion > report specifically needing to protect their active material from the high > temperatures of the glow discharge [1]. I would not be surprised if they > found a way to make the active material as refractory as they can; I can > only imagine that they would not want it to have a low boiling point. > > Eric > > > > http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0808-niweek-defkalion-technical-presentation-j-hadjichristos, > p. 16. > >
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > They both use low boiling point metals to catalyze copious nanoparticle > production. This helps a great deal. > Can you provide a reference for the "low boiling point" part? To the extent that the active materials Rossi and DGT use are not refractory, I do not believe this is a desired characteristic. Defkalion report specifically needing to protect their active material from the high temperatures of the glow discharge [1]. I would not be surprised if they found a way to make the active material as refractory as they can; I can only imagine that they would not want it to have a low boiling point. Eric http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0808-niweek-defkalion-technical-presentation-j-hadjichristos, p. 16.
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
Excellent analysis Axil. I've never agreed with you more. Regards, John On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Brillouin has both good and bad design items in their system. Starting off > with the bad part, Brillouin uses wire as a substrate for their reaction. > The limited surface area that contains the cavities and bumps on the wire > surface where the LENR reaction takes place is limited. Because of this > fundamental limitation, Brillouin will likely never achieve a high > coefficient of performance (COP) that marks superior operation of a > dominant cold fusion system. > > In contrast, the systems from Rossi and DGT due to the use of very small > particles have orders of magnitude more surface area and therefore very > many more cavities owing to the topology of nano-particle piles. > > They both use low boiling point metals to catalyze copious nanoparticle > production. This helps a great deal. > > But the method of stimulation in these Ni/H reactors is very poor in the > Rossi system and just a little better in the DGT system… but not as good as > it could be… owing to the nature of their low voltage drawn out 24 kv pulse. > > On the other hand, Brillouin partially makes up for their poor numbers of > nuclear active sites by using a sharp excitation pulse to excite the NAEs > into energy production. > > By sharp excitation, I mean very high voltage and short duration > nanosecond electrical pulse that is fast enough in duration to avoid > destroying the NAE. Unlike both Rossi and DGT, Brilloiun has demonstrated > that pure electrical stimulation can produce cold fusion. > > When the Brilloium system is taken as a whole taking into account the good > things in the system with the bad things, the system is a below average > performer forever constrained by its use of a wire substrate. > > It may be possible to combine the use of billions of small particles > together with a sharp nondestructive low amperage and high voltage > electrical stimulation producing a large instantaneous power pulse. This > may result in a totally controllable high performance reaction with a very > high COP potential. As far as I can tell, nobody has yet tried such a > Brilloium/Rossi hybrid system yet, but it just might work. > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> See: >> >> >> http://pesn.com/2014/01/15/9602421_Interview_with_Mike-McKubre_about_Brillouin-at-SRI-International/ >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYrv-4Yl_v0&feature=youtu.be >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
Brillouin has both good and bad design items in their system. Starting off with the bad part, Brillouin uses wire as a substrate for their reaction. The limited surface area that contains the cavities and bumps on the wire surface where the LENR reaction takes place is limited. Because of this fundamental limitation, Brillouin will likely never achieve a high coefficient of performance (COP) that marks superior operation of a dominant cold fusion system. In contrast, the systems from Rossi and DGT due to the use of very small particles have orders of magnitude more surface area and therefore very many more cavities owing to the topology of nano-particle piles. They both use low boiling point metals to catalyze copious nanoparticle production. This helps a great deal. But the method of stimulation in these Ni/H reactors is very poor in the Rossi system and just a little better in the DGT system… but not as good as it could be… owing to the nature of their low voltage drawn out 24 kv pulse. On the other hand, Brillouin partially makes up for their poor numbers of nuclear active sites by using a sharp excitation pulse to excite the NAEs into energy production. By sharp excitation, I mean very high voltage and short duration nanosecond electrical pulse that is fast enough in duration to avoid destroying the NAE. Unlike both Rossi and DGT, Brilloiun has demonstrated that pure electrical stimulation can produce cold fusion. When the Brilloium system is taken as a whole taking into account the good things in the system with the bad things, the system is a below average performer forever constrained by its use of a wire substrate. It may be possible to combine the use of billions of small particles together with a sharp nondestructive low amperage and high voltage electrical stimulation producing a large instantaneous power pulse. This may result in a totally controllable high performance reaction with a very high COP potential. As far as I can tell, nobody has yet tried such a Brilloium/Rossi hybrid system yet, but it just might work. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > See: > > > http://pesn.com/2014/01/15/9602421_Interview_with_Mike-McKubre_about_Brillouin-at-SRI-International/ > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYrv-4Yl_v0&feature=youtu.be > >
