Re: [Vo]:Patent application on Least Action Nuclear Process (LANP)
Eric, thanks for summarizing his patent for the Vortex readers. From patenting ethics point of view this is a very strange approach trying to patent something, It almost looks like a quick job, dumping his mindset. His last figure is an example of that. He is following the track of worldwide patenting with this input however, which doesn't come cheap. Maybe he has an investor that backs him financially. Axil, thanks for confirming his basics makes sense. From your previous postings I suspected that, but it's good to see confirmation. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: The author lives in Davis, California, which is not that far from me. Here is the abstract: This invention describes the Least Action Nuclear Process (LANP). What makes this process different than that occurring in LENR or cold fusion devises is the temperature at which the nuclear process occurs, about 10^70 K [edited for clarity]. The process requires an element of new physics (a far-from-equilibrium blackbody theory), a poorly understood physical process (reversible thermodynamics), and a fundamental physics principle (Principle of Least Action) to model the electrolysis process wherein nuclear reactions occur. The invention can be used to understand, modify, enhance, calculate, or model the LANP process, or to understand, modify, enhance, model, design, manufacture, or operate, LANP devices, or to propose, study, design or apply new applications of LANP technology. There's an easier-to-read version of the patent here: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013184082A1?cl=en Some interesting details to mention: - He claims to be patenting a process (LANP), which, in his account, appears to be a natural rather than a mechanical process. The patent itself seems to consist of a description of a theory about this natural process. If we have heard elsewhere that it is dangerous to include bits of theory in a patent, he has bucked this wisdom and put all of his eggs in this basket. - He introduces a new temperature, the radiation temperature, which I believe consists of the energy flux through a surface defined between two fundamental particles, a back-and-forth sharing of energy he suggests happens trillions of times a second. The radiation temperature is conceived as a sort of near-field temperature that does not exist beyond the immediate environment of the particles being observed. - He seeks to differentiate his process from LENR by claiming that LENR is understood to occur at around 60-70 degrees celsius (in terms of the normal thermodynamic temperature), whereas LANP occurs at 10^70 K (radiation temperature). The reason we think LENR (which is really LANP) is happening at lower temperatures is that the very high (radiation) temperature relates to an adiabatic process that has no traces outside of the electrolytic cell. - He seems to believe that all LENR is actually LANP, and that LANP is a proper replacement for LENR. - He provides a number of embodiments. The embodiments appear to be either descriptions of existing LENR electrolytic devices, or a series of theoretical steps that build upon one another, or both. - Among other things, LANP attempts to explain the lack of radioactive byproducts by affecting selection rules. At a high level, I get the sense that he wants to differentiate LANP from LENR, while simultaneously replacing it with LANP, and then patent well-known LENR techniques under the new acronym. I only skimmed the patent, so I might have been mistaken on this point or missed something interesting. Eric On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: i found a patent application that was published on December 2013 on Least Action Nuclear Process, claiming an alternative explanation of what most of us see as LENR. The inventor, Daniel S. Szumski, presented this theory during ICCF17 I believe. Jed posted it here at Vortex a while ago. Link to the patent application: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=WONR=2013184082A1KC=A1FT=DND=date=20131212DB=locale=en_EP Does anyone have an opinion on this process? Axil, Jed?
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
I thought Kevin just made the point that Rossi was not convicted of a felony. I guess what you're saying is that even if he had been, it wouldn't matter. Well, that's an argument for another day. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:34 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Kevin, the skeptics have failed to prove that Rossi does not have a real device. They always fall back on character assassination when they have nothing left. I guess you might think that if someone once committed a felony, then it is likely that they might repeat. This belief may be true in many cases, but it is unfair to anyone who has changed their ways. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 12:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered There seems to be another thing that skeptopaths engage in. They try to turn any LENR discussion into Andrea Rossi and his past. LENR had 14,700 replications before Andrea Rossi ever showed up on the scene. And BTW, Wikipedia recently removed all the supposed convictions of fraud for Rossi, because the evidence could not support it under a very simple response by Rossi that they need to either put up or shut up, so they shut up. Rossi is convicted tax evader. That's it. No fraud convictions, if Wikipedia is to be believed. On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: How to know you're dealing with a skeptopath: they won't read the simplest evidence put in front of them. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32 To: *tacticalogic* *I'd be interested in a practical source of energy, and you keep hawking this like it is. Where's the beef?* Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion. First the refrain was cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated. Then, when the researchers did improve the repeatability, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated fifty percent of the time. Then, when repeatability increased past 50%, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated 100% of the time. Now, as some researchers repeatabiltity numbers approach 100%, the refrain has become the amount of power is miniscule, even if it can be repeated. So, the answer to your question is the beef is still growing. And an HONEST respondent would admit that. But in the not too distant future, I look forward to when LENR does produce usable amounts of power. I wonder what you skeptopaths will say then. 32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:28:54 AM PST* by Wonder Warthoghttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ewonderwarthog/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=32| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.32;reftype=comment| To 31 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#31 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=32 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=32] -- To: *Wonder Warthog* *Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion.* Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it. 33 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=33#33posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:34:11 AM PST* by tacticalogichttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etacticalogic/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=33| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.33;reftype=comment| To 32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#32 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=33 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=33] -- To: *tacticalogic* *Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it.* Not quite. I'll give you two starting places. The first is George Beaudette's book Excess Heat. You can access this either by buying a copy (Amazon)($), or via interlibrary loan (free or $ depending on the policies of your local library. The second is Edmund Storm's collection of summaries of LENR research, which can easily be found with Google search terms (Edmund Storms cold fusion pdf). Most of the pdf's can be found at LENR-CANR.org. All are available free. Now, why don't I give you direct links?? Because I have found that there is no better litmus test about the honesty or lack of same of the various skeptics that show up on these LENR threads. The skeptopaths will NOT follow
[Vo]:Predicting earthquakes... electrically?
Any interest in helping predict earthquakes? It'll only take a minute. An engineer named Eric Dollard (who was discussed here a few years ago) is re-building a seismic early warning system based on Tesla technology. The previous version narrowly predicted the Fukushima earthquake-tsunami event... before being lost to a real estate scam. But earthquakes are a huge danger for anyone on the Pacific coast, so he's rebuilding. You can lend a hand by supporting the indiegogo crowdfunding campaign below. (I have absolutely zero financial or other interest in this, FYI.) http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/eric-dollards-advanced-seismic-warning-system The system uses Tesla's electrostatic principle, it does NOT use electromagnetic signals. And like I said, it already worked great for several years the last time it was built. (This time they have support from the government, so people might listen when it says to duck and cover.)
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
gammas and xrays won't (as far as I know) turn a hdyrino into a hydrogen through ionization, but a cosmic ray (a high energy particle) *can* ionize a hyrino and turn it into a hydrogen when it recaptures some other electron. In Mills's theory, energy transfer to the catalyst (by bond breakage, electron ionization, kinetic energy) is done by Forster resonant energy transfer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rster_resonance_energy_transfer look at page 47-51 of this pdf I created: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf quoting text from it: Forster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) in Blacklight Power’s technology Monatomic hydrogen, the donor, transfers some integer multiple of 27.2 eV to acceptor (ie. 27.2, 54.4, 81.6, 108.8 eV etc). Energy comes from energy holes of 27.2 eV in hydrogen. Acceptor is a molecule or atom that has bond dissociation or electron ionization energy that exactly sums to an integer multiple of 27.2 eV. Forster Resonance Energy Transfer Radiationless, coulombic dipole/dipole energy transfer. Amount of energy transfer varies inversely with distance to 6th power such that it only occurs over very short distances, typically 2 -10 nm. Examples of FRET FRET transfer process occurs in phosphors that contain manganese and antimony ions resulting in a strong luminescence from the manganese. Older generations of mercury fluorescent light bulbs used this process. Molecular tags that luminesce in a FRET process are used in determining biological and chemical processes. Strength of the luminescence indicates distance between the molecular tags. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I have been following the hydrino discussion and I believe that the theory is that the spontaneous decay can not happen unless a vessel of the correct energy level is nearby. This catalyst has to accept the energy by near field coupling methods and not radiation of a photon which would be a far field effect. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the ground state into a hydrino state. If an input of energy was not required hydrinos would form spontaneously. Harry On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot yet understand why a 12,000 amp arc is required to build hydrinos in the Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) device. These electrons are lower in energy then most when holes from a catalyst remove energy from them. And when their energy gets really low then fusion happens. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. On the other hand in the nanopasmonic theory, the arc builds nanoparticles out of cooling plasma after arc discharge. This nanoparticle explanation seems like a better explanation to me. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the “ultraviolet catastrophe” of 19 th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they should radiate. A heated black body has a well define spectrum – the energy does not radiate in an ultraviolet flash. To resolve this problem, it was assumed that radiation could occur only at specific wavelengths. Upon this foundation an edifice was created which has many problems which theorists simply get used to. Mills study with Haus at MIT led him to new criteria for non-radiation based on the orbitsphere model and the work of Maxwell. It also led him to the possibility of extracting energy from hydrogen atoms by catalysis, which he has demonstrated many times. GUTCP is Mills’ attempt to apply his insight to the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated for decades, possibly leading to new insights. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at
[Vo]:NASA Presentation for LENR Aircraft
http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/17WELLS_ABSTRACT.pdf#overlay-context=seedling2014
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Jeff, it is so refreshing to find someone in the Vo/CMNS who has read Mills work carefully enough to understand what is going on, instead of mindless whacks based on a press release. Thanks for finding the Wikipedia discussion of the Forster energy transfer. Mills had cited it in earlier writings to show that the phenomenon was known to mainstream chemistry, and not a figment of his imagination. However, the Forster analysis is based on electromagnetic dipoles whose effect depends on orientation and very close proximity. If you examine some of visualizations of the orbitsphere, Mills shows magnetic field lines extending from the orbitspehere from the circulating currents. The influence of a proximate catalyst energy hole may distort the fields to effect the energy transfer. A dipole nay not be necessary. My own intuition, for what it is worth, is that Mills has not himself fully elucidated what happens. That may be a subject for generations of Ph.D. candidates. In the same vein, Mills now states that a H atom consists of an electro, a proton, and a photon. The usual description of a photon is a propagating wave packet of interlocked magnetic and electrostatic fields.. It is difficult; to picture such stuffed into an orbitsphere. I think language fails to describe Nature here, but Mills intuition nay remain a useful guide. Mike Carrell From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:jef...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:53 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement gammas and xrays won't (as far as I know) turn a hdyrino into a hydrogen through ionization, but a cosmic ray (a high energy particle) *can* ionize a hyrino and turn it into a hydrogen when it recaptures some other electron. In Mills's theory, energy transfer to the catalyst (by bond breakage, electron ionization, kinetic energy) is done by Forster resonant energy transfer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rster_resonance_energy_transfer look at page 47-51 of this pdf I created: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf quoting text from it: Forster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) in Blacklight Powers technology Monatomic hydrogen, the donor, transfers some integer multiple of 27.2 eV to acceptor (ie. 27.2, 54.4, 81.6, 108.8 eV etc). Energy comes from energy holes of 27.2 eV in hydrogen. Acceptor is a molecule or atom that has bond dissociation or electron ionization energy that exactly sums to an integer multiple of 27.2 eV. Forster Resonance Energy Transfer Radiationless, coulombic dipole/dipole energy transfer. Amount of energy transfer varies inversely with distance to 6th power such that it only occurs over very short distances, typically 2 -10 nm. Examples of FRET FRET transfer process occurs in phosphors that contain manganese and antimony ions resulting in a strong luminescence from the manganese. Older generations of mercury fluorescent light bulbs used this process. Molecular tags that luminesce in a FRET process are used in determining biological and chemical processes. Strength of the luminescence indicates distance between the molecular tags. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I have been following the hydrino discussion and I believe that the theory is that the spontaneous decay can not happen unless a vessel of the correct energy level is nearby. This catalyst has to accept the energy by near field coupling methods and not radiation of a photon which would be a far field effect. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the ground state into a hydrino state. If an input of energy was not required hydrinos would form spontaneously. Harry On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot yet understand why a 12,000 amp arc is required to build hydrinos in the Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) device. These electrons are lower in energy then most when holes from a catalyst remove energy from them. And when their energy gets really low then fusion happens. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. On the other hand in the nanopasmonic theory, the arc builds nanoparticles out of cooling plasma after arc discharge. This nanoparticle explanation seems like a better explanation to me. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the ultraviolet catastrophe of 19th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
