RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
David Roberson wrote: It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a year away with many strings attached. DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a transformational technology signed this afternoon – and it relates to remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed up by public report of less than a year ago.
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Here is Krivit’s interview but it happened back at the end of 2011, so it may not be relevant to that possibility (that Rossi switched to a jet engine in order to get rapid funding from DARPA) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-For-IARPA.pdf It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a year away with many strings attached. DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a transformational technology signed this afternoon – and it relates to remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed up by public report of less than a year ago.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
- Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Why carry the jet fuel along if you can make sufficient power to keep the air craft in the sky for an indefinite amount of time using LENR? Do you see an advantage to their approach? It is interesting to consider the following -- get LENR going in nickel and ramp the reaction up to a high temperature. Now blow hydrogen and oxygen over it. Perhaps the resulting hydrogen torch will provide some thrust. In addition, some of the hydrogen might go to feed back into the LENR reaction, and perhaps you'll also get thrust from the resulting H2O vapor. Eric
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Eric-- I think that the first step is to marry the reactor to an existing jet engine that could operate without the LENR boost. Once the reliability of the LENR is established then the technology could evolve into a LENR only power source. The redundancy would be desirable from a safety standpoint. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Why carry the jet fuel along if you can make sufficient power to keep the air craft in the sky for an indefinite amount of time using LENR? Do you see an advantage to their approach? It is interesting to consider the following -- get LENR going in nickel and ramp the reaction up to a high temperature. Now blow hydrogen and oxygen over it. Perhaps the resulting hydrogen torch will provide some thrust. In addition, some of the hydrogen might go to feed back into the LENR reaction, and perhaps you'll also get thrust from the resulting H2O vapor. Eric
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Rossi came up with his hot cat design pretty quick. It seems from my recollection that there was never a significant lead up to the announcement. Available bucks could have been the answer. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:50 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Here is Krivit’s interview but it happened back at the end of 2011, so it may not be relevant to that possibility (that Rossi switched to a jet engine in order to get rapid funding from DARPA) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-For-IARPA.pdf It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a year away with many strings attached. DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a transformational technology signed this afternoon – and it relates to remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed up by public report of less than a year ago.
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Good point Bob. BTW – as to further HotCat possibilities – how many remember one of the original drones which goes back 50 years ? … and which design could be notable for this thread since it was a ram-jet configuration. Only a few of the Lockheed D-21 were built. It would fly very high but the fuel consumption was miserable. That is why LENR could change everything. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/D21-070308.jpg The ram-jet configuration would work with a HotCat power source to extend the range considerably. And the platform is ultra cheap and expendable but also nearly impossible to shoot down. Yes – I know that Rossi later said on his blog – that oops, he was really talking about a turbine, not a jet -- but we also know from past experience that AR has a habit of revealing too much at times, and then trying to back-track to cover up. Or else, he is very good about playing his audience. :-) From: Bob Cook Rossi came up with his hot cat design pretty quick. It seems from my recollection that there was never a significant lead up to the announcement. Available bucks could have been the answer. Here is Krivit’s interview but it happened back at the end of 2011, so it may not be relevant to that possibility (that Rossi switched to a jet engine in order to get rapid funding from DARPA) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-For-IARPA.pdf It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a year away with many strings attached. DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a transformational technology signed this afternoon – and it relates to remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed up by public report of less than a year ago.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Hi all I think Rossi's reference to Jet engines may be with regard to matters that came up in the NASA seedling presentation, particularly the Brayton Cycle. It took up a big chunk of the NASA report: http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/SeedlingWELLS.pdf I think a cloak of NDAs; as strong and legally frightening as those used by Google on their Barges; is what is preventing us from seeing what Rossi's partner companies are up to. I think Cherokee is just a cut-off for far bigger players, companies like Cherokee are what bigger companies use to keep the SEC off their backs. I think it is that cloud of NDAs that makes NASA and the US Navy only give us hints as to what is going on. We know they let slip the Lockheed Martin connection in the meeting and one paper from a Lockheed Martin researcher got on to the web only to be removed when it came to light. Kind Regards Walker On 25 March 2014 18:00, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Good point Bob. BTW - as to further HotCat possibilities - how many remember one of the original drones which goes back 50 years ? ... and which design could be notable for this thread since it was a ram-jet configuration. Only a few of the Lockheed D-21 were built. It would fly very high but the fuel consumption was miserable. That is why LENR could change everything. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/D21-070308.jpg The ram-jet configuration would work with a HotCat power source to extend the range considerably. And the platform is ultra cheap and expendable but also nearly impossible to shoot down. Yes - I know that Rossi later said on his blog - that oops, he was really talking about a turbine, not a jet -- but we also know from past experience that AR has a habit of revealing too much at times, and then trying to back-track to cover up. Or else, he is very good about playing his audience. J *From:* Bob Cook Rossi came up with his hot cat design pretty quick. It seems from my recollection that there was never a significant lead up to the announcement. Available bucks could have been the answer. Here is Krivit's interview but it happened back at the end of 2011, so it may not be relevant to that possibility (that Rossi switched to a jet engine in order to get rapid funding from DARPA) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-For-IARPA.pdf It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a year away with many strings attached. DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a transformational technology signed this afternoon - and it relates to remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed up by public report of less than a year ago.
