[Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
--- Mike Carrell wrote: As I dig into the new material on the BLP website, it looks as Mills is finally positioned for commercial development. His 'solid' fuel when heated releases H and K3+ Here is a picture of such a solid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_hydroxide Which is almost as much real information as is apparent on these new pages. Surely you have head something beyond what appears on the web site, no? The only thing which leaves the impression that BLP has moved beyond 19 years of vaporware so to speak, is what we can 'read into' the sparseness and line drawings. Given that there is a picture of a cylindrical reactor, which BTW is far less impressive that past pictures of reverse gyrotrons and Capstone turbines- surely there must be data and results beyond this, which you are privy to ? Hardly 'due diligence' ;-) Can you name any independent licensee of the energy technology who is investing enough money to move towards a real prototype? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
Speaking of Capstone - the once hot stock micro-turbine manufacturer, which had some kind of a tie-in to BLP ... and was featured prominently in one of Randy Mills' interviews ten years ago as being on the verge of a commercial product using hydrino energy... ... in the course of trying to find out what happened to them, if seems like they have become First National Power (OTC FNPR) FNPR has bought the rights to inventor Alvin Snapers propeller less wind-powered turbine. Sounds good, right? This vertical axis windmill was also thought to be a hot ticket technology at one time but you can see from the recent OTC price: http://www.streetinsider.com/company_spotlight.php?id=27 That they were probably a pump-and-dump stock scam which has been dumped already from 36 cents to one or less. Can they snap back from the jaws of defeat and become a born-again PD? BTW Mr. Snaper invented the IBM Selectric typewriter ball, and Tang, the orange flavored drink. Strange combo. From the looks of things, Mr Wealthy Green Investor, you too can get in on the ground floor of the second-rising of this company, for a penny per share. Or less. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
- Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Mike Carrell wrote: As I dig into the new material on the BLP website, it looks as Mills is finally positioned for commercial development. His 'solid' fuel when heated releases H and K3+ Here is a picture of such a solid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_hydroxide Which is almost as much real information as is apparent on these new pages. Surely you have head something beyond what appears on the web site, no? I read the 'new' information in the context of years of careful attention to Mills' work. To casual visitors and critics, it may not appear significant. I get some context from indirect private sources, but no specifics. The only thing which leaves the impression that BLP has moved beyond 19 years of vaporware so to speak, is what we can 'read into' the sparseness and line drawings. Given that there is a picture of a cylindrical reactor, which BTW is far less impressive that past pictures of reverse gyrotrons and Capstone turbines- surely there must be data and results beyond this, which you are privy to ? Hardly 'due diligence' ;-) Jones, you are a clever and sophisticated observer and can do better than that if you want to be objective. The voluminous journal papers and experimental reports are hardly 'vaporware'. They require study. The new reactor configuration embodies solutions to vexing problems with the earlier exploratory lab work. Producing H and catalyst [presumptively K3+] in a solid or atmospheric pressure to get high reaction intensities is a major step to toward commercial ultility. Can you name any independent licensee of the energy technology who is investing enough money to move towards a real prototype? I wish I could, but such are quite proprietary. It would be reasonable to assume that discussions in that direction have been going on for some time. Even if interested parties duplicated some the effects documented by BLP, there are vexing problems with commercial ultility, as there are with LENR. The current embodiment seems to overcome these problems and one might expect more rapid progress toward utilization. The website clearly invites licensing and expection of increased staff to support partners. Mike Carrell Jones This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
From Mike Carrell: ... I wish I could, but such are quite proprietary. It would be reasonable to assume that discussions in that direction have been going on for some time. Even if interested parties duplicated some the effects documented by BLP, there are vexing problems with commercial ultility, as there are with LENR. The current embodiment seems to overcome these problems and one might expect more rapid progress toward utilization. The website clearly invites licensing and expection of increased staff to support partners. Mike Carrell I hope so. I suspect most BLP observes who wish to remain in the game, so-to-speak for the long run have learned over the years to rein in any personal enthusiasm they might feel when some new breakthrough is announced at the BLP web site. One the surface this new solid medium does seems to be a positive step towards the eventual commercialization of the difficult to tame BLP process. Considering the fact that in recent years waning enthusiasm in investing in alternative energy has suddenly increased many fold it can only be considered a good sign for all parties concerned. I personally continue to hope that some of that enthusiasm will continue to wash up on the shores of Cranberry NY. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/OrionWorks
Re: [Vo]:Stupid Academic stunt