if FRET (Forster Resonance Enegy Transfer) can happen for manganese in a dipole dipole energy transfer that varies with distance to the 1/6th power then Mills is not totally off base with his theory of a hydrogen transferring energy via FRET. this is all I could find at the moment for manganese/antimony FRET ...note, I think the 16 in the equations from this link is really (1/6) exponent with the slash missing : http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v7/i4/p1657_1 the hydrino has a an electric dipole when the density of charge builds up locally on the spherical surface, here is an animation from BLP website: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/FLASH/P_Orbital_HighRes.swf Also, Mill's trapped photon may be exactly the same as a gluon (which is standard accepted physics) - this is something that I would like to find out by asking Mills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Jeff, it is so refreshing to find someone in the Vo/CMNS who has read Mills’ work carefully enough to understand what is going on, instead of mindless whacks based on a press release. Thanks for finding the Wikipedia discussion of the Forster energy transfer. Mills had cited it in earlier writings to show that the phenomenon was known to mainstream chemistry, and not a figment of his imagination. However, the Forster analysis is based on electromagnetic dipoles whose effect depends on orientation and very close proximity. If you examine some of visualizations of the orbitsphere, Mills shows magnetic field lines extending from the orbitspehere from the circulating currents. The influence of a proximate catalyst energy hole may distort the fields to effect the energy transfer. A ‘dipole’ nay not be necessary. My own intuition, for what it is worth, is that Mills has not himself fully elucidated what happens. That may be a subject for generations of Ph.D. candidates. In the same vein, Mills now states that a H atom consists of an electro, a proton, and a photon. The usual description of a photon is a propagating wave packet of interlocked magnetic and electrostatic fields.. It is difficult; to picture such stuffed into an orbitsphere. I think language fails to describe Nature here, but Mills’ intuition nay remain a useful guide. Mike Carrell *From:* Jeff Driscoll [mailto:jef...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 9:53 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement gammas and xrays won't (as far as I know) turn a hdyrino into a hydrogen through ionization, but a cosmic ray (a high energy particle) *can* ionize a hyrino and turn it into a hydrogen when it recaptures some other electron. In Mills's theory, energy transfer to the catalyst (by bond breakage, electron ionization, kinetic energy) is done by Forster resonant energy transfer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rster_resonance_energy_transfer look at page 47-51 of this pdf I created: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf quoting text from it: Forster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) in Blacklight Power’s technology Monatomic hydrogen, the donor, transfers some integer multiple of 27.2 eV to acceptor (ie. 27.2, 54.4, 81.6, 108.8 eV etc). Energy comes from energy holes of 27.2 eV in hydrogen. Acceptor is a molecule or atom that has bond dissociation or electron ionization energy that exactly sums to an integer multiple of 27.2 eV. Forster Resonance Energy Transfer Radiationless, coulombic dipole/dipole energy transfer. Amount of energy transfer varies inversely with distance to 6th power such that it only occurs over very short distances, typically 2 -10 nm. Examples of FRET FRET transfer process occurs in phosphors that contain manganese and antimony ions resulting in a strong luminescence from the manganese. Older generations of mercury fluorescent light bulbs used this process. Molecular tags that luminesce in a FRET process are used in determining biological and chemical processes. Strength of the luminescence indicates distance between the molecular tags. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I have been following the hydrino discussion and I believe that the theory is that the spontaneous decay can not happen unless a vessel of the correct energy level is nearby. This catalyst has to accept the energy by near field coupling methods and not radiation of a photon which would be a far field effect. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the ground state into a hydrino state. If an input of
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ …and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is no doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can vary. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results seem to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory suggests. However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an exact signature, but none is found. Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to find the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is itself off target. In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV … and although this is close to the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for this signal is open to interpretation. In fact, I’ve been working on an alternative explanation for the 55 eV signal - involving the diproton reaction, (Reversible Proton Fusion) which will be presented at some point. It explains why this signature is NOT a precise Rydberg value, even though it is close - and why the signal derives from the XPS device itself (in its interaction with retained protons) – but the conclusion is that this signal is not derived from retained hydrinos being “reinflated.” Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ …and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is no doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can vary. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results seem to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory suggests. However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an exact signature, but none is found. Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to find the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is itself off target. In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV … and although this is close to the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for this signal is open to interpretation. In fact, I’ve been working on an alternative explanation for the 55 eV signal - involving the diproton reaction, (Reversible Proton Fusion) which will be presented at some point. It explains why this signature is NOT a precise Rydberg value, even though it is close - and why the signal derives from the XPS device itself (in its interaction with retained protons) – but the conclusion is that this signal is not derived from retained hydrinos being “reinflated.” Jones -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Your spiel is a complete cop out. The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. A so-called continuum with a cutoff is NOT a signature. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a continuum with a cutoff is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise - which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful - but you have drunk to kool-aid on this continuum with a cutoff BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones From: Jeff Driscoll As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnasce n%0d%0athyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal -uds-cs%0d%0aeusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ .and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino - since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is no doubt the tests were accurate - it is the interpretation that can vary. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results seem to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory suggests. However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to Mills' theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an exact signature, but none is found. Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to find the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE. and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is itself off target. In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV . and although this is close to the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for this signal is open to interpretation. In fact, I've been working on an alternative
RE: [Vo]:Steven Krivit : Federal Investigations Reveal Academic Backstabbing at Purdue University.
Thanks for pointing out the NET article, Alain. I recall a number of private conversations I had with Steve Krivit concerning the Tsoukalas vs. Taleyarkhan investigation. This was during a time when I was still on Krivit's BoD. (I was on the NET BoD for approximately 3-4 months and ending around May of 2010.) From what I had read Taleyarkhan did seem to have gotten the short end of a splintered stick. Meanwhile, Tsoukalas' professional behavior during the same time period struck me as less than stellar. Let me put it this way to the Vort Collective: I would not have wanted Tsoukalas to have been my boss. The whole affair is a fascinating account. I would encourage the curious to read up on it. It can occasionally read like a juicy soap opera spiced with questionable ethical behavior both on and off the court. I have said this before and I will say it again. Steve Krivit does have the capacity to perform excellent hard-hitting investigative work. I think Krivit's investigations into the Taleyarkhan affair is an example of what Krivit got more right than wrong. The following assessment is most certainly anecdotal and totally derived out of my own flawed opinions: Krivit gives me the impression that he excels at digging up dirt on others. If dirt really exists, such as in the Taleyarkhan account, Krivit is likely to exhume the remains and expose everything in full Technicolor. Unfortunately, if the interpretation of wrong-doing exists primarily within Krivit's personal perceptions, such as in the M4 investigations that alleged McKubre had misrepresented his experimental findings, Krivit is more in danger of coming across as something akin to a stringer for the National Enquirer - as perceived by those who may disagree with his conclusions. One of the principal reasons I resigned from the NET BoD was because I eventually came to the opinion that I flatly disagreed with Krivit's M4 conclusions - that along with Krivit's personal handling of himself on a radio interview where he implied that McKubre had lied about the M4 data. Krivit never came out and deliberately stated on that radio show that McKubre had lied. Krivit left that to the talk show host to state for the record. Krivit left no doubt in the audience's mind that that is precisely what he wanted the listeners to conclude as well. Putting a positive spin on this whole affair, sometimes the good guy does finish last. In this case, Tsoukalas is out of the picture while I gather Taleyarkhan, even if his professional reputation for the moment remains a tad frayed, still has his job at Purdue. That pretty much tells me everything I need to know about who really held on to his mojo and who couldn't. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Hello Jones I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum ( which was reproduced) proves that there is a until now unknown physical proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body reactions). Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Your spiel is a complete cop out. The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. A so-called continuum with a cutoff is NOT a signature. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a continuum with a cutoff is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise - which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful - but you have drunk to kool-aid on this continuum with a cutoff BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones From: Jeff Driscoll As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ .and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino - since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is no doubt the tests were accurate - it is the interpretation that can vary. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results seem to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory suggests. However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to Mills' theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an exact signature, but none is found. Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to find the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE. and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is itself off target. In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. The bottom
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
thank you Peter, Are there any more groups that you know replicated Mills's work - besides Rowan? The link above shows the authors to be H Conrads, R Mills and Th Wrubel, so Mills was involved but it was done outside of BLP laboratories (I assume). here is the abstract from the link you gave: A hydrogen plasma with intense extreme ultraviolet and visible emission was generated from low pressure hydrogen gas (0.1–1 mbar) in contact with a hot tungsten filament only when the filament heated a titanium dissociator coated with K2CO3 above 750°C. The electric field strength from the filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges. The emission of the Hαand H β transitions as well as the Lα and Lβ transitions were recorded and analysed. The plasma seemed to be far from thermal equilibrium, and no conventional mechanism was found to explain the formation of a hydrogen plasma by incandescently heating hydrogen gas in the presence of trace amounts of K2CO3. The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed. The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen. Our results indicate that a novel chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen plasma that is a potential new light source. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:15 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nlwrote: Hello Jones I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum ( which was reproduced) proves that there is a until now unknown physical proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body reactions). Peter v Noorden - Original Message - *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Your spiel is a complete cop out. The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. A so-called “continuum with a cutoff” is NOT a signature. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a “continuum with a cutoff” is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise – which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful – but you have “drunk to kool-aid” on this “continuum with a cutoff” BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones *From:* Jeff Driscoll As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature.
