ENG8 - new plasma energy system

Just wait for the legal threats from BLP...

They say they have patents (and pending patents) They have improved COP from 1.8 (1 POINT 8 to 5+

Edit : missed the flyspeck "."

This kind of resembles the Egely device, to some extent.

Quote from Alan Smith

And the colour is reminiscent of low-pressure N2 (or even air which as you know is 80% N2) rather than the more purple hue of Hydrogen.

Their latest cell does appear to be an air discharge - with the "excess energy" supposedly coming from moisture (humidity).

BLP has a brand new (today) business presentation https://brilliantlightpower.co…ess-presentation-updated/

Remember this comment from the BLP thread?

Quote from Frogfall

I do think the disparity between the "1000%" claimed by Thermacore (by which they actually meant 10:1 output power to input power), and the 1.06-1.68:1 of the NASA tests, should have prompted some closer scrutiny. If the Thermacore cells seemed to be performing so much better than the NASA cell, then they were either doing something drastically different to the cells, or taking their measurements in oddly different ways, or one of them managed to get their sums wrong.

This illustration from ENG8 displays the same problem...

In each case, the CoP claimed to have been seen by the developers is far higher than that seen by the "independent validators".

Of course csicop-style skeptics will just say "that's because these so-called developers are liars". But that would be side-stepping the results from the validation labs - which were, after all, higher than one. Interestingly, for each test here, the labs were getting a CoP of under two - high enough to say that apparent extra power must be coming from somewhere.

What never seems to be examined in sufficient detail are the physical differences between the developers' own lab tests, and the tests carried out in the validators' labs. If you don't accuse the developers of outright lies, and the 5+ CoP was something that they had actually seen, then it comes down to the quote above.

1. They are driving the cells in different ways - and not necessarily "drastically different", at first sight.
2. Their instruments worked in different ways (different characteristics, different levels of immunity from electrical interference, etc)
3. They carried out their calculations in different ways, and one method introduced errors.

What we do not know for these cases is how much of the developers' lab set-up has been transported to the validators' labs. Was it just the "cell"? Was it the cell, the power supply, and all ancillaries? Presumably the instrumentation was different, between labs, but by how much?

Quote from Alan Smith

gossip suggests that they simply blow air into the cell as a vortex and get hot air out.

I hope whoever is testing this realises that the "hot air" exiting the device is quite likely to be "active" in some way, and so some heat could still be evolved further downstream. So if they just measure temperature at the exit, and use that to calculate efficiency (or CoP) then they won't be recording the full effect.

Possibly similar to what happened with the Schaeffer device.

A few years ago I was looking into the working principles of industrial Ranque-Hilsch vortex tubes, mainly from a cooling perspective. As is often the case in wider industry, these things are manufactured, and used, but there is stll a lot of argument over how exactly they do what they do.

The industrial versions are often used for extreme spot-cooling in machining operations where liquid coolants aren't wanted. They are not cheap to buy, or run - since they use a lot of compressed air - and they are exremely noisy.

They can also get rather hot - a lot hotter than the photo above shows - but everyone just dumps the hot air since it is regarded as an unwanted byproduct.

If you calculate the hypothetical air pressure across the vortex, from the periphery to the centre, using a mix of centripetal acceleration and other fluid dynamic priciples, it says you should have a compressed (hot) region at the periphery, and an expanded (cold) region at the centre. Probe tests show that this is generally true - but the various mathematical models never quite match the reality, hence the continued debate.

Thinking about this now, after reading the Rayleigh "active gas" papers, it would seem reasonable to presume that if the central "core" of the vortex was at a low enough pressure, then it could become "activated". After all, it will be surrounded by a ring of hot, noisy, IR emitting air.

Is this what we are seeing in the 2022 "AirCell" photo? A central glowing ("active") low-pressure core of an air vortex?

Quote from Alan Smith

I think so. I am also pleased that my guess (from the plasma colour) that the gas in the cell was mostly N2 was correct. I wonder how much NOx it makes btw?

Good question.

Quote from Frogfall

Remember this comment from the BLP thread?

This illustration from ENG8 displays the same problem...

In each case, the CoP claimed to have been seen by the developers is far higher than that seen by the "independent validators".

Of course csicop-style skeptics will just say "that's because these so-called developers are liars". But that would be side-stepping the results from the validation labs - which were, after all, higher than one. Interestingly, for each test here, the labs were getting a CoP of under two - high enough to say that apparent extra power must be coming from somewhere.

What never seems to be examined in sufficient detail are the physical differences between the developers' own lab tests, and the tests carried out in the validators' labs. If you don't accuse the developers of outright lies, and the 5+ CoP was something that they had actually seen, then it comes down to the quote above.

1. They are driving the cells in different ways (power supplies, cabling, screening, etc) - and not necessarily "drastically different", at first sight.
2. Their instruments worked in different ways (different characteristics, different levels of immunity from electrical interference, etc)
3. They carried out their calculations in different ways, and one method introduced errors.

What we do not know for these cases is how much of the developers' lab set-up has been transported to the validators' labs. Was it just the "cell"? Was it the cell, the power supply, and all ancillaries? Presumably the instrumentation was different, between labs, but by how much?

Display More

Being a non-csicop-style skeptic I'd say the large difference shows the need for all suhc experiemnts to have published bounds on error bars. We eitehr have then very wide error bars - some indication of the measurement difficulty that would urge caution - or the error bars in the two cases do not intersect and one of other (or both) groups of experimenters is underestimating the error mechanisms here.

Bottom line - estimating errors (and publishing details of this) is good practice.

Quote from Alan Smith

I am visiting ENG8's lab - and another test site- at the end of this month, and will report in due course. 'The game's afoot' (Sherlock Holmes)

I hope they don’t NDA you too much.

Quote from Alan Smith

Too late.

Ouch!

The other company Biaco is engaged with in a legal fight over LENR based IP is Home - ENG8 . Here is an interview Home - 350 PPM Ltd did with them 5 months ago:

This all seemed to have stemmed from a Vladimir Leonov and his theory of "Super-unification".

Here is a list of his work:
Link to Vladimir Leonov

He seems rather unmentioned in the West but seems like a interesting person to have a conversation with.
Does anybody have more information on this gentleman?