date:20140729

 For nanoparticles, localized surface plasmon dipole oscillations can give
rise to a large range of intense colors of suspensions or sols containing
the nanoparticles. Nanoparticles and nanowires exhibit strong absorption
and emission bands in the ultraviolet-visible light regime that are not
present in the bulk metal. The hydrino spectrum emissions are in the
ultraviolet.  The energy (color) of this absorption differ when the light
is polarized along or perpendicular to the nanowire.

Certain chemical reactions can produce nano-structures which will emit
light in the 10nm range. Nano-structures are regularly used to up-shift or
down shift light to varied wavelengths.

For example, carbon nanotubes can take on any color base on their
dimensions.

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mills spectral evidences is pretty thorough and I can't understand that if
> true, it came from some other mysterious process.
> It match very well with the theoretical lines. It also looks like these
> fingerprints have been verified by third parties. But I can't find
> their reports for this at the website, I'm not English speaking, but I got
> the impressions that at least three 3'd parties stated that
> the reaction did show evidences of hydrino. So in a sense we need wait for
> the reports regarding this to see how well they replicated.
> I personally can't imagine that Mills is faking all this information,
> therefore i'm quite positive, BLP should now want the hydrino evidences
> to be replicated so I guess that we should get more and better
> verification documents later on.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>> spectroscopy at Harvard CfA showed evidence (and several possible
>>> artifacts) of continuum radiation in the 10-30 nm range from low-energy ...
>>>
>>
>> There is a further lack of clarity as to the employer of the
>> spectropists.  Were they GEN3 subcontractors with no affiliation to Harvard
>> CfA who were permitted to use its facilities, perhaps by renting a machine
>> for a short period of time?  The careful wording of the preamble to the
>> report leaves open a range of possibilities.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Steve High

I realized this morning that I am mixing up the proposed final product with
the proof of concept prototype that Mills says he can bring out in twenty
weeks, which would have much less of a heat dissipation issue. Mea Culpa
for that. Vortex is such an amazing sandbox to play in, gotta be real
careful not to use it as a cat litter box :-)


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  From Steve High
>
>
>
> > It occurred to me to consider the heat dissipation issue in terms of
>
> > 100 watt incandescent light bulbs, acknowledging that most of the
>
> > energy emitted  from an incandescent bulb is in the form of heat. So
>
> > how many 100 watt incandescent bulbs would be equivalent to the 15
>
> > megawatts of excess heat energy? My math tells me 150,000. Mill's
>
> > engineers will need to come up with a way to disperse the heat of
>
> > 150,000 100 watt bulbs from a one by one by one meter box. I still
>
> > think that's going to take some work.
>
>
>
> If your calculations are correct I would agree. It seemed to me as if
> Mills was dismissing the presumed heat generated as a byproduct. It was as
> if he simply wasn't interested in the heat. Granted, he wasn't against the
> idea of collecting heat for industrial use. It was more a matter that Mills
> seemed, at least to me, to be much more interested in collecting the light
> spectrum for PV cell conversion. (Presumably it would be a far more direct
> way of generating electricity than from heat & steam.) It's almost as if
> Mills may be missing the much bigger goldmine here of what is presumed to
> be a huge amount of generated heat that perhaps in the end may very well
> have very good industrial applications. This may include the possibility of
> generating electricity the old fashion way via from steam which in turn,
> turn turbines to generate it.
>
>
>
> That said, I am still under the impression that the engineering firms
> involved would have to be aware of the theoretical amount of heat that is
> predicted to be generated. Therefore, they will need to address the matter.
> I don't get the impression that they have been intimidated. My POV is: they
> are, after all, engineers, and good engineers love a good challenge.
>
>
>
> Perhaps we may eventually end up seeing how "good" they are... or not.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe

It is not one spectral line Mills is showing, it's a battery that matches
theory quite well. Now if we want to be critical consider,
* Is it slightly above noise, was the shown spectral lines a one in a
hundred or even worse spectral capture?
* Is theory predicting hundreds of spectral lines and a suitable subset is
being picked?

If both of these objections are moot I think that the spectral fingerprint
being the result of a nano structure have no bearing
that would be very very improbable.


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> For nanoparticles, localized surface plasmon dipole oscillations can give
> rise to a large range of intense colors of suspensions or sols containing
> the nanoparticles. Nanoparticles and nanowires exhibit strong absorption
> and emission bands in the ultraviolet-visible light regime that are not
> present in the bulk metal. The hydrino spectrum emissions are in the
> ultraviolet.  The energy (color) of this absorption differ when the light
> is polarized along or perpendicular to the nanowire.
>
> Certain chemical reactions can produce nano-structures which will emit
> light in the 10nm range. Nano-structures are regularly used to up-shift or
> down shift light to varied wavelengths.
>
> For example, carbon nanotubes can take on any color base on their
> dimensions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mills spectral evidences is pretty thorough and I can't understand that
>> if true, it came from some other mysterious process.
>> It match very well with the theoretical lines. It also looks like these
>> fingerprints have been verified by third parties. But I can't find
>> their reports for this at the website, I'm not English speaking, but I
>> got the impressions that at least three 3'd parties stated that
>> the reaction did show evidences of hydrino. So in a sense we need wait
>> for the reports regarding this to see how well they replicated.
>> I personally can't imagine that Mills is faking all this information,
>> therefore i'm quite positive, BLP should now want the hydrino evidences
>> to be replicated so I guess that we should get more and better
>> verification documents later on.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I wrote:
>>>
>>> spectroscopy at Harvard CfA showed evidence (and several possible
 artifacts) of continuum radiation in the 10-30 nm range from low-energy ...

>>>
>>> There is a further lack of clarity as to the employer of the
>>> spectropists.  Were they GEN3 subcontractors with no affiliation to Harvard
>>> CfA who were permitted to use its facilities, perhaps by renting a machine
>>> for a short period of time?  The careful wording of the preamble to the
>>> report leaves open a range of possibilities.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

*It is not one spectral line Mills is showing, it's a battery that matches
theory quite well. Now if we want to be critical consider,*

The observation of the spectral line came first, then the theory was
designed to fit that data. If the production of the nanostructures are
consistent over time, it could then be said that the theory predicts those
lines.

It is the lines that made the theory, not the theory that make the lines.