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
From: Ian Walker I think Rossi's reference to Jet engines may be with regard to matters that came up in the NASA seedling presentation, particularly the Brayton Cycle. It took up a big chunk of the NASA report: http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/SeedlingWELLS.pdf Wow. Amazing stuff for anyone who would complain that NASA has lost its cutting edge. aero-porn
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
note that in NASA presentation by Doug Wells, they mostly proposed Brayton cycle turbine (jet) and not Rankine (steam/ORC)... an engineer in turbines sould give his opinion here ... I know some don't like Stirling... 2014-03-25 15:50 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Here is Krivit's interview but it happened back at the end of 2011, so it may not be relevant to that possibility (that Rossi switched to a jet engine in order to get rapid funding from DARPA) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-For-IARPA.pdf It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a year away with many strings attached. DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a transformational technology signed this afternoon - and it relates to remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed up by public report of less than a year ago.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: aero-porn Maybe a bit naive ... Current airport fueling systems could be removed
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
great news that Mizuno found an angel. Time to learn Gospel. 2014-03-24 3:31 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: This appears to be the new venture which is sponsoring Dr Mizuno's work these days... http://cleanplanet.co.jp/ourTeam.php?lang=en Apparently Mr Igari presented for Mizuno. He was said to be very impressive and informed about the details. It is said that one the wealthiest men in Japan is behind CleanPlanet. Too bad that we do not have such a farsighted sponsor in the USA. _ From: Jones Beene Here is some more information which comes out of the MIT colloquium on what could be a major advance in the making. This information is third hand, so it needs to be confirmed. Let's hope that Jed can use his considerable influence to get hold of this paper, which is an update and significant advance from this prior work from last year. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf See Table 2 of that paper. These details would be a long-term run similar to those short term runs 1) The hero effort was for over 30 days continuous - with a COP of ~1.9 2) Something like 70 watts in and 130 thermal watts out 3) The input power is resistance heat (like Rossi) during the run and NOT the glow discharge as reported earlier 4) However, a glow discharge was applied for about one day to condition the nickel electrodes. It is said to form nanoparticles on the wire. 5) From the earlier paper and the SEM image (figure 19) the nanoparticles which are raised on the nickel look like bubbles or bumps instead of cracks. Without the glow discharge treatment there is NO GAIN. 6) About 20 grams of thin nickel wire was wound on a ceramic mandrel. This is over 100 meters of wire. 7) The wire was about .2 mm diameter 8) The gas was D2 but there seems to be some confusion on that - whether D2O (heavy water vapor) or D2. Results with H2 are also good in the prior paper. 9) Pressure was about 150 Pa or about .02 psi during glow discharge and higher during the run. 10) Radiation is seen but it is orders of magnitude too low to account for the heat, yet they seem to be certain that the reaction is nuclear fusion. 11) They believe the design will scale, and have a reactor nearly ready which is capable of 10 kW. 12) They think the COP will rise, rather than fall with scale up. All in all - this work seems to also validate Andrea Rossi to a great extent, since they clearly show that either D2 or H2 work with nickel which has nano surface features. This is very good news for LENR, due to the long run at relatively high power, at significant gain, along the reputation of Mizuno... ...not to mention the validation of Rossi - who may have already witnessed the higher power and higher COP, but we cannot be sure of Rossi - whereas this looks solid and professional.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) The opening slide was an image of Japanese gradeschoolers wearing masks for protection from Fukushimas monstrous effluent. Underscore an enhanced willingness on the part of Japanese government and industry to get behind Mizuno's innovation Steve High
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Steve, have a look at a paper of Edmund Storms (recently brought under the attention by Alain via LinkedIn): http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf He proposes following processes happening in the reactors of Rossi/Defkalion (using light Hydrogen): d+e+d 4H (fast decay) 4He + e Q=~23 MeV d+e+p 3H (slow decay) 3He + e Q=~4.9 MeV [22, 23] p+e+p 2H (stable) Q=~1.4 MeV t+e+p 4H 4He + e t+e+d 5H 4H + n 4He + e The Q values give an estimated overall energy release. Something very similar could be the case in Mizuno's latest setup (skipping the 1H to 2H step). On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote: Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) The opening slide was an image of Japanese gradeschoolers wearing masks for protection from Fukushimas monstrous effluent. Underscore an enhanced willingness on the part of Japanese government and industry to get behind Mizuno's innovation Steve High
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Apparently Mr Igari presented for Mizuno. He was said to be very impressive and informed about the details. That was Mr. Yoshino. Mizuno also presented via Skype. I heard from Mizuno this morning. I asked him to send me the slides, but he has not got around to it. If he sends them I will upload them. If there are some in Japanese I will translate them. He says he will send me a new paper soon. (In professor-speak, soon indicates a time-value ranging from a week to ten years.) Note that in addition to the ICCF18 paper, there as a poster which was mostly written by me, which may be more understandable. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTposterform.pdf He and I went over the poster several times so I am pretty sure it is accurate. Apparently they have made great progress since then. One aspect of this technique which has not been discussed lately is that the particles remain stuck to the wire they are carved out from, so they cannot stick together. In other nanoparticle systems, they tend to stick together, then merge or fuse together, reducing surface area. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
From: Steve High Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. Steve, First let me thank you for this thorough reporting. This may go down as a very important event and you witnessed it first-hand. Second, let me say that the gas at the intermediate stage could have been Trihydrogen as a third option. This would support a version of Fisher's theory if the deuterium was giving up neutrons to the polyneutron species. According to that theory 2 or 3 neutrons are unbound, but more neutron - possibly favoring four to six, can exist as a bound species. What they do later is only predictable in retrospect. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Most interesting. Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) You suggestion of molecular H2 as the most likely end product is not out of the question. Problem is determining the energetics which do not look promising. Like any good detective, we should look at all the possibilities. Thus 2 molecules of D2 go to 2 molecules of H2 and a n4 polyneutron. The polyneutron decays to hydrogen so in the end we have 2 D2 -- 4 H2. However, this is not energetic without something else - such as a mass transfer from the nickel matrix. Mass of H2 is 2.0158 amu, mass of deuterium 2.0141amu so that the net reaction appears endothermic without mass transfer from the host metal or some other energy input. Thanks again - this deserves more thought. The polyneutron itself would be the key - does it gain mass from the zero point field? This would be a worthy question to Puthoff or Haisch.
