Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Ahh, cheers. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 01/24/2014 06:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Correction, make that 41%. It's not Cherokee but rather Tom Darden (investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at Cherokee, BA Economics) who are the players here. It'd be good to find out who those other investors are. According the this link, it's the Cherokee Investment Partners, which is the group that invests in real estate and other ventures through the Cherokee fund. http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/ snapshot.asp?privcapId=127890 At the bottom you can see that they recently invested in Industrial Heat LLC. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.comwrote: I think the validation should be more in this style 10 up to minus 7 is stupid 1% is next to stupid 20% a hard call 50% a good chance and with some support very likely 80% JUST DO IT A SURE THING The last two just requires attention. I know I am an optimist and that my comments are anything but science. However, it is all basedon Pareto's law and it works in 80% of all cases. Statistical odds is far different and they are not of any significance as they are driven by mass-hysteria and are totally unpredictable as we learnt the first lesson in statistics. Reason is that they mostly are presented without the total numbers it is based on. If the first two have different opinion then anything is possible. The reall problem is that most percentages are derivated out of the odds . A real evaluation and my numbers are ok if you are involved. Not involved then it is gambling and I have heard that peope are winning the lottery so who knows . . This is a pretty good take on it. I agree 50% is a very very good chance considering the extremely world changing technology here. It's also important to keep in mind that my estimate is just one, the beginning of the conversation. What we need is a collection of estimates from various individuals each with a range of error and bias. We account for those, mix them all together, and come up with an amazingly accurate estimate. I'll be the first to admit, my error range is probably higher than most here, but my bias is probably much lower and I do have a proven history of being successful in this arena. It's like crowd sourcing a group of people guessing jellybeans in a jellybean jar.
Re: [Vo]:Digital Journal reports on Industrial Heat deal with Rossi
I suppose the archives of this mailing list will be a mine-field for them. It would be nice if the older stuff were easier to get at in a search engine (rather than having to download in compressed form). Eric Absolutely! You should get Jed to host it or something.
[Vo]:History of Cherokee
Quite fascinating. Like Rossi, Tom Darden has been intimately involved in repurposing industrial contaminated waste as something useful. Kindred souls? Something more? Fellow con artists? You decide. HISTORY In 1984, a group of investors including Tom Darden purchased four brick plants and merged them to form Cherokee Sanford Group (CSG), which grew to become the largest privately held brick manufacturer in North America. When we discovered petroleum-contaminated soil at one of the plant sites, the regulators suggested taking the impaired soil to a nearby landfill. As an alternative, CSG proposed mixing it with clean clay in the brick-making process. The combustion in the kilns burned up the fuel oil in the soil. From this beginning, CSG started a business of receiving contaminated clay from underground storage tank clean-ups. By 1990, CSG was the largest soil remediator in the mid-Atlantic region, eventually cleaning up nearly 15 million tons of contaminated material. Tom Darden and John Mazzarino formed the predecessor company of Cherokee in 1993 to focus exclusively on environmentally impaired assets. In 1994 they organized a risk management advisory affiliate and then formed Cherokee's first institutional capital (Fund I) in 1996. Cherokee formed a $250 million private equity fund (Fund II) in 1998, a $620 million fund (Fund III) in 2002, and its current, $1.2 billion fund (Fund IV) in 2005.
Re: [Vo]:Industrial Heat Acquires E-Cat Technology
DOS was more a CP/M clone than Unix... Unix is structurally multiprocess with virtual memory, and macro kernel. it is not CP/M or DOS 2014/1/25 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:34 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: I've never heard anyone malign his programming skills. moral character, visual design skills, absolutely, but never his coding chops. Gates was at the helm of Microsoft when it acquired DOS. DOS came out many years after and was an anorexic imitation of UNIX. It is an abomination that has lived well beyond its years and caused generations of developers great harm and suffering. Gates may have acquired the software for tactical purposes, or he may have thought it was a beautiful piece of software; I would bet he didn't know any better and thought it was pretty cool. Eric
[Vo]:on Ego Out, now
Dear Friends, As a short discontinuity of my blog's hybernation, I have published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/01/why-complexity-is-so-similar-to.html Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Digital Journal reports on Industrial Heat deal with Rossi
I tend to go to the mail archive site to search for historical postings http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/ which seems to allow seqrches of the last 10 years of the list Nigel On 25/01/2014 10:40, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: I suppose the archives of this mailing list will be a mine-field for them. It would be nice if the older stuff were easier to get at in a search engine (rather than having to download in compressed form). Eric Absolutely! You should get Jed to host it or something.
Re: [Vo]:Industrial Heat Acquires E-Cat Technology
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Gates was at the helm of Microsoft when it acquired DOS. DOS came out many years after and was an anorexic imitation of UNIX. That is incorrect. They brought it out within months, not years. IBM wanted an operating system for the upcoming PC. Microsoft hustled to purchase one from Seattle Computer Products and then get it ready for the PC. It was an imitation of CP/M, not UNIX. In my opinion at that time, it was much better than CP/M. It was never a secret that they bought it. They improved it a great deal. Microsoft was slow to produce Windows but they kept up with needed changes to DOS. There is one thing about I find regrettable about this history. When IBM was looking for an operating system, they went to several places including Microsoft, Digital Research and Data General. They thought about using the Data General Micro-Nova operating system. I was using it at the time. It was far superior to DOS or CP/M. It had excellent multi-tasking. If they had selected it, computers in the 1980s would have been better, and programmers would have been spared millions of hours of grief. I think I recall reading that Data General was not interested in a deal with IBM. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Industrial Heat Acquires E-Cat Technology
You can't really compare DOS and UNIX. UNIX was built so researchers could share time on a big server system through dumb terminals. DOS was built for a single user on a low resource personal computer. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Gates was at the helm of Microsoft when it acquired DOS. DOS came out many years after and was an anorexic imitation of UNIX. That is incorrect. They brought it out within months, not years. IBM wanted an operating system for the upcoming PC. Microsoft hustled to purchase one from Seattle Computer Products and then get it ready for the PC. It was an imitation of CP/M, not UNIX. In my opinion at that time, it was much better than CP/M. It was never a secret that they bought it. They improved it a great deal. Microsoft was slow to produce Windows but they kept up with needed changes to DOS. There is one thing about I find regrettable about this history. When IBM was looking for an operating system, they went to several places including Microsoft, Digital Research and Data General. They thought about using the Data General Micro-Nova operating system. I was using it at the time. It was far superior to DOS or CP/M. It had excellent multi-tasking. If they had selected it, computers in the 1980s would have been better, and programmers would have been spared millions of hours of grief. I think I recall reading that Data General was not interested in a deal with IBM. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: It's like crowd sourcing a group of people guessing jellybeans in a jellybean jar. This conversation is not like that because you are not a crowd of people. You are only one person, and no one else here is hazarding a guess. The crowdsourced jelly bean trick works because because people are evolved to do that sort of task. Tree dwelling primates with binocular vision have nearly the best perception of 3-dimensional objects in the animal kingdom. So people in general are good at that. People have varying levels of skill but when you ask several of them to do it, the average result is accurate. It is like using 10 thermometers of varying quality to measure a temperature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Industrial Heat Acquires E-Cat Technology