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Hi Peter, There is no reason to delve into unknown physical processes when there is a well known alternative way to test for a signature of hydrino redundancy. This was in fact performed in the Lehigh work. It is obvious and it could be done by Mills today, except for the fact that oops . it does not show anything helpful. There was no signature below 55 eV in the Lehigh testing and there was NO CONTINUM either. The very foundation of Mills' theory rests on the Hartree value of 27.2 eV. This is mentioned at the core of every Patent application which Mills' has file. The issue of a continuum energy was a late addition which has been based on the fact that there is no signature where there should be one. The fact that Mills cannot demonstrate a signature at this Hartree value has - in recent years forced him to retreat into another mode that he can defend since it is basically (s you say) an unknown physical process - which is this continuing spectrum. I think that it is a cop-out - pain and simple. I think the demo will be an insult to anyone without a financial interest in BLP - which is all of the yes men which will be in attendance. Ask Mills for permission that one skeptic attend - LOL. Mills goes into full retreat mode. The demo is a joke and it will be a stage publicity event - meaning very little other than to calm the fears of the guys who have already invested $80 million and are seeing that disappear with Andrea Rossi's HotCat. From: P.J van Noorden Hello Jones I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum ( which was reproduced) proves that there is a until now unknown physical proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body reactions). Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Your spiel is a complete cop out. The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. A so-called continuum with a cutoff is NOT a signature. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a continuum with a cutoff is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise - which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful - but you have drunk to kool-aid on this continuum with a cutoff BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones From: Jeff Driscoll As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnasce n%0d%0athyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal -uds-cs%0d%0aeusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Hello Jeff, Mills only provided the cell which was send to Conrads. Mills was not involved in the experiments which where done in Jüllich by Conrads (and a Phd). Conrads was a very respected plasmaphysicist (Germany). Unfortunateley he died years ago. A collegue of him in the Netherlands continued his work Peter - Original Message - From: Jeff Driscoll To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement thank you Peter, Are there any more groups that you know replicated Mills's work - besides Rowan? The link above shows the authors to be H Conrads, R Mills and Th Wrubel, so Mills was involved but it was done outside of BLP laboratories (I assume). here is the abstract from the link you gave: A hydrogen plasma with intense extreme ultraviolet and visible emission was generated from low pressure hydrogen gas (0.1–1 mbar) in contact with a hot tungsten filament only when the filament heated a titanium dissociator coated with K2CO3 above 750�C. The electric field strength from the filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges. The emission of the H� and H� transitions as well as the L� and L� transitions were recorded and analysed. The plasma seemed to be far from thermal equilibrium, and no conventional mechanism was found to explain the formation of a hydrogen plasma by incandescently heating hydrogen gas in the presence of trace amounts of K2CO3. The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed. The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen. Our results indicate that a novel chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen plasma that is a potential new light source. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:15 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nl wrote: Hello Jones I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum ( which was reproduced) proves that there is a until now unknown physical proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body reactions). Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Your spiel is a complete cop out. The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. A so-called “continuum with a cutoff” is NOT a signature. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a “continuum with a cutoff” is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise – which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful – but you have “drunk to kool-aid” on this “continuum with a cutoff” BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones From: Jeff Driscoll As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Like producing a positively charge sphere and bringing it near a negatively charged sphere in order to get the negative sphere to discharge? Harry On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I have been following the hydrino discussion and I believe that the theory is that the spontaneous decay can not happen unless a vessel of the correct energy level is nearby. This catalyst has to accept the energy by near field coupling methods and not radiation of a photon which would be a far field effect. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the ground state into a hydrino state. If an input of energy was not required hydrinos would form spontaneously. Harry On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot yet understand why a 12,000 amp arc is required to build hydrinos in the Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) device. These electrons are lower in energy then most when holes from a catalyst remove energy from them. And when their energy gets really low then fusion happens. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. On the other hand in the nanopasmonic theory, the arc builds nanoparticles out of cooling plasma after arc discharge. This nanoparticle explanation seems like a better explanation to me. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his classical theory. QM had its origin in the “ultraviolet catastrophe” of 19 th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they should radiate. A heated black body has a well define spectrum – the energy does not radiate in an ultraviolet flash. To resolve this problem, it was assumed that radiation could occur only at specific wavelengths. Upon this foundation an edifice was created which has many problems which theorists simply get used to. Mills study with Haus at MIT led him to new criteria for non-radiation based on the orbitsphere model and the work of Maxwell. It also led him to the possibility of extracting energy from hydrogen atoms by catalysis, which he has demonstrated many times. GUTCP is Mills’ attempt to apply his insight to the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated for decades, possibly leading to new insights. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because it is valid in its own context. Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills should only add to it. This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that his **classical physics** can do everything better than Quantum Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mills states: *The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics.* Since excitation occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the *BEC
Re: [Vo]:Steven Krivit : Federal Investigations Reveal Academic Backstabbing at Purdue University.
The article (5 parts) are published I noticed a paragraphe which remind me the book of Charles Beaudette about fleischPons tragedy... *Taleyarkhan contributed to the conflict in three ways. First, although he responded to his critics convincingly in scientific journals, he failed to proactively respond to his critics and their often-incorrect and damaging statements in the popular media. He waited until the last possible day to file a defamation lawsuit. * ... this match the description by Beaudette: In general, skeptics display the following habits. 1. *They do not express their criticism in those venues where it will be subject to peer review.* 2. They *do not go into the laboratory *and practice the experiment along side the practitioner (as does the critic). 3. *Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when they are merely guesses.* 4. *Questions are raised that concern matters outside of the boundaries of the claimed observation.* 5. *Satire, dismissal, and slander are freely employed.* 6. When explanations are advanced for a possible source, ad hoc reasons are instantly presented for their rejection. These rejections often assert offhand that the explanation violates some physical conservation law. 7. Evidence raised in support of the claims is rejected outright if it does not answer every possible question. No intermediate steps to find a source are acceptable 2014/1/20 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net Thanks for pointing out the NET article, Alain. I recall a number of private conversations I had with Steve Krivit concerning the Tsoukalas vs. Taleyarkhan investigation. This was during a time when I was still on Krivit's BoD. (I was on the NET BoD for approximately 3-4 months and ending around May of 2010.) From what I had read Taleyarkhan did seem to have gotten the short end of a splintered stick. Meanwhile, Tsoukalas' professional behavior during the same time period struck me as less than stellar. Let me put it this way to the Vort Collective: I would not have wanted Tsoukalas to have been my boss. The whole affair is a fascinating account. I would encourage the curious to read up on it. It can occasionally read like a juicy soap opera spiced with questionable ethical behavior both on and off the court. I have said this before and I will say it again. Steve Krivit does have the capacity to perform excellent hard-hitting investigative work. I think Krivit's investigations into the Taleyarkhan affair is an example of what Krivit got more right than wrong. The following assessment is most certainly anecdotal and totally derived out of my own flawed opinions: Krivit gives me the impression that he excels at digging up dirt on others. If dirt really exists, such as in the Taleyarkhan account, Krivit is likely to exhume the remains and expose everything in full Technicolor. Unfortunately, if the interpretation of wrong-doing exists primarily within Krivit's personal perceptions, such as in the M4 investigations that alleged McKubre had misrepresented his experimental findings, Krivit is more in danger of coming across as something akin to a stringer for the National Enquirer – as perceived by those who may disagree with his conclusions. One of the principal reasons I resigned from the NET BoD was because I eventually came to the opinion that I flatly disagreed with Krivit’s M4 conclusions – that along with Krivit’s personal handling of himself on a radio interview where he implied that McKubre had lied about the M4 data. Krivit never came out and deliberately stated on that radio show that McKubre had “lied”. Krivit left that to the talk show host to state for the record. Krivit left no doubt in the audience’s mind that that is precisely what he wanted the listeners to conclude as well. Putting a positive spin on this whole affair, sometimes the good guy does finish last. In this case, Tsoukalas is out of the picture while I gather Taleyarkhan, even if his professional reputation for the moment remains a tad frayed, still has his job at Purdue. That pretty much tells me everything I need to know about who really held on to his mojo and who couldn't. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I don’t know what Jones is attempting to prove by citing a Thermacore electrolytic cell experiment from long ago and neglecting the later years of studies in the gas phase with water bath calorimetery and magnetic resonance spectroscopy of effluent gases which show the presence of hydrinos. Mike Carrell _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:13 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ …and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is no doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can vary. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results seem to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory suggests. However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an exact signature, but none is found. Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to find the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is itself off target. In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV … and although this is close to the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for this signal is open to interpretation. In fact, I’ve been working on an alternative explanation for the 55 eV signal - involving the diproton reaction, (Reversible Proton Fusion) which will be presented at some point. It explains why this signature is NOT a precise Rydberg value, even though it is close - and why the signal derives from the XPS device itself (in its interaction with retained protons) – but the conclusion is that this signal is not derived from retained hydrinos being “reinflated.” Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
What Mills presents as a definitive demonstration of hydrinos is illustrate in the Technical Presentation using a special apparatus and performed by GEN 3 partners. The apparatus produces a stream of protons which is illuminated by a burst from an electron gun. The spectrum from the creation of hydrogen atoms is in the sub 10 nanometer range, below the cutoff point for normal hydrogen. Mike Carrell From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:jef...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:27 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible to ionize a hydrino with high temperatures, gamma radiation, or other energetic processes? This should be able to return the hydrino back into hydrogen again which should be detected. I suppose that if these processes can impact the hydrinos then they should not be considered dark manner by definition. Dave, Yes, this procedure you mention is rather obvious - and it has in fact been done; but one reason that you do not hear about this particular finding on a regular basis could be that the results are open to interpretation. I am going to present the interpretation which Mills does not want you to hear. You can make your own judgment on what is really happening. The most convincing paper on hydrinos which is available to view - was not performed by Mills but by Thermacore. Long term excess heat was found as was a time delayed signature. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascen https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnasce nthyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-c seusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ thyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cs eusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ .and in that paper the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino - since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is no doubt the tests were accurate - it is the interpretation that can vary. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. In this case, the results seem to support some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds NO 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory suggests. However, XPS does find the a 55 eV signal/signature, which is close to Mills' theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV but not exact. However, the XPS device is in fact capable of showing an exact signature, but none is found. Mike Carrel has also mentioned that Mills has lately dropped efforts to find the lower Rydberg signature in favor of the H(1/4). What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE. and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster since the higher energy signal is itself off target. In fact, it is clear to me that the Mills theory cannot be accurate, given the independent testing, and that there is no signal at the all-important level of 27.2 eV and in fact the higher level signal is itself NOT at the exact Rydberg level but is off by up to 8 percent. The bottom line is that nickel has been proven to not only produce excess energy, but to capture hydrogen in such a way that when irradiated by soft x-rays, it will emit a signature at 55 eV . and although this is close to the Rydberg multiple at 54.4 eV it is not exact, and thus the source for this signal is open to interpretation. In fact, I've been working on an alternative explanation for the 55 eV signal - involving the diproton reaction, (Reversible Proton Fusion) which will be presented at some point. It explains why this signature is NOT a precise Rydberg value, even though it is close - and why the signal derives from the XPS device itself (in its interaction with retained protons) - but the conclusion is that this signal is not