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
One further note. According to Steve's report, the device placed in the reactor allowed them to determine the changing composition of the reactant gas over time. Thus, it was probably either some kind of spectrometer and they were looking at emission lines - and even a mass spectrometer, if there was a magnetic field. In fact, it had to be the later since they did not know if mass 3 was tritium or 3He. Thus this implies that a magnetic field had been added ! Thus, unbeknownst to even Mizuno, the addition of a magnetic field (and a laser for the spectroscopy) could have been contributory to the better results over the prior experiments a few months ago. Think about the good fortune! Wow. We need to pin down the details of the mass spectrometer which they added to the device. Did it have a magnetic field and a laser? If so, they were inadvertently adding SPP into the experiment ! The question then - for Fisher's theory (and it may be coincidental that he was present) is why did the device not indicate that an amu of 6 or more was present in the ongoing reaction? Simple, Watson . a mass spectrometer require gas ionization and polyneutrons have no electrons, so they cannot ionize and thus would avoid detection, and no one knows the emission lines of a polyneutron anyway - if that is what they were looking for. Plus polyneutrons would be dense - not gaseous (think: neutron star). In conclusion, although it could be coincidental that Fisher was there, this is a good time to take a closer look at an expanded version of polyneutron theory being relevant to the improved Mizuno experiment which could have added SPP under the guise of mass detection. From: Steve High Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. Steve, First let me thank you for this thorough reporting. This may go down as a very important event and you witnessed it first-hand. Second, let me say that the gas at the intermediate stage could have been Trihydrogen as a third option. This would support a version of Fisher's theory if the deuterium was giving up neutrons to the polyneutron species. According to that theory 2 or 3 neutrons are unbound, but more neutron - possibly favoring four to six, can exist as a bound species. What they do later is only predictable in retrospect. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Most interesting. Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) You suggestion of molecular H2 as the most likely end product is not out of the question. Problem is determining the energetics which do not look promising. Like any good detective, we should look at all the possibilities. Thus 2 molecules of D2 go to 2 molecules of H2 and a n4 polyneutron. The polyneutron decays to hydrogen so in the end we have 2 D2 -- 4 H2. However, this is not energetic without something else - such as a mass transfer from the nickel matrix. Mass of H2 is 2.0158 amu, mass of deuterium 2.0141amu so that the net reaction appears endothermic without mass transfer from the host metal or some other energy input. Thanks again - this deserves more thought. The polyneutron itself would be the key - does it gain mass from the zero point field? This would be a worthy question to Puthoff or Haisch.
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
I should have read Jed's post first, and the writeup, which has some nice images Apparently the mass spec and quadrupole are outside the experiment, and could not have been contributory. Apologies for that. However, this does not rule out polyneutrons. But since the reaction works with either deuterium or hydrogen, then we probably cannot be placing much emphasis on a hypothesis which is only relevant to deuterium, and that does seem to partially rule out a polyneutron explanation. From: Jones Beene One further note. According to Steve's report, the device placed in the reactor allowed them to determine the changing composition of the reactant gas over time. Thus, it was probably either some kind of spectrometer and they were looking at emission lines - and even a mass spectrometer, if there was a magnetic field. In fact, it had to be the later since they did not know if mass 3 was tritium or 3He. Thus this implies that a magnetic field had been added ! Thus, unbeknownst to even Mizuno, the addition of a magnetic field (and a laser for the spectroscopy) could have been contributory to the better results over the prior experiments a few months ago. Think about the good fortune! Wow. We need to pin down the details of the mass spectrometer which they added to the device. Did it have a magnetic field and a laser? If so, they were inadvertently adding SPP into the experiment ! The question then - for Fisher's theory (and it may be coincidental that he was present) is why did the device not indicate that an amu of 6 or more was present in the ongoing reaction? Simple, Watson . a mass spectrometer require gas ionization and polyneutrons have no electrons, so they cannot ionize and thus would avoid detection, and no one knows the emission lines of a polyneutron anyway - if that is what they were looking for. Plus polyneutrons would be dense - not gaseous (think: neutron star). In conclusion, although it could be coincidental that Fisher was there, this is a good time to take a closer look at an expanded version of polyneutron theory being relevant to the improved Mizuno experiment which could have added SPP under the guise of mass detection. From: Steve High Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. Steve, First let me thank you for this thorough reporting. This may go down as a very important event and you witnessed it first-hand. Second, let me say that the gas at the intermediate stage could have been Trihydrogen as a third option. This would support a version of Fisher's theory if the deuterium was giving up neutrons to the polyneutron species. According to that theory 2 or 3 neutrons are unbound, but more neutron - possibly favoring four to six, can exist as a bound species. What they do later is only predictable in retrospect. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Most interesting. Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) You suggestion of molecular H2 as the most likely end product is not out of the question. Problem is determining the energetics which do not look promising. Like any good detective, we should look at all the possibilities. Thus 2 molecules of D2 go to 2 molecules of H2 and a n4 polyneutron. The polyneutron decays to hydrogen so in the end we have 2 D2 -- 4 H2. However, this is not energetic without something else - such as a mass transfer from the nickel matrix. Mass of H2 is 2.0158 amu, mass of deuterium 2.0141amu so that the net reaction appears endothermic without mass transfer from the host metal or some other energy input. Thanks again - this deserves more thought. The polyneutron itself would be the key - does it gain mass from the zero point field? This would be a worthy question to Puthoff or Haisch.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
it seems Mizuno measurement show the inverse reaction pep reactions seems to make atomic number grows H.H.H.H-H.D.H-HT-4H~4He D.D.D.D-D.4H.D~D.4He.D Mizuno results seems opposite, or maybe an illusion of mass spectrography It seems a good way to understand what happen, but we should differentiate DD/ He4, and HH/D,, and T/DH/He3 2014-03-24 15:04 GMT+01:00 Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com: Steve, have a look at a paper of Edmund Storms (recently brought under the attention by Alain via LinkedIn): http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf He proposes following processes happening in the reactors of Rossi/Defkalion (using light Hydrogen): d+e+d 4H (fast decay) 4He + e Q=~23 MeV d+e+p 3H (slow decay) 3He + e Q=~4.9 MeV [22, 23] p+e+p 2H (stable) Q=~1.4 MeV t+e+p 4H 4He + e t+e+d 5H 4H + n 4He + e The Q values give an estimated overall energy release. Something very similar could be the case in Mizuno's latest setup (skipping the 1H to 2H step). On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.comwrote: Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) The opening slide was an image of Japanese gradeschoolers wearing masks for protection from Fukushimas monstrous effluent. Underscore an enhanced willingness on the part of Japanese government and industry to get behind Mizuno's innovation Steve High
