date:20080409

Can someone comment on the energy density that is reported in this 
abstract?


Abstract: Having the potential for a clean new energy source, rt-plasmas of
certain catalysts (Sr+, Ar+, K) with H formed at extraordinary low field
strengths of about 1–2 V/cm. Time-dependent, extraordinarily fast H (25 eV),
an excess power of 20 mW · cm-3, and characteristic K3+ emission confirmed
the resonant nonradiative energy transfer of 3 · 27.2 eV from atomic 
hydrogen

to K as the rt-plasma catalyst. The predicted very stable novel hydride
ion H-(1/4) with fractional principal quantum number p = 4 was observed
spectroscopically at 110 nm corresponding to its predicted binding energy of
11.2 eV that further matched the 1H MAS NMR spectrum having an
extraordinary upfield-shifted peak at –4.4 ppm with the elimination of any
known assignment by FTIR.
Keywords: H catalysis; fast H; exothermic; novel hydride ions; upfield NMR
peaks; FTIR.
Reference to this


--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- 
http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---

Re: [Vo]:Which are the new results at BLP?


Robin van Spaandonk wrote:


In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:58:32 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
 

This must be what everyone is talking about. The description of the 
power plant is rather nebulous. The section gets off on the wrong 
foot with this stateme
   

Nebulous, I like that. Based on what I've read Mills has been claiming 
just that from the first interview I heard. My friend Leon read his book 
and is excited by it.



Actually, it says that the laws of thermodynamics allow one to go below the
ground state.
 

If that is the case, then one of you is wrong. AFAIK, Mills contention 
is that his hydrino formation process is just that. Then there is the 
matter of induced LENR's by the hydrinos, which I thought was settled. 
Ed Storms, are you lurking out there?



--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- 
http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---

[Vo]:aurorahunter


But do they involve hydrinos? http://www.aurorahunter.com/


--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- 
http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---

Re: [Vo]:Magnetic pressure and magnetic temperature

2008-04-09 Thread Robin van Spaandonk

In reply to  David Jonsson's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 08:47:15 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
 Magnetic pressure is a well known concept.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_pressure
 
 It struck me then that other concepts must be applicable to magnetism too
 like temperature.

 Temperature is really a measure of the average kinetic energy of
 particles, so a
 magnetic temperature may not have a lot of meaning.


Then magnetic pressure wouldn't either. 

Pressure is just energy density. While temperature is also a global variable,
computing it wouldn't be so easy. E.g.

For a gas one can use p*V/(nR) to get T (for a perfect gas). By analogy, one
could substitute magnetic pressure for p, and the volume of the magnet for V,
but what does one substitute for n, the number of mole of magnetic atoms in
the magnet? (not to mention what value to use for R).
This is why a precise definition of magnetic temperature is needed.

I have defined what I mean with
magnetic temperature. 

Where?

Pressure and temperature exist whenever energy is
distributed on smaller components. Any energy form where the components are
interacting have pressure and temperature (or at least heat) and maybe
something more. Strike kinetic in your definition and replace it with
interchangeable. By the way the kinetic and magnetic energy of an electron
are indistinguishable.

...so n hereabove would be the number of mole of electrons contributing to the
magnetic field?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

The shrub is a plant.

[Vo]:chg of email address

2008-04-09 Thread Stephen Lawrence


Dear Vortex,

I'm changing my email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

I can't find any electronic means of doing this, so could you do it?

Many Thanks, Stephen R. Lawrence, Cambridge, England.

[Vo]:Re: BLP paper on energy production

2008-04-09 Thread Michel Jullian

Abstract seems to belong to this 2007 paper (not freely accessible):
Catalysis of atomic hydrogen to new hydrides as a new power source
http://inderscience.metapress.com/index/X832U331J0R38642.pdf 

Google scholar found what seems to be an earlier version (April 2005?):
http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/CatalysisofAtomicHydrogentoNewHydrides040405.pdf
  
Abstract was a bit longer but said essentially the same things as far as I can 
tell:

ABSTRACT
Plasmas of certain catalysts such as Sr + and Ar+ mixed with hydrogen were
studied for evidence of a novel energetic reaction. These hydrogen plasmas 
called
resonant transfer- or rt-plasmas were observed to form at low temperatures 
(e.g. ˜ 103 K )
and an extraordinary low field strengths of about 1-2 V/cm when argon and 
strontium
were present with atomic hydrogen. Time-dependent line broadening of the H 
Balmer a
line was observed corresponding to extraordinarily fast H (25 eV). An excess 
power of
20 mW ·cm-3 was measured calorimetrically on rt-plasmas formed when Ar+ added to
Sr + as an additional catalyst. Substantial evidence of an energetic catalytic 
reaction was
previously reported [1] involving a resonant energy transfer between hydrogen 
atoms and
K to form very stable novel hydride ions H- (1/ p) called hydrino hydrides 
having a
predicted fractional principal quantum number p = 4 . Characteristic emission 
was
observed from K3+ that confirmed the resonant nonradiative energy transfer of
3· 27.2 eV from atomic hydrogen to K. The product hydride ion H- (1/4) was 
observed
spectroscopically at 110 nm corresponding to its predicted binding energy of 
11.2 eV .
The 1H MAS NMR spectrum of novel compound KH *Cl relative to external
tetramethylsilane (TMS) showed a large distinct upfield resonance at -4.4 ppm
corresponding to an absolute resonance shift of -35.9 ppm that matched the 
theoretical
prediction of p = 4. The predicted catalyst reactions, position of the 
upfield-shifted
NMR peaks for H- (1/4), and spectroscopic data for H- (1/4) were found to be in
agreement with the experimental observations as well as previously reported 
analysis of
KH *Cl containing this hydride ion. Since the comparison of theory and 
experimental
shifts of KH *Cl is direct evidence of lower-energy hydrogen with an implicit 
large
exotherm during its formation, the NMR result were repeated with the further 
analysis by
Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy which eliminated any known explanation such as U
centered H for the assignment of the extraordinary upfield-shifted NMR peak. The
possibility that a novel catalytic reaction of atomic hydrogen to form more 
stable
hydrides may be a clean new energy source is supported by spectroscopic, 
chemical, and
thermal data.
Key Words: H catalysis, fast H, exothermic, novel hydride ions, upfield NMR 
peaks,
FTIR