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is not one spectral line Mills is showing, it's a battery that matches
> theory quite well. Now if we want to be critical consider,
> * Is it slightly above noise, was the shown spectral lines a one in a
> hundred or even worse spectral capture?
> * Is theory predicting hundreds of spectral lines and a suitable subset is
> being picked?
>
> If both of these objections are moot I think that the spectral fingerprint
> being the result of a nano structure have no bearing
> that would be very very improbable.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> For nanoparticles, localized surface plasmon dipole oscillations can give
>> rise to a large range of intense colors of suspensions or sols containing
>> the nanoparticles. Nanoparticles and nanowires exhibit strong absorption
>> and emission bands in the ultraviolet-visible light regime that are not
>> present in the bulk metal. The hydrino spectrum emissions are in the
>> ultraviolet.  The energy (color) of this absorption differ when the
>> light is polarized along or perpendicular to the nanowire.
>>
>> Certain chemical reactions can produce nano-structures which will emit
>> light in the 10nm range. Nano-structures are regularly used to up-shift or
>> down shift light to varied wavelengths.
>>
>> For example, carbon nanotubes can take on any color base on their
>> dimensions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
>> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mills spectral evidences is pretty thorough and I can't understand that
>>> if true, it came from some other mysterious process.
>>> It match very well with the theoretical lines. It also looks like these
>>> fingerprints have been verified by third parties. But I can't find
>>> their reports for this at the website, I'm not English speaking, but I
>>> got the impressions that at least three 3'd parties stated that
>>> the reaction did show evidences of hydrino. So in a sense we need wait
>>> for the reports regarding this to see how well they replicated.
>>> I personally can't imagine that Mills is faking all this information,
>>> therefore i'm quite positive, BLP should now want the hydrino evidences
>>> to be replicated so I guess that we should get more and better
>>> verification documents later on.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Eric Walker 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I wrote:

 spectroscopy at Harvard CfA showed evidence (and several possible
> artifacts) of continuum radiation in the 10-30 nm range from low-energy 
> ...
>

 There is a further lack of clarity as to the employer of the
 spectropists.  Were they GEN3 subcontractors with no affiliation to Harvard
 CfA who were permitted to use its facilities, perhaps by renting a machine
 for a short period of time?  The careful wording of the preamble to the
 report leaves open a range of possibilities.

 Eric


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Steve High

I think the 15 MW  would be a continuous smoothed-out number related to the
10 MW of electric power that the proposed final product would emit


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Steve High  wrote:
>
>
>> So how many 100 watt incandescent bulbs would be equivalent to the 15
>> megawatts of excess heat energy? My math tells me 150,000. Mill's engineers
>> will need to come up with a way to disperse the heat of 150,000 100 watt
>> bulbs from a one by one by one meter box.I still think that's going to take
>> some work.
>>
>
> 15 MW continued for how long? A nanosecond? It would not be a problem
> dispersing 0.015 J. A millisecond? 15 kJ is still not a problem.
>
> This is supposed to be flash, isn't it?
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:One Hot Little Number

2014-07-29 Thread Jones Beene

Hi Kevin,

 

This is from an older thread, but the comment did not get through. 

 

Basically, it is this. What is wrong with a COP of 1.68 on the early rounds of 
development of a new technology?

 

It is almost as if Vortex, with all the claims floating around, has become 
jaded by expectation levels of COP which are unrealistic. I would love to see a 
Rossi device, or Mills device, or Mizuno device confirmed at COP 1.68, so long 
as this number was rock-solid … as in a rocket thruster, since there is more to 
the advantage than energy gain. 

 

Basically – Any confirmed OU level over 1 - would overturn about half of 
physics; and is up there with the most significant inventions of all time. And 
we have to assume that a first prototype of any thruster is below the eventual 
level. But anyway - for rocketry – NASA is not as concerned with OU as with 

“specific impulse”.

 

The important figure of merit for this thruster then becomes:

 

For the BLP Rocket engine, a maximum theoretical Isp of 21,000 seconds is 
predicted as compared to approximately 500 

seconds for an H2/O2 chemical rocket. 

 

That is huge. Of course, this “predicted” figure may contain the usual Mills 
hype, since the Rowan demo was not really “independent”. Mills and Janssen are 
reported to be personal friends.

 

But with the possibility that the 40:1 thrust improvement (isp) when looked at 
in a finished rocket is only 4:1 improvement, in reality (i.e. if we reduce the 
BS level by a factor of 10) NASA should have stuck with this device IMO even if 
the COP was not extravagant. 

 

Hmm….Perhaps they did stick with it… and the project is now black. Black as in 
Morgan Freeman’s role in “Chain Reaction” … okay… that was only Hollywood and 
that kind of thing seldom happens, right …

 

From: Kevin O'Malley 

 

COP was from 1.06 to 1.68.  No wonder they never pursued it.

 


Take a close look at Janssen’s microwave thruster at Rowan – how could NASA not 
have jumped on that?

[Vo]:Heat dissipation is a MINOR engineering issue in the Suncell.

The issue of heat dissipation being the achilles heel of the suncell appears to
be a persistent criticism on why the Suncell will not work commercially. I
think this opinion is misinformed and this problem really is relatively easy to
solve. The Suncell may fail based on some other issue - like the effective
recycling of the catalyst or the issue of Input power or some other issue. I
don't think heat dissipation is one of them.

First, here's the wiki talking about Concentrated PV. It talks about current
efficiencies reaching 44%. Zenith Solar has achieved efficiencies reportedly
in the 72% range in their combined heat and electricity concentrated PV
designs. So, the claimed efficiencies are not BS. They're here already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_photovoltaics

Here's are articles about an IBM concentrated PV system that they claim has a
combined efficiency of 80%. The triple junction PV cell can take up to 5000
suns. Water is pump through the PV to cool it. (Don't be distracted by the
huge parabolic dish. The dish is simply there to concentrate the sun. The real
achievement is how they were able to prevent the melting of the PV cell with
water.) The heated cooling water is then collected to provide clean water and
air conditioning. I don't see why the PV cells can not be built into 1m x1m
x1m panels and stacked in the suncell like Mills claims. Water can be pumped
to remove heat.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/24/high-concentration-photovoltaic-thermal-system-from-ibm-promises-80-efficiency-potable-water-and-air-conditioning/
http://dailyfusion.net/2013/04/new-high-concentration-photovoltaic-thermal-system-will-collect-80-of-solar-energy-6391/

Here's another commercial product the uses micro channels for water cooling.
This one is able to handle 2000 suns of concentration with a reported
efficiency of 75%.

http://spie.org/x102789.xml

The above are just a few examples of how engineers have been able to manage the
heat issue with PV panels used for up to a few thousand suns. The challenges
have already been solved as evidenced by existing products.

With the hydrino explosion reportedly with 10,000 suns concentration, Mills
designed an optical distribution network of partially transparent mirrors to
distribute the light intensity to all PV. Eash PV will be receiving its own
alloted concentration of light. At that level, its own built in cooling system
will be able to dissipate its own waste heat.

What comes out to the Suncell would be 10Mw of electricity and 15MW of heated
water which can obviously be used for a lot of things. Air Conditioning needs
of a medium size building alone would use up a sizable proportion of the 15MW
of heated water. A suitable cooling tower can easily dissipate 15MW of heat.

I just don't see heat dissipation to be a major issue. It is an engineering
problem that already has a solution.