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Yes, Mizuno's work, according to the recent MIT presentation, is shaping up as a reaction which implies fission of the deuteron, not fusion to higher mass. This is called neutron stripping. It was discovered many years ago and is relatively low energy. We have discussed it many times in the past on vortex, before Ni-H became so important. In short - the only known quantum reaction to take deuterium to hydrogen without thermodynamic splitting (2.2 MeV) is called the Oppenheimer-Philips reaction. Wiki has a poor writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer%E2%80%93Phillips_process The problem is - what is happening to all those lost neutrons, even with a polyneutron species? And why does Mizuno's experiment work well with H2 and/or D2 since H2 cannot be stripped? From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com it seems Mizuno measurement show the inverse reaction pep reactions seems to make atomic number grows H.H.H.H-H.D.H-HT-4H~4He D.D.D.D-D.4H.D~D.4He.D Mizuno results seems opposite, or maybe an illusion of mass spectrography It seems a good way to understand what happen, but we should differentiate DD/ He4, and HH/D,, and T/DH/He3 Teslaalset: Steve, have a look at a paper of Edmund Storms (recently brought under the attention by Alain via LinkedIn): http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf He proposes following processes happening in the reactors of Rossi/Defkalion (using light Hydrogen): d+e+d 4H (fast decay) 4He + e Q=~23 MeV d+e+p 3H (slow decay) 3He + e Q=~4.9 MeV [22, 23] p+e+p 2H (stable) Q=~1.4 MeV t+e+p 4H 4He + e t+e+d 5H 4H + n 4He + e The Q values give an estimated overall energy release. Something very similar could be the case in Mizuno's latest setup (skipping the 1H to 2H step). On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote: Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) The opening slide was an image of Japanese gradeschoolers wearing masks for protection from Fukushimas monstrous effluent. Underscore an enhanced willingness on the part of Japanese government and industry to get behind Mizuno's innovation Steve High
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
I interpret Rossi's discussion of the jet engine as referring to a turbine generator and not an actual aviation application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:33 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation From:Axil DGT is also a validation of Rossi, don't you think? Possibly, but no oneknows. They have presented interesting claims, especially the magnetic claim - butthe scientific data is basically limited to one joint paper in which Kim sayshe did not actually validate the data. Shortly after this IE interview,everything seemed to fall apart for them financially. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ManningIE110.pdf They have no patent, noreplications, dwindling support among experts and no respected scientist tospeak for them without Kim – who seems to be less than enthusiastic thesedays. They were a no-show at MIT. The web site is pitiable. Their presence inCanada is reportedly reduced to an answering machine and shared office with no fulltime staff. Essentially they seem to be broke. Worst of all - the mainfeature of their reactor – the electrical discharge into hydrogen loaded powder- is covered in Ahern’s prior patent application. Their main claim tofame may be having “borrowed” Rossi’s secret recipe, but thebottom line seems to be lack of funds, probably stemming from a crazy businessplan based on extraordinarily high up-front fees. No one signed up, apparently. Don’t hold yourbreath until they deliver. It’s too bad, since they probably have seengain. Perhaps they can snatchvictory for the jaws of defeat. If they can just demonstrate the incrediblemagnetic field to a potential investor, that would seem to be enough. It couldhave other uses. Note – Rossi has been focusing on jet engine substitutionrecently- and the DGT design could be better suited for that.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
I would have said that Storms process would have seen an increase in atomic 4 mass in the form of 4He. NRL indicated that there was a production of He in their Pd experiments consistent with Storms proposed process. Storms has long said on this blog that his theory was reflects the data. I would say the Mizuno tests, if the conclusion on the decrease of atomic mass 4 is correct, contradicts Storms theory. Bob - Original Message - From: Teslaalset To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 7:04 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Steve, have a look at a paper of Edmund Storms (recently brought under the attention by Alain via LinkedIn): http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf He proposes following processes happening in the reactors of Rossi/Defkalion (using light Hydrogen): d+e+d 4H (fast decay) 4He + e Q=~23 MeV d+e+p 3H (slow decay) 3He + e Q=~4.9 MeV [22, 23] p+e+p 2H (stable) Q=~1.4 MeV t+e+p 4H 4He + e t+e+d 5H 4H + n 4He + e The Q values give an estimated overall energy release. Something very similar could be the case in Mizuno's latest setup (skipping the 1H to 2H step). On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote: Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) The opening slide was an image of Japanese gradeschoolers wearing masks for protection from Fukushimas monstrous effluent. Underscore an enhanced willingness on the part of Japanese government and industry to get behind Mizuno's innovation Steve High
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
From: Bob Cook I would have said that Storms process would have seen an increase in atomic 4 mass in the form of 4He. NRL indicated that there was a production of He in their Pd experiments consistent with Storms proposed process. Storms has long said on this blog that his theory was reflects the data. I would say the Mizuno tests, if the conclusion on the decrease of atomic mass 4 is correct, contradicts Storms theory. IMHO, this experiment does not contradict - so much as it adds another route to gain. Storms theory is applicable to some experiments more than others, but this one is not one of them, since amu of the reactant gas is going down instead of up. In fact, in earlier work, Mizuno says that he believes that deuterium fuses to helium, but that cannot be the case here, since they is not increase in amu=4 and in fact it is going the other way. This only reinforces the notion that LENR is a mélange of many energetic reactions, some of which are more favored than others but the same experiment can have several routes operating at once. Because this experiment is so well done and so impressive in its thoroughness, it looks to be the best thing to happen in the LENR field for many years (including Rossi, which was grossly deficient and substandard in the details although curiously, this work validates AR, in ways that his own work cannot)