33 pages, haven't read it personally (not enough faith in hydrinos I guess), 
maybe Robin has, and is willing to comment  it?

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:22 AM
Subject: [Vo]:BLP paper on energy production


 Can someone comment on the energy density that is reported in this 
 abstract?
 
 Abstract: Having the potential for a clean new energy source, rt-plasmas of
 certain catalysts (Sr+, Ar+, K) with H formed at extraordinary low field
 strengths of about 1–2 V/cm. Time-dependent, extraordinarily fast H (25 eV),
 an excess power of 20 mW · cm-3, and characteristic K3+ emission confirmed
 the resonant nonradiative energy transfer of 3 · 27.2 eV from atomic 
 hydrogen
 to K as the rt-plasma catalyst. The predicted very stable novel hydride
 ion H-(1/4) with fractional principal quantum number p = 4 was observed
 spectroscopically at 110 nm corresponding to its predicted binding energy of
 11.2 eV that further matched the 1H MAS NMR spectrum having an
 extraordinary upfield-shifted peak at –4.4 ppm with the elimination of any
 known assignment by FTIR.
 Keywords: H catalysis; fast H; exothermic; novel hydride ions; upfield NMR
 peaks; FTIR.
 Reference to this
 
 
 --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- 
 http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---

[Vo]:Re: chg of email address

2008-04-09 Thread Michel Jullian

Just resubscribe with your new address.

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: Stephen Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:20 PM
Subject: [Vo]:chg of email address

 Dear Vortex,

 I'm changing my email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to

 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 I can't find any electronic means of doing this, so could you do it?

 Many Thanks, Stephen R. Lawrence, Cambridge, England.

Re: [Vo]:aurorahunter

2008-04-09 Thread OrionWorks

From thomas malloy:

 But do they involve hydrinos? http://www.aurorahunter.com/

Damned if I know if hydrinos are involved. It's a pretty site,
nevertheless. Great aurora photos.

Thanks, Thomas.

steve
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [VO]: Blowing smoke in the wind


R C Macaulay wrote:

The Houston Chronicle article today kinda disputes claims regarding 
the idea of using windmills. The power produced ain't worth the 
power to produce without heavy subsidies.


This is bunk. First, the wind power subsidies are modest compared to 
the tax breaks (depletion allowances and so on) for oil, gas, nuclear 
and coal. Second, government support funding for RD in coal and oil 
is far higher than for wind. Third, coal is subsidized at infinitely 
higher rates than wind power: it costs at least 20,000 lives per 
year. If the families of the victims were compensated for their loss 
at the normal rates, coal would cost far more than wind or any other 
source of energy.


Add in the costs of global warming and there isn't enough money in 
the world to pay for coal-fired electricity.



Also reports that a norther blew in one day and the wind farm output 
dropped so low that it upset the grid and almost caused a major blackout.


This sort of thing happens with conventional generators too. They 
drop off line suddenly because of an equipment failure or inclement weather.



 Some third of the big mills are down for repairs at any one time. 
Nobody has reliable figures on real operating cost cuz the whole 
business is sorta off the books.. well... kinda..


That is complete and utter bunk. Detailed information on all 
generators types is kept and it has been analyzed in detail by the 
power companies, EPRI, the DoE and many others. The notion that a 
third of wind turbines are normally down for maintenance is preposterous.


This is obviously anti-wind-energy propaganda. I expect it was 
written by coal industry flacks, who are also busy behind the scenes 
in the Congress trying to get legislation passed to ban the use of 
wind energy. Wind now produces ~1% of U.S. power (2% of the coal 
market) so things are getting ugly.


You should apply some common sense to what you read in the 
newspapers. Reporters have little technical knowledge and they are 
often misled by industry flacks. Ask yourself: how likely is it that 
power companies would not keep track of wind turbine performance? How 
likely is it that power companies worldwide would be building the 
equivalent of two nuclear power plants per year in wind energy, but 
it is actually not cost effective? Of course in the U.S. we spend 
billions on ethanol, which is an energy sink and therefore not 
cost-effective, but that is nothing more that a gift to OPEC and Big 
Agriculture. No government or auto manufacturer is gearing up to 
power a significant fraction of U.S. automobiles on ethanol. No one 
knowledgeable about energy seriously maintains that ethanol can have 
any impact, other than to fleece the taxpayers and destroy the 
environment. Even Time magazine has noticed that it is con job.


- Jed

Re: [VO]: Blowing smoke in the wind


I wrote:

If the families of the victims were compensated for their loss at 
the normal rates, coal would cost far more than wind or any other 
source of energy.


