I cannot determine if Papp was a fraud or not. However, I do agree ego is far more important than logic or the good for others. In the sevenntoies I met aguy who offered me to be his partner mmanufacturing and selling the best wind xcreen cleaner stuff I have seen. However, his conditions was I cannot let you in on the manufacturing process. When I told him that was not acceptable. He answered, "does not matter , I will never let anyone know, I rather take my drawings and jump in the deepest point in the Baltic than showing anyone". I lived in Sweden at thetime why the Baltic. I guess the drawing went away as I never sawthe 9products again. I used it on a car myself and it was fantastic so. ? This about the mindset of some smart , misdirected guys. Lennart Thornros On Jan 22, 2014 7:07 PM, "David Roberson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> That may be the solution Axil. Pride can make people do things that they > would not do otherwise. I am sure most of us have said of done things that > we later realized was not entirely accurate but failed to set the record > straight. Perhaps, as more of your existence becomes entangled in the > idea, you do not allow yourself to fail and loose face. I suspect there > are a number of physicists that we all know that are beginning to > understand that they have essentially made fools of themselves by their > opposition to LENR and can not allow themselves to admit their long time > errors. Most will go to their graves with the secret. > > My two cents worth. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 9:54 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. > > I have a possible take on a man like Mills who has invested so much into > this theory that might be Papp like. If his world saving invention was > found to contradict the hydrino theory, he might pull a Papp and kill the > project to maintain his place in history. > > When a man ties his ego so very tightly to something, then to protect > that beloved thing, the welfare of the world can go to hell. > > > Just a thought... > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Sorry John. You are correct about what you say to a certain extent. How >> much resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a >> vehicle that runs virtually for free? This is the same group that will >> ensure that LENR does not get hidden behind closed doors. It is far more >> likely that the engine does not work than that the automobile companies >> would fail to realize the prize before them since the first one to put such >> an engine into their vehicles is the one that makes an enormous windfall >> and I find it difficult to believe that those guys do not understand that. >> >> If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to >> buy the engine themselves to keep it out of use. That is one of the main >> concerns that LENR will face once the companies realize that this >> technology is real. So far, no one has convinced the oil industry that >> they are doomed. Hopefully, it will be too late for them to slam shut the >> doors in time to save themselves. Are you aware of any past attempt to >> prevent Papp from marketing his engine? >> >> I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is >> as revolutionary as the Papp engine. How can I or anyone else trust our >> normal senses to be right about such a device? From what I read, Papp did >> not go out of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and >> tested by anyone out of his control. Who are we to trust to make a >> determination that that device was not a fraud? Apparently Feynmann did >> not believe in the device and he was well respected in the physics >> community. >> >> So yes, I will require plenty of proof before I accept the Papp >> concept. That proof will begin when someone can demonstrate that the COE >> is preserved in such a system. Mills might turn out to be that guy, and I >> wish him plenty of luck. But, until strong evidence is presented I will >> harbor significant doubt. I have a suspicion that you are also not >> convinced that the Papp engine is totally above board. Am I right? >> >> Also, consider that action of Papp just before his death. Hiding the >> secret that might save millions of lives and bring on a new world is not >> the kind of action taken by a reasonable, caring individual. Instead, it >> is exactly what I would expect for one hoping to keep his soon to be >> tarnished reputation intact into the future. Apparently he did a great job >> of hiding his secret liquid brew along with his submarine scam. Maybe that >> one was real and I just do not understand it either? >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Berry <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:28 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. >> >> David, you show a most annoying circular reasoning trap. >> >> First you fail to recognize the obvious resistance to a product that >> will put oil and energy companies out of business, one of the biggest there >> is. >> >> Next you say that you would require an extraordinary level of evidence >> to believe in it. >> >> Then you think that surely if real it would have gone into production >> without considering the first above point (status quo resistance) and that >> others are also doubtful of something so extraordinary and so have >> significant resistance to believing it short of exceptional evidence. >> >> I have heard this