And let's not be hanged up on the 1x1x1 meter size. Clearly, this is just an
arbitrary size. A 10MW suncell could be 10x bigger and would still be
revolutionary. Heck, it could be 100x bigger and would still run multiple
circles around everything we've currently got, including the hotcat or the
mythical hyperion.

And need I remind everybody, that I WANT THE SUNCELL TO FAIL.

Jojo

PS. For some of you interested in a more formal study of the heat dissipation
issue, here's one

http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~fonteb/EP/Other/References/Zhu2011-WaterImmersionSystem.pdf

- Original Message -
From: Steve High
To: Vortex
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

It occurred to me to consider the heat dissipation issue in terms of 100 watt
incandescent light bulbs, acknowledging that most of the energy emitted from
an incandescent bulb is in the form of heat. So how many 100 watt incandescent
bulbs would be equivalent to the 15 megawatts of excess heat energy? My math
tells me 150,000. Mill's engineers will need to come up with a way to disperse
the heat of 150,000 100 watt bulbs from a one by one by one meter box.I still
think that's going to take some work.

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote:

1. I agree, 5J input should be completely charaterized and documented.
Mills talked about IGBT power supplies in the upcoming prototype. These
advanced power supplies should help answer this question.

2. I don't agree with your analysis of the Bomb Calorimetry. Larger
conductors if any should lessen the heat because its resistance to current is
lower. Furthermore, larger conductors have a larger and heavier thermal mass
and should therefore absorb heat and cause the temperature rise to be lower.
The heat output was estimated from the temperature rise. If there is a large
thermal mass like large conductors, it should cause a lower temperature rise
inside. If any, the modifications

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

The Sun Cell will produce a huge amount of RF. The wide spread deployment
of the Sun Cell will be the end of the smart phone era.


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  From Steve High
>
>
>
> > It occurred to me to consider the heat dissipation issue in terms of
>
> > 100 watt incandescent light bulbs, acknowledging that most of the
>
> > energy emitted  from an incandescent bulb is in the form of heat. So
>
> > how many 100 watt incandescent bulbs would be equivalent to the 15
>
> > megawatts of excess heat energy? My math tells me 150,000. Mill's
>
> > engineers will need to come up with a way to disperse the heat of
>
> > 150,000 100 watt bulbs from a one by one by one meter box. I still
>
> > think that's going to take some work.
>
>
>
> If your calculations are correct I would agree. It seemed to me as if
> Mills was dismissing the presumed heat generated as a byproduct. It was as
> if he simply wasn't interested in the heat. Granted, he wasn't against the
> idea of collecting heat for industrial use. It was more a matter that Mills
> seemed, at least to me, to be much more interested in collecting the light
> spectrum for PV cell conversion. (Presumably it would be a far more direct
> way of generating electricity than from heat & steam.) It's almost as if
> Mills may be missing the much bigger goldmine here of what is presumed to
> be a huge amount of generated heat that perhaps in the end may very well
> have very good industrial applications. This may include the possibility of
> generating electricity the old fashion way via from steam which in turn,
> turn turbines to generate it.
>
>
>
> That said, I am still under the impression that the engineering firms
> involved would have to be aware of the theoretical amount of heat that is
> predicted to be generated. Therefore, they will need to address the matter.
> I don't get the impression that they have been intimidated. My POV is: they
> are, after all, engineers, and good engineers love a good challenge.
>
>
>
> Perhaps we may eventually end up seeing how "good" they are... or not.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Come on my friend.  It's these kinds of "hyper-scarmongerism" that causes LENR 
advocates to loose credibility.

Is there any reason why the suncell can not be installed inside a rudimentary 
Faraday cage?

Jojo

  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:09 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

  The Sun Cell will produce a huge amount of RF. The wide spread deployment of 
the Sun Cell will be the end of the smart phone era.

  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
 wrote:

From Steve High

> It occurred to me to consider the heat dissipation issue in terms of

> 100 watt incandescent light bulbs, acknowledging that most of the

> energy emitted  from an incandescent bulb is in the form of heat. So

> how many 100 watt incandescent bulbs would be equivalent to the 15

> megawatts of excess heat energy? My math tells me 150,000. Mill's

> engineers will need to come up with a way to disperse the heat of

> 150,000 100 watt bulbs from a one by one by one meter box. I still

> think that's going to take some work.

If your calculations are correct I would agree. It seemed to me as if Mills 
was dismissing the presumed heat generated as a byproduct. It was as if he 
simply wasn't interested in the heat. Granted, he wasn't against the idea of 
collecting heat for industrial use. It was more a matter that Mills seemed, at 
least to me, to be much more interested in collecting the light spectrum for PV 
cell conversion. (Presumably it would be a far more direct way of generating 
electricity than from heat & steam.) It's almost as if Mills may be missing the 
much bigger goldmine here of what is presumed to be a huge amount of generated 
heat that perhaps in the end may very well have very good industrial 
applications. This may include the possibility of generating electricity the 
old fashion way via from steam which in turn, turn turbines to generate it.

That said, I am still under the impression that the engineering firms 
involved would have to be aware of the theoretical amount of heat that is 
predicted to be generated. Therefore, they will need to address the matter. I 
don't get the impression that they have been intimidated. My POV is: they are, 
after all, engineers, and good engineers love a good challenge.

Perhaps we may eventually end up seeing how "good" they are... or not.

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Its the same reason way the testers of Rossi's reactor must use a thermal
camera to measure temperature.


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  Come on my friend.  It's these kinds of "hyper-scarmongerism" that
> causes LENR advocates to loose credibility.
>
> Is there any reason why the suncell can not be installed inside a
> rudimentary Faraday cage?
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:09 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
>
> The Sun Cell will produce a huge amount of RF. The wide spread deployment
> of the Sun Cell will be the end of the smart phone era.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>  From Steve High
>>
>>
>>
>> > It occurred to me to consider the heat dissipation issue in terms of
>>
>> > 100 watt incandescent light bulbs, acknowledging that most of the
>>
>> > energy emitted  from an incandescent bulb is in the form of heat. So
>>
>> > how many 100 watt incandescent bulbs would be equivalent to the 15
>>
>> > megawatts of excess heat energy? My math tells me 150,000. Mill's
>>
>> > engineers will need to come up with a way to disperse the heat of
>>
>> > 150,000 100 watt bulbs from a one by one by one meter box. I still
>>
>> > think that's going to take some work.
>>
>>
>>
>> If your calculations are correct I would agree. It seemed to me as if
>> Mills was dismissing the presumed heat generated as a byproduct. It was as
>> if he simply wasn't interested in the heat. Granted, he wasn't against the
>> idea of collecting heat for industrial use. It was more a matter that Mills
>> seemed, at least to me, to be much more interested in collecting the light
>> spectrum for PV cell conversion. (Presumably it would be a far more direct
>> way of generating electricity than from heat & steam.) It's almost as if
>> Mills may be missing the much bigger goldmine here of what is presumed to
>> be a huge amount of generated heat that perhaps in the end may very well
>> have very good industrial applications. This may include the possibility of
>> generating electricity the old fashion way via from steam which in turn,
>> turn turbines to generate it.
>>
>>
>>
>> That said, I am still under the impression that the engineering firms
>> involved would have to be aware of the theoretical amount of heat that is
>> predicted to be generated. Therefore, they will need to address the matter.
>> I don't get the impression that they have been intimidated. My POV is: they
>> are, after all, engineers, and good engineers love a good challenge.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps we may eventually end up seeing how "good" they are... or not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>>
>> svjart.orionworks.com
>>
>> zazzle.com/orionworks
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe

No the assumptions is really not that parameterized. It was developed to
fit the atomic data, the hydrino was a consequence of that theory that came
after. the theory cannot have been adjusted after that, so there is no such
parameters in the theory. But the theory can produce a lot of spectral
lines and if there have been a selection there, which I doubt, you could
get some faulty evidences.

