Re: MAHG update
JLN's W Filament2.5E-4 meterdia x0.100 meterlong Area = (pi)R^2 x L = 4.9E-9 meter^2 Resistance at 27 K = 0.122 ohms Resistance at 500 K = 0.203 ohms Resistance at 1,000 K = 0.508 ohms Resistance at 2,000 K = 1.13 ohms Temp K w/m^2 Ohm-Meters Amp/Meter^2 % H Atoms 27.00 -- - -0.60E-7 - - - - - - 500 100 1.0E-7 - - - - - - - 1000 6,000 2.5E-7 - - - - - - 1500 55,200 4.04E-7 1.0E-3 - - - 2000 240,400 5.67E-7 1.00 0.1 2500 698,000 7.4E-7 5,0001.60
Re: MAHG update (Correction)
Oops. Couldn't figure why the radiated power was 3 milliwatts at 2500 K . It should be about 53 watts. Frederick - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: 7/9/05 8:56:12 AM Subject: Re: MAHG update JLN's W Filament2.5E-4 meterdia x0.100 meterlong Area = (pi)R^2 x L = 4.9E-9 meter^2 Correction: Area = (pi)D x L = 7.85E-7 meter^2 Resistance at 27 K = 0.122 ohms Resistance at 500 K = 0.203 ohms Resistance at 1,000 K = 0.508 ohms Resistance at 2,000 K = 1.13 ohms Temp K w/m^2 Ohm-Meters Amp/Meter^2 % H Atoms 27.00 -- - -0.60E-7 - - - - - - 500 100 1.0E-7 - - - - - - - 1000 6,000 2.5E-7 - - - - - - 1500 55,200 4.04E-7 1.0E-3 - - - 2000 240,400 5.67E-7 1.00 0.1 2500 698,000 7.4E-7 5,0001.60
Re: MAHG update
- Original Message - From: Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's trickier than you would think because that analog ammeter and shunt still has to pass 166 A with minimal voltage drop Well it is not necessary to cover the whole range of baterry capability when the testing amp range for the MAHG at low duty. It is much narrower. Here is what I had in mind - a three range unit, very inexpensive - the purpose being ONLY to confirm that the other digital readings are not way out of line. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=4678item=7518795991rd=1ssPageName=WD1V Naudin probably has several scattered around the lab. Not as sexy as that way-cool scope, but it is pretty hard to fool an old ammeter. Some time ago (the Joe Newman era, everyone agreed that this was the way to go for determining spikey input - I hope that this notion hasn't changed) nothing could be more embarassing, from the stanpoint of having a great-looking experiment and web-page - to find out you have made a 20-1 error - especially when all you had to do to catcvh it well in advance, was have a $20 meter handy. BTW has anyone figured out how to get rid of that annoying red advertisement on the JNL page, short of turning off Java? The Firefox Ad-block applet doesn't see it. Jones
Re: MAHG update
Jones, Jon, After reading my last post I can see that my point is not entirely clear. IMO, Naudin's voltage measurents are taken directly at the filament connections on the MAHG tube assembly thus neglecting any voltage drops thru the connecting leads to the supply source. ...and reading between the lines, then - it seems that you think that he has neglected the simple expedient of confirming this power input reading, by placing an ammeter at the battery itself? Basically yes. Specifically, the current sensing probe or resistor could be placed anywhere in the leads from the supply source, but the voltage sensing leads appear to be placed at the filament connections rather than the battery terminals. Otherwise, his input voltage measurement values make no sense at all but I could be missing something! -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 - Release Date: 7/8/2005
Re: MAHG update
Fred, Given your finding that the filament resistance is about 1 ohm at 2000 K there is no way that more than 8-10 amps is being drawn, even at full duty. That five watt figure which Naudin is claiming is actually looking possible, if not likely, at 5% duty factor - if most of the cathode heating is provided __by the reaction__ itself, and NOT by the meager current. Would you agree? Perhaps we should not even call this electrode a real cathode, until we get the wiring schematic. That would assume that the CMOS unit seen in the image is PNP. again, we need a schematic diagram. Some other rough estimates (please post your suggested corrections):If the volume of a MAHG tube is about a half liter and the vacuum is 80 torr, then there will be rougly10e20 molecules of H2 in a MAHG tube, about 4 milligrams.If ZPE is being somehow cohered by the hydrogen in the tube (by a bare proton in one theory) and the characteristic ZPE mass/energy level for that transfer of energy is 3.4 eV (half the 6.8 eV ionization potential of virtual Ps), and the net output of the tube is 100 watts from 5 watts electrical input, then how many molecules of gas are participating in the ZPE coherence reaction per given time period, and does this reconcile with the filament