illogical thought process many times, sadly the >> utility of something does not overcome the resistance of belief and >> powerful entrenched interests. >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I have to admit that sometimes I do not believe my own eyes. I once saw >>> what some refer to as a UFO and I did not believe what I saw. In that >>> case, I would have had to go up to whatever it was and inspect it in detail >>> before accepting that it was real. To believe in a device as revolutionary >>> as the Papp engine would take that level of involvement. It seems too good >>> to be true. >>> >>> The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine >>> did not find its way into production if it actually performed as described. >>> Even an idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a >>> great investment and money maker. The videos mentioned that it was >>> demonstrated to at least one automaker and they are not stupid. Why on >>> earth would they let such an opportunity get away? It just doesn't add up. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 6:28 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. >>> >>> Here is some believe your own eyes type data: >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oPB_iniQ4https >>> >>> >>> At 2:00 Papp disconnect the batteries and the engine still runs. This >>> was demonstrated to the patent office and Papp got the best patent of the >>> year award back in the 70s.. >>> >>> When Mills can do that, Mills will only be 50 years behind Papp. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil. I do not know >>>> what is fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of what Mills is >>>> stating. We need good data if we are to make much headway in understand >>>> these systems. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:27 pm >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a >>>> boil. >>>> >>>> In the Papp engine, that one of the mysteries of that process is that >>>> it produces little heat. The energy density in the Mills cell indicates the >>>> production of little heat. I think this lack of heat condition is all >>>> connected under the nano-particle causation principle. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior >>>>> associated with this material. The exact mechanism responsible for the >>>>> generation of water vapor may be difficult to discern. >>>>> >>>>> When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be >>>>> taking place. Heat is extracted from the water remaining during >>>>> vaporization so that a net cooling of the remaining water takes place. If >>>>> I recall, wind blowing over a wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some >>>>> locals. Vapor sprays can be used in a similar fashion. >>>>> >>>>> The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the >>>>> nano particles make its way to the surface of the container without >>>>> heating >>>>> much of the surrounding water. If we find that the distance traveled is >>>>> tiny, then there is no big mystery here. On the other hand, if the vapor >>>>> travels a significant distance through cool water without depositing heat >>>>> in that water, then that should get our attention. >>>>> >>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a >>>>> boil. >>>>> >>>>> One characterization of the process that you have not considered is >>>>> localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average >>>>> temperature of the waterdoes not rise. >>>>> >>>>> Another enhancement of the effect is the development of >>>>> Bose-Einstein condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots >>>>> are connected superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance >>>>> energy concentration might result. >>>>> >>>>> Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of >>>>> BEC formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC >>>>> formation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson >>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case >>>>>> light photons, that is not reflected away ends up heating the water. >>>>>> Anything that concentrates the energy into a small region, such as >>>>>> appears >>>>>> to be happening with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water. >>>>>> This >>>>>> is not unusual except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a >>>>>> fine job of concentrating the energy; better than most techniques. And, >>>>>> some of the local energy used to boil the water might be extracted from >>>>>> the >>>>>> remaining water resulting in its cooling. Add everything up and you >>>>>> likely >>>>>> have no above unity gain. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of. Perhaps >>>>>> Axil has seen some reference to this effect to discuss. At any rate, the >>>>>> total energy contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than >>>>>> the input energy from the light source unless some mysterious means is >>>>>> present. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not see any need to assume LENR is omnipresent in every >>>>>> experiment. Some results are simple physics and the one being discussed >>>>>> here most likely is just that. Where does anyone suggest that excess >>>>>> heat >>>>>> is being generated by this process? You can observe sublimation just by >>>>>> looking at the ice being converted directly into vapor. How is that much >>>>>> different? >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 2:25 pm >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a >>>>>> boil. >>>>>> >>>>>> In order to understand if over unity power production is occurring, >>>>>> the energy content of the incoming solar photons shall be determined and >>>>>> compared to the output energy content of the steam produced. >>>>>> >>>>>> Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to determine the >>>>>> COP of solar cells. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson >>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The total energy contained by the steam must be no greater than the >>>>>>> input light energy. This is not magic, just a way to concentrate the >>>>>>> incoming light. I am assuming that LENR of some sort is not >>>>>>> contributing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>>>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 1:33 pm >>>>>>> Subject: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/507821/nanoparticles-make-steam-without-bringing-water-to-a-boil/ >>>>>>> Nanoparticles can concentrate the energy of photons on a localized >>>>>>> nanometric scale. Here is a application of this ability. >>>>>>> Steam is a key ingredient in a wide range of industrial and >>>>>>> commercial processes—including electricity generation, water >>>>>>> purification, >>>>>>> alcohol distillation, and medical equipment sterilization. >>>>>>> Generating that steam, however, typically requires vast amounts of >>>>>>> energy to heat and eventually boil water or another fluid. Now >>>>>>> researchers >>>>>>> at Rice University have found a shortcut. Using light-absorbing >>>>>>> nanoparticles suspended in water, the group was able to turn the water >>>>>>> molecules surrounding the nanoparticles into steam while scarcely >>>>>>> raising >>>>>>> the temperature of the remaining water. The trick could dramatically >>>>>>> reduce >>>>>>> the cost of many steam-reliant processes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Rice team used a Fresnel lens to focus sunlight on a small tube >>>>>>> of water containing high concentrations of nanoparticles suspended in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> fluid. The water, which had been cooled to near freezing, began >>>>>>> generating >>>>>>> steam within five to 20 seconds, depending on the type of nanoparticles >>>>>>> used. Changes in temperature, pressure, and mass revealed that 82 >>>>>>> percent >>>>>>> of the sunlight absorbed by the nanoparticles went directly to >>>>>>> generating >>>>>>> steam while only 18 percent went to heating water. >>>>>>> “It’s a new way to make steam without boiling water,” says Naomi >>>>>>> Halas, director of the Laboratory for Nanophotonics at Rice University. >>>>>>> Halas says that the work “opens up a lot of interesting doors in terms >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> what you can use steam for.” >>>>>>> The new technique could, for instance, lead to inexpensive >>>>>>> steam-generation devices for small-scale water purification, >>>>>>> sterilization >>>>>>> of medical instruments, and sewage treatment in developing countries >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> limited resources and infrastructure. >>>>>>> The use of nanoparticles to increase heat transfer in water and >>>>>>> other fluids has been well studied, but few researchers have looked at >>>>>>> using the particles to absorb light and generate steam. >>>>>>> In the current study, Halas and colleagues used nanoparticles >>>>>>> optimized to absorb the widest possible spectrum of sunlight. When light >>>>>>> hits the particles, their temperature quickly rises to well above 100 >>>>>>> °C, >>>>>>> the boiling point of water, causing surrounding water molecules to >>>>>>> vaporize. >>>>>>> Precisely how the particles and water molecules interact remains >>>>>>> somewhat of a mystery. Conventional heat-transfer models suggest that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> absorbed sunlight should dissipate into the surrounding fluid before >>>>>>> causing any water to boil. “There seems to be some nanoscale thermal >>>>>>> barrier, because it’s clearly making steam like crazy,” Halas says. >>>>>>> The system devised by Halas and colleagues exhibited an efficiency >>>>>>> of 24 percent in converting sunlight to steam. >>>>>>> Todd Otanicar, a mechanical engineer at the University of Tulsa who >>>>>>> was not involved in the current study, says the findings could have >>>>>>> significant implications for large-scale solar thermal energy >>>>>>> generation. >>>>>>> Solar thermal power stations typically use concentrated sunlight to >>>>>>> heat a >>>>>>> fluid such as oil, which is then used to heat water to generate steam. >>>>>>> Otanicar estimates that by generating steam directly with nanoparticles >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> water, such a system could see an increased efficiency of 3 to 5 percent >>>>>>> and a cost savings of 10 percent because a less complex design could be >>>>>>> used. >>>>>>> Otanicar cautions that durability—the ability of nanoparticles to >>>>>>> repeatedly absorb sunlight and generate steam—still has to be proved, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> adds that the 24 percent efficiency achieved in the current study is >>>>>>> encouraging. “It’s just the beginning for optimizing this approach,” he >>>>>>> says. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