The assumption is
1. a trped photon
2. a charge distribution of charge -e
3. a proton still at origo and charge e
4. A boundary condition of the charge such that there is no radiation

That's it, everything is pure deduction and Mills end up calculating in
principle everything from this. Of cause you can cheat when it comes
to theory. But I have never seen anyone point to specific parts in his
theory where he does that. In fact there is claims of that, but when you
press them to point out where, they simply just assumes that after reading
wikipedia or such that it so it is working. That's the science of the
critiques, it's piss poor.
there is some summary abstract negative judgement that is plain wrong
(Rathke) or there is critiques stemming from not believing in hydrinos
because the feel they must give up on QM, which perhaps is not true. It's a
sorrow state of humanity to have spent 25 years of claiming Mills
theory crackpot theory and not give an inch of an ack for many things that
are obviously very correct. I'm ashamed of our science and glad I took
another path then going for a physics degree.

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> *It is not one spectral line Mills is showing, it's a battery that matches
> theory quite well. Now if we want to be critical consider,*
>
> The observation of the spectral line came first, then the theory was
> designed to fit that data. If the production of the nanostructures are
> consistent over time, it could then be said that the theory predicts those
> lines.
>
> It is the lines that made the theory, not the theory that make the lines.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It is not one spectral line Mills is showing, it's a battery that matches
>> theory quite well. Now if we want to be critical consider,
>> * Is it slightly above noise, was the shown spectral lines a one in a
>> hundred or even worse spectral capture?
>> * Is theory predicting hundreds of spectral lines and a suitable subset
>> is being picked?
>>
>> If both of these objections are moot I think that the spectral
>> fingerprint being the result of a nano structure have no bearing
>> that would be very very improbable.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> For nanoparticles, localized surface plasmon dipole oscillations can
>>> give rise to a large range of intense colors of suspensions or sols
>>> containing the nanoparticles. Nanoparticles and nanowires exhibit strong
>>> absorption and emission bands in the ultraviolet-visible light regime that
>>> are not present in the bulk metal. The hydrino spectrum emissions are in
>>> the ultraviolet.  The energy (color) of this absorption differ when the
>>> light is polarized along or perpendicular to the nanowire.
>>>
>>> Certain chemical reactions can produce nano-structures which will emit
>>> light in the 10nm range. Nano-structures are regularly used to up-shift or
>>> down shift light to varied wavelengths.
>>>
>>> For example, carbon nanotubes can take on any color base on their
>>> dimensions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
>>> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Mills spectral evidences is pretty thorough and I can't understand that
 if true, it came from some other mysterious process.
 It match very well with the theoretical lines. It also looks like these
 fingerprints have been verified by third parties. But I can't find
 their reports for this at the website, I'm not English speaking, but I
 got the impressions that at least three 3'd parties stated that
 the reaction did show evidences of hydrino. So in a sense we need wait
 for the reports regarding this to see how well they replicated.
 I personally can't imagine that Mills is faking all this information,
 therefore i'm quite positive, BLP should now want the hydrino evidences
 to be replicated so I guess that we should get more and better
 verification documents later on.

 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Eric Walker 
 wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> spectroscopy at Harvard CfA showed evidence (and several possible
>> artifacts) of continuum radiation in the 10-30 nm range from low-energy 
>> ...
>>
>
> There is a further lack of clarity as to the employer of the
> spectropists.  Were they GEN3 subcontractors with no affiliation to 
> Harvard
> CfA who were permitted to use its facilities, perhaps by renting a machine
> for a

Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video

2014-07-29 Thread James Bowery

OK was I was able to adopt an unreasonably open posture toward Mills's
presentation and spend time searching for the calorimetry in the
demonstration videos.  What I found was intriguing enough to bother to do a
little more investigation and invest a bit of my personal credibility with
a physicist whose time I am hesitant to impose on but who is at least
somewhat open to looking at alternatives to "accepted" theory.

Two outcomes:

1) After a quick reading of key points of particular interest to him the
physicist is convinced Mills's theory is worthy of further consideration.

2) In part 2 of the July 21st demo, very near the end, is a report from a
professor at the University of Illinois that claims to have reproduced
Mills's heat phenomenon with rigorous calorimetry.  I went to the
University of Illinois and have colleagues there that are skeptical of
George Miley's work there.  My impression of the of the UofIL is that when
a professor of engineering there says something in his field of expertise,
it is it is unwise to discount it before giving it serious consideration.

I find this somewhat disconcerting because I've previously been relatively
skeptical toward BLP simply on the basis of its incompetently drafted press
release prior to its first demo of this year and the seeming appeal to 2
"miracles" at once:

1) The hydrino (the miracle here being that Mills has overturned most of
the 20th century's authorities in physics).

2) That the hydrino explains the production of nuclear ash (columb masking)
of cold fusion experiments while at the same time providing substantial
energy (if not most of its energy) from hydrino chemistry.

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:42 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> I don't get it.
>
> Why do people think Mills is relevant when, if he has made any energy in
> vs energy out measurements at all, they are so buried in other material
> that any reasonable man would give up long before finding them?
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:38 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:28:42 -0400:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >Can the recycling process function properly at 2000 cycles a second? Can
>> a
>> >rinse cycle clear the powder from the walls in 5 micro seconds? Will the
>> >rinse cycle be a bottle neck in the overall firing rate?
>>
>> Personally, I've always had my doubts about the 2000 cycles /sec number,
>> however
>> even if he can only manage 2 cycles per second, the power output would be
>> 10 kW
>> iso 10MW, and I would consider that a very nice number for a home power
>> unit.
>>
>> The price would be a bit higher, but I doubt that would make the waiting
>> queue
>> any shorter. ;)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The case for magnetism

2014-07-29 Thread ucar

Clarification:

Although I mentioned electron on Coulomb barrier issue on LENR context, I am 
not sure about LENR model based on such a mechanism.


