Abstract: Hydrated silver shots comprising a source of H and HOH catalyst were ignited by
passing a low voltage, high current through the shot to produce explosive plasma that emitted
brilliant light predominantly in the short-wavelength 10 to 300 nm region. Based on Stark
broadening, the initially optically thick essentially 100% ionized plasma expanded at sound
speed and thinned to emit EUV and UV light. The peak power of 20 MW was measured using
absolute spectroscopy over the 22.8-647 nm region wherein the optical emission energy was 250
times the applied energy. Synchronized high-speed video and spectroscopic recording of the
plasma emission and the measurement of the applied ignition power over time showed that
plasma persisted even after the ignition power decayed to zero. Continuous megawatt-level
power was recorded on a hydrino reactor wherein continuous brilliant plasma was maintained by
HOH and H produced from water-entrained injected molten silver matrix. The molten fuel
produced the same EUV spectrum as the shots, but converted to 5700K blackbody radiation of
about 1 m2 surface area with a positive feedback cycle of silver vaporization and absorption of
the hydrino reaction emission with the plasma becoming increasingly optically thick. The
calorimetrically measured power of a typical 80 mg, 10 microliter shot shot ignition released by
the nascent HOH catalyzed transition of H to hydrino state H2(1/4) was 400,000 W. Based on
the shockwave propagation velocity and the corresponding pressure, the high-current ignition of
water in a silver matrix was measured to produce a shock wave that was equivalent to about 10
times more moles of gunpowder. The catalysis reaction product was identified by
Raman spectroscopy, photoluminescence emission spectroscopy, X-ray photoelectron
spectroscopy, and MAS NMR.
Big Bangs From BLP
-
Mary, what you wrote is not a critique. It is simply infantile rejection, totally tangential, based not on your knowledge of science but upon your prejudices. You might be right about BLP, but reading your response would never convince anyone with a shred of curiosity that they had nothing. I notice that you missed the fact that the abstract mentions 'moles of gunpowder.' That is rather like talking about moles of cake.
I usually convert moles of gunpowder or dynamite to moles of cheeseburger. There are lots of data on the caloric value of cheeseburgers.
-
In the report energy in/out figures in J are provided, like for example in Table 1:
In principle these experiments shouldn't be much different from the exploding wire experiments sometimes presented in the LENR field, but the main difference, besides that pellets instead of wires are used, is that hydrogen is present as a water impurity, e.g. adsorbed in these pellets.
This often made me wonder is instead of trying to vaporize 1.5mm "spherical shots" with 10 kA and a spot welder one couldn't simply have a slurry of fine particles in water and attempt to blow much smaller amounts with more modest currents. This wouldn't even be a novel idea in the LENR field, but usually HV discharges are used in the acqueous medium (for example, as in Brian Ahern's patent application).
If what matters is the current density, here the current would be concentrated on a much smaller amount of material and thus the density might end up being on the same order of magnitude if not higher.
With this admittedly naïve idea in mind, lately I tried some related home-made experiments with improvised zero-cost equipment, but with inconclusive results so far. Sometimes I noticed odd/unexpected reactions, but it's hard to say whether they were really anomalous. Subjective impressions only as I don't have zero-cost monitoring equipment at disposal. -
Tiny silver bangs + Raleigh
-
BLP changed its research paradigm multiple-times in history. But why, once they have working technology (Sun Cell reactor), which just calls for monetization?
I'm with yugo in this matter, such a behavior is suspicious.
-
Mills said last week he is trying to get an update out by the end of Dec. Not sure if this is what he had in mind? I got the impression it would be about the SunCell development, and not another experiment result. If so, we shall see how it (Suncell) is coming along.
Understandable there is doubt, and suspicion. Mills brought that on himself. One year ago he was close to market with the PVC SC. Jan 1 he opened the New Year with a promising CNN International segment. A few months later he indicated the PVC SC was encountering some engineering problems, and went back to the thermal model. Then, in a May interview he claimed the first product was to be introduced by summer (2 months). Then he got some more financing, and slipped into his presentation to the engineers in Denver that it is back on a 2 year cycle.
Were this the first time he has promised and not delivered, it might be understandable and not raise suspicion. But this is the third time in 20 or so years, and it is starting to be a troubling pattern.
-
More like the twentieth time.
He has had 3 distinct, and very different reactor types over the past 20 years. One Mills exaggeration per prototype, equals the "third time".
-
Water arc explosions were first described in 1907 by John Trowbridge of Harvard University, though the phenomenon was not studied in detail until it caught the interest of Peter and Neal Graneau in the mid-1980s (Graneau and Graneau, 1985). By discharging a high-voltage capacitor through around 100 mL of water, the Graneau team was able to expel the water from a dielectric cup. At the time, the Graneaus conjectured that the arc discharge generated high- pressure steam within the water which expanded rapidly and resulted in the observed explosions. Measurements in Graneau and Graneau (1985) and Hathaway and Graneau (1996) indicated that water arc explosions were unusually strong. The history includes work by Trowbridge in 1907 as noted below; also Frungel in 1948 and 1965 papers; and Gilchrist and Crossland in 1967. About the same time as Graneau's publications, we also find a publication by Azevedo of MIT - 1986. YT Videos Water Drop Trigger Apparatus, Max Spark Rate Demo
For example at this blog and videos (1, 2) we can find the results of Stanford Plasma Physics Lab - as we can see, the net explosion energy exceeded the input pulse energy in EVERY shot observed. In shot 1, the measured explosion energy even exceeded the total energy stored by over 200%.
