Jones,
I've been thinking of building one of these to play with as it seems to
be a pretty straight forward apparatus and it operates at 0.1 atm ~ 80
Torr which is a pressure that is easy to obtain with my hobby level
equipment. Naudin has also made the plans available on his site. It
would be nice to not have to sputter coat the inside of the chamber
with W though.
I was thinking of using microwaves A'la Mills instead of the W cathode
to split the H2 but if the EVO hypothesis is correct then that's not
such a good idea. I'm pretty sure there is more going on than simple
recombination but I don't know what. I'm going to watch the results of
Naudins next runs while I gather the parts I need & come up with a
variation on the design.
Any input appreciated as I am more engineer than physicist.
Ron
--On Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:46 AM -0700 Jones Beene
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Frederick Sparber
"Might a prolific electron emitter like Lanthanum Hexaboride or
Cesium Hexaboride serve better?"
Frederick
This is an interesting observation because - beside indicating that
Frederick is a pretty good mind reader - it highlights one of the
significant unanswered questions in the MAHG device. That being: Is
the effect due to emitted (ballsitic) electrons, (or EVOs) or to a
surface effect on the hot tungsten itself.
As Micael Foster indicates, Langmuir and modern-day followers - would
say it is related to a surface effect, but I am not so sure.
Ironically, since the alternative premise which is my working model
does not require actual monatomic hydrogen, but instead relies on a
temporarily bare proton, I lean strongly towards the ballistic flux
of electrons (EVOs) as being the operative mechanism.
By ironic, what I am suggesting in this alternative view is that an
actual short-lived proton displacement (a geometric displacement of
several anstroms) from a neutral or negatively charged H2 ion - can
occur within a short time frame BUT with requiring less actual energy
input than the normal 4.53 eV which is required for monatomic
hydrogen. IOW the normal explanation of monatomic hydrogen formation
and recombination will NOT be overunity - and is probably conservative
The "kicker" is the time frame. The displacement is short-lived in
one regard, as the proton returns "home" almost immediately - but
OTOH, this time frame is plenty long in terms of the lifetime of
virtual Ps in our 3-space - and it is the half-potential (ionization
potential) of Ps, the 3.4 eV photon, which is the ultimate souce of
the excess energy. And speaking of "broken symmetries" don't forget
that IF the Fermi scale is one-dimensional - then "time" is a fiction
for that space and does not operate at all as a restraint.
I can state this pretty confidently because the technology necessary
to record this kind of activity in this time frame in a plasma does
not yet exist... ;-)
.....so it is rather difficult to disprove. But then again, despite
this alternative explanation being an "educated guess" based mostly
upon the emission spectra - it does seem to fit all the facts better
than any other mechanism.
And - in a double irony, sure to alienate most any mainstream
physicist who has not already thrown up his hands in disbelief - most
of the detectable spectra is technically NOT even in the UV at all -
but has been downshifted into the Balmer sequence, which is expected,
but further clouds the "proof" plus there are some few higher EUV
lines (which Mills has found to support his version of things), but
they are insignificant in number - a fact continually glossed over by
Mills. However the bulk of the spectra recorded in Mills and the
other hydrogen work does seem to fit this *3.4 eV hypothesis*
better, statistically, than either the Mills or the Langmuir-esque
interpretation, IMHO.
Of course, we should not forget that the souce of OU could actually
relate back specifically to the presence of Ken Shoulder's EVOs as
being the operative modality which effectively serve to *pull*
protons out of the H2 molecule, whose two electrons are quite stable
and happy not to joint in the festivities - so to speak. IOW instead
of just a normal flux of ballistic electrons, EVOs would be much
longer lived in one location and it is only their near-field which is
important for this hypothesis - so the lack of an expressed
mega-charge is not important and in fact would favor the notion of
displacing the Dirac-epo-lattice.
However, the internal pressure of hydrogen in the MAHG seems too high
for the Shoulder's EVO, at least as far as what has been reported.
But if the operative near field does turn out to be EVOs instead of a
normal electron flux, then this may be a new method (interpretation)
for a way of harnessing that effect, which I do not believe that Ken
has anticipated.
Actually I am pretty sure that EVOs would increase the effect, if
they are not already the main instigator - BUT this particualry
pressurization of hydrogen is also important. Also, EVOs seem to
benefit from a tunneling cathode, if memory serves, so that may or
may not favor Lanthanum hexaboride, which is something I was trying
to keep secret until a DD has been filed, but Fred is a mind reader.
I think when this entire concept becomes fleshed out a little deeper,
if it still seems to "hold water" I will contact Ken and see what he
thinks about the possibility of EVOs in such a plasma.
Jones