temperature which is seen?100 Watt seconds = 6.24*e20 eV = 100 joules = 24 calories. This would mean that every molecule in the tube was participating about one time per second, or in any give pulse (of 50 pulses per second), then 2% of the molecules will on average have one of the protons go "bare" for long enough to cohere the characteristic photon from ZPE (the Dirac epo field). To convert the characteristic ZPE energy of 3.4 eV into the Kelvin scale of temperature, multiply by 11,605 = ~40,000 degrees K.Bob Fickle estimates that it would take 200 joules to heat the filament to 2000 K - but that is assuming continuous temperature. If the filament were cycling between 2000 K and 700 K at the 50 Hz pulse rate than, yes the 100 joule output from the reaction (not from the input current) should seem to be sufficient to cycle the filament to that temperature for a brief period, as in the graphic chart on the MAHG site.The Mean Free Path for Electrons (or H2 molecules)is harder to determine but the number of electron collisions with hydrogen at 80 torr per linear distance in cm = ~100 per cm/sec at 80 torr, and if are 10 amps of flux, then one ampere is 6.24 × 10e18 elementary charges per second, then approximately one in every 10 collisions of a ballistic electron with an H2 gas molecule will result in a temporary dislocation of one of the protons - which becomes temporarily "bare" for an instant and is "replaced" by a positron in the molecule, while "borrowing" the virtual electron from the Ps, during this instant of time.When the temporary dislocation is over, in a matter of femptoseconds or less, half of the I.P. of the virtual Ps will remain in our 3-space (3.4 eV) - which is the ZPE energy - which as suggested takes the form of an ultraviolet photon, which is immediately down-converted to IR heat - which is the excess heat seen at the tube wall and at the cathode (through the abnormally high heating effect). Since the cool tube wall is critical, and since the wall is sputtered, it is likely that all this OU happens within a few microns of the wall itself and none of it happens on the so-calledcathode - which is just there to provide thermionic electrons - which are the "instigating" particle (being transferred by the molecule as a negative ion? or not ;-)However, this begs the question: is it possible to convert the 3.4 eV photon to electricity without letting it get first diluted down to IR low-grade heat?It also suggests a way to immediately improve the output - a very high surface area at tube wall. Actually the "sputtering" itself does this, to a degree. Maybe that is the key and that this is NOT a true anode, nor is the cathode a true cathode. More crazinessto ponder... Jones - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 5:55 AM Subject: Re: MAHG update JLN's W Filament2.5E-4 meterdia x0.100 meterlong Area = (pi)R^2 x L = 4.9E-9 meter^2 Resistance at 27 K = 0.122 ohms Resistance at 500 K = 0.203 ohms Resistance at 1,000 K = 0.508 ohms Resistance at 2,000 K = 1.13 ohms Temp K w/m^2 Ohm-Meters Amp/Meter^2 % H Atoms 27.00 -- - -0.60E-7 - - - - - - 500 100 1.0E-7 - - - - - - - 1000 6,000 2.5E-7 - - - - - - 1500 55,200 4.04E-7 1.0E-3 - - - 2000 240,400 5.67E-7 1.00 0.1 2500 698,000 7.4E-7 5,0001.60
Re: MAHG update
This test does not prove that LENR is not occurring. LENR does not produce detectable radiation outside of the cell. The only radiation of any significance has only been detected within the cell. In addition, such a counter would not detect radiation from tritium nor neutron emission. Until the effect is tested with D2 enhanced H2, no demonstrated conclusion is possible about the source of extra energy. I'm surprised that so much energy is devoted to speculated when simple changes in experimental conditions would answer all the questions. Ed Jones Beene wrote: The site has been updated with radiation measurements: http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/tests/mahg2e.htm Exec summary: NADA so it is doubtful that anything nuclear is going on in the sense of LENR. However, I hope that we can get some kind of quick confirmation that his P-in is accurate... that would mean an analog measurement showing a fractional amp AT THE BATTERY itself, I presume. Otherwise, as George suggests - there is nothing to it, unless One other troubling issue is that you have both a duty cycle of less than 5% and also a pulse rate of ~50 Hz; the two not being exactly compatible in timing so how are they determined- is one layered on the other? If there is an acceptable resoltuion to this it will probably be in that, or in an analog current measurement taken at the battery itself. Jones
Re: MAHG update