You are bringing me back to my Kaypro Computer days. Good Stuff On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Gates was at the helm of Microsoft when it acquired DOS. DOS came out many years after and was an anorexic imitation of UNIX. That is incorrect. They brought it out within months, not years. IBM wanted an operating system for the upcoming PC. Microsoft hustled to purchase one from Seattle Computer Products and then get it ready for the PC. It was an imitation of CP/M, not UNIX. In my opinion at that time, it was much better than CP/M. It was never a secret that they bought it. They improved it a great deal. Microsoft was slow to produce Windows but they kept up with needed changes to DOS. There is one thing about I find regrettable about this history. When IBM was looking for an operating system, they went to several places including Microsoft, Digital Research and Data General. They thought about using the Data General Micro-Nova operating system. I was using it at the time. It was far superior to DOS or CP/M. It had excellent multi-tasking. If they had selected it, computers in the 1980s would have been better, and programmers would have been spared millions of hours of grief. I think I recall reading that Data General was not interested in a deal with IBM. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Digital Journal reports on Industrial Heat deal with Rossi
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I tend to go to the mail archive site to search for historical postings http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/ which seems to allow seqrches of the last 10 years of the list This list goes back to 1996 or so -- it would be nice if all those messages were readily available so as to give a cold sweat to any patent attorneys (I don't know if they actually would, but it's a fun thought). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Industrial Heat Acquires E-Cat Technology
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Gates was at the helm of Microsoft when it acquired DOS. DOS came out many years after and was an anorexic imitation of UNIX. That is incorrect. They brought it out within months, not years. I had in mind the initial release dates, not the time to market: UNIX, April, 1969. DOS, August, 1981. That's 12 years to learn from an excellent, pathbreaking operating system. In this context it matters little to say DOS was a CP/M clone rather than a UNIX clone (as others have rightly pointed out). Those twelve, blessed years were made available by a divine providence to the people making decisions about operating systems, and then utterly wasted on them when they came up with DOS (or CP/M). (I imagine there were other good OSs other than UNIX at the time, although this is the one from that era I am most familiar with.) It was not long before UNIX was ported to the PC, so it also does not matter that UNIX was developed for a timesharing environment. An early incompatibility between UNIX and the early PCs was the lack of memory protection, but this was eventually added as well. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Digital Journal reports on Industrial Heat deal with Rossi
Eric, your point is well taken. Very little IP can now be patented and defended. The ideas have either been described in rejected patents or they have been described in public. Any attempts made now to get a patent would only make the lawyers rich. Most of the patents presently granted also have very limited value, other than as comfort food. The important patent will result from correctly understanding the mechanism and applying it in the most effect way. The resulting recipe will be so good that no other improvement would be possible. Right now all the recipes are so poor, they could easily be improved, thereby making them irrelevant. The game can still be won, but not by the way it is presently being played. Ed Storms On Jan 25, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I tend to go to the mail archive site to search for historical postings http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/ which seems to allow seqrches of the last 10 years of the list This list goes back to 1996 or so -- it would be nice if all those messages were readily available so as to give a cold sweat to any patent attorneys (I don't know if they actually would, but it's a fun thought). Eric
[Vo]:SciAm cocktail physics still in denial
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2014/01/25/physics-week-in-review-january-25-2014/#comment-1011 too funny. I will see if my coment is published... not too aggressive (you can check): High, not the least doubt on E-cat after it is backed by Cherokee fund, by Elforsk, by Chinese in Baoding HIDZ ? Did you ever read Excess Heat by Charles Beaudette (PDF available on Uni Tsinghua ICCF9 site, by the author)... If you don't agree with his position, he have many citations, unlike many books on the same subject... you can check your beliefs... do you know more critics on the calorimetry, othjer than the only 4 calorimetry critics that are all rebuted and abandonned ? Is there any compatible with recent result to explain the many publication (mincluding peer-reviewed by mainstream magazine like JJAP or Journal of Electroanalytical chemistry)? what would make you change opinion (probably it is already done and you don't know it, or it is not scientific) you should really read data, read Beaudette, or some executive summary on LENR, to avoid being surprised like the majority of uninformed people. Did you know DoE todays accept LENR projects for IDEA funding. That NASA pays Doug Wells for 2013-2014 seedling project on LENR plane propulsion That DoD fund LENR hidden as nanotech (it is also). That US navy replicates ENEA and SRI experiments. that Elforsk (the Swedish EPRI) publicly supported E-cat after having funded the test that convinced Cherokee. all deluded and incompetent... or maybe... maybe someone else is deluded. who invoke conspiracy theories ? who simply used Groupthink theory, which is validated by many recent scandal (look for roland beabou groupthing article on collective delusions). good reading.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:36:40 -0500 (EST): Hi Dave, The point I was trying to make, is that Maxwell's laws were all based upon macroscopic experimental evidence. Little was known of atoms at the time. Hence the limitations were not obvious. The equations governing radiation may need to be modified to include the fact that photons have h_bar angular momentum, as a limiting criterion. To use your modeling approach, space-time around the atom vibrates synchronously with the electron, but the vibration remains localized, unable to leave the atom as a traveling wave. Instead, it is locked in place as a localized standing wave. Energy constantly being exchanged back and forth between the medium and the electron, without loss. ...here I don't want it, you have it, no, no, I don't want it you have it(hot potato) ;) I think I understand what you are referring to now. We are in agreement that energy is radiated by atoms in discrete levels at 1 photon per chunk. The main point I was attempting to make is that the actual orbitals must have characteristics that do not radiate unless and until that photon is to be emitted. That is the reason I mentioned the far field determination. Any assumed atomic electron path should automatically prevent continuous radiation if valid. Mills seems to achieve this goal by having a continuous orbitsphere that can be constructed from an infinite number of individual incremental DC loops. The one issue that seem out of line is when some form of rotating charge distribution is assumed. It appears that a instrument located at some far field location would be able to detect the rotating field vectors which implies unbalanced radiation in that direction. My suspicion is that his equations defining that changing charge distribution may not be of a closed form, but instead are of a limiting series. One or more terms may be heading toward zero as the rotation rate heads toward zero and is assumed to be zero for simplification. I may well be wrong in my suspicion since I have not looked over Mills' theory in great detail, but my visualization methods tend to work well. Any stationary charge distribution would be fine, but not one that is rotating with discrete hot spots. The quantum theory can pass my test as long as the electron is not considered a point moving inside the orbital. From what I understand, the actual location of the electrons according to that theory is of a probability nature and no actual path is assumed for each to travel along in the time domain under non radiation conditions. Any remote observer would detect a steady E and H field from that type of orbital. I would also expect the electron to be of a moving distributed nature similar to Mills' theory in order for the atom to exhibit a magnetic moment while not radiating. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:09 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:41:12 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and that is zero radians per second. If you believe that some other frequency exists that is a threshold how would that be determined? What in nature would separate one frequency from the next so that a well defined chasm is found? The lower limit is not a limit on frequency. I used the term lower limit to indicate that something special happens with EM radiation when you reach atomic dimensions. Photons have h_bar angular momentum. If your system can't deliver that then you can't make a photon. Essentially all macroscopic systems easily can, however for atoms it becomes impossible below the ground state. Hence (IMO) the reason for the ground state. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:energy driven superconductivity and IR coherence for LENR