Re: [Vo]:Nathan Lewis: Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom
Not really because I would be rich, old, and living in an academic bubble where I would be shielded from accountability by other like-minded ladder climbers. Also, most people in the United States of Amnesia don't even remember who the hell I am; they just remember the residual superficial mythology that Cold Fusion is "pathological science". That's why its on those of us who are aware to constantly point out the jack-assery of two-faced opportunists like Lewis. Regards, John On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:12 PM, James Bowery wrote: > Wouldn't you be getting nervous about now if you were Nathan Lewis? > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> Wow the producers of BigThink are really scraping the bottom of the >> barrel. I remember him being much more articulate and less nervous looking. >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, James Bowery wrote: >> >>> Erratum: He said "hundred" not "thousand". I guess the 900 he left off >>> were cold fusion. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=55KoDmTxaUI#t=1176 >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Nathan Lewis: Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom
Wouldn't you be getting nervous about now if you were Nathan Lewis? On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > Wow the producers of BigThink are really scraping the bottom of the > barrel. I remember him being much more articulate and less nervous looking. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, James Bowery wrote: > >> Erratum: He said "hundred" not "thousand". I guess the 900 he left off >> were cold fusion. >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: >> >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=55KoDmTxaUI#t=1176 >>> >> >> >
RE: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
> Defkalion was the other major player. Shoot! How did I miss that! Thanks, Craig. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
On 01/15/2014 08:41 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Enjoyed listenng to the YouTube interview. Close to the end McKubre mentioned what he currently speculates are the four major players in the R&D field. I had some difficulty hearing clearly (and as such being able to subsequently spell out) one of the four players. I heard Brillouin which McKubre is involved in, Mill's BLP company, and Rossi's efforts. But who is the fourth player? Defkalion was the other major player. Craig
RE: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
Enjoyed listenng to the YouTube interview. Close to the end McKubre mentioned what he currently speculates are the four major players in the R&D field. I had some difficulty hearing clearly (and as such being able to subsequently spell out) one of the four players. I heard Brillouin which McKubre is involved in, Mill's BLP company, and Rossi's efforts. But who is the fourth player? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Nathan Lewis: Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom
Wow the producers of BigThink are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I remember him being much more articulate and less nervous looking. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, James Bowery wrote: > Erratum: He said "hundred" not "thousand". I guess the 900 he left off > were cold fusion. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: > >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=55KoDmTxaUI#t=1176 >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Nathan Lewis: Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom
Erratum: He said "hundred" not "thousand". I guess the 900 he left off were cold fusion. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=55KoDmTxaUI#t=1176 >
[Vo]:Nathan Lewis: Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=55KoDmTxaUI#t=1176
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Sigh. These statements and videos are ludicrous and frankly getting > tiresome. 400% 4x .. gimme a break. > > If you actually have something . . . > McKubre was talking about his own research. He actually has something, I am sure. He did not address many technical issues about Brillouin. He described it in broad terms. It sounds better than I thought. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
*Oh yes, "Proprietary" .. what a great cover story. Well .. frankly, I'm tired of 'proprietary'. * *There are plenty of good folks doing good science and publishing at conferences. They are interesting.* *"Proprietary" is not.* Cover story for what? Yeah I'm tired of it to in a lot of respects. Doesn't mean there is no use for it, there is just too much of it in our world. So just chastise any business that actually is doing meaningful work? Of course there is interesting work being pursued in labs and presented at conferences. Do you want that lab work to translate to a useable technology or not? If MFMP pulls it off someday I will be overjoyed, but take what you can get at the moment sir without nonsencially kicking and screaming about it. Regards, John On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > Oh yes, "Proprietary" .. what a great cover story. Well .. frankly, I'm > tired of 'proprietary'. > There are plenty of good folks doing good science and publishing at > conferences. They are interesting. > > "Proprietary" is not. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> *Sigh. These statements and videos are ludicrous and frankly getting >> tiresome. 400% 4x .. gimme a break.* >> >> Why so cynical? What other "statements and videos" (beside BLP, which is >> of course stresses credulity as it stands atm) has been released lately >> that has been such an annoyance? And 3.0 COP is break even, so COP 4 is >> nothing insignificant. Once we hit 6-10 that's the money range, but 4 is >> progress. And I rather them be honest about their output than bullshit and >> have to retract later. You're annoyed because these guys are actually >> conservative business people? >> >> >> *If you actually have something, apply for a patent and go to the MFMP >> folks, and help them set it up to show the world otherwise just keep it tor >> yourself and stay invisible.