Ed, Your are correct and I was too hasty in saying that LENR had been eliminated as a factor. I'm having a low batting average today it seems. This test does not prove that LENR is not occurring. LENR does not produce detectable radiation outside of the cell. The only radiation of any significance has only been detected within the cell. Yes. and BTW, what is the highest energy signal which you have detected within the cell? Are you finding soft x-rays in the cell? Until the effect is tested with D2 enhanced H2, no demonstrated conclusion is possible about the source of extra energy. I'm surprised that so much energy is devoted to speculated when simple changes in experimental conditions would answer all the questions. Yes, especially since Naudin has used D2 in other work. Maybe it is on his list (along with a few other details ;-) One suspects that he is a very busy man with this and his other projects ... ...and IF he should have an adequate answer to the P-in power measurement question which George Holz has raised, and IF that rather amazing COP of 20 is accurate, then at some point, we may find that he will become less-keen to share his results than he has in the past. Jones
Re: MAHG update
FWIW, another reality check for the input power consumed by the MAHG is to first calculate the energy in Joules per pulse and multiply by the rep rate. IE, the input energy is 166 * 12 * (1/50) * .05 = 1.992J per pulse. Therefore, the input power = 1.992 * 50 = 99.6 watts. With the equipment JLN has at his disposal, I would assume the peak current measurement, duty cycle and line frequency, are all within 5%. Jon F -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 - Release Date: 7/8/2005
Re: MAHG update
Jon, FWIW, another reality check for the input power consumed by the MAHG is to first calculate the energy in Joules per pulse and multiply by the rep rate. IE, the input energy is 166 * 12 * (1/50) * .05 = 1.992J per pulse. Therefore, the input power = 1.992 * 50 = 99.6 watts. With the equipment JLN has at his disposal, I would assume the peak current measurement, duty cycle and line frequency, are all within 5%. As Terry mentioned, on the original page http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/tests/index.htmHe says that he measures rms volts times rms amps and gets real power.and he says he does it with THREE different meters, analog ammeter included!! ERGO He must surely measure at the battery itself, no? Why wouldn't he - cheap and effective. That is supposed to be the real beauty of using a battery PS in the first place so why not take fulladvantage? You seem to be saying that he would have missed this simple expedient... but that seems unlikely to me. However we will not know for sure, unless we get some response. Hopefully it will be soon. I suspect that there are several people making plans now for a replication. how hard can it be to just put an analog ammeter on the battery - and then nobody can complain about a claim of 4-5 watts P-in, right ? If and when, or course,you are showing 400 milliamps or thereabouts on the ammeter... or maybe I should ask Steve LawrenceIF this is where the internal resistance of the battery might be a major factor? At any rate, I just cannot believe he would have overlooked this measurement with his ammeter.OTOH it _has_ been a bad day... Jones
RE: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
Nope, except for the fact that they experience force in opposite directions because of opposite charge. Merlyn --- Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Merlyn Well, technically any electron passing through a magnetic field is accelerated, whether the field is static or not. Do electrons and positrons behave differently in static magnetic *or* electric fields? __ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
RE: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
Then why can one not cohere ZPE with a sufficient electric field? From: Merlyn Nope, except for the fact that they experience force in opposite directions because of opposite charge. Merlyn --- Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Merlyn Well, technically any electron passing through a magnetic field is accelerated, whether the field is static or not. Do electrons and positrons behave differently in static magnetic *or* electric fields? __ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
RE: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
From: Merlyn Well, technically any electron passing through a magnetic field is accelerated, whether the field is static or not. Do electrons and positrons behave differently in static magnetic *or* electric fields?