For many years on the fringes of LENR - there has appeared to be this somewhat nebulous cross-connection between anomalous heat and ultra high temperature superconductivity. This is more suspicion than proof ... but IR photon coherence could be the glue that ties the two together. Energy driven superconductivity is a topic which may fit into this puzzle somehow. It is new to me, and this is an invitation for anyone who has looked at the cross-connection between LENR and superconductivity to expound on what they have seen. It is a new way of looking at superconductivity to describe it in terms of a lower kinetic energy state. For now, the theories of energy driven superconductivity do not necessarily predict ultra high temperature states, and these would be needed to include the Rossi HotCat, so this analysis may be an exercise in futility. However, there is a nagging suspicion that reaching a high state of order at a temperature plateau, such as what has been called triple coherency could also suddenly lower the net energy of a synced system in such a way that at least numerous states of local superconductivity resulted. Local superconductivity could be defined as an accumulation of atoms in a structure like a nanodot, nanorod or nickel-embedded CNT (as in Zhao paper below) - which results in what looks like very high temperature SC as discussed here: http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/17002.pdf attachment: winmail.dat
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement
In analysis, it is important to understand what is fundamental and what is emergent. Are electrons fundamental or do they emerge from something more basic. For example, the spin net model of the vacume purports to show the derivation of photons, electrons, and U(1) gauge charge, small (relative to the planck mass) but nonzero masses, and suggestions that the leptons, quarks, and gluons, can be modeled in the same way. In other words, string-net condensation provides an unification of photon and electron (or gauge bosons and fermions). It can be viewed as an origin of light and electron (or gauge interactions and Fermi statistics). Under this way of thinking, an electron is a break(topological defect) in a light string. The string net liquid is the first medium from which the Maxwell equations can be derived. In condensed matter physics, a string-net is a fundamental extended object whose collective behavior has been proposed as a physical mechanism for topological order by Michael A. Levin and Xiao-Gang Wen On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:32 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:36:40 -0500 (EST): Hi Dave, The point I was trying to make, is that Maxwell's laws were all based upon macroscopic experimental evidence. Little was known of atoms at the time. Hence the limitations were not obvious. The equations governing radiation may need to be modified to include the fact that photons have h_bar angular momentum, as a limiting criterion. To use your modeling approach, space-time around the atom vibrates synchronously with the electron, but the vibration remains localized, unable to leave the atom as a traveling wave. Instead, it is locked in place as a localized standing wave. Energy constantly being exchanged back and forth between the medium and the electron, without loss. ...here I don't want it, you have it, no, no, I don't want it you have it(hot potato) ;) I think I understand what you are referring to now. We are in agreement that energy is radiated by atoms in discrete levels at 1 photon per chunk. The main point I was attempting to make is that the actual orbitals must have characteristics that do not radiate unless and until that photon is to be emitted. That is the reason I mentioned the far field determination. Any assumed atomic electron path should automatically prevent continuous radiation if valid. Mills seems to achieve this goal by having a continuous orbitsphere that can be constructed from an infinite number of individual incremental DC loops. The one issue that seem out of line is when some form of rotating charge distribution is assumed. It appears that a instrument located at some far field location would be able to detect the rotating field vectors which implies unbalanced radiation in that direction. My suspicion is that his equations defining that changing charge distribution may not be of a closed form, but instead are of a limiting series. One or more terms may be heading toward zero as the rotation rate heads toward zero and is assumed to be zero for simplification. I may well be wrong in my suspicion since I have not looked over Mills' theory in great detail, but my visualization methods tend to work well. Any stationary charge distribution would be fine, but not one that is rotating with discrete hot spots. The quantum theory can pass my test as long as the electron is not considered a point moving inside the orbital. From what I understand, the actual location of the electrons according to that theory is of a probability nature and no actual path is assumed for each to travel along in the time domain under non radiation conditions. Any remote observer would detect a steady E and H field from that type of orbital. I would also expect the electron to be of a moving distributed nature similar to Mills' theory in order for the atom to exhibit a magnetic moment while not radiating. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 8:09 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:41:12 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Robin, there is only one lower frequency where radiation is not possible and that is zero radians per second. If you believe that some other frequency exists that is a threshold how would that be determined? What in nature would separate one frequency from the next so that a well defined chasm is found? The lower limit is not a limit on frequency. I used the term lower limit to indicate that something special happens with EM radiation when you reach atomic dimensions. Photons have h_bar angular momentum. If your system can't deliver that then you can't make a photon. Essentially all macroscopic systems easily can, however for atoms it becomes impossible
[Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
This chapter is dedicated to Jones, others are welcome as well.
Please read:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/TechnicalPre
sentation.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
In the Technical Presentation, read pp. 2-3, and 23-31 [but anything else
that suits your fancy].
The first two pages of the Technical Presentation is a terse summary of
GUTCP. Page 23 is a listing of methods identifying hydrinos.
The following pages discuss the conditions wherein H can act as a catalyst.
The potential energy of an isolated H atom is 13.6 eV. The energy of the
catalyst must be m(27.2] eV. Such can be supplied by many arrangements,
including 2H.2H H{1/4] + 2H + 24 eV. Because this is a three-body
reaction, it is seen only where here is a high concentration of H atoms
[such as at the cathode of in electrolytic cell in the apparatus on p.30. [I
speculate that H [h[1/4] catalysis may be a source of 'excess heat' in CF
electrolytic cell experiments. This is my conjecture.]
The cited pages above contain the core of the CIHT chemistry.
The apparatus illustrated on p.30 was built by BLP, but the reported study
and the spectrum of p.31 came from a study sponsored by GEN3 Partners at the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. None were employees of LP.
An intense beam of protons is illuminated by an intense bam of electrons,
which combine to form a cloud hydrogen atoms in which many interactions can
occur. The light from these reactions is in the low nanometer range of soft
X-rays. The spectrum is recorded by a vacuuc spectrometer. No continuum
spectrum was produced by helium.
The six 'Validation' reports on the website deserve respectful attention.
Although on-site and coached by Mills, the 'validators' built he cells
themselves and conducted tests with instruments whose calibrations are
traceable to NIST. The reports and resumes are on the .website. Over the
years experiments by Dr. Conrads in Germany, and Dr. Jonathan Phillips, U.
New Mexico, have done supporting experiments. One of the six 'validaors',
ENSER corporation, went on to off-site, independent validation of the CIHT
cell operation. Their new report is on the BLP website.
Independent verification is a gold standard. Over the years several groups
have 'tested' Mills' claims. However, they did not *duplicated*the
instruments or protocols, effectively doing *another* non-Mills experiment.
Mike Carrell
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 3
Mike,
If anyone has seen Mills' standard NDA, this is laughable since there is
absolutely no way that any of these tests are independent. It is a sad
mischaracterization to say, or imply, independence.
