Re: Practical application for BLP technology

2005-02-26 Thread Vince Cockeram
 Original Message - 
From: thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 12:03 AM
I contacted snip 
I suggested using hydrinos to harden the interior of cannon barrels.
snip..  I find it odd that BLP ignored me.
Odd? Not at all. 
If Dr. Mills has done his homework it's already been thought of.

Vince
 



RE: Practical application for BLP technology

2005-02-24 Thread thomas malloy
Keith Nagel responded;
Hi Thomas,
you write:
I find it odd that BLP ignored me.
Why? Can you explain to the rest of us why you think
he should take your offer seriously?
You don't know who I am, I might be talking to an established company 
with a group of wealthy investors.

 Have you ever
done any contract work for the military?
No and as I understand it, compliance with their byzantine 
regulations is a full time job for at least one person

 Do you have
sufficient money and experience to run a start up?
No, I'm a broker, my hobby is finding new technology that has 
economic potential. The amount of capital would have to be figured 
out when writing the business plan.

When you write,
I suggested using hydrinos to harden the interior
 of cannon barrels. do you have any idea how you
would actually apply the described technology to
achieve your stated result?
No, but neither has anyone else. We have lots of engineers here who 
are looking for work.

Then Harry Veeder posted;
Unlike the emergence of modern science, I don't think the emerging
post-modern science is looking for affirmation from the military. ;-)
You seem to feel that there is something dirty about making sure that 
the people who are defending me have the very best equipment 
available. I don't.

Getting back to my original comment about finding Randall's behavior 
odd. When it comes to practical applications, this is as simple as it 
gets. It solves a problem that I know the military is having, and one 
of the claims on the website was super hard steel. Is it cost 
effective? I have no idea.

But that's not what really bothers me about this.  About two years 
ago they had a picture of a three necked flask with a beautiful 
purple glow in it. They said that is was producing so many watts per 
CC, it was the equivalent of an internal combustion engine. If they 
had a reactor that would produce that much energy, don't you think 
that they would be marketing it? Maybe I'm being a cynic, but I smell 
BS.



Re: Practical application for BLP technology

2005-02-24 Thread Harry Veeder
thomas malloy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Keith Nagel responded;
 
 Hi Thomas,
 
 you write:
 I find it odd that BLP ignored me.
 
 Why? Can you explain to the rest of us why you think
 he should take your offer seriously?
 
 You don't know who I am, I might be talking to an established company
 with a group of wealthy investors.
 
 Have you ever
 done any contract work for the military?
 
 No and as I understand it, compliance with their byzantine
 regulations is a full time job for at least one person
 
 Do you have
 sufficient money and experience to run a start up?
 
 No, I'm a broker, my hobby is finding new technology that has
 economic potential. The amount of capital would have to be figured
 out when writing the business plan.
 
 When you write,
 I suggested using hydrinos to harden the interior
 of cannon barrels. do you have any idea how you
 would actually apply the described technology to
 achieve your stated result?
 
 No, but neither has anyone else. We have lots of engineers here who
 are looking for work.
 
 Then Harry Veeder posted;
 
 Unlike the emergence of modern science, I don't think the emerging
 post-modern science is looking for affirmation from the military. ;-)
 
 You seem to feel that there is something dirty about making sure that
 the people who are defending me have the very best equipment
 available. I don't.


 
Killing and destroying are not sterile.


Harry



RE: Practical application for BLP technology

2005-02-24 Thread Keith Nagel
Hi Thomas,

you write:
You don't know who I am, I might be talking to an established company 
with a group of wealthy investors.

Well this is your opportunity to impress us. If you are
representing an established company, tell us the name of the company.
Basic due dilligence would require at least that much;
right now the only organization I can find you connected
with is these folks,

http://www.nazareneisrael.org/fellowships.asp

not a hotbed of technology development...

For a benchmark, consider Mark Goldes. He does exactly what
you claim, and certainly isn't shy about promoting Magnetic Power Inc. 
So tell us more about the company you represent, and what
it does.

K.



Re: Practical application for BLP technology

2005-02-24 Thread Mike Carrell
Tom wrote:
snip

 But that's not what really bothers me about this.  About two years
 ago they had a picture of a three necked flask with a beautiful
 purple glow in it.

Images of the thermal reactor are still available on the 'Cell' page of the
website.

They said that is was producing so many watts per
 CC, it was the equivalent of an internal combustion engine.

No, not that reactor. The claim for energy density equivalent to an IC
engine was made for the reactor using microwave ionization of a rarefied
mixture of H and He gases. The volume of the reaction space was about 3 cc,
and the claim based on estimates of the total energy output based on some
rough calorimetry estimates. Variations on that rector have been used in an
umber of experiments, including the water bath calorimetry by the BLP team
and by Phillips  Chen at the University of New Mexico.  For one particular
run, the energy vield from the hydrogen fuel was calcuated to be 100X that
of combustionof the same hydrogen.

 If they
 had a reactor that would produce that much energy, don't you think
 that they would be marketing it? Maybe I'm being a cynic, but I smell
 BS.

And I smell a lack of careful study and understanding of the experiments,
which were well described on the website. Every report is not a tutorial,
and one has to have some background in physics to understand what is plainly
written and its implications. I will try to summarize why they are not
marketing it in the sense Tom wants, but I am quite certain they are
earnestly promoting it to major corporations with the money to develop and
market devices.

The reaction took place in a 3cc volume of gas at about 1/1000 atmospheric
pressure. The gas was a mixture of 95% He and 5% H2, flowing slowly through
the reaction zone. The primary energy output from the reaction is deep
ultraviolet light, which is not directly much use for energy production. The
UV is absorbed by the quartx reactor tube, which gets hot --- inside the
microwave cavity. It isn't easy to couple that heat to the outside world
without redesigning the cavity, a separate engineering project. It isn't
obvious that making it 10 times as big will help; scaleup has to be done in
small steps. There was a lot of support equipment: a laboratory microwave
generator, a vacuum pump, gas tanks, instruments, etc. Energy density is not
power output. If you want kilowatts, you might need dozens of small
reactors, microwave cavities, etc. That's not very marketable. Further, the
catalyst is He, a gas in limited supply, which in the laboratory test is
simply wasted, escaping back into the atmosphere. in a commercial system
this could not be tolerated, so you have to a) collect the resultant
hydrinos, a valuable chemical, and conserve the He catalysit, which is not
simple at all.

The microwave reactor has been shown to work with plain H2O as a source of H
and O++, a catalyst, so in principle one could afford to let it flow out of
the system. However, with tap or pond or ocean water, contaminants may kill
the reaction, s you have to first purify or distill it, taking more energy.

None of these problems are insoluble, but they have to be solved before any
kind of a commercially viable system can be marketed. These are the jobs for
a development team funded by an industrial partner. or, nay amateur with the
necessary skills and money can start right now and follow Mills' path.

Mike Carrell





RE: Practical application for BLP technology

2005-02-23 Thread Keith Nagel
Hi Thomas,

you write:
I find it odd that BLP ignored me.

Why? Can you explain to the rest of us why you think 
he should take your offer seriously? Have you ever
done any contract work for the military? Do you have
sufficient money and experience to run a start up? When you write,
I suggested using hydrinos to harden the interior
 of cannon barrels. do you have any idea how you
would actually apply the described technology to
achieve your stated result? 

K.