-Original Message-

From: "ucar" 

To: "vortex-l" , "Axil Axil" 

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:03:49 +0300

Subject: Re: [Vo]:The case for magnetism





What if electron incorporate fast revolving magnetic dipole aka a 
rotating bar magnet in a range of Zitterbewegung frequency?

So a steady magnet near to it will experience null or to little 
magnetic interaction depending the angle between the dipole axis and the 
rotating axis, however two electrons having their dipoles rotating at same 
frequency will eventually pull stronglyeach other. Take 
two short bar magnets and figure out different sticking forms.



On the other hand the electron should be very talented to take this 
advantage to reach the nucleus. It definitely needs some external help by a 
pre alignment of shell electrons maybe to do its trick.



However you (electron) can do all sort strange things if you have such 
a rotating strong dipole. At least theories don't having this knowledge can 
not presume you can not pass the Coulomb barrier.

The ohmic resistance is explained by scattering of electron in metal due to 
electrical forces (in non 
magneto-resistive environment?). Is this definitely correct? If the 
scattering is caused mainly by magnetic forces. If you stick two bar magnets 

N to S and S to N the total dipole moment become zero or close, leaving 
higher order moments. So scattering could be eliminated this way resulting 
zero ohmic resistance.



-Original Message-

From: Axil Axil 

To: vortex-l 

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 02:57:49 -0400

Subject: [Vo]:The case for magnetism




http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html
 
[http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html]



Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity



It's magnetism that eliminates the coulomb barrier that allows 
electrons to stick together and form  cooper pairs found in 
superconductivity.



This finding from superconductivity strengthens the case made for 
magnetism at the primary causation mechanism in LENR.

Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video

2014-07-29 Thread mixent

In reply to  James Bowery's message of Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:22:19 -0500:
Hi James,
[snip]
>OK was I was able to adopt an unreasonably open posture toward Mills's
>presentation and spend time searching for the calorimetry in the
>demonstration videos.  What I found was intriguing enough to bother to do a
>little more investigation and invest a bit of my personal credibility with
>a physicist whose time I am hesitant to impose on but who is at least
>somewhat open to looking at alternatives to "accepted" theory.
>
>Two outcomes:
>
>1) After a quick reading of key points of particular interest to him the
>physicist is convinced Mills's theory is worthy of further consideration.
>
>2) In part 2 of the July 21st demo, very near the end, is a report from a
>professor at the University of Illinois that claims to have reproduced
>Mills's heat phenomenon with rigorous calorimetry.  I went to the
>University of Illinois and have colleagues there that are skeptical of
>George Miley's work there.  My impression of the of the UofIL is that when
>a professor of engineering there says something in his field of expertise,
>it is it is unwise to discount it before giving it serious consideration.
>
>I find this somewhat disconcerting because I've previously been relatively
>skeptical toward BLP simply on the basis of its incompetently drafted press
>release prior to its first demo of this year and the seeming appeal to 2
>"miracles" at once:
>
>1) The hydrino (the miracle here being that Mills has overturned most of
>the 20th century's authorities in physics).

All breakthroughs are "miracles", yet without them science would never make a
major advancement.

>
>2) That the hydrino explains the production of nuclear ash (columb masking)
>of cold fusion experiments while at the same time providing substantial
>energy (if not most of its energy) from hydrino chemistry.

Why is this a miracle? Note that there are lots of Hydrino "sizes", and
therefore different sizes are likely to predominate under different
circumstances. This could go a long way toward explaining the variability in CF
experiments. In the past, on this list, I have also provided many new "clean"
nuclear reaction pathways that Hydrinos (or something similar) might make
possible, such as IC like processes, fast protons, and Hydrino molecular cluster
fusion/fission.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video

Welcome to the dark side :-)

I, too was highly skeptical of BLP and hydrino until the most recent demos.  To 
me, what was convincing were:

1.  The Bomb Calorimetry.  Absent an egregious attempt at fraud, I think the 
data is compelling.  I think that any egregious fraud would easily be 
identified by the folks at the demo.  I don't think they are gullible folks.
2.  The intensity of the explosion.  The intensity with an aluminum foil was 
nothing.  But when fuel was added, the sound, the intensity of the light and 
the size of the apparent explosion was hard to ignore.  (Can anybody at least 
propose a chemical the size of a sesame seed that would produce a comparable 
explosion intensity?)
3.  The strong support of the 3 validators indicating that they have done their 
homework and have eliminated many of the criticisms which we are discussing 
here.  The most compelling for me was the second validator from ARA - a defense 
contractor.  A person in that capacity would be extremely careful in endorsing 
a "dubious" technology, so it seems he really has verified this and come out 
convinced.
4.  And believe it or not, the statements of our very own Jones.  Jones 
acknowledged that there is something else other than a chemical explosion.  I 
know Jones still thinks Mills is a fraud, but what is remarkable is not what he 
said, but in what he has not said.  He has been mum with regards to the source 
of the energy.  At least this is my assessment.  Maybe Jones will now come out 
and totally denounce Hydrino, who knows; or maybe he already has but I am not 
processing it properly.

Jojo

  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:22 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video

  OK was I was able to adopt an unreasonably open posture toward Mills's 
presentation and spend time searching for the calorimetry in the demonstration 
videos.  What I found was intriguing enough to bother to do a little more 
investigation and invest a bit of my personal credibility with a physicist 
whose time I am hesitant to impose on but who is at least somewhat open to 
looking at alternatives to "accepted" theory.

  Two outcomes:

  1) After a quick reading of key points of particular interest to him the 
physicist is convinced Mills's theory is worthy of further consideration.

  2) In part 2 of the July 21st demo, very near the end, is a report from a 
professor at the University of Illinois that claims to have reproduced Mills's 
heat phenomenon with rigorous calorimetry.  I went to the University of 
Illinois and have colleagues there that are skeptical of George Miley's work 
there.  My impression of the of the UofIL is that when a professor of 
engineering there says something in his field of expertise, it is it is unwise 
to discount it before giving it serious consideration.

  I find this somewhat disconcerting because I've previously been relatively 
skeptical toward BLP simply on the basis of its incompetently drafted press 
release prior to its first demo of this year and the seeming appeal to 2 
"miracles" at once:

  1) The hydrino (the miracle here being that Mills has overturned most of the 
20th century's authorities in physics).

  2) That the hydrino explains the production of nuclear ash (columb masking) 
of cold fusion experiments while at the same time providing substantial energy 
(if not most of its energy) from hydrino chemistry.

  On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:42 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

I don't get it.  

Why do people think Mills is relevant when, if he has made any energy in vs 
energy out measurements at all, they are so buried in other material that any 
reasonable man would give up long before finding them?

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:38 PM,  wrote:

  In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:28:42 -0400:
  Hi,
  [snip]

  >Can the recycling process function properly at 2000 cycles a second? Can 
a
  >rinse cycle clear the powder from the walls in 5 micro seconds? Will the
  >rinse cycle be a bottle neck in the overall firing rate?