But of course, the strong NDA and payment for services does not mean that
the tests cannot be accurate, and they may be accurate, only that they are
FAR from independent.
Others can make of that what you will but beware - the independent tests
stopped with Thermacore, circa 1995.
Actually I have never expressed the view that Mills does not show an energy
anomaly. In all probability he does.
My contention is that the anomaly is clearly LENR related - and that Mills
is in denial that his reaction is a predecessor condition for optimizing
LENR.
From: Mike Carrell
This chapter is dedicated to Jones, others are welcome as well.
Please read:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/TechnicalPre
sentation.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
In the Technical Presentation, read pp. 2-3, and 23-31 [but anything else
that suits your fancy].
The first two pages of the Technical Presentation is a terse summary of
GUTCP. Page 23 is a listing of methods identifying hydrinos.
The following pages discuss the conditions wherein H can act as a catalyst.
The potential energy of an isolated H atom is 13.6 eV. The energy of the
catalyst must be m(27.2] eV. Such can be supplied by many arrangements,
including 2H.2H H{1/4] + 2H + 24 eV. Because this is a three-body
reaction, it is seen only where here is a high concentration of H atoms
[such as at the cathode of in electrolytic cell in the apparatus on p.30. [I
speculate that H [h[1/4] catalysis may be a source of 'excess heat' in CF
electrolytic cell experiments. This is my conjecture.]
The cited pages above contain the core of the CIHT chemistry.
The apparatus illustrated on p.30 was built by BLP, but the reported study
and the spectrum of p.31 came from a study sponsored by GEN3 Partners at the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. None were employees of LP.
An intense beam of protons is illuminated by an intense bam of electrons,
which combine to form a cloud hydrogen atoms in which many interactions can
occur. The light from these reactions is in the low nanometer range of soft
X-rays. The spectrum is recorded by a vacuuc spectrometer. No continuum
spectrum was produced by helium.
The six 'Validation' reports on the website deserve respectful attention.
Although on-site and coached by Mills, the 'validators' built he cells
themselves and conducted tests with instruments whose calibrations are
traceable to NIST. The reports and resumes are on the .website. Over the
years experiments by Dr. Conrads in Germany, and Dr. Jonathan Phillips, U.
New Mexico, have done supporting experiments. One of the six 'validaors',
ENSER corporation, went on to off-site, independent validation of the CIHT
cell operation. Their new report is on the BLP website.
Independent verification is a gold standard. Over the years several groups
have 'tested' Mills' claims. However, they did not *duplicated*the
instruments or protocols, effectively doing *another* non-Mills experiment.
Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Hydrinos, shmeamos. Jones is on the right track with his energy coherence.
Exaggerated claims do not attract me. Mill's device is a million times hotter
than fire! That would place the temp at 3 billion degrees. That would be
hotter than a Tokamak. I uses very hot hydrodynamics. What does he make the
electrodes out of, neutronium! That's a claim in itself. An what about all
of those hydrinos, where do they go? What about all of the x-rays from the an
inner election reactions. Why is he not dead?
Reminds me of many older inventors who have failed. Henry Moray for example.
Not only did his device produce energy but it could detected the faintest radio
signals. In today's world of satellite communications such a claim is truly
dated.
Chankov, not only did his technology produce energy but he cold make strong
ingredients through a process infinite dilution.
Frank Z
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; cmns c...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 5:53 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
This chapter is dedicated to Jones, others are welcome as well.
Please read:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/TechnicalPresentation.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
In the Technical Presentation, read pp. 2-3, and 23-31 [but anything else that
suits your fancy].
The first two pages of the Technical Presentation is a terse summary of GUTCP.
Page 23 is a listing of methods identifying hydrinos.
The following pages discuss the conditions wherein H can act as a catalyst. The
potential energy of an isolated H atom is 13.6 eV. The energy of the catalyst
must be m(27.2] eV. Such can be supplied by many arrangements, including 2H.2H
H{1/4] + 2H + 24 eV. Because this is a three-body reaction, it is seen only
where here is a high concentration of H atoms [such as at the cathode of in
electrolytic cell in the apparatus on p.30. [I speculate that H [h[1/4]
catalysis may be a source of ‘excess heat’ in CF electrolytic cell experiments.
This is my conjecture.]
The cited pages above contain the core of the CIHT chemistry.
The apparatus illustrated on p.30 was built by BLP, but the reported study and
the spectrum of p.31 came from a study sponsored by GEN3 Partners at the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. None were employees of LP.
An intense beam of protons is illuminated by an intense bam of electrons, which
combine to form a cloud hydrogen atoms in which many interactions can occur.
The light from these reactions is in the low nanometer range of soft X-rays.
The spectrum is recorded by a vacuuc spectrometer. No continuum spectrum was
produced by helium.
The six ‘Validation’ reports on the website deserve respectful attention.
Although on-site and coached by Mills, the ‘validators’ built he cells
themselves and conducted tests with instruments whose calibrations are
traceable to NIST. The reports and resumes are on the .website. Over the years
experiments by Dr. Conrads in Germany, and Dr. Jonathan Phillips, U. New
Mexico, have done supporting experiments. One of the six ‘validaors’, ENSER
corporation, went on to off-site, independent validation of the CIHT cell
operation. Their new report is on the BLP website.
“Independent verification” is a gold standard. Over the years several groups
have ‘tested’ Mills’ claims. However, they did not *duplicated*the instruments
or protocols, effectively doing *another* non-Mills experiment.
Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Frank,
You say that Mill`s device is a million times hotter than fire.
That is not correct:
The powerdensity of the hydrino reaction is 1 million times higher that that of
gasoline combusion mainly due to the rate of hydrino transition compared to the
rate of gasoiline combustion ( 5000 times higher)
So per second many more reactions can take place then during gasolibe
combustion.
Also the hydrino reaction is much more energetic ( 200x).
The hydrinotransition can cause significant Balmerline broadening ( 50 eV).
The electrodes can hold that kind of temperature, when adequately cooled.
Peter v Noorden
- Original Message -
From: fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Hydrinos, shmeamos. Jones is on the right track with his energy coherence.
Exaggerated claims do not attract me. Mill's device is a million times hotter
than fire! That would place the temp at 3 billion degrees. That would be
hotter than a Tokamak. I uses very hot hydrodynamics. What does he make the
electrodes out of, neutronium! That's a claim in itself. An what about all
of those hydrinos, where do they go? What about all of the x-rays from the an
inner election reactions. Why is he not dead?
Reminds me of many older inventors who have failed. Henry Moray for example.
Not only did his device produce energy but it could detected the faintest
radio signals. In today's world of satellite communications such a claim is
truly dated.
Chankov, not only did his technology produce energy but he cold make strong
ingredients through a process infinite dilution.
Frank Z
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; cmns c...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 5:53 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
This chapter is dedicated to Jones, others are welcome as well.
Please read:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/TechnicalPresentation.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
In the Technical Presentation, read pp. 2-3, and 23-31 [but anything else
that suits your fancy].