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Dave-- I assumed Rossi was refering to a LENR reactor that preheated the normal fuel of a jet engine, similar to what NASA engineers were saying was being considere by someone and similar to the design of the 1950's GE design of their J-47 jet engine/nuclear reactor. Depending upon how much energy is added to the fuel, more or less fuel is required for combustion to get the reaction started and the engine running. Given enough tubro compression of incoming air, the fuel usage may decrease to very little or none under normal conditions of operation and energy release from the LENR reaction. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation I interpret Rossi's discussion of the jet engine as referring to a turbine generator and not an actual aviation application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:33 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation From: Axil DGT is also a validation of Rossi, don't you think? Possibly, but no one knows. They have presented interesting claims, especially the magnetic claim - but the scientific data is basically limited to one joint paper in which Kim says he did not actually validate the data. Shortly after this IE interview, everything seemed to fall apart for them financially. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ManningIE110.pdf They have no patent, no replications, dwindling support among experts and no respected scientist to speak for them without Kim – who seems to be less than enthusiastic these days. They were a no-show at MIT. The web site is pitiable. Their presence in Canada is reportedly reduced to an answering machine and shared office with no full time staff. Essentially they seem to be broke. Worst of all - the main feature of their reactor – the electrical discharge into hydrogen loaded powder - is covered in Ahern’s prior patent application. Their main claim to fame may be having “borrowed” Rossi’s secret recipe, but the bottom line seems to be lack of funds, probably stemming from a crazy business plan based on extraordinarily high up-front fees. No one signed up, apparently. Don’t hold your breath until they deliver. It’s too bad, since they probably have seen gain. Perhaps they can snatch victory for the jaws of defeat. If they can just demonstrate the incredible magnetic field to a potential investor, that would seem to be enough. It could have other uses. Note – Rossi has been focusing on jet engine substitution recently- and the DGT design could be better suited for that.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
The decrease of the observed atomic mass of hydrogen by half may simply be the dissociation of molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen over time. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Dave-- I assumed Rossi was refering to a LENR reactor that preheated the normal fuel of a jet engine, similar to what NASA engineers were saying was being considere by someone and similar to the design of the 1950's GE design of their J-47 jet engine/nuclear reactor. Depending upon how much energy is added to the fuel, more or less fuel is required for combustion to get the reaction started and the engine running. Given enough tubro compression of incoming air, the fuel usage may decrease to very little or none under normal conditions of operation and energy release from the LENR reaction. Bob - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, March 24, 2014 8:33 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation I interpret Rossi's discussion of the jet engine as referring to a turbine generator and not an actual aviation application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:33 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation *From:* Axil DGT is also a validation of Rossi, don't you think? Possibly, but no one knows. They have presented interesting claims, especially the magnetic claim - but the scientific data is basically limited to one joint paper in which Kim says he did not actually validate the data. Shortly after this IE interview, everything seemed to fall apart for them financially. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ManningIE110.pdf They have no patent, no replications, dwindling support among experts and no respected scientist to speak for them without Kim - who seems to be less than enthusiastic these days. They were a no-show at MIT. The web site is pitiable. Their presence in Canada is reportedly reduced to an answering machine and shared office with no full time staff. Essentially they seem to be broke. Worst of all - the main feature of their reactor - the electrical discharge into hydrogen loaded powder - is covered in Ahern's prior patent application. Their main claim to fame may be having borrowed Rossi's secret recipe, but the bottom line seems to be lack of funds, probably stemming from a crazy business plan based on extraordinarily high up-front fees. No one signed up, apparently. Don't hold your breath until they deliver. It's too bad, since they probably have seen gain. Perhaps they can snatch victory for the jaws of defeat. If they can just demonstrate the incredible magnetic field to a potential investor, that would seem to be enough. It could have other uses. Note - Rossi has been focusing on jet engine substitution recently- and the DGT design could be better suited for that.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Jones-- I do not think you give Ross AND Focardi enough credit for doing good research. They just did not talk about it. Rossi's reaction did not just happen by luck in my estimation. Nevertheless, I agree that the Mizuno work seems to look at dynamic parameters in attempting to understand the reactions that are occurring. The details of the method they used to determine the mass of the circulating gas species would be nice to know in detail--did it in fact entail the addition of magnetic fields. And if the reactor is not sealed, how did they account for the mass balance (and mass ratios) of gases coming out (and going in) if there was an addition with time. Rossi may not have done dynamic monitoring of his reaction products, but I believe he destructively examined the hundreds of runs he claims to have made in perfecting his reactor with good up-to-date technology that Focardi was familiar with and apparently had access to. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:54 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation From: Bob Cook I would have said that Storms process would have seen an increase in atomic 4 mass in the form of 4He. NRL indicated that there was a production of He in their Pd experiments consistent with Storms proposed process. Storms has long said on this blog that his theory was reflects the data. I would say the Mizuno tests, if the conclusion on the decrease of atomic mass 4 is correct, contradicts Storms theory. IMHO, this experiment does not contradict - so much as it adds another route to gain. Storm's theory is applicable to some experiments more than others, but this one is not one of them, since amu of the reactant gas is going down instead of up. In fact, in earlier work, Mizuno says that he believes that deuterium fuses to helium, but that cannot be the case here, since they is not increase in amu=4 and in fact it is going the other way. This only reinforces the notion that LENR is a mélange of many energetic reactions, some of which are more favored than others but the same experiment can have several routes operating at once. Because this experiment is so well done - and so impressive in its thoroughness, it looks to be the best thing to happen in the LENR field for many years (including Rossi, which was grossly deficient and substandard in the details. although curiously, this work validates AR, in ways that his own work cannot)
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Apparently the mass spec and quadrupole are outside the experiment, and could not have been contributory. When they took those photos I think the mass spec quadrupole were sitting there, not hooked into the experiment yet. I saw the quadrupole gadget years ago when I was there. Months ago, they did the experiment by doing glow discharge with rarefied gas, then filling the cell with a lot more gas. The gas would stay there for the entire test. I think after the test they would sometimes run a sample through a mass spectrometer. They occasionally saw some anomalous heat during the initial glow discharge phase, presumably when some nanoparticles were already formed. I have not seen new slides and I was not there for the lecture, but my impression is they have now set up the mass spectrometer in a loop, where the gas passes through the spectrometer into the cell, out again and around and around. Mizuno did not send me slides, I suppose because Yoshino has them. I guess he just got home. It takes a long time. If I get slides I will upload them toot sweet as they (don't) say in Gay Paree. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Jed They would have to had a magnetic shield around the mass spec to keep the magnetic field out of the reactor. Keep in mind that the Mass Spectrometer uses a small sample of a gas and ionized it to create a charged atom that is captured in the process and is eliminated from the gas inventory. If the process is continuous, a significant amount of gas may be lost in this process over time. A mass accounting is warranted. What is the quadrupole outside the experiment that you refer to. Is it part of the mass spectrometer? Bob - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Apparently the mass spec and quadrupole are outside the experiment, and could not have been contributory. When they took those photos I think the mass spec quadrupole were sitting there, not hooked into the experiment yet. I saw the quadrupole gadget years ago when I was there. Months ago, they did the experiment by doing glow discharge with rarefied gas, then filling the cell with a lot more gas. The gas would stay there for the entire test. I think after the test they would sometimes run a sample through a mass spectrometer. They occasionally saw some anomalous heat during the initial glow discharge phase, presumably when some nanoparticles were already formed. I have not seen new slides and I was not there for the lecture, but my impression is they have now set up the mass spectrometer in a loop, where the gas passes through the spectrometer into the cell, out again and around and around. Mizuno did not send me slides, I suppose because Yoshino has them. I guess he just got home. It takes a long time. If I get slides I will upload them toot sweet as they (don't) say in Gay Paree. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: What is the quadrupole outside the experiment that you refer to. Is it part of the mass spectrometer? Look at the schematic on p. 7 and the photos on p. 8 here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTposterform.pdf The schematic shows that you can take a sample of gas from the cell any time during the run. But I do not think you could do continuous sampling with this arrangement. A quadrupole is a quadrupole mass spectrometer. It is a gadget with four polls inside it, just as you might expect. Mizuno purchased it years ago. I think there was another kind of mass spectrometer there now, shown some other photos, but I may be mistaken. Figure 12 shows the quadrupole gadget is a good distance away from the cell. I don't suppose magnetic fields from it reach the cell with much strength. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
From: Jed Rothwell I have not seen new slides and I was not there for the lecture, but my impression is they have now set up the mass spectrometer in a loop, where the gas passes through the spectrometer into the cell, out again and around and around. The main reason that knowing (or appreciating) that the mass spectrometer was close to the device or built into the device now, as opposed to earlier - was because the operating results have been also greatly improved in the past few months . thus, we are thinking that there was the possibility of an added magnetic field being responsible or partly contributory to the bigger gain. The magnetic field seems to fit well into many recent offshoots of a Letts/Cravens effect where a small added field makes a large boost in LENR output. We cannot be sure that this is relevant to Mizuno without learning more details. However, in the MIT presentation - where they were using 300 meters of thin nickel wire, wrapped around a mandrel with many turns - instead of the much thicker and fewer turns of wire in other past experiments - that too could be where an added magnetic field originates - in the mandrel itself. However, this coil is ostensibly unpowered in the experiment IIRC. Not only that but the wire is uncoated, so an amp-turn equivalent situation is hard to imagine due to shorting. The question then would be something like this: could a small magnetic field of 500-800 gauss be created during operation of the Mizuno device by induction from the heating coil to the mandrel, or else by positive ion contact with the mandrel coil?
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Quadrupole stimulation of nuclei is a long know way to excite nuclei. Is the quadrupole device part of the experiment?.. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:19 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation From: Jed Rothwell I have not seen new slides and I was not there for the lecture, but my impression is they have now set up the mass spectrometer in a loop, where the gas passes through the spectrometer into the cell, out again and around and around. The main reason that knowing (or appreciating) that the mass spectrometer was close to the device or built into the device now, as opposed to earlier - was because the operating results have been also greatly improved in the past few months . thus, we are thinking that there was the possibility of an added magnetic field being responsible or partly contributory to the bigger gain. The magnetic field seems to fit well into many recent offshoots of a Letts/Cravens effect where a small added field makes a large boost in LENR output. We cannot be sure that this is relevant to Mizuno without learning more details. However, in the MIT presentation - where they were using 300 meters of thin nickel wire, wrapped around a mandrel with many turns - instead of the much thicker and fewer turns of wire in other past experiments - that too could be where an added magnetic field originates - in the mandrel itself. However, this coil is ostensibly unpowered in the experiment IIRC. Not only that but the wire is uncoated, so an amp-turn equivalent situation is hard to imagine due to shorting. The question then would be something like this: could a small magnetic field of 500-800 gauss be created during operation of the Mizuno device by induction from the heating coil to the mandrel, or else by positive ion contact with the mandrel coil?
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Quadrupole stimulation of nuclei is a long know way to excite nuclei. Is the quadrupole device part of the experiment?.. Look at the photos please. It is a box sitting off to the side, connected to the cell with a pipe. (I assume it is a thin pipe, not a tube.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Bob, I agree that he could consider doing exactly what you describe and perhaps one day that will happen. My response was due to what I read on his blog when he was answering a question from one of his audience. Unless I misunderstood him, he appeared to use the term jet engine as a replacement for turbine. Of course a jet engine is often built with turbine compressors, etc. Do you read his journal? I have found that it contains useful information on occasions. Recently, the good tidbits of knowledge have been limited as compared to before his company was purchased this year. I suspect they have placed a chain around his neck to prevent helping competitors. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Dave-- I assumed Rossi was refering to a LENR reactor that preheated the normal fuel of a jet engine, similar to what NASA engineers were saying was being considere by someone and similar to the design of the 1950's GE design of their J-47 jet engine/nuclear reactor. Depending upon how much energy is added to the fuel, more or less fuel is required for combustion to get the reaction started and the engine running. Given enough tubro compression of incoming air, the fuel usage may decrease to very little or none under normal conditions of operation and energy release from the LENR reaction. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation I interpret Rossi's discussion of the jet engine as referring to a turbine generator and not an actual aviation application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:33 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation From: Axil DGT is also a validation of Rossi, don't you think? Possibly, but no one knows. They have presented interesting claims, especially the magnetic claim - but the scientific data is basically limited to one joint paper in which Kim says he did not actually validate the data. Shortly after this IE interview, everything seemed to fall apart for them financially. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ManningIE110.pdf They have no patent, no replications, dwindling support among experts and no respected scientist to speak for them without Kim – who seems to be less than enthusiastic these days. They were a no-show at MIT. The web site is pitiable. Their presence in Canada is reportedly reduced to an answering machine and shared office with no full time staff. Essentially they seem to be broke. Worst of all - the main feature of their reactor – the electrical discharge into hydrogen loaded powder - is covered in Ahern’s prior patent application. Their main claim to fame may be having “borrowed” Rossi’s secret recipe, but the bottom line seems to be lack of funds, probably stemming from a crazy business plan based on extraordinarily high up-front fees. No one signed up, apparently. Don’t hold your breath until they deliver. It’s too bad, since they probably have seen gain. Perhaps they can snatch victory for the jaws of defeat. If they can just demonstrate the incredible magnetic field to a potential investor, that would seem to be enough. It could have other uses. Note – Rossi has been focusing on jet engine substitution recently- and the DGT design could be better suited for that.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Dave-- I read his log about 2x per week. Over the years I have found Rossi to be sincere and honest. I suspect he has been in contact with Boeing and the jet engine manufacturers. I hope it comes to pass with his Hot Cat. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Bob, I agree that he could consider doing exactly what you describe and perhaps one day that will happen. My response was due to what I read on his blog when he was answering a question from one of his audience. Unless I misunderstood him, he appeared to use the term jet engine as a replacement for turbine. Of course a jet engine is often built with turbine compressors, etc. Do you read his journal? I have found that it contains useful information on occasions. Recently, the good tidbits of knowledge have been limited as compared to before his company was purchased this year. I suspect they have placed a chain around his neck to prevent helping competitors. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Dave-- I assumed Rossi was refering to a LENR reactor that preheated the normal fuel of a jet engine, similar to what NASA engineers were saying was being considere by someone and similar to the design of the 1950's GE design of their J-47 jet engine/nuclear reactor. Depending upon how much energy is added to the fuel, more or less fuel is required for combustion to get the reaction started and the engine running. Given enough tubro compression of incoming air, the fuel usage may decrease to very little or none under normal conditions of operation and energy release from the LENR reaction. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation I interpret Rossi's discussion of the jet engine as referring to a turbine generator and not an actual aviation application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:33 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation From: Axil DGT is also a validation of Rossi, don't you think? Possibly, but no one knows. They have presented interesting claims, especially the magnetic claim - but the scientific data is basically limited to one joint paper in which Kim says he did not actually validate the data. Shortly after this IE interview, everything seemed to fall apart for them financially. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ManningIE110.pdf They have no patent, no replications, dwindling support among experts and no respected scientist to speak for them without Kim – who seems to be less than enthusiastic these days. They were a no-show at MIT. The web site is pitiable. Their presence in Canada is reportedly reduced to an answering machine and shared office with no full time staff. Essentially they seem to be broke. Worst of all - the main feature of their reactor – the electrical discharge into hydrogen loaded powder - is covered in Ahern’s prior patent application. Their main claim to fame may be having “borrowed” Rossi’s secret recipe, but the bottom line seems to be lack of funds, probably stemming from a crazy business plan based on extraordinarily high up-front fees. No one signed up, apparently. Don’t hold your breath until they deliver. It’s too bad, since they probably have seen gain. Perhaps they can snatch victory for the jaws of defeat. If they can just demonstrate the incredible magnetic field to a potential investor, that would seem to be enough. It could have other uses. Note – Rossi has been focusing on jet engine substitution recently- and the DGT design could be better suited for that.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Bob, Apparently you are correct about the jet engine effort. I just read the latest journal entries by Mr. Rossi and must admit that his words suggest what you believe. Earlier I read posts which seemed to imply what I understood. It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Why carry the jet fuel along if you can make sufficient power to keep the air craft in the sky for an indefinite amount of time using LENR? Do you see an advantage to their approach? Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 10:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Dave-- I read his log about 2x per week. Over the years I have found Rossi to be sincere and honest. I suspect he has been in contact with Boeing and the jet engine manufacturers. I hope it comes to pass with his Hot Cat. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Bob, I agree that he could consider doing exactly what you describe and perhaps one day that will happen. My response was due to what I read on his blog when he was answering a question from one of his audience.Unless I misunderstood him, he appeared to use the term jet engine as a replacement for turbine. Of course a jet engine is often built with turbine compressors, etc. Do you read his journal? I have found that it contains useful information on occasions. Recently, the good tidbits of knowledge have been limited as compared to before his company was purchased this year.I suspect they have placed a chain around his neck to prevent helping competitors. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Dave-- I assumed Rossi was refering to a LENR reactor that preheated the normal fuel of a jet engine, similar to what NASA engineers were saying was being considere by someone and similar to the design of the 1950's GE design of their J-47 jet engine/nuclear reactor.Depending upon how much energy is added to the fuel, more or less fuel is required for combustion to get the reaction started and the engine running. Given enough tubro compression of incoming air, the fuel usage may decrease to very little or none under normal conditions of operation and energy release from the LENR reaction. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation I interpret Rossi's discussion of the jet engine as referring to a turbine generator and not an actual aviation application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:33 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation From: Axil DGT is also a validation of Rossi, don't you think? Possibly, but no one knows. They have presented interesting claims, especially the magnetic claim - but the scientific data is basically limited to one joint paper in which Kim says he did not actually validate the data. Shortly after this IE interview, everything seemed to fall apart for them financially. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ManningIE110.pdf They have no patent, no replications, dwindling support among experts and no respected scientist to speak for them without Kim – who seems to be less than enthusiastic these days. They were a no-show at MIT. The web site is pitiable. Their presence in Canada is reportedly reduced to an answering machine and shared office with no full time staff. Essentially they seem to be broke. Worst of all - the main feature of their reactor – the electrical discharge into hydrogen loaded powder - is covered in Ahern’s prior patent application. Their main claim to fame may be having “borrowed” Rossi’s secret recipe, but the bottom line seems to be lack of funds, probably stemming from a crazy business plan based on extraordinarily high up-front fees. No one signed up, apparently. Don’t hold your breath until they deliver. It’s too bad, since they probably have seen gain. Perhaps they can snatch victory for the jaws of defeat. If they can just demonstrate the incredible magnetic field to a potential investor, that would seem