  Personally, I've always had my doubts about the 2000 cycles /sec number, 
however
  even if he can only manage 2 cycles per second, the power output would be 
10 kW
  iso 10MW, and I would consider that a very nice number for a home power 
unit.

  The price would be a bit higher, but I doubt that would make the waiting 
queue
  any shorter. ;)

  Regards,

  Robin van Spaandonk

  http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mills spectral evidences is pretty thorough and I can't understand that if
> true, it came from some other mysterious process.
>

Perhaps it would help if we could move beyond generalizations and get
concrete.  Would you be willing to provide some spectral predictions that
we can look at?  (Please forgive my ignorance of specifics of Mill's
theory.)  Just a handful will do.  Hopefully they will be straightforward,
and ideally they will be different from the quotidien kind of thing you see
in LENR experiments; if they are not different, we'll need to start
considering the possibility that Hydrinos and LENR are identical (which I
understand Mills has disavowed).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

there is critiques stemming from not believing in hydrinos
> because the feel they must give up on QM, which perhaps is not true.
>

Perhaps hydrinos and QM are not incompatible; for example, maybe they're
dual, as you have suggested previously.  If so, could you help me to
understand where the "prediction" of a broadband spectrum comes from?  This
is the explanation as I have seen in promotional literature:  as the
electron goes to deeper redundant levels, first it yields a kick to the
Mills catalyst via Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET), and then it
"spirals down," giving off broadband emission.  QED says that electrons
radiate emissions in sharp peaks as they relax (or excite) from one
quantized energy level to another.  In effect, they tunnel from one level
to another, and the *single* photon that is given off has an energy that is
the delta of the two levels.  In QED, there is an explicit understanding
that there is no classical spiraling down.  The spectra bear this out, as
there are lines for the hydrogen atom at the non-redundant levels rather
than broadband emissions.  Broadband emissions suggest multiple photons, or
another particle that is involved, or something else I haven't been
acquainted with.

My questions:

   - Is QED's claim about sharp lines and instantaneous transitions wrong
   for the non-redundant electron levels?
   - If it is not wrong, why are there sharp lines for the non-redundant
   levels and then broadband emissions for the redundant levels?  Where does
   the discontinuity arise from?

This kind of detail may seem like a trifling point to worry about; but it's
actually very important.  People have spent their whole lives looking at
this type of question.  One should not just wave it away.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Terry Blanton

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
> Perhaps hydrinos and QM are not incompatible; for example, maybe they're
> dual, as you have suggested previously.
>
> This has puzzled me also.  A single transition is 27.2 eV which is in the
uV range not visible.  Higher energies are from multiple transitions and
less visible.  I guess I just don't understand hydrino theory.

Re: [Vo]:Personal observataions about the part two BLP July 21 video

2014-07-29 Thread James Bowery

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:53 PM,  wrote:

> Why is this a miracle? Note that there are lots of Hydrino "sizes", and
> therefore different sizes are likely to predominate under different
> circumstances. This could go a long way toward explaining the variability
> in CF
> experiments. In the past, on this list, I have also provided many new
> "clean"
> nuclear reaction pathways that Hydrinos (or something similar) might make
> possible, such as IC like processes, fast protons, and Hydrino molecular
> cluster
> fusion/fission.
>

Perhaps I should restate the 2 miracles along a slightly different axis:

1) If one adopts Storms's viewpoint, there is no scientific revolution --
merely a different interpretation of accepted theory.  So the "miracle" of
a technology so revolutionary that it reconfigures the origin of human
social organization (the campsite fire) is not compounded by a revolution
in accepted theory -- merely revolution in the *interpretation* of accepted
theory.  Mills is applying Ockham's Razor to surgically remove the
equivalent of a brain tumor on the body of accepted theory that has grown
up over the last century, and then reinterpreted what was left to more
accurately fit facts that were in evidence before the F&P phenomenon.
 Other scientific revolutions were not really this revolutionary, eg. the
removal of the epicycles by Copernicus, the unification of light,
electricity and magnetism by Maxwell, the incorporation of momentum into
the physical state by Newton, etc. provided not nearly such a profound
reduction of theoretic cancer and weren't even motivated by a great
technological utility that needed to be explained.  The combination of such
a technological leap -- not in instrumentation but in useful phenomenon --
and such a profound reduction of theoretic cancer is unprecedented.

2) The conflation of not one but two entirely different energy sources --
either of which would provide the profound technological utility.

I guess what might help buy this enough to start diving into the theory
more seriously would be a chronology of the genesis of this theory to see
to what degree Mills is guilty or innocent of what he accuses others:  at
hoc over-fitting to achieve these "miracles" of theory and technology.

Re: [Vo]:Heat dissipation is a MINOR engineering issue in the Suncell.

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

 With the hydrino explosion reportedly with 10,000 suns concentration ...
>

I have been trying to get a sense of what 10,000 suns would look like in
the lab.  I can only imagine it would be bright.  I tried to get some
numbers on what levels of light intensity can be undergone for brief
periods of time, but I didn't find much.  In concentrated solar
installations there is an angle within which it is considered unsafe; the
units I saw used in such contexts were MW, and I'm not sure how this
translates into suns or whether a solid angle is needed.

This is what I imagine 10,000 suns doing to you if you look at it:

http://youtu.be/0APF3SO9tqE?t=3m11s

Eric

RE: [Vo]:The case for magnetism

2014-07-29 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

More evidence is mounting for a view I have posited for some years now.
namely the dipole-like nature of subatomic 'particles'.

 

UCAR, 

for a similar view, check out the 'Cordus conjecture'.

"The  Cordus  conjecture  [8]  proposes  that every particle has two
reactive ends, which are a small finite distance apart (span), and each
behave  like  a  particle  in  their interaction  with  the  external
environment."

 

-Mark

 

 

From: ucar [mailto:u...@verisoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:04 AM
To: vortex-l; Axil Axil
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The case for magnetism

 

What if electron incorporate fast revolving magnetic dipole aka a rotating
bar magnet in a range of Zitterbewegung frequency?

So a steady magnet near to it will experience null or to little magnetic
interaction depending the angle between the dipole axis and the rotating
axis, however two electrons having their dipoles rotating at same frequency
will eventually pull strongly each other. Take two short bar magnets and
figure out different sticking forms. 

 

On the other hand the electron should be very talented to take this
advantage to reach the nucleus. It definitely needs some external help by a
pre alignment of shell electrons maybe to do its trick.

 

However you (electron) can do all sort strange things if you have such a
rotating strong dipole. At least theories don't having this knowledge can
not presume you can not pass the Coulomb barrier.


