Another has written about problems with the
Naudin "replication." I haven't checked that out,
but, yes, if you believe everything you read on
the Internet, and don't check it, your mind can
be "blown." Rather easily, since it's held
together with chewing gum and a bit of duct tape.
Seriously, I did read the Moller "book." It's not
a book, it's a article, mostly a fascinating
history of Langmuir and his work with atomic hydrogen.
Let's say that the first page did not inspire me,
it credits a book called Occult Ether Physics
for the inspiration leading to the article.
But, hey, the article went along swimmingly for
almost all of it. Great stuff, Langumuir.
Until page 12, "Conclusions," where, out of the
blue, it seems -- hey, "blue." Ether! -- we have
However, we are now in the fortunate situation
that we do possess the data of Langmuirs findings, which
can be combined with todays technological
know-how. The obvious direction in which to look is the same
direction that seems to have been the
fundamental reason for Langmuirs discoveries having been swept
under the carpet: CLEAN AND ABUNDANT ENERGY.
Uh, where did that come from? And then the
article goes into Zero Point Energy. And then we see the usual:
Relative simple and inexpensive research will do
the job in a very short period of time. The investment of
time, work and funds is so negligible in
comparison to the potentially gigantic rewards, that it should appear
very difficult for any researcher in any
relevant field to find a viable excuse for remaining inactive in this
respect.
I always wonder how these enthusiasts know that
the research job will be "simple and
inexpensive," when the research hasn't been done,
or if anything has been done, it has not been confirmed.
On what does this writer based the "ENERGY" claim. Well,
Nothing is mentioned of the extraordinary
properties of atomic hydrogen, nor of its potential for the use as
energy to drive the wheels of mankind. However,
and quite surprisingly, in one edition of Van Nostrands
Encyclopedia of Science it was stated Hydrogen
molecules dissociate to atoms endothermically at high
temperatures (heat of dissociation about 103
cal/gram mole) in an electric arc, or by irradiation
.the
hydrogen atoms recombine at the metal surface to
provide heat required for welding. What is surprising
here is that the actual energy value needed for
the dissociation of the hydrogen molecule is given, but the
calorific value for the recombination of the
atoms into molecules is strangely omitted.
I.e., attributing this to Langmuir would be
highly misleading. "Nothing is mentioned" by
Langmuir. Normally, the heat of dissociation is
the same as the heat of recombination, and the
discovery of a difference would be revolutionary. However,
From Langmuirs experiments and findings we
know that the minimum calorific value for the recombination of
atoms was agreed to be in the region 90.000 cal/gram molecule.
He means, perhaps, ninety thousand, using a
period for a decimal point, for the article had:
The results that were published in 1915 gave
90,000 calories as the heat of combination of 2
grams of hydrogen atoms at constant pressure and at
3000°K.
Sure, if one gets more energy from recombination
than it takes to dissociate, lotso-energy! Even
if it would give scientists a headache. With all
the fabulous wealth generated, one could buy them
tons of ibuprofen, vacations the Bahamas, or
psychotherapy to overcome the pain of Massive Error.
There is *nothing* shown to associate this claim
with Zero Point Energy. Nor with LENR or Cold
fusion. Cold fusion, particularly the
Pons-Fleischmann effect, is caused by the fusion
of deuterium to helium, mechanism unknown. That
fully accounts for the energy reported. Because
hydrogen does dissociate in entering palladium,
that might be thought of as possibly creating
atomic hydrogen, but actually, that species is
only transient, i.e, when hydrogen isotopes are
released from the lattice, through evaporation,
essentially, they are released one at at time,
and gain an electron immediately, and they are
highly reactive, and will immediately recombine.
The dissociation and recombination occur in the
experimental cells, routinely. This process is
fully accounted for and generates no anomalous
energy. If it did, it would be quite visible.
That doesn't mean that anomalous energy isn't
created under other conditions, but forget about
this for FP cold fusion. And it's very unlikely
to be involved with NiH reactions, which are
probably LENR, my guess. This atomic hydrogen ZPE
trick is not LENR, there is nothing in any of the
discussion to indicate a nuclear reaction. Naudin
found no gammas, which doesn't prove non-nuclear,
but ... zero evidence remains zero evidence. Had
Naudin actually found massive anomalous heat,
yes, we might suspect LENR, but making "nuclear"
claims without nuclear evidence is part of what
got cold fusion into hot water all too quickly in
1989-1990. The proof of "nuclear" was not solid
until about 1993, and not well-confirmed until some years later.
So what are the real figures?
What happened? I actually guessed it, but thought
that the error would be Entirely Too Stupid.
Evidently I underestimated the author.
The heat of dissociation of the H-H bond is
reported (Wikipedia) as 104, all right. 104 what? K-cal/mole.
Compare this with 90 K-cal/mole from Langmuir.
Not only is it far closer than the difference
between 104 and 90,000 that gets the author so
excited, but the figures, if accurate, would
indicate energy *loss* from each cycle of
conversion. That's highly unexpected. The energy
of dissociation should exactly equal the energy
of combination, negated. The losses expected from
any physical process, are not energy losses, they
result from inefficiencies. The actual chemical
processes, if reversed, are lossless. Conservation of energy.
The modern figure of 104 K-Cal/mole is *probably
more accurate." That's all. 90 K-Cal/mole was an
*approximation," you can tell, as a probable fact, by the nice round figure.
David, you need to keep better company. Or get
rid of the chewing gum and wrap your mind more securely with the duct tape.
It took a few minutes to figure out the basic
error, all I need to do was *actually look up* the known value.
At 03:57 AM 12/16/2012, David ledin wrote:
One hour tests with a COP of 21
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/mahg/tests/mahg2c.htm
Full tests
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/mahg/tests/index.htm
On 12/16/12, David ledin <[email protected]> wrote:
> wow today i find a website that was totally mind blowing.
>
> this website is about replication Nicholas Moller 's Atomic Hydrogen
> Generator based on Irving Langmuir discovery. (nobel prize winner in
> chemistry 1932) replicator don't called this cold fusion or lenr
> device but you can see this device is what cold fusion or lenr is all
> about . JL Naudin replicator achieved COP of 21 with this device (
> power input of 4.38 watt and power output 92.97 watt (2005))
>
> http://jlnlabs.online.fr/mahg/
>
> Gamma Radiations measurement
>
> http://jlnlabs.online.fr/mahg/tests/mahg2e.htm
>
> reactor design
>
> http://jlnlabs.online.fr/mahg/diagram.htm
>
> Nicholas Moller's book
>
> http://www.gifnet.org/articles/Langmuir%20%26%20Atomic%20Hydrogen.pdf
>
>