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Mike, I am bit surprised and disappointed that you apparently do not realize that the study in question was indeed gas phase. This was in fact a nickel hydrogen (capillary tube) reactor of Thermacore’s own design, and the study was done for the Air Force at Wright Patterson. This is as close to the Rossi effect as anything seen by others … only it preceded Rossi by over 10 years and it has never been debunked by skeptics. The experiment is stronger than anything even done by Mills IMHO, and there is nothing that comes close from any other third party. The XPS from Lehigh was independent of Mills. _ From: Mike Carrell I don’t know what Jones is attempting to prove by citing a Thermacore electrolytic cell experiment from long ago and neglecting the later years of studies in the gas phase with water bath calorimetery and magnetic resonance spectroscopy of effluent gases which show the presence of hydrinos. Mike Carrell attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Hello Jones You mean the experiment in which a very long capillary tube of nickel was pressurised with H2 gas and put in a K2CO3 solution? Peter - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 7:11 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mike, I am bit surprised and disappointed that you apparently do not realize that the study in question was indeed gas phase. This was in fact a nickel hydrogen (capillary tube) reactor of Thermacore’s own design, and the study was done for the Air Force at Wright Patterson. This is as close to the Rossi effect as anything seen by others … only it preceded Rossi by over 10 years and it has never been debunked by skeptics. The experiment is stronger than anything even done by Mills IMHO, and there is nothing that comes close from any other third party. The XPS from Lehigh was independent of Mills. _ From: Mike Carrell I don’t know what Jones is attempting to prove by citing a Thermacore electrolytic cell experiment from long ago and neglecting the later years of studies in the gas phase with water bath calorimetery and magnetic resonance spectroscopy of effluent gases which show the presence of hydrinos. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:NASA Presentation for LENR Aircraft
Wells was proposing that project in 2013, what have happened mean while? http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1757-LENR-Aircraft-gets-NASA-research-grant http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/2013#SeedlingPhaseI any news? 2014/1/20 Marcus Haber tr...@gmx.de http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/17WELLS_ABSTRACT.pdf#overlay-context=seedling2014
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Hello Peter, Here is the citation on the LENR site. The fact that it is an older paper should not diminish the fact that it was in Mills’ interest to ignore both the results and the Lehigh technique. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdfsa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cseusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ sa=Uei=e0DdUq3AIsTgyQHUyoGIAgved=0CAYQFjAAclient=internal-uds-cseusg=AFQjCNG_00ZwiWP5nfDF2NVjs0l9AOKQmQ As Dave immediately recognized – this is the obvious way that one validates a redundant ground state. The reason that Mills does not now do validation in this way could be because he realizes that it does not really validate his contention well enough - that there are various progressive steps in redundancy. Plus the value is not exactly the predicted value, and it is off by a significant fraction (55 eV instead of 54.4 eV). At the time that slight variation seemed to be within acceptable limits, and in fact Thermacore said it was “predicted by Mills” but now, with better testing twenty years later - the truth may be “inconvenient” … and the true value may indeed be the higher energy level number, which is not a Rydberg multiple as Mills’ theory suggests that it should be. Yes – that is an opinion and a reinterpretation - so we can leave it like that for now, and agree to disagree until more is known. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Dear Peter, as usual, Mills will proceed on his own agenda. On the SCP forum, he has mentioned he will show the device now illustrated and talk about applications. The website will be updated with more details. The MHD energy converter is not yet ready, so the overall package cannot be characterized yet. The Validation reports on the CIHT show the possibilities of *nascent* H2O as a catalyst, but designing an acceptable domestic appliance may be difficult. In the end, widespread public acceptance of devices is what counts, not the opinions of critics. Mike Carrell From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:00 PM To: VORTEX Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Dear Mike, Just about the BLP's Demo of Jan 28, I want to mention that DGT has presented a 9+ hours demo at ICCF 18 and 2 days before it has officially published A PROTOCOL predicting the paameters and results they will obtain during the demo. See please: DEFKALION'S TEST PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC DEMO http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-c ode.html DEFKALION HAS KEPT ITS PROMISE http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html I think Randy could do the same thing, it demonstrates that he rules the situation and the device. Plus he can explain what he actually has achieved , both in power and in energy. Such a Protocol is necessary, I think. Peter On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, You say that hydrinos are dark matter. What do you base this statement upon? I have long believed that dark matter and energy do not actually exist, but am open to ideas. It seems that the scientific community comes up with concepts to explain everything except LENR by imagining possible solutions. They may be correct about the dark duo, but it is important for them to show some firm proof, which is lacking. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although *study* is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers. Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as dark matter and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com? ] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Taking the hypothesis that Mills Hydrino theory is not valid, (please, take that hypothesis as an experience of thinking) is it possible according to given evidence that Mills and Blacklight experience a classic LENR+, similar to what Brillouin obtain from it's Qwave, similar to what Defkalion obtains from it's plasma pulse, similar to Mizuno work, or similar to more classic LENR ... could his third party test have simply validated a classic LENR+ 2014/1/20 Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com Dear Peter, as usual, Mills will proceed on his own agenda. On the SCP forum, he has mentioned he will show the device now illustrated and talk about applications. The website will be updated with more details. The MHD energy converter is not yet ready, so the overall package cannot be characterized yet. The Validation reports on the CIHT show the possibilities of **nascent** H2O as a catalyst, but designing an acceptable domestic appliance may be difficult. In the end, widespread public acceptance of devices is what counts, not the opinions of critics. Mike Carrell *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:00 PM *To:* VORTEX *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Dear Mike, Just about the BLP's Demo of Jan 28, I want to mention that DGT has presented a 9+ hours demo at ICCF 18 and 2 days before it has officially published A PROTOCOL predicting the paameters and results they will obtain during the demo. See please: DEFKALION'S TEST PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC DEMO http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-code.html DEFKALION HAS KEPT ITS PROMISE http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html I think Randy could do the same thing, it demonstrates that he rules the situation and the device. Plus he can explain what he actually has achieved , both in power and in energy. Such a Protocol is necessary, I think. Peter On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, You say that hydrinos are dark matter. What do you base this statement upon? I have long believed that dark matter and energy do not actually exist, but am open to ideas. It seems that the scientific community comes up with concepts to explain everything except LENR by imagining possible solutions. They may be correct about the dark duo, but it is important for them to show some firm proof, which is lacking. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although **study** is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers. Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as “dark matter” and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com eric.wal...@gmail.com?] *Sent:* Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
What is **nascent** H2O as a catalyst? Is this similar or identical to Santilli's HHO? On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Taking the hypothesis that Mills Hydrino theory is not valid, (please, take that hypothesis as an experience of thinking) is it possible according to given evidence that Mills and Blacklight experience a classic LENR+, similar to what Brillouin obtain from it's Qwave, similar to what Defkalion obtains from it's plasma pulse, similar to Mizuno work, or similar to more classic LENR ... could his third party test have simply validated a classic LENR+ 2014/1/20 Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com Dear Peter, as usual, Mills will proceed on his own agenda. On the SCP forum, he has mentioned he will show the device now illustrated and talk about applications. The website will be updated with more details. The MHD energy converter is not yet ready, so the overall package cannot be characterized yet. The Validation reports on the CIHT show the possibilities of **nascent** H2O as a catalyst, but designing an acceptable domestic appliance may be difficult. In the end, widespread public acceptance of devices is what counts, not the opinions of critics. Mike Carrell *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:00 PM *To:* VORTEX *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Dear Mike, Just about the BLP's Demo of Jan 28, I want to mention that DGT has presented a 9+ hours demo at ICCF 18 and 2 days before it has officially published A PROTOCOL predicting the paameters and results they will obtain during the demo. See please: DEFKALION'S TEST PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC DEMO http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-code.html DEFKALION HAS KEPT ITS PROMISE http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html I think Randy could do the same thing, it demonstrates that he rules the situation and the device. Plus he can explain what he actually has achieved , both in power and in energy. Such a Protocol is necessary, I think. Peter On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, You say that hydrinos are dark matter. What do you base this statement upon? I have long believed that dark matter and energy do not actually exist, but am open to ideas. It seems that the scientific community comes up with concepts to explain everything except LENR by imagining possible solutions. They may be correct about the dark duo, but it is important for them to show some firm proof, which is lacking. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although **study** is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers. Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as “dark matter” and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.comeric.wal...@gmail.com?] *Sent:* Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Alan , BLP belongs to the chemical world, LENR= Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, a whole different world. Both have proceeded for decades in the expectation of a new power source for mankind. Defkalion belongs to the LENR world. There are a number of other 'exotic' energy devices proposed. Both BLP and LENR point to new phenomena not part of 'mainstream' physics and neither has yet a commercial system, although in my opinion, BLP is ahead. Mike Carrell From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain Sepeda Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:07 PM To: Vortex List Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Taking the hypothesis that Mills Hydrino theory is not valid, (please, take that hypothesis as an experience of thinking) is it possible according to given evidence that Mills and Blacklight experience a classic LENR+, similar to what Brillouin obtain from it's Qwave, similar to what Defkalion obtains from it's plasma pulse, similar to Mizuno work, or similar to more classic LENR ... could his third party test have simply validated a classic LENR+ 2014/1/20 Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com Dear Peter, as usual, Mills will proceed on his own agenda. On the SCP forum, he has mentioned he will show the device now illustrated and talk about applications. The website will be updated with more details. The MHD energy converter is not yet ready, so the overall package cannot be characterized yet. The Validation reports on the CIHT show the possibilities of *nascent* H2O as a catalyst, but designing an acceptable domestic appliance may be difficult. In the end, widespread public acceptance of devices is what counts, not the opinions of critics. Mike Carrell From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:00 PM To: VORTEX Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Dear Mike, Just about the BLP's Demo of Jan 28, I want to mention that DGT has presented a 9+ hours demo at ICCF 18 and 2 days before it has officially published A PROTOCOL predicting the paameters and results they will obtain during the demo. See please: DEFKALION'S TEST PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC DEMO http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-c ode.html DEFKALION HAS KEPT ITS PROMISE http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html I think Randy could do the same thing, it demonstrates that he rules the situation and the device. Plus he can explain what he actually has achieved , both in power and in energy. Such a Protocol is necessary, I think. Peter On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, You say that hydrinos are dark matter. What do you base this statement upon? I have long believed that dark matter and energy do not actually exist, but am open to ideas. It seems that the scientific community comes up with concepts to explain everything except LENR by imagining possible solutions. They may be correct about the dark duo, but it is important for them to show some firm proof, which is lacking. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although *study* is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers. Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as dark matter and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com? ] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license.