Oops. I take that back. I miscalculated. The average wrongful death 
compensation is around $800,000. Multiply by 20,000 and that is a 
modest $16 billion, which the power companies could easily afford. 
They prefer to pay nothing -- which is the present arrangement.


The cost of ill-health might add a hundred billion to that number.

Fortunately, the number of coal miners killed and incapacitated per 
year has fallen to record lows. It is now 50 - 100 killed per year, 
and 13,000 injured. See:


http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT2.HTM

Wind energy kills very few people; mainly a handful of workers who 
fall from towers or are electrocuted.


In any case, my point is that the cost of coal-fired electricity is 
borne by the public. We pay not with money, but with our lives and 
health. This cost is not factored into the balance when people 
compare the cost of wind versus coal energy.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Which are the new results at BLP?

2008-04-09 Thread Edmund Storms




thomas malloy wrote:


Robin van Spaandonk wrote:


In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:58:32 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
 

This must be what everyone is talking about. The description of the 
power plant is rather nebulous. The section gets off on the wrong 
foot with this stateme
  


Nebulous, I like that. Based on what I've read Mills has been claiming 
just that from the first interview I heard. My friend Leon read his book 
and is excited by it.


Actually, it says that the laws of thermodynamics allow one to go 
below the

ground state.
 

If that is the case, then one of you is wrong. AFAIK, Mills contention 
is that his hydrino formation process is just that. Then there is the 
matter of induced LENR's by the hydrinos, which I thought was settled. 
Ed Storms, are you lurking out there?


Yes, I'm lurking. I did not say that LENR was caused by hydrinos. I said 
that of the various theories proposed to explain LENR, the Mills theory 
has the fewest problems, provided you accept hydrinos as being real. 
Therefore, the role of hydrinos needs to be explored.


Ed



--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- 
http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---

Re: [VO]: Blowing smoke in the wind

2008-04-09 Thread Michael Foster


Jed wrote:


 This is bunk. First, the wind power subsidies are modest
 compared to 
 the tax breaks (depletion allowances and so on) for oil, (snip)

While I'm no fan of Big Oil, I think it's important to point
out that the oil depletion allowance has been virtually nil
since 1978.

 
 Third, coal is subsidized at
 infinitely 
 higher rates than wind power: it costs at least 20,000
 lives per 
 year. 

I'm not sure what figures you're using here.  If it's coal mining
accidents, the yearly figures for that are trivial, because the
number of people it takes to mine coal is a tiny fraction of what
it used to be on account of mechanization.  If it's black lung disease,
everyone should know that this is a smoking related disorder. People
who don't smoke don't get it.  Ditto brown lung disease and mesothelioma.

I'm not touting the glories of coal.  I just don't know how you could
come up with this number of related deaths. If you mean projected or
estimated deaths from coal burning air pollution, that might be true,
but people who make such estimates are normally prone to exaggeration.

And one thing is never ever included in the evils of various energy
sources. That is the number of deaths that would occur if the energy
were not available or were too expensive. And that is a very large 
figure indeed.

I agree with you about the ethanol.  Even now people are dying because
world food prices have ramped up quickly from the wasting of corn to
make ethanol.

M.




__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP


Jed said:

This must be what everyone is talking about. The description of the power 
plant is rather nebulous. The section gets off on the wrong foot with this 
statement:


Atomic hydrogen ordinarily has a stable electronic state that is much 
higher in energy than allowed by thermodynamic laws.


Even if you believe that you can violate the laws of thermodynamics, you 
shouldn't say so in the first sentence.


Robin wrote:
Actually, it says that the laws of thermodynamics allow one to go below the
ground state.

Jed wrote:
In that case it is badly phrased. [M]uch higher than allowed by . .
. sounds like the author thinks the laws of thermodynamics will not
allow this to happen.

The fundamental problem here is that Jed disapproves of Mills' business 
strategy and has not adequately studied Mills' and BLP's work. Thus Jed 
misunderstands available evidence. Jed goes on to write:



This part gives me a headache:

BlackLight intends to incrementally pursue commercial development of 
power plants of all useful scales. This will be done through a combination 
of internal engineering and development, external consultants and 
outsourcing, licensed joint ventures and acquisition of engineering and 
design companies. BlackLight intends to own an interest in power 
production businesses at the distributed and central power station scale 
(see Licensing Strategy). BlackLight anticipates contracting for turnkey 
plants to be built and operated by architect and engineering firms and 
original equipment manufacturers.


Some of BLP's original investors were electric utilities who hoped that BLP 
would provide a heat source that could replace fossil fuel in boilers in 
conventional steam-based power plants. Such has been a theme in BLP's 
position which only now appears within grasp. The thermal and microwave-gas 
research reactors have shown power densities in the range of thermal boilers 
and fission reactors, but the net energy yield -- after subtracting the 
energy needed for electrolysis to get H and sustain the vacuum conditions --  
with no direct means of extracting electricity from the UV energy of the 
reactions -- except a lossy thermal cycle -- meant that water could not yet 
be used as the ultimate fuel.


Jed, and other casual observers who have not done their homework on BLP, 
miss critical statements in the new release. Quoting about the solid fuel

=
that uses conventional chemical reactions to generate the catalyst and 
atomic hydrogen at high reactant densities that in turn controllably 
achieves very high power densities. The energy gain is well above that 
required to regenerate the solid fuel, and experimental evidence confirms 
the theoretical energy balance per weight of the hydrogen consumed of 1000 
times that of the most energetic fuel known.