The first two pages of the Technical Presentation is a terse summary of
GUTCP. Page 23 is a listing of methods identifying hydrinos.
The following pages discuss the conditions wherein H can act as a catalyst.
The potential energy of an isolated H atom is 13.6 eV. The energy of the
catalyst must be m(27.2] eV. Such can be supplied by many arrangements,
including 2H.2H H{1/4] + 2H + 24 eV. Because this is a three-body reaction,
it is seen only where here is a high concentration of H atoms [such as at the
cathode of in electrolytic cell in the apparatus on p.30. [I speculate that H
[h[1/4] catalysis may be a source of ‘excess heat’ in CF electrolytic cell
experiments. This is my conjecture.]
The cited pages above contain the core of the CIHT chemistry.
The apparatus illustrated on p.30 was built by BLP, but the reported study
and the spectrum of p.31 came from a study sponsored by GEN3 Partners at the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. None were employees of LP.
An intense beam of protons is illuminated by an intense bam of electrons,
which combine to form a cloud hydrogen atoms in which many interactions can
occur. The light from these reactions is in the low nanometer range of soft
X-rays. The spectrum is recorded by a vacuuc spectrometer. No continuum
spectrum was produced by helium.
The six ‘Validation’ reports on the website deserve respectful attention.
Although on-site and coached by Mills, the ‘validators’ built he cells
themselves and conducted tests with instruments whose calibrations are
traceable to NIST. The reports and resumes are on the .website. Over the years
experiments by Dr. Conrads in Germany, and Dr. Jonathan Phillips, U. New
Mexico, have done supporting experiments. One of the six ‘validaors’, ENSER
corporation, went on to off-site, independent validation of the CIHT cell
operation. Their new report is on the BLP website.
“Independent verification” is a gold standard. Over the years several groups
have ‘tested’ Mills’ claims. However, they did not *duplicated*the instruments
or protocols, effectively doing *another* non-Mills experiment.
Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Also the hydrino reaction is much more energetic ( 200x).
So then where are the X-rays?
-Original Message-
From: P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nl
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 6:48 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Frank,
You say that Mill`s device is a million times hotter than fire.
That is not correct:
The powerdensity of the hydrino reaction is 1 million times higher that that of
gasoline combusion mainly due to the rate of hydrino transition compared to the
rate of gasoiline combustion ( 5000 times higher)
So per second many more reactions can take place then during gasolibe
combustion.
Also the hydrino reaction is much more energetic ( 200x).
The hydrinotransition can cause significant Balmerline broadening ( 50 eV).
The electrodes can hold that kind of temperature, when adequately cooled.
Peter v Noorden
- Original Message -
From: fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Hydrinos, shmeamos.Jones is on the right track with his energy coherence.
Exaggerated claims do not attract me. Mill's device is a million times
hotter than fire! That would place the temp at 3 billion degrees. That
would be hotter than a Tokamak. I uses very hot hydrodynamics. What does
he make the electrodes out of, neutronium! That's a claim in itself.An
what about all of those hydrinos, where do they go? What about all of the
x-rays from the an inner election reactions. Why is he not dead?
Reminds me of many older inventors who have failed. Henry Moray for example.
Not only did his device produce energy but it could detected the faintest
radio signals. In today's world of satellite communications such a claim is
truly dated.
Chankov, not only did his technology produce energy but he cold make strong
ingredients through a process infinite dilution.
Frank Z
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; cmns c...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 5:53 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
This chapter is dedicated to Jones, others are welcome as well.
Please read:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/TechnicalPresentation.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
In the Technical Presentation, read pp. 2-3, and 23-31 [but anything else
that suits your fancy].
The first two pages of the Technical Presentation is a terse summary of
GUTCP. Page 23 is a listing of methods identifying hydrinos.
The following pages discuss the conditions wherein H can act as a catalyst.
The potential energy of an isolated H atom is 13.6 eV. The energy of the
catalyst must be m(27.2] eV. Such can be supplied by many arrangements,
including 2H.2H H{1/4] + 2H + 24 eV. Because this is a three-body reaction,
it is seen only where here is a high concentration of H atoms [such as at the
cathode of in electrolytic cell in the apparatus on p.30. [I speculate that H
[h[1/4] catalysis may be a source of ‘excess heat’ in CF electrolytic cell
experiments. This is my conjecture.]
The cited pages above contain the core of the CIHT chemistry.
The apparatus illustrated on p.30 was built by BLP, but the reported study
and the spectrum of p.31 came from a study sponsored by GEN3 Partners at the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. None were employees of LP.
An intense beam of protons is illuminated by an intense bam of electrons,
which combine to form a cloud hydrogen atoms in which many interactions can
occur. The light from these reactions is in the low nanometer range of soft
X-rays. The spectrum is recorded by a vacuuc spectrometer. No continuum
spectrum was produced by helium.
The six ‘Validation’ reports on the website deserve respectful attention.
Although on-site and coached by Mills, the ‘validators’ built he cells
themselves and conducted tests with instruments whose calibrations are
traceable to NIST. The reports and resumes are on the .website. Over the
years experiments by Dr. Conrads in Germany, and Dr. Jonathan Phillips, U.
New Mexico, have done supporting experiments. One of the six ‘validaors’,
ENSER corporation, went on to off-site, independent validation of the CIHT
cell operation. Their new report is on the BLP website.
“Independent verification” is a gold standard. Over the years several groups
have ‘tested’ Mills’ claims. However, they did not *duplicated*the
instruments or protocols, effectively doing *another* non-Mills experiment.
Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Frank,
At a university (TUe) in the Netherlands some of the experiments described by
R. Mills were successfully reproduced. EUV emission was clearly seen when the
blacklight catalysts where used in combination with hydrogen gas. The grazing
incidence EUV detector could measure emissions in the region between 10 and 30
nm.
Peter
- Original Message -
From: fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Also the hydrino reaction is much more energetic ( 200x).
So then where are the X-rays?
-Original Message-
From: P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nl
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 6:48 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Frank,
You say that Mill`s device is a million times hotter than fire.
That is not correct:
The powerdensity of the hydrino reaction is 1 million times higher that that
of gasoline combusion mainly due to the rate of hydrino transition compared to
the rate of gasoiline combustion ( 5000 times higher)
So per second many more reactions can take place then during gasolibe
combustion.
Also the hydrino reaction is much more energetic ( 200x).
The hydrinotransition can cause significant Balmerline broadening ( 50 eV).
The electrodes can hold that kind of temperature, when adequately cooled.
Peter v Noorden
- Original Message -
From: fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Hydrinos, shmeamos. Jones is on the right track with his energy coherence.
Exaggerated claims do not attract me. Mill's device is a million times hotter
than fire! That would place the temp at 3 billion degrees. That would be
hotter than a Tokamak. I uses very hot hydrodynamics. What does he make the
electrodes out of, neutronium! That's a claim in itself. An what about all
of those hydrinos, where do they go? What about all of the x-rays from the an
inner election reactions. Why is he not dead?
Reminds me of many older inventors who have failed. Henry Moray for
example. Not only did his device produce energy but it could detected the
faintest radio signals. In today's world of satellite communications such a
claim is truly dated.