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Fri, 4 Apr 2008 23:04:45 -0400: Hi, [snip] MC: As I dig into the new material on the BLP website, it looks as Mills is finally positioned for commercial development. His 'solid' fuel when heated releases H and K3+, apprently in mutual proximity. The rt catalysis yields H(1/4) with a potential of 435 eV instead of 27.2 eV. This gives an energy surplus to regenerate the catalyst, electrolyze water, and run a steam turbine. Mike Carrell [snip] In that case, the solid fuel is probably KH (Potassium Hydride), as I suggested he try years ago (see below). The reaction is:- KH === K + H === K+++ + H[n=1/4] (the ionization energy of K to K+++ is 81.686 eV) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: KH From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:13:32 +1100 Dear Dr. Mills, Have you considered using potassium hydride as a starting material? It seems to me that if heated in a vacuum to the point where it decomposes, it may decompose into a vapour of potassium and hydrogen atoms, making an ideal fuel/catalyst mix. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk A Future For Humanity see: http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:02:25 -0400: Hi, [snip] Jones, you are a clever and sophisticated observer and can do better than that if you want to be objective. The voluminous journal papers and experimental reports are hardly 'vaporware'. They require study. The new reactor configuration embodies solutions to vexing problems with the earlier exploratory lab work. Producing H and catalyst [presumptively K3+] in a K3+ is not a catalyst AFAIK. It is the consequence of the catalytic reaction, the product if you will. Only after it has captured free electrons does it once again become a catalyst. Mills would however mention this product as important, because he sees it as an indication that Hydrino catalysis reactions are taking place. The only reasonable alternative would be the presence of ionizing radiation. This is of course always present to some extent in K due to the decay of K-40. OTOH, such ionizing radiation should also yield a few more highly ionized atoms of K, e.g. K4+, K5+ and their spectral lines should also show up. If these lines are absent, or extremely weak, while those of K3+ are strong, then the catalysis reaction is strongly indicated. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
I think Robin may be right about the details. The explicit detail on the website is a mention of KH(1./4) in the fourth step of the process animnation. H(1/4) has an ionization potential of some 435 eV. Someplace I recall an association of K3+ with H(1/4) but I have not found the reference yet. There is mention of a regenerative cycle for the 'solid fuel', and 'conventional chemical reactions' without explicit details, an exercist to be left for we students. An arrow of unreacted H points to the reactor, not the regenerator. It is possible that the separation of H and hydrinos may be nothing but a specialized membrane which blocks H but allows the smaller hydrinos to penetrate. All this points to a foundation for commercial development. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 7:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:02:25 -0400: Hi, [snip] Jones, you are a clever and sophisticated observer and can do better than that if you want to be objective. The voluminous journal papers and experimental reports are hardly 'vaporware'. They require study. The new reactor configuration embodies solutions to vexing problems with the earlier exploratory lab work. Producing H and catalyst [presumptively K3+] in a K3+ is not a catalyst AFAIK. It is the consequence of the catalytic reaction, the product if you will. Only after it has captured free electrons does it once again become a catalyst. Mills would however mention this product as important, because he sees it as an indication that Hydrino catalysis reactions are taking place. The only reasonable alternative would be the presence of ionizing radiation. This is of course always present to some extent in K due to the decay of K-40. OTOH, such ionizing radiation should also yield a few more highly ionized atoms of K, e.g. K4+, K5+ and their spectral lines should also show up. If these lines are absent, or extremely weak, while those of K3+ are strong, then the catalysis reaction is strongly indicated. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
Howdy Vorts, What am I missing in regards to BLP ? Our tiny company budgets $ 350,000. per year in research. No matter how great the idea, if we don't see something happen in two years.. bye bye idea based on the simple premise that a blind hog can root up an acorn every once in awhile.. BUT.. 19 years ? People that can actually do it.. DO IT. Sure hope Mike don't hold any BLP stock Richard --- Mike Carrell wrote: As I dig into the new material on the BLP website, it looks as Mills is finally positioned for commercial development. His 'solid' fuel when heated releases H and K3+ Here is a picture of such a solid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_hydroxide Which is almost as much real information as is apparent on these new pages. Surely you have head something beyond what appears on the web site, no? The only thing which leaves the impression that BLP has moved beyond 19 years of vaporware so to speak, is what we can 'read into' the sparseness and line drawings. Given that there is a picture of a cylindrical reactor, which BTW is far less impressive that past pictures of reverse gyrotrons and Capstone turbines- surely there must be data and results beyond this, which you are privy to ? Hardly 'due diligence' ;-) Can you name any independent licensee of the energy technology who is investing enough money to move towards a real prototype? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:57:10 -0500: Hi, [snip] in awhile.. BUT.. 19 years ? I thought Mills started in 1986 - that would mean 22 years, not 19. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