=
In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is mentioned as 
a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor of 4, releasing 435 
eV in the process. That is enough energy to overcome heat-engine thermal 
losses and electrolyze water and regenerate the solid fuel. No vacuum pump 
is shown in the process overview. This, and the above phrases at hight 
reactant densities  and reactions to generate the catalyst and atomic 
hydrogen imply that H and [catalyst] are generated *in proximity* and do 
not rely on radom encounters in a soft vacuum as in the research reactors. 
This lends credence to the claim of ...experimental evidence...energy 
balance...per weight of hyrdrogen...1000 times the most energetic fuel 
known.


The website is of course skimpy on some details until patents are granted. 
Jed contunes:


I have said it before, and I'll say it again: this notion of incremental 
commercial development masterminded by Mills makes about as much sense as 
letting the Wright brothers mastermind the development of airplanes, or 
putting Martin Fleischmann in charge of cold fusion.


Incremental* implies blending with the existing infrastructure in a 
non-disruptive way. Energy packages are scalable from the shopping center to 
regional utility level. I don't know if it will be optimum for households 
and when it will be appropriate for automobiles. For each, vendors will have 
to establish reliability, which may take years of prototype development and 
testing. I am well familiar with the difference between RD and production 
and marketing -- few entrepreneurs have mastered both.


Jed is fond of using the Wright Brothers as examples of what to do and not 
to do. They did not make a real impact until a critical demonstration before 
goverment officials. Even after that, and after patents were issued, there 
were still eperimenters doing their own thing and failing. BLP has not yet 
made the cooresponding demostration before *officials*.


The Wrights wanted delay, delay and delay, and Martin
told me that in 1989 he wanted another five years of secrecy -- peace and 
quiet, in other words -- before

[Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word

2008-04-09 Thread Jones Beene

High gas prices are opening up (so to speak) another
kind of oil gas extraction technique, called
fracture drilling, which was alluded to in a recent
thread on the new oil discovery in the Dakotas and
Montana (Williston Basin)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/business/08gas.html?emex=1207886400en=3513e391adf7ae70ei=5087%0A

At one time (before the negative publicity of TMI and
the ranting of Jane Fonda) small nuclear bombs were
considered as the ideal solution for deep shale
extraction, but oil was too cheap then.

In fact, there is evidence that despite all the
nuclear test ban treaties in place, that the Russians
routinely use small nukes to increase hydrocarbon
output from deep shale. What better way to get rid of
their excess inventory of weapons? ;-)

A tamer version of fracture drilling, not involving
nukes, was invented by Halliburton (more like the
concept was partly bought and partly stolen). However,
due to the chemicals used, I am not so sure that nukes
aren't preferable in terms of actual toxicity in the
finished product.

It should be possible, even easy, to purposely design
a small (suitcase) nuke that is actually much less
toxic to the *surface* environment, for the same
amount of hydrocarbons which are recovered ... except
for objections of the Sierra Club (and even many green
Vorticians, including moi). It is even possible that
our beloved Petro-Mafia does NOT want this, since the
net effect might serve to bring down per barrel oil
prices (and obscene profits).

It is true that we spent billions to develop the
so-called neutron bomb and it is clear that
hydrocarbons do not absorb many neutrons and become
radioactive ... and most of all - in terms of
realistic comparisons - that there is more natural
radioactivity in many kinds of oil-bearing shale than
the amount that a small nuke would ever produce,
anyway.

The average concentration of uranium in Chattanooga
Shale, which covers most of the SouthEastern USA is
.006 percent, or 60 ppm !

That is incredibly high, and is far more, orders of
magnitude more per volume, than the amount which a
small nuke would add to shale which had no natural U.

If a small nuke is used to fracture deep shale,
surrounding rock would be activated but that could be
dealt with adequately with in situ filtration.
However, despite this - there is little realistic way
our government would ever allow it here, and that is
probably a good thing, at least for now. Let the
Russians et al. work out all the bugs first.

At some future time, without a breakthrough in LENR or
hydrino-tech, for instance, we may be forced to do it
here. But as always, the optimists on this forum see
better possibilities on the immediate horizon:
Algoil being one of them.

It should be mentioned that there are a few folks,
formerly associated with the Phillips Petroleum
Company of Oklahoma, who might admit (deathbed
confessional) that the small-nuke fracturing
technique has been widely used in the Middle East, S.
Africa, and elsewhere (probably because they sold
licenses and the expertise to do it overseas years
ago, or know that the Russians got there first):

http://tinyurl.com/5sm3eo

Anyway - this could be one reason that Arabia has so
much recoverable oil relative to non-recoverable.
One can reasonably suspect that some of the Middle
Eastern oil we import now in the USA was recovered
this way, and that our government knows this, but
perhaps does not want this factoid publicly revealed,
and would likely deny it strongly if asked. Quien
sabe?

Jones

Re: [Vo]:chg of email address

2008-04-09 Thread Terry Blanton

You can unsubscribe and subscribe automatically by using those words
in the subject line of a null message to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Terry

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Stephen Lawrence
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Dear Vortex,

 I'm changing my email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to

 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 I can't find any electronic means of doing this, so could you do it?

 Many Thanks, Stephen R. Lawrence, Cambridge, England.

Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word

2008-04-09 Thread R C Macaulay


Quien
sabe?



Jones




At the end of the day the solution to the supply of energy will be based on 
cost. Allow the price of fuel to rise to prohibitive use  and viola! , 
amount consumed falls. We will see gas and diesel retail prices rise ( above 
and beyond the shrinking dollar) as a function of this strategy.