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Jones, the Thermacore experiment was done before I was tracking the scene, and I believe Mills and Thermacore had gone their separate ways. You might term it a gas phase experiment because the capillary tubing was internally pressurized. The excess heat reaction occurred in an electrolytic environment with K+ ions the catalyst. For Mills it confirmed his hypothesis, but the energy density was too low to be useful. The gas phase experiments were done at about 1 Torr in a microwave-excited Evanson cavity. This provided a controllable research environment, but still not the needed energy density, which led to solid catalysts. There H and a catalyst are intimate until an activation temperature is reached. An early system based on this was verified at Rowan University with cooperation of the chemistry department. You have been diligent in highlighting mistakes and dead ends that Mills has encountered: I am also aware of them, but I prefer to highlight the progress. Mike arrell _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 1:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Mike, I am bit surprised and disappointed that you apparently do not realize that the study in question was indeed gas phase. This was in fact a nickel hydrogen (capillary tube) reactor of Thermacore’s own design, and the study was done for the Air Force at Wright Patterson. This is as close to the Rossi effect as anything seen by others … only it preceded Rossi by over 10 years and it has never been debunked by skeptics. The experiment is stronger than anything even done by Mills IMHO, and there is nothing that comes close from any other third party. The XPS from Lehigh was independent of Mills. _ From: Mike Carrell I don’t know what Jones is attempting to prove by citing a Thermacore electrolytic cell experiment from long ago and neglecting the later years of studies in the gas phase with water bath calorimetery and magnetic resonance spectroscopy of effluent gases which show the presence of hydrinos. Mike Carrell attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:The published critics on LENR calorimetries
After reading Beaudette's book (Excess Heat) I would like to list, details the critics that were published on LENR calorimetries. Forget about theory, neutrons, isotopic shifts... just calorimetry. corrst me if I'm wrong He talk of 4 critics. 1- Nathan Lewis, who was unable to stirr his cell, unlike Fleischman. Fleischmann show it was stirring quickly, but it took 1-3 (90/92) years to make a real experiment showing with measurements the perfect stirring including near the walls. 2- Lee Hansen criticized the data reduction techniques (91). It seems good. Later he simply observed in 1995 at BYU recombination (and like Lewis) assumed it was ruining all data since the beginning... good experiment, exgagerated conclusion. Fleischman hopefully measured recombinations1%(via replaced quantity). Oriani separated gas. McKubre, Huggin, Oriani had closed cell. Moreover control cells should suffer too. Burst are hard to explain too. B Buehler at BYU like Some claim of chemical energy release, but it was ridiculous given the quantity of energy. 3-Wilson who was quite competent and raised minor corrections, not able to turn down the biggest results. Beaudette recognize he was the only competent, yet overstating his findings. In a way he have also conformed many assumption of Fleischmann (no stirring needed). Papers (3) are said good by beaudette, peer-reviewed. reinterpreted without the assumptions, it is a confirmation of reality, and canceling of many critics. Minor question on data reduction critics, which cannot rule out a big result. 4-Morrison critics in 1994 was according to Beaudette a misunderstanding, and Morrison when facing details did not answer. beside what was written there was some demand of control experiment... many asked light water, but it was not really identical for calorimetry. Fleischmann proposed dead palladium, or palladium. (who, was it expressed?). Some says that inactive period, before of after burst were blank period. I notice that if as some says there was no positive, but there was huge changes, it was meaning either negative energy, or huge storage above chemical possibility... as an engineer I would be enthusiast to find a possibility to store and free energy at that density? why if they believed they fairy tale, don't they try to make an industry of that ? (sorry not to be scientific) I remember of CCS theory but it does not match burst events, blank cells, dead cells, good calibration of some cell like McKubre isotherm cells... Maybe some could add some detail about that recent critic Shanahan had other critics, and I found a rebuttal on many claims, from electrolysis to iwamura and mizuno styles... What I would like is detailed rebuttal, references, but als detaile recognition of problems ... If one would have to make a magazine with the serious critics and their rebuttal and confirmation, what would be in ? the booklet any hones skeptic should have!
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
I've had a chance to read Jeff's helpful slides [1] and have some questions. But first I want to make sure I've gotten the basic points right. Here is my current understanding of Mills's theory (there are several related ones going around). I am trying to understand the main points of Mills's explanation as he presents it, rather than modifications that have been made to it by others (without saying anything about the usefulness of such modifications). Please correct any details I have gotten wrong. - A hydrino is a form of monoatomic hydrogen in which the electron has entered a redundant state, below the ground state (n=1). Redundant levels include 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc., all the way to 1/137, which is (approximately) the fine structure constant. - A hydrino is formed when the monoatomic hydrogen donor encounters a catalytic acceptor. - Acceptors are atoms or molecules that have a bond dissociation energy or a combined ionization energy of one or more of their electrons that is a multiple of 27.2 eV. Acceptors include water, which accepts either through bond dissociation, or through the ionization of three electrons, receiving as a result 81.6 = 3*27.2 eV; and a potassium atom, whose first three ionization energies are 4.3407 + 31.63 + 45.806 = 81.7 eV = 3*27.2 eV. - This transfer of energy to the acceptor is radiationless, in the sense that it only has effects in the near field, and it is accomplished via Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET). - When a hydrino is formed, not only is energy passed on to the acceptor via FRET, there is also an emission of photons in a broadband spectrum, which is bounded on one end by a well-defined cutoff. This second manner of transferring energy to the environment via broadband photon emission is due to the electron spiraling down to the new redundant energy level. - When an electron moves down to the lowest redundant level, 1/137, it becomes a photon. - The orbit of an electron at a given redundant level is described by an orbitsphere. The orbitsphere has a dipole moment, in which charge is concentrated in some parts of it more than others. This provides the basis for an alternative explanation for the Stern-Gerlach experiment, in which a spin quantum number was inferred for the electron by the clean bifurcation of silver atoms against a target under the influence of an inhomogeneous magnetic field, in contrast to a continuous distribution against the target, which is what would have been expected if there were no electron spin. - The orbitsphere describes the orbits of both redundant and non-redundant electron levels. All levels are thin and spherical in shape, in contrast to the large variety of electron clouds proposed in the atomic orbital model that is in wide use today. - Hydrinos are a possible explanation for dark matter, to which gravitational lensing and the fast angular momentum of certain galaxies is attributed. - Once a hydrino has formed, light does not generally interact with it, and it effectively becomes invisible. The hydrino continues to have mass and, hence, gravitational effects. - There are no characteristic peaks in spectra capturing the production of hydrinos, apart from those expected from the ionization of the acceptor. The generation of hydrinos must be inferred from the heat they impart to the catalyst and from the broadband distribution and predicted cutoff seen in spectra. Have I messed anything up? To what extent is the preceding account that of Mills, and to what extent has it been modified, either intentionally by others, or unintentionally by me? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
From: Mike Carrell Alan , BLP belongs to the chemical world, LENR= Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, a whole different world. This clearly defined kind of bifurcation is what Randell Mills and his financial backers would dearly love for you to believe. It can mean billions to them in the end. Mike could be correct on this or not, but it is imperative to state all of the options. For many on the fence - BLP has not yet come close to making a good case for that chemical only proposition. I can almost guarantee that Mills device will produce the same low levels of transmutation that are seen in LENR, and this is precisely why he lets no one into that Lab without the strictest NDA you have ever seen. It is his billion dollar secret and it is well-protected. In fact, it is just as likely that BLP is indeed the using same underlying modus operandi as LENR whether Mills likes it or not. Even the most brilliant inventor does not get to dictate the science and physics which make a device work or not. This will NOT be Mills prerogative, in the end - brilliant as he is. However, there is also a third view which has been voiced over the years on Vortex - and it is the one which gets comparatively little press because it pleases neither camp. This is the view that the hydrino is a predecessor state or condition which may produce a little excess energy on its own - but it inevitably goes to LENR as the next step. IOW the hydrino is the predecessor state to LENR. It is worth repeating that this stance pleases almost no one in either camp, and therefore to the contrarian - it must be correct :-) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
I agree with you, Jones. The hydrino or something like it allows LENR to occur. The only variation in the various theories comes from how this special state functions. Mills focuses only on creation of the state, not its role in LENR, as you note. He took this stand early even though he saw and reported tritium production because he did not want to get sucked in the rejection hole into which LENR had fallen. The only information of value is the recipe used to make energy. This recipe is guided by theory but the theory can not be patented so people cannot be stopped from using it as a guide to find better recipes. Mills and people in the LENR field all suffer from the same problem. They are addicted to their theory. If the theory is close to reality, they can make progress. However, most theories are not close to reality. Mills has a method that works up to a point. But, as you note as well, his theory, although impressive, has prevented him from finding the best recipe so far. Nevertheless, he has discovered some interesting behavior, just as LENR has done. The race is on to find out how these behaviors can be applied. I think LENR is ahead of the game because the important behaviors have been made public, not hidden as Mills has done. Rossi is ahead because he has applied these behaviors even though he does not understand their meaning. In contrast, Mills claims to understand the meaning, but is having a hard time finding an effective application. Perhaps this time he has. Only time will tell. When the smoke clears, I expect only one mechanism will be operating in both energy generators. Ed Storms On Jan 20, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Mike Carrell Alan , BLP belongs to the chemical world, LENR= Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, a whole different world. This clearly defined kind of bifurcation is what Randell Mills and his financial backers would dearly love for you to believe. It can mean billions to them in the end. Mike could be correct on this or not, but it is imperative to state all of the options. For many on the fence - BLP has not yet come close to making a good case for that “chemical only” proposition. I can almost guarantee that Mills device will produce the same low levels of transmutation that are seen in LENR, and this is precisely why he lets no one into that Lab without the strictest NDA you have ever seen. It is his billion dollar secret and it is well-protected. In fact, it is just as likely that BLP is indeed the using same underlying modus operandi as LENR whether Mills likes it or not. Even the most brilliant inventor does not get to dictate the science and physics which make a device work or not. This will NOT be Mills prerogative, in the end – brilliant as he is. However, there is also a third view which has been voiced over the years on Vortex - and it is the one which gets comparatively little press because it pleases neither camp. This is the view that the hydrino is a predecessor state or condition which may produce a little excess energy on its own - but it inevitably goes to LENR as the next step. IOW the hydrino is the predecessor state to LENR. It is worth repeating that this stance pleases almost no one in either camp, and therefore to the contrarian – it must be correct J Jones
RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I have read Conrad’s account of his experiments, which were very well done and clearly demonstrated he phenomena Mills claimed when the Mills conditions were met. His report was available on the BLP websitefor some time. Mike Carrell From: P.J van Noorden [mailto:pjvannoor...@caiway.nl] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 12:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Hello Jeff, Mills only provided the cell which was send to Conrads. Mills was not involved in the experiments which where done in Jüllich by Conrads (and a Phd). Conrads was a very respected plasmaphysicist (Germany). Unfortunateley he died years ago. A collegue of him in the Netherlands continued his work Peter - Original Message - From: Jeff Driscoll mailto:jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement thank you Peter, Are there any more groups that you know replicated Mills's work - besides Rowan? The link above shows the authors to be H Conrads, R Mills and Th Wrubel, so Mills was involved but it was done outside of BLP laboratories (I assume). here is the abstract from the link you gave: A hydrogen plasma with intense extreme ultraviolet and visible emission was generated from low pressure hydrogen gas (0.1–1 mbar) in contact with a hot tungsten filament only when the filament heated a titanium dissociator coated with K2CO3 above 750�C. The electric field strength from the filament was about 1 V cm−1, two orders of magnitude lower than the starting voltages measured for gas glow discharges. The emission of the H� and H� transitions as well as the L� and L� transitions were recorded and analysed. The plasma seemed to be far from thermal equilibrium, and no conventional mechanism was found to explain the formation of a hydrogen plasma by incandescently heating hydrogen gas in the presence of trace amounts of K2CO3. The temporal behaviour of the plasma was recorded via hydrogen Balmer alpha line emission when all power into the cell was terminated and an excessive afterglow duration (2 s) was observed. The plasma was found to be dependent on the chemistry of atomic hydrogen with potassium since no plasma formed with Na2CO3 replacing K2CO3 and the time constant of the emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell matched that of the cooling of the filament and the resulting shift from atomic to molecular hydrogen. Our results indicate that a novel chemical power source is present and that it forms the energetic hydrogen plasma that is a potential new light source. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:15 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nl wrote: Hello Jones I have talked to plasmaphysicists and they say that the continuumspectrum ( which was reproduced) proves that there is a until now unknown physical proces going on when hydrogen atoms collide (probably during 3 body reactions). Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:39 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:BLP's announcement Your spiel is a complete cop out. The Lehigh chart, which I have seen, shows a distinct signature. A so-called “continuum with a cutoff” is NOT a signature. It is a subterfuge. Mills has been frustrated over the years in being unable to show a distinct signature for the first level of redundancy (27.2) and this crap about a “continuum with a cutoff” is his feeble attempt to show what he cannot show otherwise – which is a real signature. He can show line broadening in the visible range - which is somewhat helpful – but you have “drunk to kool-aid” on this “continuum with a cutoff” BS as being anything other than a generalization, meaning nothing. If it were not for the fine study by Thermacore, Mills could probably get away with this kind of intellectual dishonesty. He is looking more and more like a charlatan and this upcoming demo will be an insult. Jones From: Jeff Driscoll As far as I know, Mills's theory does not predict a continuum radiation having a cuttoff at a frequency that corresponds to a 27.2 eV for transitions that start from n = 1 (maybe fractional to fractional transition does, I don't know) see here: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/19pn.gif And, Mills theory only has continuum radiation with a cuttoff frequency. There are no photons emitted that have a specific frequency that shows up sharply on a graph. That's why it is hard to detect hydrino photon emission during hydrino creation. I try to explain it all here on pages 52-55: http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf Jeff On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: David Roberson A thought just occurred to me. Is it not possible
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
From: Edmund Storms Mills focuses only on creation of the state, not its role in LENR... He took this stand early even though he saw and reported tritium production because he did not want to get sucked in the rejection hole into which LENR had fallen. Excellent point, Ed This may come as a bombshell to a few vorticians ... tritium ... from Randell Mills ... wow, and no doubt Mills would like to take that particular report back. Never mind that it goes back over 20 years. Lucky for him that Fusion Technology is so stingy with their online access. But a slight amount of tritium is probably unavoidable in any reaction of hydrogen in a transition metal - a least one that runs for longer than a day or two. OTOH, the presence of tritium even in tiny amounts is UNEQUIVOCAL proof of LENR. So that's a pretty good thing (for everyone but BLP). The downside is that this could keep LENR out of the US house, or US automobile, until such a time that it can be dealt with by the bureaucracy. No problem for China. Breathing a bit of tritium could be an improvement over the normal air quality there :-) attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Jones, tritium is only produced when H is used, as Mills is doing. Use of pure deuterium does not produce tritium while producing much more energy. Mills needs to switch to deuterium, but if he did he would have to admit he was causing a nuclear reaction. He has created a no win situation. Tritium is not a serious heath hazard. It is presently used in emergency signs in many buildings. Ed On Jan 20, 2014, at 3:41 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Mills focuses only on creation of the state, not its role in LENR... He took this stand early even though he saw and reported tritium production because he did not want to get sucked in the rejection hole into which LENR had fallen. Excellent point, Ed This may come as a bombshell to a few vorticians ... tritium ... from Randell Mills ... wow, and no doubt Mills would like to take that particular report back. Never mind that it goes back over 20 years. Lucky for him that Fusion Technology is so stingy with their online access. But a slight amount of tritium is probably unavoidable in any reaction of hydrogen in a transition metal - a least one that runs for longer than a day or two. OTOH, the presence of tritium even in tiny amounts is UNEQUIVOCAL proof of LENR. So that's a pretty good thing (for everyone but BLP). The downside is that this could keep LENR out of the US house, or US automobile, until such a time that it can be dealt with by the bureaucracy. No problem for China. Breathing a bit of tritium could be an improvement over the normal air quality there :-) winmail.dat
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Jeff, I would be very surprised if the atom did not radiate energy under the conditions demonstrated in your second link. A distant observer would see an E field that is changing direction back and forth at the rotation rate. This is exactly the behavior expected from a short dipole radiator. If Mills used an approximation to derive the lack of radiation, then it would be quite easy to neglect the small term that demonstrates the radiation. The reason being that this tiny term goes to zero in the limiting case as the charge rotation speed goes to zero. A very slow charge distribution rotation rate is easy to assume to be unimportant and not radiating and, in fact, it is a very poor antenna. Unfortunately, any amount of radiation is too much, so the charge must not be allowed to change distribution in time to obtain that goal. I suggest you look up short dipole antennas if you are interested in what I am describing. My earlier discussion of the continuous charge distribution being non radiating is valid. The information on your site showing how Mills describes his orbitspheres as being the equivalent of an infinite number of small loops would work as a non radiating design. This is true if the current through each loop is DC and not changing as you appeared to describe. Since each loop can be shown to be non radiating, the entire vector sum of all of the infinitesimal loops is also non radiating. As I also pointed out earlier, any 3 dimensional set of loops would also not radiate as long as DC current is enforced in each. This would include the S, P, D, or any other arrangement as shown with quantum mechanics. All they need to do to ensure that no radiation is emitted at a stable orbital is to force the electrons to be distributed per above instead of existing as a single moving point. If I recall correctly, those models do not attempt to track the position of the electron in time. That should be adequate provided the position of the electron is truly a probability function. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 10:49 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement if FRET (Forster Resonance Enegy Transfer) can happen for manganese in a dipole dipole energy transfer that varies with distance to the 1/6th power then Mills is not totally off base with his theory of a hydrogen transferring energy via FRET. this is all I could find at the moment for manganese/antimony FRET ...note, I think the 16 in the equations from this link is really (1/6) exponent with the slash missing : http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v7/i4/p1657_1 the hydrino has a an electric dipole when the density of charge builds up locally on the spherical surface, here is an animation from BLP website: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/FLASH/P_Orbital_HighRes.swf Also, Mill's trapped photon may be exactly the same as a gluon (which is standard accepted physics) - this is something that I would like to find out by asking Mills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Jeff, it is so refreshing to find someone in the Vo/CMNS who has read Mills’ work carefully enough to understand what is going on, instead of mindless whacks based on a press release. Thanks for finding the Wikipedia discussion of the Forster energy transfer. Mills had cited it in earlier writings to show that the phenomenon was known to mainstream chemistry, and not a figment of his imagination. However, the Forster analysis is based on electromagnetic dipoles whose effect depends on orientation and very close proximity. If you examine some of visualizations of the orbitsphere, Mills shows magnetic field lines extending from the orbitspehere from the circulating currents. The influence of a proximate catalyst energy hole may distort the fields to effect the energy transfer. A ‘dipole’ nay not be necessary. My own intuition, for what it is worth, is that Mills has not himself fully elucidated what happens. That may be a subject for generations of Ph.D. candidates. In the same vein, Mills now states that a H atom consists of an electro, a proton, and a photon. The usual description of a photon is a propagating wave packet of interlocked magnetic and electrostatic fields.. It is difficult; to picture such stuffed into an orbitsphere. I think language fails to describe Nature here, but Mills’ intuition nay remain a useful guide. Mike Carrell From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:jef...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:53 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement gammas and xrays won't (as far as I know) turn a hdyrino into a hydrogen through ionization, but a cosmic ray (a high energy particle) *can* ionize a hyrino and turn it into a hydrogen when it recaptures
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
I don't understand it, but it seems to be answered here - on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition quoting from portions: Classical nonradiation conditions define the conditions according to classical electromagnetism under which a distribution of accelerating charges will not emit electromagnetic radiation. According to the Larmor formula in classical electromagnetism, a single point charge under acceleration will emit electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light. In some classical electron models a distribution of charges can however be accelerated so that no radiation is emitted.[1] The modern derivation of these nonradiation conditions by Hermann A. Haus is based on the Fourier components of the current produced by a moving point charge. It states that a distribution of accelerated charges will radiate if and only if it has Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light.[2] The nonradiation condition went largely ignored for many years. Philip Pearle reviews the subject in his 1982 article Classical Electron Models.[7] A Reed College undergraduate thesis on nonradiation in infinite planes and solenoids appears in 1984.[8] An important advance occurred in 1986, when Hermann Haus derived Goedeke’s condition in a new way.[2] Haus finds that all radiation is caused by Fourier components of the charge/current distribution that are lightlike (i.e. components that are synchronous with light speed). When a distribution has no lightlike Fourier components, such as a point charge in uniform motion, then there is no radiation. Haus uses his formulation to explain Cerenkov radiation in which the speed of light of the surrounding medium is less than c. Randell Mills uses the nonradiation condition as the foundation for his model of the hydrogen atom, in which the electron is a two-dimensional extended membrane of negative charge that is stable according to this condition.[9] Mills' model is controversial and not accepted by the scientific community, which currently accepts the theory of quantum mechanics in which the electron does not need to obey classical physics. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_A._Haus On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jeff, I would be very surprised if the atom did not radiate energy under the conditions demonstrated in your second link. A distant observer would see an E field that is changing direction back and forth at the rotation rate. This is exactly the behavior expected from a short dipole radiator. If Mills used an approximation to derive the lack of radiation, then it would be quite easy to neglect the small term that demonstrates the radiation. The reason being that this tiny term goes to zero in the limiting case as the charge rotation speed goes to zero. A very slow charge distribution rotation rate is easy to assume to be unimportant and not radiating and, in fact, it is a very poor antenna. Unfortunately, any amount of radiation is too much, so the charge must not be allowed to change distribution in time to obtain that goal. I suggest you look up short dipole antennas if you are interested in what I am describing. My earlier discussion of the continuous charge distribution being non radiating is valid. The information on your site showing how Mills describes his orbitspheres as being the equivalent of an infinite number of small loops would work as a non radiating design. This is true if the current through each loop is DC and not changing as you appeared to describe. Since each loop can be shown to be non radiating, the entire vector sum of all of the infinitesimal loops is also non radiating. As I also pointed out earlier, any 3 dimensional set of loops would also not radiate as long as DC current is enforced in each. This would include the S, P, D, or any other arrangement as shown with quantum mechanics. All they need to do to ensure that no radiation is emitted at a stable orbital is to force the electrons to be distributed per above instead of existing as a single moving point. If I recall correctly, those models do not attempt to track the position of the electron in time. That should be adequate provided the position of the electron is truly a probability function. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 10:49 am Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement if FRET (Forster Resonance Enegy Transfer) can happen for manganese in a dipole dipole energy transfer that varies with distance to the 1/6th power then Mills is not totally off base with his theory of a hydrogen transferring energy via FRET. this is all I could find at the moment for manganese/antimony FRET ...note, I think the 16 in the equations from this link is really (1/6) exponent with the slash missing :