Chankov, not only did his technology produce energy but he cold make strong
ingredients through a process infinite dilution.
Frank Z
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; cmns c...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 5:53 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
This chapter is dedicated to Jones, others are welcome as well.
Please read:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/TechnicalPresentation.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
In the Technical Presentation, read pp. 2-3, and 23-31 [but anything else
that suits your fancy].
The first two pages of the Technical Presentation is a terse summary of
GUTCP. Page 23 is a listing of methods identifying hydrinos.
The following pages discuss the conditions wherein H can act as a catalyst.
The potential energy of an isolated H atom is 13.6 eV. The energy of the
catalyst must be m(27.2] eV. Such can be supplied by many arrangements,
including 2H.2H H{1/4] + 2H + 24 eV. Because this is a three-body reaction,
it is seen only where here is a high concentration of H atoms [such as at the
cathode of in electrolytic cell in the apparatus on p.30. [I speculate that H
[h[1/4] catalysis may be a source of ‘excess heat’ in CF electrolytic cell
experiments. This is my conjecture.]
The cited pages above contain the core of the CIHT chemistry.
The apparatus illustrated on p.30 was built by BLP, but the reported study
and the spectrum of p.31 came from a study sponsored by GEN3 Partners at the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. None were employees of LP.
An intense beam of protons is illuminated by an intense bam of electrons,
which combine to form a cloud hydrogen atoms in which many interactions can
occur. The light from these reactions is in the low nanometer range of soft
X-rays. The spectrum is recorded by a vacuuc spectrometer. No continuum
spectrum was produced by helium.
The six ‘Validation’ reports on the website deserve respectful attention.
Although on-site and coached by Mills, the ‘validators’ built he cells
themselves and conducted tests with instruments whose calibrations are
traceable to NIST. The reports and resumes are on the .website. Over the years
experiments by Dr. Conrads in Germany, and Dr. Jonathan Phillips, U. New
Mexico, have done supporting experiments. One of the six ‘validaors’, ENSER
corporation, went on to off-site,
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
This conversation is not like that because you are not a crowd of people. You are only one person, and no one else here is hazarding a guess. Oh, lots of people have hazard guesses. You don't know everything, Jed. :)
[Vo]:Reply to Frank Zindarsik
Framk, the hydrino transition radiation is in the low nanometer range, to which everything is opaque and be seen only with vacuum ultraviolet spectroscopy. That region is also called 'soft X-rays'. That fact causes difficulty in extracting the energy; you can just let the reactor get hot - but that is inefficient. The elegance of CIHT technology is charge separation, so the device looks to the outside world like a battery. The efficiency of MHD conversion is theoretically very high. Pay careful attention to Mills' language. The *peak* power output of the SF-CIHT reaction is very, very high. The proposed device fires pulses at high speed, but the average power output will depend on design factors. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:SciAm cocktail physics still in denial
all deluded and incompetent... or maybe... maybe someone else is deluded. Maybe a little aggressive :D On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2014/01/25/physics-week-in-review-january-25-2014/#comment-1011 too funny. I will see if my coment is published... not too aggressive (you can check): High, not the least doubt on E-cat after it is backed by Cherokee fund, by Elforsk, by Chinese in Baoding HIDZ ? Did you ever read Excess Heat by Charles Beaudette (PDF available on Uni Tsinghua ICCF9 site, by the author)... If you don't agree with his position, he have many citations, unlike many books on the same subject... you can check your beliefs... do you know more critics on the calorimetry, othjer than the only 4 calorimetry critics that are all rebuted and abandonned ? Is there any compatible with recent result to explain the many publication (mincluding peer-reviewed by mainstream magazine like JJAP or Journal of Electroanalytical chemistry)? what would make you change opinion (probably it is already done and you don't know it, or it is not scientific) you should really read data, read Beaudette, or some executive summary on LENR, to avoid being surprised like the majority of uninformed people. Did you know DoE todays accept LENR projects for IDEA funding. That NASA pays Doug Wells for 2013-2014 seedling project on LENR plane propulsion That DoD fund LENR hidden as nanotech (it is also). That US navy replicates ENEA and SRI experiments. that Elforsk (the Swedish EPRI) publicly supported E-cat after having funded the test that convinced Cherokee. all deluded and incompetent... or maybe... maybe someone else is deluded. who invoke conspiracy theories ? who simply used Groupthink theory, which is validated by many recent scandal (look for roland beabou groupthing article on collective delusions). good reading.
Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
http://charles.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~twitting/consJCDM/material/20130212_han/Nanoplasmonic%20Generation%20of%20Ultrashort%20EUV%20Pulses.pdf
*Nanoplasmonic Generation of Ultrashort EUV Pulses*
Nanoplasmonic geometries can generate EUV down to 10 NM. Mills has not
proven that the EUV is not coming from nanoplasmonic sources.
Nanoparticles can up convert light into the EUV range. It is a self-serving
assumption that these EUV photons are coming from atoms. These photons
could come from whispering gallery wave concentration via Fano resonances.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:24 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nlwrote:
Frank,
At a university (TUe) in the Netherlands some of the experiments described
by R. Mills were successfully reproduced. EUV emission was clearly seen
when the blacklight catalysts where used in combination with hydrogen gas.
The grazing incidence EUV detector could measure emissions in the region
between 10 and 30 nm.
Peter
- Original Message -
*From:* fznidar...@aol.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:51 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Also the hydrino reaction is much more energetic ( 200x).
So then where are the X-rays?
-Original Message-
From: P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nl
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 6:48 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Frank,
You say that Mill`s device is a million times hotter than fire.
That is not correct:
The powerdensity of the hydrino reaction is 1 million times higher that
that of gasoline combusion mainly due to the rate of hydrino transition
compared to the rate of gasoiline combustion ( 5000 times higher)
So per second many more reactions can take place then during gasolibe
combustion.
Also the hydrino reaction is much more energetic ( 200x).
The hydrinotransition can cause significant Balmerline broadening ( 50 eV).
The electrodes can hold that kind of temperature, when adequately cooled.
Peter v Noorden
- Original Message -
*From:* fznidar...@aol.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:27 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
Hydrinos, shmeamos. Jones is on the right track with his energy
coherence. Exaggerated claims do not attract me. Mill's device is a
million times hotter than fire! That would place the temp at 3 billion
degrees. That would be hotter than a Tokamak. I uses very hot
hydrodynamics. What does he make the electrodes out of, neutronium!
That's a claim in itself. An what about all of those hydrinos, where do
they go? What about all of the x-rays from the an inner election
reactions. Why is he not dead?
Reminds me of many older inventors who have failed. Henry Moray for
example. Not only did his device produce energy but it could detected the
faintest radio signals. In today's world of satellite communications such
a claim is truly dated.
Chankov, not only did his technology produce energy but he cold make
strong ingredients through a process infinite dilution.
Frank Z
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; cmns c...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 5:53 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Understandin BLP: Chapter 3
This chapter is dedicated to Jones, others are welcome as well.