Compare also Richard Hull's research. With 50 J of input energy, the quantity of fog produced was of the order of 0.75 g of water. To dissociate this amount of water into oxygen and hydrogen would require 10 kJ of energy. Hence the fog explosion is unlikely to be caused by electrolytic dissociation of water molecules. Without this dissociation, the most likely source of the explosion energy is that stored by hydrogen bonds between the water molecules. This bond energy is said to be equal to the latent heat of evaporation, and therefore could contribute up to 2200 J/g (1, 2, 3).
For further reading: The Mysteries of Fog (Graneau, P., & Graneau, N. (1985). Electrodynamic explosions in liquids. Applied Physics Letters, 46(5), 468, Graneau, P., Graneau, N., Hathaway, G., & Hull, R. (2000). Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy. Journal of Plasma Physics, 63, 115-128), see Graneau e.a. - Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy - 2000.pdf (364.3 kB), Powerful-water-plasma-explosions.pdf (313.59 kB), GraneauEditorial94.pdf (178.4 kB), P4.pdf (320.36 kB)
-
Quote
The peak power of 20 MW was measured using absolute spectroscopy over the 22.8-647 nm region wherein the optical emission energy was 250 times the applied energy.
I don't trust BLP at all, once it starts to talk about spectral measurements of energy output once again. The fudge factor can get very high there, because the results depend on emissivity and instrumentation and many other factors. This technique is fringe even more once the impulse and transient phenomena get involved (Stark broadening).
-
Indeed with large currents very fine (colloidal?) particles are produced in the process, which inconveniently quickly make the solution conductive. I didn't know that Industrial Heat had IP on something similar.
They're for the most part passing large currents through materials to form transient dense plasmas of metals in the presence of water/hydrogen. If this actually works with an energy gain, almost anybody could do it at home with DIY equipment, no need for BLP and/or millions of dollars of research. Perhaps the announcements are mostly to attract new investors and customers, and their business model is working with individual companies rather than producing a widely distributed product? Apparently it worked so far for them.
-
ndeed with large currents very fine (colloidal?) particles are produced in the process, which inconveniently quickly make the solution conductive. I didn't know that Industrial Heat had IP on something similar.
Hard to imagine there is IP to be had. 50 years ago I worked in a laboratory that used to make colloidal gold and silver for fringe medical practitioners. I have also made colloidal nickel recently- just pass a high DC current between two nickel electrodes in distilled water (no electrolyte) and basically what you produce is very bad plating that fails to adhere and ends up in colloidal suspension.
-
This is not just bad electroplating: the method described in the patent is about vaporizing electrode material with a plasma by using intense arc discharges. The parameter space for the operation seems large enough for patents to be written.
-
This is not just bad electroplating: the method described in the patent is about vaporizing electrode material with a plasma by using intense arc discharges. The parameter space for the operation seems large enough for patents to be written.
Yes, Lenr seems to appear after deep ionized levels more than chemical.
Btw, it should appear during positive, negative species recombinations, drowned in a main neutral environment.
Finally, this is summary of most experiments.
-
Anyway, it's interesting that a plasma-arc method used for producing colloidal particles can with some variations also supposedly produce a thermal gain. Did the laboratory you used to work at sometimes experience unexplained heat issues during their production?
-
Do these monster papers appear repetitive?
Same thing over again slightly refined.
Doing something is better than sitting in the hands but why there is no advancement in the triggering process like say using different (cheaper) catalyst?
-
Doing something is better than sitting in the hands but why there is no advancement in the triggering process like say using different (cheaper) catalyst?
BLP is a riddle wrapped in a conundrum. As for advances, they seem painfully slow, I agree.
-
This is not a new paper as is obvious from the date enconded in the name of the pdf. I think he added some information regarding their recent experiments, but I have not checked for the differences yet.
-
Display More
In the report energy in/out figures in J are provided, like for example in Table 1:
In principle these experiments shouldn't be much different from the exploding wire experiments sometimes presented in the LENR field, but the main difference, besides that pellets instead of wires are used, is that hydrogen is present as a water impurity, e.g. adsorbed in these pellets.
This often made me wonder is instead of trying to vaporize 1.5mm "spherical shots" with 10 kA and a spot welder one couldn't simply have a slurry of fine particles in water and attempt to blow much smaller amounts with more modest currents. This wouldn't even be a novel idea in the LENR field, but usually HV discharges are used in the acqueous medium (for example, as in Brian Ahern's patent application).
If what matters is the current density, here the current would be concentrated on a much smaller amount of material and thus the density might end up being on the same order of magnitude if not higher.
With this admittedly naïve idea in mind, lately I tried some related home-made experiments with improvised zero-cost equipment, but with inconclusive results so far. Sometimes I noticed odd/unexpected reactions, but it's hard to say whether they were really anomalous. Subjective impressions only as I don't have zero-cost monitoring equipment at disposal.As I've mentioned before, a food calorie is 4184 joules. So, this amount of claimed net energy is less than 1/20th of a food calorie. Or, for comparison, about 1/200 of the amount of chemical energy in a potato chip. Not bad for decades of work and perhaps $10's of millions of dollars, eh?
-
Several of the "validators" repeat paragraphs very similar to the one in the abstract above over and over in their reports, with small variations. It seems to come from a template. (Too lazy right now to see how similar the language is.)
[Quoting the abstract:] The peak power of 20 MW was measured using absolute spectroscopy over the 22.8-647 nm region wherein the optical emission energy was 250
times the applied energy.When I looked into this, I believe it was pointed out by a more cagey reviewer that a novel and unproven technique was being used to measure power-out.
-
Several of the "validators" repeat paragraphs very similar to the one in the abstract above over and over in their reports. with small variations. It seems to come from a template. (Too lazy right now to see how similar the language is.
I recall saying almost the exact thing, (seems like a few years ago), regarding a BLP report.