The same has already happening in strategic minerals and exotic metals.

A variation of this strategy is now beginning to work with the illegal 
worker in the US. The game plan is now to punish the employer.
Selective raids on key job providers work because the word gets around 
quick. Jail time, confiscation and heavy fines for firms that employ non 
documented workers is beginning to have a major impact.
Notice the sudden silence by our politicios on the subject of illegal 
immigration... that means the strategy is working.


Richard

Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word

2008-04-09 Thread OrionWorks

Jones sez:

 High gas prices are opening up (so to speak) another
 kind of oil  gas extraction technique, called
 fracture drilling, which was alluded to in a recent
 thread on the new oil discovery in the Dakotas and
 Montana (Williston Basin)

 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/business/08gas.html?emex=1207886400en=3513e391adf7ae70ei=5087%0A

...

Interesting article. The new bonanza of gas extraction going on in
Pennsylvania doesn't seem to bare any relationship to what's allegedly
going on up in North Dakota. I assume we are dealing with two
completely different geological processes.

Regarding the NY article...

As always, it comes down to the bottom line. The final sentence:

When Range came in a lot of people didn't like it, Mr. Deiseroth
said, But things changed when they started getting their checks.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word

2008-04-09 Thread Jones Beene

--- R C Macaulay wrote:

 At the end of the day the solution to the supply of
 energy will be based on cost. 

Well... cost AND politics... and cost (greed) works
both ways; therefore it is possible that you would see
Exxon funding the Sierra Club to keep this kind of
thing from happening here.

BTW - courtesy of Fred, here is the site for the only
(reported) US trial of this technique:

http://www.atomictourist.com/gasbug.htm

The project GASBUGGY shot was part of the overall
Operation PLOWSHARE (Atoms for Peace) program. It is
not clear if Phillips was paid a royalty for the IP or
not. This occured on December 10, 1967 and was a 29
kiloton nuclear explosive detonated at a depth of 4222
feet.

There are now available the so-called suitcase weapons
of a few kt or less, which would be better suited for
minimal irradiation of the well.

This would be the ideal use for the so-called PFB or
pure fusion bomb, if such a weapon is more than myth
(not clear but unlikely) ... 

... which mythological weapon reputedly has NO fission
trigger! only high explosives for igniting the fusion
reaction -- and consequently leaves an almost
undetectable footprint in the oil itself. 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word

2008-04-09 Thread Ron Wormus


Jones,
Do a search on Project Rulison: Underground stimulation in a tight sand 
formation.

Ron

--On Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:30 AM -0700 Jones Beene 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



--- R C Macaulay wrote:


At the end of the day the solution to the supply of
energy will be based on cost.


Well... cost AND politics... and cost (greed) works
both ways; therefore it is possible that you would see
Exxon funding the Sierra Club to keep this kind of
thing from happening here.

BTW - courtesy of Fred, here is the site for the only
(reported) US trial of this technique:

http://www.atomictourist.com/gasbug.htm

The project GASBUGGY shot was part of the overall
Operation PLOWSHARE (Atoms for Peace) program. It is
not clear if Phillips was paid a royalty for the IP or
not. This occured on December 10, 1967 and was a 29
kiloton nuclear explosive detonated at a depth of 4222
feet.

There are now available the so-called suitcase weapons
of a few kt or less, which would be better suited for
minimal irradiation of the well.

This would be the ideal use for the so-called PFB or
pure fusion bomb, if such a weapon is more than myth
(not clear but unlikely) ...

... which mythological weapon reputedly has NO fission
trigger! only high explosives for igniting the fusion
reaction -- and consequently leaves an almost
undetectable footprint in the oil itself.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP


Mike Carrell wrote:


In that case it is badly phrased. [M]uch higher than allowed by . .
. sounds like the author thinks the laws of thermodynamics will not
allow this to happen.

The fundamental problem here is that Jed disapproves of Mills' 
business strategy and has not adequately studied Mills' and BLP's work.


Hold on. There are three separate issues here:

1. This sentence on the web site. This is poorly phrased and it gives 
the wrong impression. (Assuming Robin is correct and it does not mean 
what it seems to mean). That has nothing to do with my opinion of the 
business strategy.


2. I have not adequately studied Mills and BLP because most of their 
work is theoretical. I do not understand it, and I could not care 
less about theory. Whether atoms shrink below ground state or not is 
no concern of mine. I care about that issue roughly as much as I care 
about Contract Bridge (interest level = 0 to 3 significant digits). 
If they do shrink, and if this is in some sense a violation of the 
laws of thermodynamics, I would suggest to BLP that they refrain from 
mentioning it in this section of the web page because it is bad 
Public Relations.


3. I do disagree with their business strategy, as I said.


The thermal and microwave-gas research reactors have shown power 
densities in the range of thermal boilers and fission reactors, but 
the net energy yield -- after subtracting the energy needed for 
electrolysis to get H and sustain the vacuum conditions --
with no direct means of extracting electricity from the UV energy of 
the reactions -- except a lossy thermal cycle -- meant that water 
could not yet be used as the ultimate fuel.


Jed, and other casual observers who have not done their homework on 
BLP, miss critical statements in the new release. Quoting about the solid fuel


I did not miss these statements! I will be thrilled by this 
development, as soon as it is independently replicated. I never 
believe any claim until it is independently replicated several times. 
I remain un-thrilled by their business strategy, which is a 
completely unrelated subject.