The ohmic resistance is explained by scattering of electron in metal due to
electrical forces (in non magneto-resistive environment?). Is this
definitely correct? If the scattering is caused mainly by magnetic forces.
If you stick two bar magnets N to S and S to N the total dipole moment
become zero or close, leaving higher order moments. So scattering could be
eliminated this way resulting zero ohmic resistance.

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 02:57:49 -0400
Subject: [Vo]:The case for magnetism

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconduct
ivity.html 

 

Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity

 

It's magnetism that eliminates the coulomb barrier that allows electrons to
stick together and form  cooper pairs found in superconductivity.

 

This finding from superconductivity strengthens the case made for magnetism
at the primary causation mechanism in LENR.

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

I wrote:

I've always been a little uncomfortable with the way the testing done on
> behalf of BLP at Harvard-Smithsonian CfA is characterized.
>

What I need to come clean with is that I've been a little unfair, here.
 Because it turns out that the University of California at Berkeley has
provided crucial backing for the idea some of us have been playing around
with, that LENR is the result of microscopic electric arc discharges.

What I mean is that people at Berkeley have rendered invaluable assistance
in developing this general line of thought.

What I mean is that the staff at the Doe Library have been crucial in
directing me to where I could get a visitor library card, so that I could
look at journal articles.

Eric

[Vo]:Some DGT news

*http://www.greenstyle.it/defkalion-reattore-pronto-alla-fine-dellestate-e-nuova-joint-venture-americana-99057.html
*

*Translated:*

by *Guido Grassadonio *
7/10/2014

 Source: E-Cat World


*Defkalion* back to make itself heard. Andrea Rossi's competitors are, in
fact, returned to the office putting out news that all fans of *LENR* find
juicy. The ' Hyperion  , the
so-called E-Cat greek (but now, after the transfer of registered office,
rather than Canadian), has found new partners and finally has a date
guidance for its official presentation to the world.

But first things first. A new company, a startup, the U.S. energy company
by the name of *Phonon Energy* has not only announced his interest in the
reactions of commonly referred to as cold fusion
 and a collaboration with
the departments of the University of Seattle, but he also admitted that he
had started a partnership with Defkalion.

Some rumors also speak of purchase by the Phonon Energy production licenses
of *greek reactor* . In short, a major bank, for Defkalion, both
economically, and it is especially in terms of building a network of
alliances and greater credibility on the scene.

Do not forget, in fact, that the point of credibility remains a fundamental
distinction in the world of LENR, since there are plenty of skepticism
around these reactors that promise to subvert the laws of nuclear physics
known today.
  <a href="
http://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/aclk%253Fsa%253DL%2526ai%253DB5nZ6qH3YU_iGI9SqlQexl4HIBL3fhIoFEAEgADgAWJ2z4papAWDJxoWM0KTkD4IBF2NhLXB1Yi04ODU4NzIyMjQyMTgxNTI5sgERd3d3LmdyZWVuc3R5bGUuaXS6AQlnZnBfaW1hZ2XIAQnaAXJodHRwOi8vd3d3LmdyZWVuc3R5bGUuaXQvZGVma2FsaW9uLXJlYXR0b3JlLXByb250by1hbGxhLWZpbmUtZGVsbGVzdGF0ZS1lLW51b3ZhLWpvaW50LXZlbnR1cmUtYW1lcmljYW5hLTk5MDU3Lmh0bWyYAtX_AakCI3VFJB9_tj7AAgLgAgDqAiY2MzEyL2RxYS50YWcuZ3JlZW5zdHlsZS5pdC9lbmVyZ2lhX3R4dPgC8tEekAPgA5gDyAaoAwHgBAHSBQIIAaAGFg%2526num%253D0%2526sig%253DAOD64_3TVWsQmZdoBheR71tHIxozBLvyzg%2526client%253Dca-pub-8858722242181529%2526adurl%253Dhttp%3A//bs.serving-sys.com/BurstingPipe/adServer.bs%3Fcn%3Dbrd%26FlightID%3D10479821%26Page%3D%26PluID%3D0%26Pos%3D629332740";
target="_blank"><img src="
http://bs.serving-sys.com/BurstingPipe/adServer.bs?cn=bsr&FlightID=10479821&Page=&PluID=0&Pos=629332740";
border=0 width=300 height=250></a>

The Defkalion would, in turn, confirmed the whole thing. To say it is a
curious Canadian, who asked the gods by e-mail to the company and received
a response letter that explains how to:

   - They'll actually a *joint venture* with the Phonon Energy in the near
   future
   - The Hyperion has come to final testing and should be ready for the
   presentation of the prototype pre-marketing for the end of summer

Obviously it is difficult to determine how reliable they can be here by
this news. If you will not be denied in a short time, however, within a
couple of months we should be able to see the fruit of the work of greek
Canadians. Always, of course, that is not all *hype* , as critics, but also
the same when Andrea Rossi talks about his competitors, they suggest.

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

2014-07-29 Thread Bob Higgins

I thought it was important to say more explicitly why I believe the Mills
demo calorimetry may be flawed.  I hope the enclosed diagram will come
through to Vortex – I have seen others come through recently and I tried to
make this a small image file.  If it doesn’t come through, I apologize.
 Since I was not there to examine the calorimeter, I am describing what I
believe was used - and this is just reasonable speculation.

If we had an ideal calorimeter, and some energy is input inside, Ein, one
would expect to measure a total heat flux of the calorimeter, Qmeas, equal
to Ein.  If you put in 5 joules of input energy, the total integrated heat
measured (Qmeas) should be 5 joules of heat.  In the ideal calorimeter, all
heat generated inside gets measured, 100%.

Now, for Mills to measure his water/catalyst arc detonations, large
electrodes must be inserted through the calorimeter walls so that the
detonation occurs inside.  In general, the apparatus to provide the source
energy for the arc is outside of the calorimeter (physically large).  In
this simplified description, there are 2 ways for the heat to leave the
calorimeter:  1) through the calorimeter’s heat sensing mechanism (measures
Qmeas), and 2) through the arc conductors, call this heat Qcond.  Since
there is a large current flowing in the arc, it is nearly impossible to
insert something in the conductor so as to directly measure the heat flow
going through the conductor.  So, what to do?  Well, Ein is usually
measurable electrically.  To find Qcond, then perform a reference (blind)
experiment.  Don’t put anything inside the arc gap, fire it with energy,
Ein1, measure Qmeas1 and calculate

   Qcond1 = Ein1 – Qmeas1

Now put in the water/catalyst in the arc gap and detonate it.  You think
Qcond should be the same (Qcond1) and you calculate the total energy output
as

   Qtot2 = Qmeas2 + Qcond1

and you go on to calculate the COP as

   COP = (Qmeas2 + Qcond1)/Ein   (presuming Ein is constant for now)

So, where is the flaw in this?  Consider (for a mental experiment) that for
the blind you evacuated the calorimeter.  When the arc is fired, all of its
electrons will impact the positive electrode.  Most of the energy will be
deposited as heat directly in the electrode and will be conducted out as
Qcond; very little will show up in Qmeas.  In this case Qcond may be fairly
close to Ein.