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: All they need to do to ensure that no radiation is emitted at a stable orbital is to force the electrons to be distributed per above instead of existing as a single moving point. If I recall correctly, those models do not attempt to track the position of the electron in time. I believe the charge distribution in the orbitsphere is heterogeneous, in order to provide a replacement for the spin quantum number [1]. This gives the sphere an electric dipole moment. Two questions I have are (1) what regulates the distribution of charge when there's a single orbitsphere (e.g., hydrogen), and (2) how do the orbitspheres orient themselves when there are multiple, encapsulating orbitspheres? For example, why does the charge distribution not vary over time? And when there are multiple, containing orbitspheres, do they cancel one another out, with the distributions orienting in order to minimize Coulomb repulsion? Also, since the charge density over the orbitsphere is heterogeneous, I take it that a single great circle of circulating current of width dx will not have a vector sum of charge of zero. That should be adequate provided the position of the electron is truly a probability function. I get the impression that probability is not thought to apply -- the orbitsphere is the sum total of an infinite number of great circles of circulating current of width dx and (possibly varying) thickness dz. Perhaps I'm mistaken on this point. Eric [1] http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/FLASH/P_Orbital_HighRes.swf
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Mills can hardly keep the transmutations secret forever. Is that what is taking him so long . . . trying to get those nasty pollutants out of his experiments to protect his theory? :-)
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Secrets, what secrets? He has published profusely. What may be withheld is know-how to optimize performance. There is a pervasive disbelief in his findings and an itch to 'improve' on his methods and surprise when his results are not seen. I have been at pains in my recent posts to identify the core problem in devising an application device. Apparently it is simply not seen or understood. When a BLP device becomes real there will be a rush to copy. Mike Carrell -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Mills can hardly keep the transmutations secret forever. Is that what is taking him so long . . . trying to get those nasty pollutants out of his experiments to protect his theory? :-) This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
[Vo]:PESN: Mills explains upcoming BLP demo
Sort of explains. More info than I have seen so far. See: http://pesn.com/2014/01/20/9602425_Randell-Mills_explains_upcoming-Blacklight-power-demo/
RE: [Vo]:PESN: Mills explains upcoming BLP demo
From: Jed Rothwell Sort of explains. More info than I have seen so far. See: http://pesn.com/2014/01/20/9602425_Randell-Mills_explains_upcoming-Blackligh t-power-demo/ What exactly will they be demonstrating on January 28? Revealing quote: Mills clarified that it would not be the 10 MW system, which is presently in process of being built, and could be ready in a matter of weeks. Imagine that. How odd that they have scheduled this hurried demo, shortly after it is revealed that Rossi has raised a lot of investment capital. and now the demo turns out to really be a non-demo since the machine is not ready yet. yet they (supposed) could have waited a few weeks and demonstrated the real machine. Instead they will be showing what ? Computer graphics and videos LOL
[Vo]:Mills's theory
I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's theory of the atom. == For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine structure constant, alpha = 1/137.035999 Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago: “It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.” Feynman also said: ”It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: A magic number with no understanding by man” In my view, the value of the fine structure constant is explained by Randell Mills’s model of the hydrogen atom. In Mills’s model, the principal quantum number n can take on fractional values with the smallest being n =1/137. For purposes of the following energy calculations, assume an electron is orbiting around the proton in a stable orbit at the principal quantum number n = 1/137.035999 (i.e. the fine structure constant, alpha) and has a radius R based on Mills's theory. An electron orbiting at this radius R has the following 5 energy calculations related to it and they *all* equal exactly 510998.896 eV or the rest mass of the electron (this is to 9+ significant digits!). The energy equations are: 1. Resonant energy of the vacuum for a sphere having radius R. 2. Capacitive energy of a sphere having radius R. 3. Magnetic energy for an electron orbiting a proton on the infinite number of great circles (as described by Mills) on the surface of a sphere having radius R. 4. Planck equation energy for a photon having a wavelength that matches a sphere having radius R. 5. Electric potential energy for an electron evaluated at infinity relative to a sphere having radius R with a proton at the center. The amazing thing is that these 5 energy equations above are classical, meaning no quantum theory is involved and it uses Newtonian dynamics and Maxwell’s equations. The 5 energy equations are exactly the same as found in physics textbooks. The energy equations are related to Mills's Pair Production (where a photon is converted into an electron) and to have an organized, logical theory have such a coincidence where they all equal the rest mass of the electron would be impossible in my view. Mills's equations for the radius of the orbiting electron can be derived using the same methods as Niels Bohr but with slightly different postulates. 1. Bohr postulated that the momentum of the electron was equal to the principal quantum number multiplied by the reduced Planck constant for all stable orbits. Mills postulates that the momentum of the electron is equal to *only* the reduced Planck constant at all stable orbits (i.e. it is not a function of principal quantum number). 2. Bohr postulated that the electric charge experienced by the electron due to the proton is equal to e (the elementary charge) for all stable orbits. Mills postulates that the electric charge experienced by the electron due to the proton *and* the trapped photon is equal to e/n or the elementary charge divided by the principal quantum number for all stable orbits. You can find out more about Randell Mills's theory at my website here: http://zhydrogen.com Side note: Mills's lowest allowed orbit is 1/137 not 1/137.035999 and (I think) the difference between the two numbers is related to a small magnetic interaction between the electron and the proton. You can see more detail in Mills's book, Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) which is streamed here: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
Eric, if you are asking me this question, I would refer most of it to the Mills experts. I am sorry if I mixed up the quantum theory with Mills' theory in that post. I was attempting to explain how the probabilistic location and movement of electrons according to quantum mechanics is non radiating. As long as an observer at the far field locations does not detect a change in the E or H field vectors as a function of time, then no radiation will be generated. Begin with a DC current flowing within a loop of wire and you will see that at a far off location the H field remains constant for all time. No change generally means no radiation. Of course, there exists a constant value which leads to the magnetic field due to the loop current. Note that this is also at a zero radian per second rate if expressed in frequency terms. If you look into the situation further, you will realize that any 3 dimensional current path is non radiational provided the current flows at a constant rate at every point along the structure. Charges will be accelerated in most wire configurations, but no radiation is generated. The S,P,D, and any other orbital shapes can be accommodated. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 8:04 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: All they need to do to ensure that no radiation is emitted at a stable orbital is to force the electrons to be distributed per above instead of existing as a single moving point. If I recall correctly, those models do not attempt to track the position of the electron in time. I believe the charge distribution in the orbitsphere is heterogeneous, in order to provide a replacement for the spin quantum number [1]. This gives the sphere an electric dipole moment. Two questions I have are (1) what regulates the distribution of charge when there's a single orbitsphere (e.g., hydrogen), and (2) how do the orbitspheres orient themselves when there are multiple, encapsulating orbitspheres? For example, why does the charge distribution not vary over time? And when there are multiple, containing orbitspheres, do they cancel one another out, with the distributions orienting in order to minimize Coulomb repulsion? Also, since the charge density over the orbitsphere is heterogeneous, I take it that a single great circle of circulating current of width dx will not have a vector sum of charge of zero. That should be adequate provided the position of the electron is truly a probability function. I get the impression that probability is not thought to apply -- the orbitsphere is the sum total of an infinite number of great circles of circulating current of width dx and (possibly varying) thickness dz. Perhaps I'm mistaken on this point. Eric [1] http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/FLASH/P_Orbital_HighRes.swf
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, if you are asking me this question, I would refer most of it to the Mills experts. I am sorry if I mixed up the quantum theory with Mills' theory in that post. Ah, no doubt my mistake. The hypothesized situations were so similar that I assumed you were discussing the Mills model of the atom. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
My bad. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 11:13 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, if you are asking me this question, I would refer most of it to the Mills experts. I am sorry if I mixed up the quantum theory with Mills' theory in that post. Ah, no doubt my mistake. The hypothesized situations were so similar that I assumed you were discussing the Mills model of the atom. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
I, like you would greatly appreciate a theory that is more classical and deterministic. But, there is a great deal of human intellect and energy involved in quantum theory and we must be careful before it can be abandoned. It is our task to remain skeptical of a new theory and subject it to proper scrutiny. For this reason I am asking questions that I assume will have direct answers. I am confident that there are many other vorts that share my concerns. If the theory is valid, it will stand up to any test that we can subject it to. Mills should appreciate the opportunity that is before him to prove his assertions. One question comes up immediately from what you have just written about the fine structure constant. Why does the electron in that particular orbitsphere travel at the speed of light without any apparent increase of mass? I would anticipate that the momentum or energy calculations would be seriously impacted once that speed is approached. Special Relativity appears to work well in every case that I have analyzed and I wonder how it comes into play with Mills theory? I guess I would like to understand how the 1/137 orbitsphere is affected by special relativity considerations? I suspect that the number would be modified to something like 1/135 for example. Any comment? Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 20, 2014 11:00 pm Subject: [Vo]:Mills's theory I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's theory of the atom. == For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine structure constant, alpha = 1/137.035999 Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago: “It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.” Feynman also said: ”It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: A magic number with no understanding by man” In my view, the value of the fine structure constant is explained by Randell Mills’s model of the hydrogen atom. In Mills’s model, the principal quantum number n can take on fractional values with the smallest being n =1/137. For purposes of the following energy calculations, assume an electron is orbiting around the proton in a stable orbit at the principal quantum number n = 1/137.035999 (i.e. the fine structure constant, alpha) and has a radius R based on Mills's theory. An electron orbiting at this radius R has the following 5 energy calculations related to it and they *all* equal exactly 510998.896 eV or the rest mass of the electron (this is to 9+ significant digits!). The energy equations are: 1. Resonant energy of the vacuum for a sphere having radius R. 2. Capacitive energy of a sphere having radius R. 3. Magnetic energy for an electron orbiting a proton on the infinite number of great circles (as described by Mills) on the surface of a sphere having radius R. 4. Planck equation energy for a photon having a wavelength that matches a sphere having radius R. 5. Electric potential energy for an electron evaluated at infinity relative to a sphere having radius R with a proton at the center. The amazing thing is that these 5 energy equations above are classical, meaning no quantum theory is involved and it uses Newtonian dynamics and Maxwell’s equations. The 5 energy equations are exactly the same as found in physics textbooks. The energy equations are related to Mills's Pair Production (where a photon is converted into an electron) and to have an organized, logical theory have such a coincidence where they all equal the rest mass of the electron would be impossible in my view. Mills's equations for the radius of the orbiting electron can be derived using the same methods as Niels Bohr but with slightly different postulates. 1. Bohr postulated that the momentum of the electron was equal to the principal quantum number multiplied by the reduced Planck constant for all stable orbits. Mills postulates that the momentum of the electron is equal to *only* the reduced Planck constant at all stable orbits (i.e. it is not a function of principal quantum number). 2. Bohr postulated that the electric charge experienced by the electron due to the proton is equal to e (the elementary charge) for all stable orbits. Mills postulates that the electric charge experienced by the electron due to the proton *and* the trapped photon is equal to e/n or the elementary charge divided by the principal quantum number for all stable orbits. You can find out more about Randell Mills's theory at my website here: http://zhydrogen.com Side note: Mills's lowest allowed orbit is 1/137 not 1/137.035999 and (I think) the difference between the two numbers is related to a small magnetic interaction between the electron and the