RE: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
Well, technically any electron passing through a magnetic field is accelerated, whether the field is static or not. A dynamic magnetic field is required to accelerate a static electron, but if the electron is already moving, then a static field will induce a force on the electron and thus an acceleration. --- Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly. I was afraid that there was a problem reported with real vs apparent power ( power factor) . On the other hand, I've wondered if the dictum that 'a static magnetic field cannot accelerate an electron' is really true. Suppose the electron travels in a spiral thru an intensifying magnetic field? The field is static but the electron experiences it as growing as it spirals towards the target. ( as in the Spence patent). If a Betatron can work, why not this? Merlyn Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
Jones, I am not against you, but people would rather listen to Hal -thenthey should really take a close look at him, his background and "what" he has said Vs what he now says. If Hal hasunkind words about mydevice, why don't you ask him if it is from personal experience and get him to publicly admit it so he can be added to the "experimenting without a License" list. Hal and I had an agreement, and he failed to perform - and that is all you get. I often wonder what "agreement" he had with Chernetski and some day I will pop back there and take a look for myself usinga method, that Hal hath provided. For several years I have been attempting to bring outthe safest possibleusesfor a NewPlasma system,and WHO listened? http://www.fairchildinternational.com/ For a dis-functional Plasma Technology, it looks like a very nice gasificationsystem has been incorporated around it and identical to what I proposed to the current director of Syngas several years ago. http://www.fairchildinternational.com/images/gasunitlarge.jpg All I can say right now is Thank GodFairchild Internationalis an American Companyincorporated inNevada. Over $1 Million is stock sales over the last 3 months, that will come in handy. Over20 years ago the NSA tapped allphone lines, so it is too late for paranoia. Chris Plasma Is the life blood of the Universe.Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Christopher Arnold You sound paranoid talking about the Kings software and all that spy stuff, but we "are" talking about Puthoff with CIA, NSA etc. etc. connections - maybe he works for the same king.Jonesee, you *are* aware of HP's involvement with Grillflame, n'est-ce pas? Noone quits the Spanish Inquisition. (I refuse to mention project Clambake.) Jones, you refuse to watchChristos, Jonesee has not refused. His concerns re spyware are valid. The program is available via several FTP sites.Now, back into your corners, gentlemen. Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!
Re: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
Is anyone here seriously interested in a Breakthrough Energy sourceand does anyone else here realize how important Chernetski's work was? http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/chernetsky.htm Video link... http://www.nuenergy.org/video/chernetski.rm Chris__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
--- Christopher Arnold wrote: Is anyone here seriously interested in a Breakthrough Energy source and does anyone else here realize how important Chernetski's work was? We all realize how important it could have been IF it were true. Mark and I recieved the follwoing note from Hal a couple of days ago, and I don't think he will mind me posting the relevant points regarding his work and investigation along these lines, as there does appears to be alot of misconceptions floating about: I did go to Moscow and got from him [Chernetskii] the circuit diagrams and, in fact, a complete book he had written on his effect, plus reports from others on his device (though I did not see his device in operation - they were in the process of transferring his lab, if I recall correctly). We got on very well, and he looked to me like a son to carry on his work. When I returned I used his information to reproduce his device, and it appeared to function spectacularly as had been described to me, i.e., when a spark discharge was ignited in the circuit, the output light bulbs burned more brightly while the current from the wall decreased dramatically. However, careful investigation with expensive energy measuring instrumentation showed that in fact there was not an overunity factor at work. [This bears repeating - EarthTech did NOT find any OU with the Cherntiskii device, even though it did appear promising] I explained the details to Chernetskii and he said he understood that under certain conditions one would get this apparent but not real O/U operation, but nonetheless, under the right conditions O/U would take place. So I was in the process of arranging for him and his wife to come to the U.S. with his equipment for tests here when he died. So the issue remain unresolved, though we did considerable experimentation with lour version of his setup. Hal
RE: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