Jed is fond of using the Wright Brothers as examples of what to do 
and not to do. They did not make a real impact until a critical 
demonstration before goverment officials. Even after that, and after 
patents were issued, there were still eperimenters doing their own 
thing and failing. BLP has not yet made the cooresponding 
demostration before *officials*.


Exactly right. That's a huge mistake now, just as it was in 1908. Not 
only did the Wrights refuse to demonstrate, they did not bother to 
send photos of their flights to the U.S. Army officials. BLP, to its 
credit, has published more information than the Wrights did. However, 
it is mainly academically oriented, scientific information, similar 
to what the Wrights published in the proceedings of the Western 
Society of Engineers, 1901. This is an excellent paper:


http://www.wright-house.com/wright-brothers/Aeronautical.html

. . . but in 1901 you had to be an attentive expert to see that it 
represents most of the solution to the problem of flight.


Note that this paper is similar to the seminal papers on computers by 
von Neumann, Goldstein and others in 1946, such as First Draft of a 
Report on the EDVAC. These papers are easy for us to understand 
because we know all about computers. But they were difficult for 
people to grasp when they were written. Novelty impedes comprehension.




The Wrights wanted delay, delay and delay, and Martin
told me that in 1989 he wanted another five years of secrecy -- 
peace and quiet, in other words -- before revealing the process.


It might have saved everybody a lot of trouble if Martin had that quiet time.


I disagree. I think he would still be puttering away on it in 
isolation, making little progress, just as most cold fusion 
researchers are doing today. This kind of research will have no 
impact because no one pays any attention, and whatever they discover 
they will with them to the grave.


I think the reaction against cold fusion would have been as violent 
and irrational 10 or 20 years later as it was in 1989. The proof that 
the effect is real has not improved much since 1992, and it has not 
convinced a single harsh opponent as far as I know -- and never will. 
Only two things will sway these people: a commercial product, or some 
organization such as the APS or Nature magazine giving its blessing. 
Two hundred replications have not convinced them, and neither would 
2,000 or 20,000.


By the way, one of the reasons Martin wanted to keep it secret was 
for national security. He was -- and still is -- concerned that it 
might have weapons applications.



If the airplane had been developed at this rate of progress, the 
first public demonstration of flight would have been after 1933, 
and the first practical airplane would have been scheduled for 1953.


Jed, how long did it take for Babbage  Ada's ideas get the

Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word

2008-04-09 Thread Jones Beene

--- Ron Wormus wrote:

 Jones, Do a search on Project Rulison

Wiki has an entry:

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

When they say the gas was too radioactive to sell,
the reference is to the gaseous fission ash from the
fission of the explosive, including such isotopes as
tritium, Radon and Xenon which are mixed in with the
methane. The particulate ash would be easy to filter
out.

Most natural gas is slightly radioactive anyway
(mostly tritium and some natural radon) but to a
lesser extent. I can measure about double the
background level at the exhaust vent of my gas
water-heater, immediately when it turns on, but never
when it is off - using a GM meter. 

That is something the gas supplier does not want to be
publicized, but it is an absolute certainty that
natural gas is slightly radioactive.

Methane itself, however, does not become significantly
radioactive. The problem is always derived from other
gaseous isotopes which are trapped in the same
formations as the methane.

It turns out that these two elements, Radon and Xenon
are easily removed due to extremely higher density,
but at a price which was probably too high 30 years
ago when natural gas was a small fraction of today's
price. Tritium is more difficult to get out but has a
very high value in its own right. 

If the Russians are selling methane from
nuked-deposits to the EU, and there are plenty of
people who believe that to be true (despite their
denials) then they are removing all traces of Radon,
Xenon, and tritium before sending it to Europe.

In fact, the gas they get in Europe is cleaner than
natural gas in the USA, and really too clean to be
natural which indicates that it has been
intentionally cleaned up. Makes perfect sense because
the Russians can then sell the EU the removed isotopes
at an even higher price for medical uses.

Everybody is happy. Don't ask, don't tell ;-)

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP


I wrote:

I did not miss these statements! I will be thrilled by this 
development, as soon as it is independently replicated.


I mean that. I did read these sections, and I do understand why this 
breakthrough is important.


I have never depreciated the potential importance of the BLP claims. 
I disagree with their business strategy, and I have made it clear 
that I have no interest in their scientific claims (or any scientific 
claims), but I fully recognize the technological implications.


Mike Carrell realizes that I take BLP seriously, so I think it is a 
little unfair for him to say that I am a casual observer or that I 
have not adequately studied Mills' and BLP's work. That is a bit 
like saying that Truman did not have an adequate grasp of nuclear 
physics. He knew what he had to know to judge the situation.


In other words, I understand this part perfectly:

The energy gain is well above that required to regenerate the solid 
fuel, and experimental evidence confirms the theoretical energy 
balance per weight of the hydrogen consumed of 1000 times that of the 
most energetic fuel known.


This part means little to me, and most physicists would say it is gibberish:

In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is 
mentioned as a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor 
of 4, releasing 435 eV in the process.


If this turns out to be right, it will be important to the theorists 
and eventually to the engineers, but not to me. Whether the energy 
comes from fusion, or the zero point, or whether it is leaking from 
Mars via a hidden 5th dimension would not make the slightest difference to me.