* >> >> You should know issues associated with the patent office Blaze. And MFMP >> is of course Open Source, while Brillouin is Proprietary. Apples and >> Oranges. Can't Open Source everything (btw I am a huge OS proponent). Your >> statement is just beyond silly. >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sigh. These statements and videos are ludicrous and frankly getting >>> tiresome. 400% 4x .. gimme a break. >>> >>> If you actually have something, apply for a patent and go to the MFMP >>> folks, and help them set it up to show the world otherwise just keep it tor >>> yourself and stay invisible. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >>> I agree with everything Mike says in this video. I think the part around minute 15 is important. He is asked, 'is cold fusion safe?' His response: "It has demonstrated itself so far to be safe. Unconditionally safe? We won’t be able to answer that until we have a very good physics-based model for the process itself. We need a theory in this case to protect us from inadvertent mishaps on scale up. So it would be very, very imprudent to scale this effect without having a pretty good handle on what exactly it is that you are scaling. Everything that I know suggests that this is a nuclear process. We have identified the nuclear products. . . ." - Jed >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
Oh yes, "Proprietary" .. what a great cover story. Well .. frankly, I'm tired of 'proprietary'. There are plenty of good folks doing good science and publishing at conferences. They are interesting. "Proprietary" is not. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > *Sigh. These statements and videos are ludicrous and frankly getting > tiresome. 400% 4x .. gimme a break.* > > Why so cynical? What other "statements and videos" (beside BLP, which is > of course stresses credulity as it stands atm) has been released lately > that has been such an annoyance? And 3.0 COP is break even, so COP 4 is > nothing insignificant. Once we hit 6-10 that's the money range, but 4 is > progress. And I rather them be honest about their output than bullshit and > have to retract later. You're annoyed because these guys are actually > conservative business people? > > > *If you actually have something, apply for a patent and go to the MFMP > folks, and help them set it up to show the world otherwise just keep it tor > yourself and stay invisible.* > > You should know issues associated with the patent office Blaze. And MFMP > is of course Open Source, while Brillouin is Proprietary. Apples and > Oranges. Can't Open Source everything (btw I am a huge OS proponent). Your > statement is just beyond silly. > > Regards, > John > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Blaze Spinnaker > wrote: > >> Sigh. These statements and videos are ludicrous and frankly getting >> tiresome. 400% 4x .. gimme a break. >> >> If you actually have something, apply for a patent and go to the MFMP >> folks, and help them set it up to show the world otherwise just keep it tor >> yourself and stay invisible. >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >>> I agree with everything Mike says in this video. I think the part around >>> minute 15 is important. He is asked, 'is cold fusion safe?' His response: >>> >>> >>> "It has demonstrated itself so far to be safe. Unconditionally safe? We >>> won’t be able to answer that until we have a very good physics-based model >>> for the process itself. We need a theory in this case to protect us from >>> inadvertent mishaps on scale up. So it would be very, very imprudent to >>> scale this effect without having a pretty good handle on what exactly it is >>> that you are scaling. >>> >>> Everything that I know suggests that this is a nuclear process. We have >>> identified the nuclear products. . . ." >>> >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
*Sigh. These statements and videos are ludicrous and frankly getting tiresome. 400% 4x .. gimme a break.* Why so cynical? What other "statements and videos" (beside BLP, which is of course stresses credulity as it stands atm) has been released lately that has been such an annoyance? And 3.0 COP is break even, so COP 4 is nothing insignificant. Once we hit 6-10 that's the money range, but 4 is progress. And I rather them be honest about their output than bullshit and have to retract later. You're annoyed because these guys are actually conservative business people? *If you actually have something, apply for a patent and go to the MFMP folks, and help them set it up to show the world otherwise just keep it tor yourself and stay invisible.* You should know issues associated with the patent office Blaze. And MFMP is of course Open Source, while Brillouin is Proprietary. Apples and Oranges. Can't Open Source everything (btw I am a huge OS proponent). Your statement is just beyond silly. Regards, John On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > Sigh. These statements and videos are ludicrous and frankly getting > tiresome. 400% 4x .. gimme a break. > > If you actually have something, apply for a patent and go to the MFMP > folks, and help them set it up to show the world otherwise just keep it tor > yourself and stay invisible. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> I agree with everything Mike says in this video. I think the part around >> minute 15 is important. He is asked, 'is cold fusion safe?' His response: >> >> >> "It has demonstrated itself so far to be safe. Unconditionally safe? We >> won’t be able to answer that until we have a very good physics-based model >> for the process itself. We need a theory in this case to protect us from >> inadvertent mishaps on scale up. So it would be very, very imprudent to >> scale this effect without having a pretty good handle on what exactly it is >> that you are scaling. >> >> Everything that I know suggests that this is a nuclear process. We have >> identified the nuclear products. . . ." >> >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