Exactly. I was afraid that there was a problem reported with real vs apparent power ( power factor) . On the other hand, I've wondered if the dictum that 'a static magnetic field cannot accelerate an electron' is really true. Suppose the electron travels in a spiral thru an intensifying magnetic field? The field is static but the electron experiences it as growing as it spirals towards the target. ( as in the Spence patent). If a Betatron can work, why not this? -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:51 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski --- Christopher Arnold wrote: Is anyone here seriously interested in a Breakthrough Energy source and does anyone else here realize how important Chernetski's work was? We all realize how important it could have been IF it were true. Mark and I recieved the follwoing note from Hal a couple of days ago, and I don't think he will mind me posting the relevant points regarding his work and investigation along these lines, as there does appears to be alot of misconceptions floating about: I did go to Moscow and got from him [Chernetskii] the circuit diagrams and, in fact, a complete book he had written on his effect, plus reports from others on his device (though I did not see his device in operation - they were in the process of transferring his lab, if I recall correctly). We got on very well, and he looked to me like a son to carry on his work. When I returned I used his information to reproduce his device, and it appeared to function spectacularly as had been described to me, i.e., when a spark discharge was ignited in the circuit, the output light bulbs burned more brightly while the current from the wall decreased dramatically. However, careful investigation with expensive energy measuring instrumentation showed that in fact there was not an overunity factor at work. [This bears repeating - EarthTech did NOT find any OU with the Cherntiskii device, even though it did appear promising] I explained the details to Chernetskii and he said he understood that under certain conditions one would get this apparent but not real O/U operation, but nonetheless, under the right conditions O/U would take place. So I was in the process of arranging for him and his wife to come to the U.S. with his equipment for tests here when he died. So the issue remain unresolved, though we did considerable experimentation with lour version of his setup. Hal
Re: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
Jones, Wonderful,now please ask Hal to watch the video of himself disputing what he just told you and Mark. Maybe Hal forgot about his private viewing, maybe he was told to forget about it, or maybe he just wantsEVERYONE ELSEto forget about his video disclosure of such an Earth-shattering discovery. I for one am tired of Hal Puthoffs brand of scientific suppression, but if you want to believe what he said, while ignoring what he said - no wonder the USA is falling behind in scientific discoveries. Video link... http://www.nuenergy.org/video/chernetski.rm Chris Gasification in Canada based on my proposal to Wilf Ouellette. http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/050516/21a58906579d6465ecba4d32a91a3c30.html?.v=2Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Christopher Arnold wrote: Is anyone here seriously interested in a Breakthrough Energy source and does anyone else here realize how important Chernetski's work was?We all realize how important it could have been IF itwere true. Mark and I recieved the follwoing note fromHal a couple of days ago, and I don't think he willmind me posting the relevant points regarding his workand investigation along these lines, as there doesappears to be alot of misconceptions floating about:"I did go to Moscow and got from him [Chernetskii] thecircuit diagrams and, in fact, a complete book he hadwritten on his effect, plus reports from others on hisdevice (though I did not see his device in operation -they were in the process of transferring his lab, if Irecall correctly). We got on very well, and he lookedto me like a son to carry on his work.""When I returned I used his information to reproducehis device, and it appeared to function spectacularlyas had been described to me, i.e., when a sparkdischarge was ignited in the circuit, the output lightbulbs burned more brightly while the current from thewall decreased dramatically. However, carefulinvestigation with expensive energy measuringinstrumentation showed that in fact there was not anoverunity factor at work."[This bears repeating - EarthTech did NOT find any OUwith the Cherntiskii device, even though it did appearpromising]"I explained the details to Chernetskii and he said heunderstood that under certain conditions one would getthis apparent but not real O/U operation, butnonetheless, under the right conditions O/U would takeplace. So I was in the process of arranging for himand his wife to come to the U.S. with his equipment for tests here when he died.""So the issue remain unresolved, though we didconsiderable experimentation with lour version of hissetup."Hal Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
Re: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