Mills might be utterly wrong about the source of energy he has 
observed, but his discovery might be perfectly valid and important 
despite this. In the book by J. Sandford, Heat Engines chapter 1 is 
titled Primitive Heat Engines. It describes the early engines and 
nascent thermodynamic theory -- which was completely wrong. Having 
the wrong theory was an impediment, and it made the early heat 
engines  inefficient, but in the early stages people managed to make 
enough progress to make heat engines practical. Sandford writes:


. . . If you could have asked Mr. Savery to describe the operation 
of his engine, he would have used such expressions as 'incensed and 
inflamed air,' 'intercourse of the two contraries,' and 'frustrated 
ascent of water,' amusing fancies but meaningless today.


Nevertheless, Savery's fire engine was a financial success. . . .

Once the machine succeeded financially, it attracted capital and 
eventually its successors attracted the attention of smart people 
such as Watt, who improved thermodynamic theory. That outcome was inevitable.


If cold fusion or the BLP effect can be made practical, I expect that 
the early commercial implementations will be extremely inefficient, 
just as the early heat engines were. Even if the BLP theory is right, 
it will not lead to optimized engines in the early stages. It does 
not have to do that. All we need is an engine that works well enough 
to convince many people that the effect is real. Improved theory and 
engineering will follow inevitably.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP

2008-04-09 Thread Terry Blanton

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  If this turns out to be right, it will be important to the theorists and
 eventually to the engineers, but not to me. Whether the energy comes from
 fusion, or the zero point, or whether it is leaking from Mars via a hidden
 5th dimension would not make the slightest difference to me.

Ah, Mars!  You don't happen to have a citation on this one do you?  ;-)

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP

2008-04-09 Thread Robin van Spaandonk

In reply to  Mike Carrell's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:05:14 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is mentioned as 
a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor of 4, releasing 435 
eV in the process.

435 eV is the potential energy of H[n=1/4], not the energy released during
formation. The latter is actually 217.7 - 13.6 = 204.1 eV.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

The shrub is a plant.

[Vo]:Re: Jed's misunderstanding of BLP

2008-04-09 Thread Michel Jullian

Mills, get out of Mike's body!

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 5:05 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP

...
 The fundamental problem here is that Jed disapproves of Mills' business 
 strategy and has not adequately studied Mills' and BLP's work. Thus Jed 
 misunderstands available evidence. Jed goes on to write:
...
 Mike Carrell

Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP_ Robin's correction

Robin, thank you for your correction. 204 eV is still a lot of energym much 
more so than with H(1/2). The important thing is that it gives credence to 
the statements about electrolysis and regeneration of the solid fuel -- with 
surplus power for externalk work.


Mike Carrell


- Original Message - 
From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP


In reply to  Mike Carrell's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:05:14 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is mentioned 
as
a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor of 4, releasing 
435

eV in the process.


435 eV is the potential energy of H[n=1/4], not the energy released during
formation. The latter is actually 217.7 - 13.6 = 204.1 eV.

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]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP


And I respect Jed, even if we have differences -- Mike



I wrote:

I did not miss these statements! I will be thrilled by this development, 
as soon as it is independently replicated.


I mean that. I did read these sections, and I do understand why this 
breakthrough is important.


I have never depreciated the potential importance of the BLP claims. I 
disagree with their business strategy, and I have made it clear that I 
have no interest in their scientific claims (or any scientific claims), 
but I fully recognize the technological implications.


Jed, it did not seem so from the tenor of your comments.


Mike Carrell realizes that I take BLP seriously, so I think it is a little 
unfair for him to say that I am a casual observer or that I have not 
adequately studied Mills' and BLP's work. That is a bit like saying that 
Truman did not have an adequate grasp of nuclear physics. He knew what he 
had to know to judge the situation.


Jed, on a number of occasions you have not seemed to grasp BLP's situation.


In other words, I understand this part perfectly:

The energy gain is well above that required to regenerate the solid fuel, 
and experimental evidence confirms the theoretical energy balance per 
weight of the hydrogen consumed of 1000 times that of the most energetic 
fuel known.


This part means little to me, and most physicists would say it is 
gibberish:


And you still say you understand? And are sure that others would say it is 
gibberish? Does experimental evidence confirms mean nothing? If your 
position is that no statement is meaningful until confirmed, this is 
perfectly safe. The specific data is not given in this summary, and may be 
contained in reports not yet published. Does the term energy balance mean 
nothing to you? It means for a given weight of hydrogen the energy yield is 
1000 times the energy yield of the same weight of the most energetic fuel 
known. This would include rocket propellants and explosives. Are you saying 
this is fiction, or gibberish, or what?


In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is mentioned 
as a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor of 4, 
releasing 435 eV in the process.


Robin has corrected me: the energy yield is 204 eV. That is still a *lot* of 
energy.


If this turns out to be right, it will be important to the theorists and 
eventually to the engineers, but not to me. Whether the energy comes from 
fusion, or the zero point, or whether it is leaking from Mars via a hidden 
5th dimension would not make the slightest difference to me.


Mills might be utterly wrong about the source of energy he has observed, 
but his discovery might be perfectly valid and important despite this.


Yes.

In the book by J. Sandford, Heat Engines chapter 1 is
titled Primitive Heat Engines. It describes the early engines and 
nascent thermodynamic theory -- which was completely wrong. Having the 
wrong theory was an impediment, and it made the early heat engines 
inefficient, but in the early stages people managed to make enough 
progress to make heat engines practical. Sandford writes:


. . . If you could have asked Mr. Savery to describe the operation of his 
engine, he would have used such expressions as 'incensed and inflamed 
air,' 'intercourse of the two contraries,' and 'frustrated ascent of 
water,' amusing fancies but meaningless today.