Sigh. These statements and videos are ludicrous and frankly getting tiresome. 400% 4x .. gimme a break. If you actually have something, apply for a patent and go to the MFMP folks, and help them set it up to show the world otherwise just keep it tor yourself and stay invisible. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I agree with everything Mike says in this video. I think the part around > minute 15 is important. He is asked, 'is cold fusion safe?' His response: > > > "It has demonstrated itself so far to be safe. Unconditionally safe? We > won’t be able to answer that until we have a very good physics-based model > for the process itself. We need a theory in this case to protect us from > inadvertent mishaps on scale up. So it would be very, very imprudent to > scale this effect without having a pretty good handle on what exactly it is > that you are scaling. > > Everything that I know suggests that this is a nuclear process. We have > identified the nuclear products. . . ." > > > - Jed > >
[Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement
I have a website that goes into the details of BLP's theory: http://zhydrogen.com I have one PDF (near the top of the home page and shown below) that I made that shows interesting calculations dealing with the hydrogen atom - and is one of the reasons that I believe Mills's theory is correct. http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-e-energy.pdf I still believe in BLP even though I tried to replicate their CIHT device last year without success (this is the non-plasma, non-MHD version). http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620 Jeff On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:37:50 AM UTC-5, peter...@gmail.com wrote: > > This, this time seems to be remarkable progress- > if true: > > > http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html > > Let's see- Mike Carrell remained BLP's faithful supporter. > Not LENR, but energy > > Peter > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
[Vo]:a publication about LENR and engineering
Dear Readers, This paper: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/01/engineering-is-way-to-make-lenr-useful.html already discussed on a forum, is the first of a series about LENR engineering. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
I agree with everything Mike says in this video. I think the part around minute 15 is important. He is asked, 'is cold fusion safe?' His response: "It has demonstrated itself so far to be safe. Unconditionally safe? We won’t be able to answer that until we have a very good physics-based model for the process itself. We need a theory in this case to protect us from inadvertent mishaps on scale up. So it would be very, very imprudent to scale this effect without having a pretty good handle on what exactly it is that you are scaling. Everything that I know suggests that this is a nuclear process. We have identified the nuclear products. . . ." - Jed
[Vo]:Sterling Allan interviews McKubre about Brillouin
See: http://pesn.com/2014/01/15/9602421_Interview_with_Mike-McKubre_about_Brillouin-at-SRI-International/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYrv-4Yl_v0&feature=youtu.be
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Axil, Hydrinos have never been observed directly and only occur inside the metal lattice where geometry dictates. IMHO Jan Naudts paper on relativistic hydrogen nailed it but people refuse to accept that gas atoms are being exposed to radical changes in equivalent velocity induced by zero point motion of gas in opposition to changes in suppression of vacuum waves. This would only contradict the COE caveat that zero point energy and gas motion can not be exploited and treat ZPE as a power source - effectively saying that quantum effects can allow for a Maxwellian or Heisenburg trap. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:45 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement If hydrinos are real, are they a cause or an effect? Do hydrinos emerge from more basic processes that only happen in rare and unusual conditions? For example, cooper pairs of electrons only occur in superconductors. There are very specific and unusual conditions in a solid that produce cooper pairing. Clearly, hydrinos are not the usual condition of the electrons existence. If hydrinos were common, they would have shown up in many other experiments involving electrons. Another example is the fractional charge of the electron produced by the fractional Hall Effect. If Mills can demonstrate that hydrinos exist, this unusual state of electron behavior must be one of the 500 states of matter defined by each unique dance of the electrons between and among themselves. The question that must then be asked and answered, what is the strange music that these electrons dance to? In the presence of this new music, what other strange things are happening to other fermions in the neighborhood of these strange electrons: what are the protons doing, and the quarks inside the protons, and the other nuclei in the general vicinity? It maybe that the hydrino is just one small piece of a bigger puzzle and not the be all and end all of the Mills reaction. On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Eric Walker mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery mailto:jabow...@gmail.com>> wrote: the detailed chemistry and identification of Hydrinos by ten analytical methods that laboratories can follow and replicate are given at http://www.blacklightpower.com/. Without offering an opinion about whether Blacklight Power actually has a gainful reaction, I will say that this particular detail sounds like pure huxterism. Eric
[Vo]:Day Late, Dollar short?