Jones, You sound paranoid talking about the Kings software and all that spy stuff, but we "are" talking about PuthoffwithCIA, NSA etc. etc. connections- maybe he works for the same king. My business with Puthoff is not open to discussion, but what Hal has provided are two completely different public answers to one very specific question, and a very important question about the Chernetski device. Question my motives for pointing out the bare facts all you like- but I am not here to deceive you, I never have been nor have I ever worked for the NSA, CIA or any other government agency. The truthis very simple and beyond question once the video of Hal is compared to his new answer, which is nothing short of attempting revisionist history, regardless of how Chertnetski's device really operates. Jones, you refuse to watch the video yet you accuse me of what amounts to slandering Dr. Puthoffs good name - yet he has in fact provided two different answers to one question on a topic that could change the balance of power on this Planet, and that is no small matter. Try that under oath and they call your actions Clintonesque. Please provide the specificreference to Puthoffs quote on the inoperability of my patented Plasma Device. And I know one other Physicistthat knows Hal- and he can't keep a secret, but I can. Regardless of whatHal said about me - the point is whatHal actually said recently and many years ago on a paramount Energy discoveryprovide two completely different answers, and one of them is false. Warmest Regards, Chris Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Christopher ArnoldWonderful, now please ask Hal to watch the video of himself disputing what he just told you and Mark. Maybe Hal forgot about his private viewing, maybe he was told to forget about it, or maybe he just wants EVERYONE ELSE to forget about his video disclosure of such an Earth-shattering discovery.I for one am tired of Hal Puthoffs brand of scientific suppression, but if you want to believe what he said, while ignoring what he said - no wonder the USA is falling behind in scientific discoveries.Video link... http://www.nuenergy.org/video/chernetski.rmWhoa...who is it that we are we falling behind? And is Hal now part of the mainstream, and is he now actively suppressing working inventions, Ha - what a laugh!Yes, I would like to view this file (! when was it made?), but it is a RealNetworks format, and I refuse to let anything that the acknowledeged kings of spyware= RealNetworks produce, to run on my computer... not that MS (the creator of WMP) is any saint in regard to privacy, but I have finally gotten that media program under control now, after removing about a hundred registry entries, and I am not going to go through the same thing with another marketing tool disguised as software.Does anyone know - Are there any .rm Codecs for WMP out there? I have been looking ever since I got this ridiculous message from Christopher Arnold, in order to see what he is talking about.Of all people who would shy away from any kind of "suppressioin"...what an unbelievable accussation ... I cannot see how anyone could place Puthoff in that category - as no one of his intelligence has been more personally suppressed and belittled by the mainstream than has Hal Puthoff.! And yes, I believe what he said in the recent message about his results is absolutely true - despite what may been said in an old interview while fully acknowldging that in "any interview," recent or old - it is possible to give the wrong impression to others with a show of enthusiasm - is that what you are talking about?Sure, Hal believes in strongly in the reality of ZPE, and in an eventual ability to tap into it - he is expected to be very enthusiastic about any invention that promises to harness ZPE - but NO he is not going to support the specific details of any technology that is over-blown - over-hyped or self-deceptive - as was apparently the case with the Chernitskii tube that Hal tried to replicate. The irony is - that tube may work, we will probably never know due to the untimely death.H.P. may believe, and probably does believe that it actually worked for Chernitskii on occasion but that does not! relieve any scientist from honestly reporting the fact that he was not able to reproduce it following the exact blueprints he got while in Moscow. THIS IS NOT SUPPRESSION. This is good science - you must report the good along with the bad, even if you firmly believe that ZPE is real.It is absurd to accuse Puthoff of any kind of dishonesty or suppression, and until I hear some apology from Arnold on that point, I will not discuss naything futher with him on the underlying technology - which could have very well been real - even if Hal was not able to replicate it.It would not be the first time by far that a replication fell short of its promise but ad hominem attacks are clearly not warranted in this case. One can only suspect,
Re: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
From: Christopher Arnold You sound paranoid talking about the Kings software and all that spy stuff, but we are talking about Puthoff with CIA, NSA etc. etc. connections - maybe he works for the same king. Jonesee, you *are* aware of HP's involvement with Grillflame, n'est-ce pas? Noone quits the Spanish Inquisition. (I refuse to mention project Clambake.) Jones, you refuse to watch Christos, Jonesee has not refused. His concerns re spyware are valid. The program is available via several FTP sites. Now, back into your corners, gentlemen.