Now lets say you put in some micro-encapsulated metal (so that you don’t
short the electrodes), and you fire the arc.  Most of the electrons will
impact the metal in the gap and heat it to a quite high temperature.  There
will be some evaporation, and some material expelled (ejecta) that is very
hot.  In this case, more of Ein will be measured by the calorimeter as
Qmeas, and Qcond will be smaller than the vacuum case.

Now, put in the water/catalyst and fire the arc.  As the demonstration
showed, the detonation is a lot louder and brighter.  This doesn’t
necessarily mean that the heat generation was any more, but it does mean
that there was more ejecta (including steam) and increased visible photon
radiation.  All of the ejecta (including steam) and the light carry energy
away from the arc and Qcond is less still.

Call Qmeas-wc the heat measured by the calorimeter when the water/catalyst
is used and Qcond-blind the conductor heat calculated from the blind
calibration calculation.  When the COP is calculated as

   COP = (Qmeas-wc + Qcond-blind)/Ein

it comes out higher than the real COP value because Qcond-blind is larger
than the true (and not measurable) Qcond-wc, by probably a large amount.
Intuition tells me that Qcond will be a fairly large part of the heat in
all tests, so an error in the Qcond used in the COP calculation will create
a similar, but slightly less error in the COP.

Mills only demonstrated a COP of about 2.  Because of this kind of error,
the COP could easily have been closer to 1.  This is an extremely difficult
modified calorimeter to calibrate.  Perhaps when Mills makes the arc source
small enough to fit entirely in the calorimeter (except for some tiny
capacitor charging wires), it will be possible to get an accurate
measurement.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  2.  I don't agree with your analysis of the Bomb Calorimetry.  Larger
> conductors if any should lessen the heat because its resistance to current
> is lower.  Furthermore, larger conductors have a larger and heavier thermal
> mass and should therefore absorb heat and cause the temperature rise to be
> lower.  The heat output was estimated from the temperature rise.  If there
> is a large thermal mass like large conductors, it should cause a lower
> temperature rise inside.   If any, the modifications you object to would
> "UNDER" estimate the output power.  Besides, it matters not if there is a
> large conductor.  You claim that these larger conductor carried heat.
> Yea??? heat from where to where.  Everything is inside the cal

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?

Bob, if you view the video where the calorimetry was being demonstrated, it 
appears that the heat was calculated from the temp rise.  It seems to me that 
if there was Qcond being conducted out of the conductor, it was ignore.  That 
means that the energy output was underestimated because Qcond was not measured 
at all; only the temp rise in the calorimeter was considered.

Also, the COP was 4+ based on this specific single explosion, Mills did not 
claim COP of 2.


Jojo

 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Higgins 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?


  I thought it was important to say more explicitly why I believe the Mills 
demo calorimetry may be flawed.  I hope the enclosed diagram will come through 
to Vortex – I have seen others come through recently and I tried to make this a 
small image file.  If it doesn’t come through, I apologize.  Since I was not 
there to examine the calorimeter, I am describing what I believe was used - and 
this is just reasonable speculation.




  


  If we had an ideal calorimeter, and some energy is input inside, Ein, one 
would expect to measure a total heat flux of the calorimeter, Qmeas, equal to 
Ein.  If you put in 5 joules of input energy, the total integrated heat 
measured (Qmeas) should be 5 joules of heat.  In the ideal calorimeter, all 
heat generated inside gets measured, 100%.




  Now, for Mills to measure his water/catalyst arc detonations, large 
electrodes must be inserted through the calorimeter walls so that the 
detonation occurs inside.  In general, the apparatus to provide the source 
energy for the arc is outside of the calorimeter (physically large).  In this 
simplified description, there are 2 ways for the heat to leave the calorimeter: 
 1) through the calorimeter’s heat sensing mechanism (measures Qmeas), and 2) 
through the arc conductors, call this heat Qcond.  Since there is a large 
current flowing in the arc, it is nearly impossible to insert something in the 
conductor so as to directly measure the heat flow going through the conductor.  
So, what to do?  Well, Ein is usually measurable electrically.  To find Qcond, 
then perform a reference (blind) experiment.  Don’t put anything inside the arc 
gap, fire it with energy, Ein1, measure Qmeas1 and calculate 




 Qcond1 = Ein1 – Qmeas1




  Now put in the water/catalyst in the arc gap and detonate it.  You think 
Qcond should be the same (Qcond1) and you calculate the total energy output as 




 Qtot2 = Qmeas2 + Qcond1




  and you go on to calculate the COP as 




 COP = (Qmeas2 + Qcond1)/Ein   (presuming Ein is constant for now)



  So, where is the flaw in this?  Consider (for a mental experiment) that for 
the blind you evacuated the calorimeter.  When the arc is fired, all of its 
electrons will impact the positive electrode.  Most of the energy will be 
deposited as heat directly in the electrode and will be conducted out as Qcond; 
very little will show up in Qmeas.  In this case Qcond may be fairly close to 
Ein.  




  Now lets say you put in some micro-encapsulated metal (so that you don’t 
short the electrodes), and you fire the arc.  Most of the electrons will impact 
the metal in the gap and heat it to a quite high temperature.  There will be 
some evaporation, and some material expelled (ejecta) that is very hot.  In 
this case, more of Ein will be measured by the calorimeter as Qmeas, and Qcond 
will be smaller than the vacuum case.




  Now, put in the water/catalyst and fire the arc.  As the demonstration 
showed, the detonation is a lot louder and brighter.  This doesn’t necessarily 
mean that the heat generation was any more, but it does mean that there was 
more ejecta (including steam) and increased visible photon radiation.  All of 
the ejecta (including steam) and the light carry energy away from the arc and 
Qcond is less still.  




  Call Qmeas-wc the heat measured by the calorimeter when the water/catalyst is 
used and Qcond-blind the conductor heat calculated from the blind calibration 
calculation.  When the COP is calculated as




 COP = (Qmeas-wc + Qcond-blind)/Ein




  it comes out higher than the real COP value because Qcond-blind is larger 
than the true (and not measurable) Qcond-wc, by probably a large amount.  
Intuition tells me that Qcond will be a fairly large part of the heat in all 
tests, so an error in the Qcond used in the COP calculation will create a 
similar, but slightly less error in the COP.




  Mills only demonstrated a COP of about 2.  Because of this kind of error, the 
COP could easily have been closer to 1.  This is an extremely difficult 
modified calorimeter to calibrate.  Perhaps when Mills makes the arc source 
small enough to fit entirely in the calorimeter (except for some tiny capacitor 
charging wires), it will be possible to get an accurate measurement.


  Bob Higgins



  On Mon, Jul 28, 2014

Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?