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41569.html Inquiry made in 2010 by Steven to Randy Mills on setting the date for this same CIHT demo. (3 years ago and counting) It may be coincidence, but the recent mention in the LENR News of Rossi having raised significant capital via Cherokee - that may be the only reason that we have the present schedule, delayed as it is. If past history of BLP is an indicator, this demo will be a disappointment - the guest list will be carefully controlled, close inspection of the device will be impossible and it will not be truly self-powered. The big question: will the net electrical output be unequivocally above the 10 watt level? He almost has to come within a factor of 1000 of the Hot Cat. The fact that Mills has refused to change the "brain dead" naming of the device should be one clue to the arrogance of this situation and how divorced BLP is from having an actual marketing strategy. CIHT was probably Mills' chosen name and he is oblivious to snickering - just as he is oblivious to the many problems with his theory. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
for me the only question is about the reports of testing by visitors, and the last independent replication. If real, whatever we think of Hydrino, of the press release, it works at least enough to make a revolution at kW/kg scale. Fantastic news, even if all else is wrong. If not real, this is a sad story. Does anybody had confirmation by one of the testers? have their impression ? do they commit in public ? 2014/1/15 Jed Rothwell > James Bowery wrote: > > A truly annoying press release. >> > > Good summary. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Wired UK article on cold fusion
Pretty even handed, straight forward, and well written article. Cleary we are transitioning into that stage of development of a scientific truth that claims "It was self-evident all along". It's on us to make sure the history is not forgotten or revised once the technologies proliferate society and become undeniable. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > See: > > > http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/15/cold-fusion-moves-into-mainstream >
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
James Bowery wrote: A truly annoying press release. > Good summary. - Jed
[Vo]:Wired UK article on cold fusion
See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/15/cold-fusion-moves-into-mainstream
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
More... http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html Regarding the statement: “The disclosure of one of BlackLight’s patent application that was recently-filed worldwide, its 10 MW electric SF-CIHT cell system engineering design and simulation, high-speed video of millions of watts of supersonically expanding SF-CIHT cell plasma…” This says to me that the SF-CIHT is a pulsed system featuring a instantaneous high powered plasma pulse. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > In a pulsed system, the peak power might only be produced for a small > fraction of a second…like what happens in an explosion. > > The average power is a function of the repetition rate of the pulse. It > might be that the power produced by the SF-CIHT cell comes mostly from the > near instantaneous expansion of the water plasma. > > If this power production mechanism is the case, the SF-CIHT must be > engineered to capture all of this explosive force and convert it into > electric power. > > IMHO, this energy conversion process is best done in a reciprocating > piston engine design…as in the PAPP engine. > > You never see the power produced by explosive fuels like gasoline and > diesel fuel captured using direct electrostatic and magnetohydrodynamic > (MHD) conversion as Mills wants to do. > > But Aircraft do use turbine designs to move lots of air but then jet > engines are not pulsed systems. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> I wrote: >> >> >>> I do not think it is possible for such a small object to produce a >>> megawatt of power. It would melt. >>> >> >> Even if it were pure electricity this would not be possible without a >> superconducting cable. There is a shopping mall near my house. When you go >> in the back entrance you pass the power supplies. I think they are about 1 >> MW. The transformers and distribution cables are huge. >> >> Maybe this means 1 MW peak power? In a spark or something? Who knows. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In a pulsed system, the peak power might only be produced for a small fraction of a second…like what happens in an explosion. The average power is a function of the repetition rate of the pulse. It might be that the power produced by the SF-CIHT cell comes mostly from the near instantaneous expansion of the water plasma. If this power production mechanism is the case, the SF-CIHT must be engineered to capture all of this explosive force and convert it into electric power. IMHO, this energy conversion process is best done in a reciprocating piston engine design…as in the PAPP engine. You never see the power produced by explosive fuels like gasoline and diesel fuel captured using direct electrostatic and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) conversion as Mills wants to do. But Aircraft do use turbine designs to move lots of air but then jet engines are not pulsed systems. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >> I do not think it is possible for such a small object to produce a >> megawatt of power. It would melt. >> > > Even if it were pure electricity this would not be possible without a > superconducting cable. There is a shopping mall near my house. When you go > in the back entrance you pass the power supplies. I think they are about 1 > MW. The transformers and distribution cables are huge. > > Maybe this means 1 MW peak power? In a spark or something? Who knows. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
> On Jan 15, 2014, at 5:59, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Eric Walker wrote: > >> Without offering an opinion about whether Blacklight Power actually has a >> gainful reaction, I will say that this particular detail sounds like pure >> huxterism. > > Why? They seem to be devoting much of their money to identifying the > reaction. I assume they think they have done that. Maybe they are wrong, but > it does not seem like a scam. I was thinking more along the lines of it sounding like the words of a salesperson on an infomercial, extolling the ten scientifically proven benefits of new cosmetic cream. Perhaps there are now ten ways to systematically verify that what's going on is that hydrinos are being generated; or perhaps the person writing the press release is being a little optimistic. I don't get the sense that BLP is illegitimate, just that they may be over-invested in the founder's theory. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I wrote: > I do not think it is possible for such a small object to produce a > megawatt of power. It would melt. > Even if it were pure electricity this would not be possible without a superconducting cable. There is a shopping mall near my house. When you go in the back entrance you pass the power supplies. I think they are about 1 MW. The transformers and distribution cables are huge. Maybe this means 1 MW peak power? In a spark or something? Who knows. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
If hydrinos are real, are they a cause or an effect? Do hydrinos emerge from more basic processes that only happen in rare and unusual conditions? For example, cooper pairs of electrons only occur in superconductors. There are very specific and unusual conditions in a solid that produce cooper pairing. Clearly, hydrinos are not the usual condition of the electrons existence. If hydrinos were common, they would have shown up in many other experiments involving electrons. Another example is the fractional charge of the electron produced by the fractional Hall Effect. If Mills can demonstrate that hydrinos exist, this unusual state of electron behavior must be one of the 500 states of matter defined by each unique dance of the electrons between and among themselves. The question that must then be asked and answered, what is the strange music that these electrons dance to? In the presence of this new music, what other strange things are happening to other fermions in the neighborhood of these strange electrons: what are the protons doing, and the quarks inside the protons, and the other nuclei in the general vicinity? It maybe that the hydrino is just one small piece of a bigger puzzle and not the be all and end all of the Mills reaction. On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery wrote: > > the detailed chemistry and identification of Hydrinos by ten analytical >> methods that laboratories can follow and replicate are given at >> http://www.blacklightpower.com/. > > > Without offering an opinion about whether Blacklight Power actually has a > gainful reaction, I will say that this particular detail sounds like pure > huxterism. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Eric Walker wrote: > the detailed chemistry and identification of Hydrinos by ten analytical >> methods that laboratories can follow and replicate are given at >> http://www.blacklightpower.com/. > > > Without offering an opinion about whether Blacklight Power actually has a > gainful reaction, I will say that this particular detail sounds like pure > huxterism. > Why? They seem to be devoting much of their money to identifying the reaction. I assume they think they have done that. Maybe they are wrong, but it does not seem like a scam. The website itself does seem overblown. I do not think it is possible for such a small object to produce a megawatt of power. It would melt. A large truck engine produces about a half megawatt of mechanical propulsion, which I guess means it produces about 2 MW of waste heat as well. - Jed