Please read:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/TechnicalPresentation.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
In the Technical Presentation, read pp. 2-3, and 23-31 [but anything else
that suits your fancy].
The first two pages of the Technical Presentation is a terse summary of
GUTCP. Page 23 is a listing of methods identifying hydrinos.
The following pages discuss the conditions wherein H can act as a
catalyst. The potential energy of an isolated H atom is 13.6 eV. The energy
of the catalyst must be m(27.2] eV. Such can be supplied by many
arrangements, including 2H.2H H{1/4] + 2H + 24 eV. Because this is a
three-body reaction, it is seen only where here is a high concentration of
H atoms [such as at the cathode of in electrolytic cell in the apparatus on
p.30. [I speculate that H [h[1/4] catalysis may be a source of ‘excess
heat’ in CF electrolytic cell experiments. This is my conjecture.]
The cited pages above contain the core of the CIHT chemistry.
The apparatus illustrated on p.30 was built by BLP, but the reported study
and the spectrum of p.31 came from a study sponsored by GEN3 Partners at
the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. None were employees of LP.
An intense beam of protons is illuminated by an intense bam of electrons,
which combine to form a cloud hydrogen atoms in which many interactions can
occur. The light from these reactions is in the low nanometer range of soft
X-rays. The spectrum is recorded by a vacuuc spectrometer. No
Re: [Vo]:Reply to Frank Zindarsik
You are using EUV production as proof for the existence of hydrinos, but another source of this radiation exists in the environment that hydrinos are purported to exist. This fact invalidates this proof unless Mills proves that the EUV is coming from the hydrino and only the hydrino and not nanoparticles. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Framk, the hydrino transition radiation is in the low nanometer range, to which everything is opaque and be seen only with vacuum ultraviolet spectroscopy. That region is also called ‘soft X-rays’. That fact causes difficulty in extracting the energy; you can just let the reactor get hot – but that is inefficient. The elegance of CIHT technology is charge separation, so the device looks to the outside world like a battery. The efficiency of MHD conversion is theoretically very high. Pay careful attention to Mills’ language. The **peak** power output of the SF-CIHT reaction is very, very high. The proposed device fires pulses at high speed, but the average power output will depend on design factors. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Reply to Frank Zindarsik
The commercial preparation of nanoparticles is usually done using the arc discharge method. In the arc process, high heat is used on the material until it evaporates and forms a vapor. When the vapor cools it condenses forming nanoparticles. This process has been used previously to prepare nanoparticles of aluminum, silicon, copper oxide, zinc oxide gold, silver, carbon nitrogen, potassium, sodium, and hydrides. In the near future this method will be extended to other materials as well. The benefit of this method is nanoparticles can be prepared from relatively affordable bulk materials. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You are using EUV production as proof for the existence of hydrinos, but another source of this radiation exists in the environment that hydrinos are purported to exist. This fact invalidates this proof unless Mills proves that the EUV is coming from the hydrino and only the hydrino and not nanoparticles. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Framk, the hydrino transition radiation is in the low nanometer range, to which everything is opaque and be seen only with vacuum ultraviolet spectroscopy. That region is also called ‘soft X-rays’. That fact causes difficulty in extracting the energy; you can just let the reactor get hot – but that is inefficient. The elegance of CIHT technology is charge separation, so the device looks to the outside world like a battery. The efficiency of MHD conversion is theoretically very high. Pay careful attention to Mills’ language. The **peak** power output of the SF-CIHT reaction is very, very high. The proposed device fires pulses at high speed, but the average power output will depend on design factors. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Industrial Heat Acquires E-Cat Technology
There were a number of operating systems around at that time but few that would run on the 8086/8088 hardware. One with multitasking was the iRMX86 OShttp://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/intel/iRMX/142721-003_iRMX_86_System_Programmers_Reference_Manual_May81.pdfsupplied by Intel with its 8086/8088 chips for real time development. I don't know how or why they overlooked that. My suspicion is that the real reason they chose MS-DOS was that Bill Gates's mother had direct contacts with the IBM board of directors. If that's the case, it would make me feel quite a bit better about my decision to abandon development of an 8086/8088 OS -- a development that started before the first silicon was shipped while I was at the PLATO project where we modified the CDC Cyber COMPASS assembler to produce the instructions documented on the preliminary datasheets, and execute on an emulator running on the Cyber 6500 during off-hours. The reason I initiated that project, with some of the PLATO system programmers (Ray Ozzie was a system programmer at PLATO but was consumed by his work on the Z80 firmware) was that I foresaw the horror of a bad operating system becoming the network-effect atop Moore's Law, and wanted to head it off. Others, primarily Steve Freyder, agreed and pitched in. It was obvious to me that whoever got the critical mass OS for that platform would have a natural monopoly and lock out competition -- including superior operating systems. I abandoned that project only because Mike Pavloff at Control Data HQ offered me a position at the Arden Hills Operations where I could pursue a mass market version of the PLATO network which would have, using Ozzie's Z80 firmware, bypassed the personal computer era entirely with a Mac-like UI and built-in 1200bps modem starting in 1981 with a monthly service charge of $40/month including terminal rental. We had that system benchmarked out at a scale that could have deployed nation wide late in 1979, but Wall Street analysts smelled blood and were ripping Bill Norris (the Nebraska farm boy that founded CDC with Seymour Cray) limb from limb due to his billion dollar investment in PLATO. CDC middle management mutinied and reneged on their agreement to let me pursue a mass market version of PLATO. I fled CDC and tried to revive something similar at Knight-Rider's joint venture with ATT, but that is another storyhttp://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2702791cid=39217853 . Suffice to say, when I saw MS-DOS I knew a horror had been unleashed and that Gates would become extremely wealthy. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Gates was at the helm of Microsoft when it acquired DOS. DOS came out many years after and was an anorexic imitation of UNIX. That is incorrect. They brought it out within months, not years. I had in mind the initial release dates, not the time to market: UNIX, April, 1969. DOS, August, 1981. That's 12 years to learn from an excellent, pathbreaking operating system. In this context it matters little to say DOS was a CP/M clone rather than a UNIX clone (as others have rightly pointed out). Those twelve, blessed years were made available by a divine providence to the people making decisions about operating systems, and then utterly wasted on them when they came up with DOS (or CP/M). (I imagine there were other good OSs other than UNIX at the time, although this is the one from that era I am most familiar with.) It was not long before UNIX was ported to the PC, so it also does not matter that UNIX was developed for a timesharing environment. An early incompatibility between UNIX and the early PCs was the lack of memory protection, but this was eventually added as well. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Cold fusion claims are at 1% to 3% at Idea Futures Exchange.Claim NiLENR - Nickel Hydrogen Nuclear EnergyCategory: *Science Technology:Physics*bid 1, ask 3, last 2Owner:45, Baldrson (jim_bow...@hotmail.com)Judge:2, Chris Hibbert (c...@pancrit.org)created:2011/06/13due date:2015/01/01The Claim Cold fusion of hydrogen in nickel can produce over 10 watts/cc net power. The phrase cold fusion has its vernacular meaning of any low energy nuclear reaction that produces heat. This claim is intended to be similar to the CFsn claim regarding deuterium in palladium but relaxing the requirement for STP since high pressure hydrogen gas loading and high temperature are purportedly required to sustain the hydrogen in nickel cold fusion reaction. http://ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NiLENR Claim CFsn - Cold FusionCategory: *Science Technology:Physics*bid 2, ask 3, last 2Owner:0, Bank (i...