Re: MAHG update hypothesis
Jones Beene wrote What would be the next step in the evolution towards the goal of self-power? 1)Instead fo H2, try a gas mixture consisting of 3 Helium atoms to every two Hydrogen atoms. Jones Rather than invoking ZPE, Dirac or hydrinos, I Suspect that the explanation could be LENR. So I would suggest to simply try deuterium gas instead of hydrogen. Jean de Lagarde
Re: MAHG update hypothesis
Correction, From Hals own lips on video - said he "did" witness Chernetski's Plasma Discharge device and was extremely excited by what he appeared to see it doing. He then invited Chernetski to Austin, however the death of Chernetski prevented his participation. Considering that Plasma is the life blood of the universe, anything is possible when usingPlasma correctly. Regards, Chris ArnoldJones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jean "Rather than invoking ZPE, Dirac or hydrinos, ISuspect that the explanation could be LENR. So Iwould suggest to simply try deuterium gas instead ofhydrogen."Since he is seeing OU-heat without D2 now, whatnuclear reaction do you see as supplying the excessheat now?Let me see if I can even suggest candidates:1) H + H -- D2) H + W -- ?3) Accelerated decay of an isotope of W4) Accelerated release of the stored enery of anuclear isomer of W Given the unlikihood of any of these, to my way ofthinking ZPE is the more likely source of the excessenergy here (if that concept is expanded to includeDirac) - but part of this premise goes to the largenumber of other experiments involving hydrogen. One of the most controversial is that of the lateRussian Chernitski (that ! name is not spelled correctly) whose work Puthoff supposedly went to see in Moscow,but never got to. Anyone remember the correct detailsof this?Jones__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
Mark, Rather than wait for Hal to respond, Please watch the video of Hal talking about Professor Alexander Chernetski. Hal appears to actually show signs of excitement over his Personal Viewing of Chernetski's work. My work may be aparallelof Chernetski's Anomalous Energy discovery, produced by a different Plasma generation method. http://www.nuenergy.org/video/chernetski.rm This information kindly provided by Bruce A. Perreault Warm Regards, Chris Arnold Mark Goldes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jones,If memory serves, Hal was unable to see a valid OU experiment. Perhaps due to his arrival in Moscow about the time of Chernitski's demise.I've copied this to Hal who would know for sure.MarkFrom: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.comTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: MAHG update hypothesisDate: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 08:51:19 -0700 (PDT)--- Jean "Rather than invoking ZPE, Dirac or hydrinos, ISuspect that the explanation could be LENR. So Iwould suggest to simply try deuterium gas instead ofhydrogen."Since he is seeing OU-heat without D2 now, whatnuclear reaction do you see as supplying the excessheat now?Let me see if I can even suggest candidates:1) H + H --&! gt; D2) H + W -- ?3) Accelerated decay of an isotope of W4) Accelerated release of the stored enery of anuclear isomer of WGiven the unlikihood of any of these, to my way ofthinking ZPE is the more likely source of the excessenergy here (if that concept is expanded to includeDirac) - but part of this premise goes to the largenumber of other experiments involving hydrogen.One of the most controversial is that of the lateRussian Chernitski (that name is not spelled correctly) whose work Puthoff supposedly went to see in Moscow,but never got to. Anyone remember the correct detailsof this?Jones Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel & more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
RE: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
Didn't somebody report that Hal was disappointed because he concluded that Chernetski's work failed to account for power factor in his output? From: Christopher Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 3:00 PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski Mark, Rather than wait for Hal to respond, Please watch the video of Hal talking about Professor Alexander Chernetski. Hal appears to actually show signs of excitement over his Personal Viewing of Chernetski's work. My work may be aparallelof Chernetski's Anomalous Energy discovery, produced by a different Plasma generation method. http://www.nuenergy.org/video/chernetski.rm This information kindly provided by Bruce A. Perreault Warm Regards, Chris Arnold Mark Goldes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jones,If memory serves, Hal was unable to see a valid OU experiment. Perhaps due to his arrival in Moscow about the time of Chernitski's demise.I've copied this to Hal who would know for sure.MarkFrom: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.comTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: MAHG update hypothesisDate: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 08:51:19 -0700 (PDT)--- Jean "Rather than invoking ZPE, Dirac or hydrinos, ISuspect that the explanation could be LENR. So Iwould suggest to simply try deuterium gas instead ofhydrogen."Since he is seeing OU-heat without D2 now, whatnuclear reaction do you see as supplying the excessheat now?Let me see if I can even suggest candidates:1) H + H --! gt; D2) H + W -- ?3) Accelerated decay of an isotope of W4) Accelerated release of the stored enery of anuclear isomer of WGiven the unlikihood of any of these, to my way ofthinking ZPE is the more likely source of the excessenergy here (if that concept is expanded to includeDirac) - but part of this premise goes to the largenumber of other experiments involving hydrogen.One of the most controversial is that of the lateRussian Chernitski (that name is not spelled correctly) whose work Puthoff supposedly went to see in Moscow,but never got to. Anyone remember the correct detailsof this?Jones Discover Yahoo!Find restaurants, movies, travel more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
Re: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
Christopher Arnold wrote: This information kindly provided by Bruce A. Perreault I understand Mr. Perreault is on the verge of an announcement about an atomic battery. Do you know him?
RE: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski
Actually, to hell with "someone" reported - what did you hear Hal Puthoff SAY??? Warmest Regards, Chris Arnold"Zell, Chris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Didn't somebody report that Hal was disappointed because he concluded that Chernetski's work failed to account for power factor in his output? From: Christopher Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 3:00 PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Chernitski (was Re: MAHG update hypothesis) Chernetski Mark, Rather than wait for Hal to respond, Please watch the video of Hal talking about Professor Alexander Chernetski. Hal appears to actually show signs of excitement over his Personal Viewing of Chernetski's work. My work may be aparallelof Chernetski's Anomalous Energy discovery, produced by a different Plasma generation method. http://www.nuenergy.org/video/chernetski.rm This information kindly provided by Bruce A. Perreault Warm Regards, Chris Arnold Mark Goldes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jones,If memory serves, Hal was unable to see a valid OU experiment. Perhaps due to his arrival in Moscow about the time of Chernitski's demise.I've copied this to Hal who would know for sure.MarkFrom: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.comTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: MAHG update hypothesisDate: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 08:51:19 -0700 (PDT)--- Jean "Rather than invoking ZPE, Dirac or hydrinos, ISuspect that the explanation could be LENR. So Iwould suggest to simply try deuterium gas instead ofhydrogen."Since he is seeing OU-heat without D2 now, whatnuclear reaction do you see as supplying the excessheat now?Let me see if I can even suggest candidates:1) H + H --&! amp;! gt; D2) H + W -- ?3) Accelerated decay of an isotope of W4) Accelerated release of the stored enery of anuclear isomer of WGiven the unlikihood of any of these, to my way ofthinking ZPE is the more likely source of the excessenergy here (if that concept is expanded to includeDirac) - but part of this premise goes to the largenumber of other experiments involving hydrogen.One of the most controversial is that of the lateRussian Chernitski (that name is not spelled correctly) whose work Puthoff supposedly went to see in Moscow,but never got to. Anyone remember the correct detailsof this?Jones Discover Yahoo!Find restaurants, movies, travel more fun for the weekend. Check it out! __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: MAHG update hypothesis
Jones Beene wrote: When a proton becomes temporarily bare, almost immediately it will attract an electron, and if none is available from 3-space, then one will be forthcoming form the epo field, which will express a local-charge-deficit such that any real electron cross over and will fill that deficit. That is a net-neutral transaction most of the time, and happens continually in the quantum-foam of virtual positronium. However, depending on the initial T of the H2/He gas, the energy to; first dissociate, then ionize the H2, causes a physical separation of the charge carriers: a void filled by the neutral He. The result is a capacitive effect for the duration of the ionizing pulse. This duration allows stratification of the epo, whose dispersal upon neutralization of the E field, results in a delta T, an increase in enthalpy. particle stuff snipped (Sorry, I have a date, with my wifie :-)