Re: [Vo]:PESN: Mills explains upcoming BLP demo
I am very impressed. My initial suspicion has been bolstered that Mills has developed a new version of the Papp engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine It is a Wankel engine variation that has 60 reaction spaces that fire at 200 times a minute. That is a firing rate of 12,000 pulses/minute, as compared to 500 for the Papp engine. The fuel produces nanoparticles that are super ionized by the arc where only the innermost electrons of the crystal remain unaffected in their atomic orbits. From Papp technology, there is little heat produced by the reaction: almost complete photo ionization of the potassium and hydrogen nanoparticles. Milles most probably is using potassium carbonate as the catalyst because it has the proper engineering characteristics to produce nanoparticles. Even though Papp technology is open source, the Mills engine design is original and innovative so his intellectual property claim might hold up. Here is a snippet from Papp engine theory that explains the basics of the power production principles. Remember that water and potassium can produce solid nanoparticles just like noble gases do. --- *Where does the explosive force come from?* The force produced in the Papp engine comes from the explosion of these clusters of gas and water atoms under the excitation of ultraviolet and x-rays. As the energy of this EMF goes up so does the explosive power of the clusters. When TNT explodes, the mass of the expanding gas is high but the speed of the associated shockwave is relatively low. On the other hand, the shockwave produced in the Papp cluster explosion reaction is some appreciable fraction of the speed of light even if the mass of the gas ions involved in the cluster fragment expansion is small when compared to what happens in a chemical based explosion. Even with these large differences in the parameters in the equation of force, the forces produced in these two dissimilar reactions; that is, between chemical explosion and electromagnetic shockwave generation as a product of the mass and velocity is similar in magnitude. The more a cluster is ionized, the easier it is for x-ray photons to further ionize additional electrons in that cluster. Energy levels in bulk materials are significantly different from materials in the nanoscale. Let’s, put it this way: Adding energy to a confined system such as a cluster is like putting a tiger in a cage. A tiger in a big zoo with open fields will act more relaxed, because he has a lot of room to wander around. If you now confine him in smaller and smaller areas, he gets nervous and agitated. It's a lot that way with electrons. If they're free to move all around through a metal, they have low energy. Put them together in a cluster and beam x-rays on them, they get very excited and try to get out of the structure. In getting to the breaking point, when the ionized cluster eventually reaches an ionization limit where the remaining electrons cannot sustain the structural integrity of the cluster any longer, an explosive disintegration of the cluster and subsequent plasma expansion of the positive ions and electrons which once formed the cluster occurs. Multi-electron ionization of molecules and clusters can be realized by photoionization of strong x-ray photons. The multi-electron ionization leads to an explosive disintegration of the cluster together with the production of multi-charged atomic ions fragments. The kinetic energy of the product ions formed by this explosion is of the order of several or tens eV in a diatomic, hundreds of eV in small van der Waals(VDW) clusters, and 100 KeV to 1 MeV in large (n 1000) VDW clusters. What causes this accelerating weakening of the structure under the onslaught of x-ray photons radiation is “barrier suppression ionization”. The initial arrival of x-ray photons begin the formation of plasma that is localized within the cluster itself. The electrons initially dislodged by the x-ray photons orbit around the outside of the cluster. These electrons lower the coulomb barrier holding the electrons that remain orbiting the cluster’s inner atoms. These remaining electrons reside in the inner orbits closer in to the nuclei of their atoms. Excess electric negative charge in the gas carrying the clusters will also add to the suppression of the coulomb barrier further supporting cascading cluster ionization. Papp uses every trick in the book to pack as many electrons in the noble gas mix as he possibly can. When enough electrons are removed, the structure of the cluster cannot sustain itself any longer and the cluster explodes. In order to take advantage of the energy produced by “barrier suppression ionization”, the designers of the Papp reaction must satisfy two main engineering goals: first, large noble gas clusters must be formulated, and two, copious amounts of high energy x-ray photons must be produced. *Where Excess Power Comes From*
Re: [Vo]:PESN: Mills explains upcoming BLP demo
The reason that Papp moved away from water to noble gases was the corrosive nature of water on his cylinder. This corrosion be a serious problem for Mills. His machine will not function for long due to structural degradation in his reaction spaces. Experiments using hydrogen in the Papp cylinder resulted in a black powder formation after a very short running time. No such problem was seen using helium. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am very impressed. My initial suspicion has been bolstered that Mills has developed a new version of the Papp engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine It is a Wankel engine variation that has 60 reaction spaces that fire at 200 times a minute. That is a firing rate of 12,000 pulses/minute, as compared to 500 for the Papp engine. The fuel produces nanoparticles that are super ionized by the arc where only the innermost electrons of the crystal remain unaffected in their atomic orbits. From Papp technology, there is little heat produced by the reaction: almost complete photo ionization of the potassium and hydrogen nanoparticles. Milles most probably is using potassium carbonate as the catalyst because it has the proper engineering characteristics to produce nanoparticles. Even though Papp technology is open source, the Mills engine design is original and innovative so his intellectual property claim might hold up. Here is a snippet from Papp engine theory that explains the basics of the power production principles. Remember that water and potassium can produce solid nanoparticles just like noble gases do. --- *Where does the explosive force come from?* The force produced in the Papp engine comes from the explosion of these clusters of gas and water atoms under the excitation of ultraviolet and x-rays. As the energy of this EMF goes up so does the explosive power of the clusters. When TNT explodes, the mass of the expanding gas is high but the speed of the associated shockwave is relatively low. On the other hand, the shockwave produced in the Papp cluster explosion reaction is some appreciable fraction of the speed of light even if the mass of the gas ions involved in the cluster fragment expansion is small when compared to what happens in a chemical based explosion. Even with these large differences in the parameters in the equation of force, the forces produced in these two dissimilar reactions; that is, between chemical explosion and electromagnetic shockwave generation as a product of the mass and velocity is similar in magnitude. The more a cluster is ionized, the easier it is for x-ray photons to further ionize additional electrons in that cluster. Energy levels in bulk materials are significantly different from materials in the nanoscale. Let’s, put it this way: Adding energy to a confined system such as a cluster is like putting a tiger in a cage. A tiger in a big zoo with open fields will act more relaxed, because he has a lot of room to wander around. If you now confine him in smaller and smaller areas, he gets nervous and agitated. It's a lot that way with electrons. If they're free to move all around through a metal, they have low energy. Put them together in a cluster and beam x-rays on them, they get very excited and try to get out of the structure. In getting to the breaking point, when the ionized cluster eventually reaches an ionization limit where the remaining electrons cannot sustain the structural integrity of the cluster any longer, an explosive disintegration of the cluster and subsequent plasma expansion of the positive ions and electrons which once formed the cluster occurs. Multi-electron ionization of molecules and clusters can be realized by photoionization of strong x-ray photons. The multi-electron ionization leads to an explosive disintegration of the cluster together with the production of multi-charged atomic ions fragments. The kinetic energy of the product ions formed by this explosion is of the order of several or tens eV in a diatomic, hundreds of eV in small van der Waals(VDW) clusters, and 100 KeV to 1 MeV in large (n 1000) VDW clusters. What causes this accelerating weakening of the structure under the onslaught of x-ray photons radiation is “barrier suppression ionization”. The initial arrival of x-ray photons begin the formation of plasma that is localized within the cluster itself. The electrons initially dislodged by the x-ray photons orbit around the outside of the cluster. These electrons lower the coulomb barrier holding the electrons that remain orbiting the cluster’s inner atoms. These remaining electrons reside in the inner orbits closer in to the nuclei of their atoms. Excess electric negative charge in the gas carrying the clusters will also add to the suppression of the coulomb barrier further supporting cascading cluster ionization.
Re: [Vo]:PESN: Mills explains upcoming BLP demo
Not every photon which encounters an atom or ion will photoionize it. The probability of photoionization is related to the photoionization cross-section, which depends on the energy of the photon and the target being considered. For photon energies below the ionization threshold, the photoionization cross-section is near zero. But with the development of pulsed lasers it has become possible to create extremely intense, coherent light where multi-photon ionization may occur. At even higher intensities (around 1015 - 1016 W/cm2 of infrared or visible light), non-perturbativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-perturbativephenomena such as *barrier suppression ionization* and *rescattering ionization* are observed. I I suggest that Mills add some chlorine and/or helium to his concoction to provide more powerful x-ray production from his spark. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excimer_laser On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am very impressed. My initial suspicion has been bolstered that Mills has developed a new version of the Papp engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine It is a Wankel engine variation that has 60 reaction spaces that fire at 200 times a minute. That is a firing rate of 12,000 pulses/minute, as compared to 500 for the Papp engine. The fuel produces nanoparticles that are super ionized by the arc where only the innermost electrons of the crystal remain unaffected in their atomic orbits. From Papp technology, there is little heat produced by the reaction: almost complete photo ionization of the potassium and hydrogen nanoparticles. Milles most probably is using potassium carbonate as the catalyst because it has the proper engineering characteristics to produce nanoparticles. Even though Papp technology is open source, the Mills engine design is original and innovative so his intellectual property claim might hold up. Here is a snippet from Papp engine theory that explains the basics of the power production principles. Remember that water and potassium can produce solid nanoparticles just like noble gases do. --- *Where does the explosive force come from?* The force produced in the Papp engine comes from the explosion of these clusters of gas and water atoms under the excitation of ultraviolet and x-rays. As the energy of this EMF goes up so does the explosive power of the clusters. When TNT explodes, the mass of the expanding gas is high but the speed of the associated shockwave is relatively low. On the other hand, the shockwave produced in the Papp cluster explosion reaction is some appreciable fraction of the speed of light even if the mass of the gas ions involved in the cluster fragment expansion is small when compared to what happens in a chemical based explosion. Even with these large differences in the parameters in the equation of force, the forces produced in these two dissimilar reactions; that is, between chemical explosion and electromagnetic shockwave generation as a product of the mass and velocity is similar in magnitude. The more a cluster is ionized, the easier it is for x-ray photons to further ionize additional electrons in that cluster. Energy levels in bulk materials are significantly different from materials in the nanoscale. Let’s, put it this way: Adding energy to a confined system such as a cluster is like putting a tiger in a cage. A tiger in a big zoo with open fields will act more relaxed, because he has a lot of room to wander around. If you now confine him in smaller and smaller areas, he gets nervous and agitated. It's a lot that way with electrons. If they're free to move all around through a metal, they have low energy. Put them together in a cluster and beam x-rays on them, they get very excited and try to get out of the structure. In getting to the breaking point, when the ionized cluster eventually reaches an ionization limit where the remaining electrons cannot sustain the structural integrity of the cluster any longer, an explosive disintegration of the cluster and subsequent plasma expansion of the positive ions and electrons which once formed the cluster occurs. Multi-electron ionization of molecules and clusters can be realized by photoionization of strong x-ray photons. The multi-electron ionization leads to an explosive disintegration of the cluster together with the production of multi-charged atomic ions fragments. The kinetic energy of the product ions formed by this explosion is of the order of several or tens eV in a diatomic, hundreds of eV in small van der Waals(VDW) clusters, and 100 KeV to 1 MeV in large (n 1000) VDW clusters. What causes this accelerating weakening of the structure under the onslaught of x-ray photons radiation is “barrier suppression ionization”. The initial arrival of x-ray photons begin the formation of plasma that is localized within the cluster