Nevertheless, Savery's fire engine was a financial success. . . .

Once the machine succeeded financially, it attracted capital and 
eventually its successors attracted the attention of smart people such as 
Watt, who improved thermodynamic theory. That outcome was inevitable.


If cold fusion or the BLP effect can be made practical, I expect that the 
early commercial implementations will be extremely inefficient, just as 
the early heat engines were. Even if the BLP theory is right, it will not 
lead to optimized engines in the early stages. It does not have to do 
that. All we need is an engine that works well enough to convince many 
people that the effect is real. Improved theory and engineering will 
follow inevitably.


Of course. What has held up BLP demonstrations, etc., was inability to use 
water as a fuel and produce useful output  while supporting internal needs. 
With this new data, it appears that barrier has been surmounted. Always, 
business plans will be shaped by the actual nature of the technology in 
hand.


- Jed



This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. 
Department.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Jed's misunderstanding of BLP



Michel, there is nobody here but me. Mike

Mills, get out of Mike's body!

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP

2008-04-09 Thread Harry Veeder

On 9/4/2008 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


 Exactly right. That's a huge mistake now, just as it was in 1908. Not
 only did the Wrights refuse to demonstrate, they did not bother to
 send photos of their flights to the U.S. Army officials. BLP, to its
 credit, has published more information than the Wrights did. However,
 it is mainly academically oriented, scientific information, similar
 to what the Wrights published in the proceedings of the Western
 Society of Engineers, 1901. This is an excellent paper:
 
 http://www.wright-house.com/wright-brothers/Aeronautical.html
 
 . . . but in 1901 you had to be an attentive expert to see that it
 represents most of the solution to the problem of flight.
 
 Note that this paper is similar to the seminal papers on computers by
 von Neumann, Goldstein and others in 1946, such as First Draft of a
 Report on the EDVAC. These papers are easy for us to understand
 because we know all about computers. But they were difficult for
 people to grasp when they were written. Novelty impedes comprehension.
 
 

I think the situation with BLP is very different from that of the Wright
Brothers. As far as I know, BLP is the only group actively researching
hydrinos, whereas the Wrights were not alone in their quest to develop
controlled powered flight.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP

2008-04-09 Thread OrionWorks

Without using any recent mathematical trickery. ;-)

As Mr. Carrell initially pointed out, there is a new claim of an
energy production breakthrough listed out at the Blacklight Power
web site. The new process involves the recycling of a solid catalyst.
Recent is perhaps incorrect as I would assume BLP has clandestinely
been working on this process for, oh, I would imagine over a year, and
probably a lot longer. Perhaps BLP has finally stumbled across the
right combination of secret incantations.

The web site claims the amount of energy released is more than
sufficient to simultaneously sustain two key elements: (1) The ability
to heat traditional boilers such as those belonging to power plants,
and (2) of particular interest to us (as well I would imagine it might
be to certain BLP critics), the ability to regenerate the catalyst
using processes that presumably involve conventional and well
understood chemistry. This is what has been implied.

I gather it's always been that confounded regenerative step that has
prevented BLP from coming up with an effective path towards commercial
application. BLP has tried so many different approaches over the years
that no doubt they have lost many a cheerleader due to an extended
version of ADD. But hey! In six or seven years of personally watching
BLP, and I've noticed that my own attention span has occasionally
wandered!

Continuing my personal speculations, I would suspect that most of
BLP's investors really don't give a rats #ss what the BLP Web site's
has to say on the subject, particularly if they signed NDAs, and as
such, are privy to what's really going on down in Baron Von Mills'
secret laboratory. Perhaps some are even amused. Assuming they really
are convinced, they would likely believe that the turkey they helped
buy many years ago will eventually come out of the oven. More
stuffin'n'gravy for them.

In the meantime, we in the peanut gallery can only do what we have
been trained to do: Speculate, dream, fret, and squabble amongst each
other.  ...at least until that damned turkey is placed on the table.

Shoot! I'm hungry and I just ran out of peanuts, again.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.Zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP

2008-04-09 Thread Robin van Spaandonk

In reply to  OrionWorks's message of Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:30:55 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I gather it's always been that confounded regenerative step that has
prevented BLP from coming up with an effective path towards commercial
application.
[snip]
Not really. Most BLP catalysts are ions that become even further ionized during
the BLP reaction. E.g.  Ar+ - Ar++. Since this usually takes place in a plasma,
there are plenty of free electrons hanging around that the Ar++ can latch on to,
to reform Ar+ (or even Ar). IOW in a plasma the catalyst reforms almost
instantaneously.

In the case of the solid however I believe they are making a fuss because the
solid itself is not actually the catalyst. IOW it only creates the catalyst when
heated, and hence special steps need to be taken to reconstitute the solid
later.

I think what's prevented them before is that so few hydrinos usually form
(mostly due to competing reactions), that the energy liberated wasn't enough to
pay back the energy investment. (As Mike has already explained).

e.g. if you have to create 1000 ions just to get one to undergo the requisite
reaction, then your process overall will not be OU, even though it is OU as far
as the single H atom involved is concerned.

This is the main reason that KH - K + H should work well. The resultant gas 
(K + H) has no competing reactions, aside from H + H + H - H2 + H (a rare three
body reaction).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

The shrub is a plant.

Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word