@ideosphere.com)Judge:306, SMWinnie ( smwin...@yahoo.com)created:1994/09/23due date:TBDThe Claim Cold fusion of deuterium in palladium can produce over 10 watts/cc. net power at STP (standard temperature and pressure). Cold fusion is discussed on the fusion newsgroup news:sci.physics.fusion. Judge's Statement Judgment will be entered on CFsn on or before January 1, 2015. I will judge based on the intent of this claim, if I perceive such intent to be obvious. If such intent is ambiguous I will judge on the basis of the precise wording. If both are ambiguous, I will look for a solution which follows IF/FX precedent insofar as such precedent is apparent to me and applicable to the claim. I will seek the guidance of the claim's owner/author in interpreting the claim. It's his or her question - s/he ought to get the answer sought. If I believe this claim to have met a YES or NO condition, and if I believe judgement will be controversial, I will post a prospective judgement to fx-discuss and forestall entering the judgement for a comment period to be announced in the post. http://ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=CFsn On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: This conversation is not like that because you are not a crowd of people. You are only one person, and no one else here is hazarding a guess. Oh, lots of people have hazard guesses. You don't know everything, Jed. :)
Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory
Jeff, I have toyed with the concept of traveling faster than light and mentioned some of the consequences I expect on this list a while back. From the electrons point of view, its mass remains the same regardless of any velocity it may have relative to other observers. The only way I can understand the behavior of particles circulating within an accelerator is to assume that time dilation and length contraction must exist between relative observers. The operators of the device measure the speed of the electron as it circles the accelerator ring and see that it is moving at almost the speed of light. Time therefore passes much slower for the electron from the operators point of view. This condition should make the electron's mass appear greater to the machine operator, but that may be just his conclusion based upon the difficulty in changing the direction of the electron with his magnetic deflection process. The same should be true for any electric field acceleration process. This behavior makes sense if the electron is significantly exceeding the speed of light by its measurement referenced to the dimensions of the accelerator when the electron is at rest. The time dilation and length contraction work hand in hand in this particular case. We might assume that the same situation holds for an electron orbiting a proton of hydrogen in the small orbitsphere fractional energy cases. Perhaps that would allow larger denominators than 137, in which case the electron moves faster than light and time dilation and length contraction greatly impacts its behavior. If true, the fraction 1/137 just happens to be the special case where the electron speed(as estimated by the electron) is that of light, but smaller fractions may be possible. After all, most series do not truncate at an odd term, so maybe the series goes to 1/infinity if time dilation and length contraction are taken into account. It would be an interesting calculation to determine the radius of the orbitsphere when the fraction is 1/infinity while taking time dilation and length contraction into account. That might suggest that the atomic electron states of hydrogen could go from infinity to 1/infinity which is well balanced. That is the kind of beauty I like to see in nature. Jeff, have you seen any derivation from Mills' equations that specifically point to the 1/137 fractional orbitsphere as being special? Could it be that this just happens to be fairly close to the physical constant and assumed equal? I have to ask why 1/138 is not a valid value as well. I am not convinced that Mills' theory is correct in any way, but am speculating about some interesting characteristics that may be possible if it has validity. Mark this post as blue sky wild speculation. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 10:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory I did some reading and using the concept of mass increases as the velocity approaches the speed of light is not a good way to look at it (for reasons that are not totally clear to me). There is time dilation and length contraction for an object (the electron) as it approaches the speed of light - but essentially the physicists are saying don't interpret that as mass increase. I found this quote from Einstein on the hyperphysics website: Einstein's point of view is described in the following quote: It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M (the relativistic mass that approaches infinity at v = c) it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html#c3 I find it amazing that these 5 simple energy equations (from my earlier post) still work even though electron is undergoing length contraction and time dilation as it approaches the speed of light at orbit state n = 1/137. Mills says that the ratio of charge to mass (e/m) is a constant for the orbiting electron as it approaches the speed of light. I was hoping that would be the reason that the energy equations work correctly during time dialation and length contraction for the electron - but I don't see that in the equations so that may not be the answer. But the end result is amazing in terms of elegance 5 simple equations all equal the rest mass of the electron to 9+ significant digits. Jeff On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:37 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks for the information Jeff. I was expecting his mass calculation to increase or remain the same as the speed of the orbitsphere approached light speed. Now I will have to understand why it is supposed to become less. That was not even on my radar! We
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Great link James, my concern is that the expiry date on that is getting a bit close. Not sure this will be out in the public knowledge before 2015. That market is also thinly traded (probably because it's play money) which leads to speculation by actors without compensation to spend real time investigating these issues. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:10 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion claims are at 1% to 3% at Idea Futures Exchange.Claim NiLENR - Nickel Hydrogen Nuclear Energy Category: *Science Technology:Physics*bid 1, ask 3, last 2Owner:45, Baldrson (jim_bow...@hotmail.com) Judge:2, Chris Hibbert (c...@pancrit.org)created:2011/06/13due date: 2015/01/01The Claim Cold fusion of hydrogen in nickel can produce over 10 watts/cc net power. The phrase cold fusion has its vernacular meaning of any low energy nuclear reaction that produces heat. This claim is intended to be similar to the CFsn claim regarding deuterium in palladium but relaxing the requirement for STP since high pressure hydrogen gas loading and high temperature are purportedly required to sustain the hydrogen in nickel cold fusion reaction. http://ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=NiLENR Claim CFsn - Cold FusionCategory: *Science Technology:Physics* bid 2, ask 3, last 2Owner:0, Bank (i...@ideosphere.com)Judge:306, SMWinnie ( smwin...@yahoo.com) created:1994/09/23due date:TBD The Claim Cold fusion of deuterium in palladium can produce over 10 watts/cc. net power at STP (standard temperature and pressure). Cold fusion is discussed on the fusion newsgroup news:sci.physics.fusion. Judge's Statement Judgment will be entered on CFsn on or before January 1, 2015. I will judge based on the intent of this claim, if I perceive such intent to be obvious. If such intent is ambiguous I will judge on the basis of the precise wording. If both are ambiguous, I will look for a solution which follows IF/FX precedent insofar as such precedent is apparent to me and applicable to the claim. I will seek the guidance of the claim's owner/author in interpreting the claim. It's his or her question - s/he ought to get the answer sought. If I believe this claim to have met a YES or NO condition, and if I believe judgement will be controversial, I will post a prospective judgement to fx-discuss and forestall entering the judgement for a comment period to be announced in the post. http://ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=CFsn On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: This conversation is not like that because you are not a crowd of people. You are only one person, and no one else here is hazarding a guess. Oh, lots of people have hazard guesses. You don't know everything, Jed. :)
Re: [Vo]:Reply to Frank Zindarsik
Oh I was not there.