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Why carry the jet fuel along if you can make sufficient power to keep the air craft in the sky for an indefinite amount of time using LENR? Do you see an advantage to their approach? It is interesting to consider the following -- get LENR going in nickel and ramp the reaction up to a high temperature. Now blow hydrogen and oxygen over it. Perhaps the resulting hydrogen torch will provide some thrust. In addition, some of the hydrogen might go to feed back into the LENR reaction, and perhaps you'll also get thrust from the resulting H2O vapor. Eric
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
This appears to be the new venture which is sponsoring Dr Mizuno's work these days... http://cleanplanet.co.jp/ourTeam.php?lang=en Apparently Mr Igari presented for Mizuno. He was said to be very impressive and informed about the details. It is said that one the wealthiest men in Japan is behind CleanPlanet. Too bad that we do not have such a farsighted sponsor in the USA. _ From: Jones Beene Here is some more information which comes out of the MIT colloquium on what could be a major advance in the making. This information is third hand, so it needs to be confirmed. Let's hope that Jed can use his considerable influence to get hold of this paper, which is an update and significant advance from this prior work from last year. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf See Table 2 of that paper. These details would be a long-term run similar to those short term runs 1) The hero effort was for over 30 days continuous - with a COP of ~1.9 2) Something like 70 watts in and 130 thermal watts out 3) The input power is resistance heat (like Rossi) during the run and NOT the glow discharge as reported earlier 4) However, a glow discharge was applied for about one day to condition the nickel electrodes. It is said to form nanoparticles on the wire. 5) From the earlier paper and the SEM image (figure 19) the nanoparticles which are raised on the nickel look like bubbles or bumps instead of cracks. Without the glow discharge treatment there is NO GAIN. 6) About 20 grams of thin nickel wire was wound on a ceramic mandrel. This is over 100 meters of wire. 7) The wire was about .2 mm diameter 8) The gas was D2 but there seems to be some confusion on that - whether D2O (heavy water vapor) or D2. Results with H2 are also good in the prior paper. 9) Pressure was about 150 Pa or about .02 psi during glow discharge and higher during the run. 10) Radiation is seen but it is orders of magnitude too low to account for the heat, yet they seem to be certain that the reaction is nuclear fusion. 11) They believe the design will scale, and have a reactor nearly ready which is capable of 10 kW. 12) They think the COP will rise, rather than fall with scale up. All in all - this work seems to also validate Andrea Rossi to a great extent, since they clearly show that either D2 or H2 work with nickel which has nano surface features. This is very good news for LENR, due to the long run at relatively high power, at significant gain, along the reputation of Mizuno... ...not to mention the validation of Rossi - who may have already witnessed the higher power and higher COP, but we cannot be sure of Rossi - whereas this looks solid and professional. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
DGT is also a validation of Rossi, don't you think? On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This appears to be the new venture which is sponsoring Dr Mizuno's work these days... http://cleanplanet.co.jp/ourTeam.php?lang=en Apparently Mr Igari presented for Mizuno. He was said to be very impressive and informed about the details. It is said that one the wealthiest men in Japan is behind CleanPlanet. Too bad that we do not have such a farsighted sponsor in the USA. _ From: Jones Beene Here is some more information which comes out of the MIT colloquium on what could be a major advance in the making. This information is third hand, so it needs to be confirmed. Let's hope that Jed can use his considerable influence to get hold of this paper, which is an update and significant advance from this prior work from last year. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf See Table 2 of that paper. These details would be a long-term run similar to those short term runs 1) The hero effort was for over 30 days continuous - with a COP of ~1.9 2) Something like 70 watts in and 130 thermal watts out 3) The input power is resistance heat (like Rossi) during the run and NOT the glow discharge as reported earlier 4) However, a glow discharge was applied for about one day to condition the nickel electrodes. It is said to form nanoparticles on the wire. 5) From the earlier paper and the SEM image (figure 19) the nanoparticles which are raised on the nickel look like bubbles or bumps instead of cracks. Without the glow discharge treatment there is NO GAIN. 6) About 20 grams of thin nickel wire was wound on a ceramic mandrel. This is over 100 meters of wire. 7) The wire was about .2 mm diameter 8) The gas was D2 but there seems to be some confusion on that - whether D2O (heavy water vapor) or D2. Results with H2 are also good in the prior paper. 9) Pressure was about 150 Pa or about .02 psi during glow discharge and higher during the run. 10) Radiation is seen but it is orders of magnitude too low to account for the heat, yet they seem to be certain that the reaction is nuclear fusion. 11) They believe the design will scale, and have a reactor nearly ready which is capable of 10 kW. 12) They think the COP will rise, rather than fall with scale up. All in all - this work seems to also validate Andrea Rossi to a great extent, since they clearly show that either D2 or H2 work with nickel which has nano surface features. This is very good news for LENR, due to the long run at relatively high power, at significant gain, along the reputation of Mizuno... ...not to mention the validation of Rossi - who may have already witnessed the higher power and higher COP, but we cannot be sure of Rossi - whereas this looks solid and professional.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ...not to mention the validation of Rossi - who may have already witnessed the higher power and higher COP, but we cannot be sure of Rossi - whereas this looks solid and professional. I'm glad to see that Mizuno might be hot on the trail of the kilowatt producers. Eric
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
From: Axil DGT is also a validation of Rossi, don't you think? Possibly, but no one knows. They have presented interesting claims, especially the magnetic claim - but the scientific data is basically limited to one joint paper in which Kim says he did not actually validate the data. Shortly after this IE interview, everything seemed to fall apart for them financially. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ManningIE110.pdf They have no patent, no replications, dwindling support among experts and no respected scientist to speak for them without Kim - who seems to be less than enthusiastic these days. They were a no-show at MIT. The web site is pitiable. Their presence in Canada is reportedly reduced to an answering machine and shared office with no full time staff. Essentially they seem to be broke. Worst of all - the main feature of their reactor - the electrical discharge into hydrogen loaded powder - is covered in Ahern's prior patent application. Their main claim to fame may be having borrowed Rossi's secret recipe, but the bottom line seems to be lack of funds, probably stemming from a crazy business plan based on extraordinarily high up-front fees. No one signed up, apparently. Don't hold your breath until they deliver. It's too bad, since they probably have seen gain. Perhaps they can snatch victory for the jaws of defeat. If they can just demonstrate the incredible magnetic field to a potential investor, that would seem to be enough. It could have other uses. Note - Rossi has been focusing on jet engine substitution recently- and the DGT design could be better suited for that.
