Biaco, a fairly new UK based LENR company that may be close to market. You decide.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Please note that we have decided to keep the Biaco and ENG8 threads separate, so please use the correct one.

    Having read through this "Biaco" thread, it is apparent that some of the comment topics have been accidentally mixed up, when moving them from the ENG8 thread.


    (edit: Thanks for tidying up the thread, whoever did it)

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Edited once, last by Frogfall ().

    Thanks 2

    I'll post this link in the Biaco thread, since the author of the articles there was generally following the Biaco progress, before becoming aware of the dispute with ENG8. He does go into a little of the background of the dispute.


    Dispute Over Mysterious Energy Cells Shows Tense Race to Monetize Game-Changing Cleantech
    A dispute over technology ownership between two small European companies shows the race to monetize is tense.
    carrzee.org

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Thanks 2 Like 1 Nucleus 1

    This page on LutzJaitner 's website has been mentioned a few times.


    condensed-plasmoids.com - History of Condensed Plasmoids and LENR


    I wanted to track down the 1969 report mentioned here (the page does not have proper references, so it took some hunting)

    Quote from Hisory page

    1969: US Bureau of Mines

    • Issued a long report on water arc explosions for rock fragmentation
    • The Twin City Mining Research Center noticed that the energy output was 156% of the input


    Below is a quote, and the full reference, from this paper by Neal Graneau.


    Quote from Neal Graneau's paper

    In 1969, the US Bureau of Mines issued a long report on their investigation into using water arc explosions for rock fragmentation [5]. In one experiment the investigators at the Twin City Mining Research Center noticed that the energy output was apparently 156% of the input. This result was reported, but treated as an experimental error.


    Kutter H.K., "The electrohydraulic effect: Potential applications in rock fragmentation", Bureau of Mines Report 7317, (Dec. 1969)


    Google books has a scan. - or you can download the PDF (8.7MB) here.


    The relevant results are in Table 7, on Page 23.



    Transferred onto a chart (because I like charts) with a line for each voltage, and 1 to 6 being the gap widths, we see:


    Interestingly, we can see that the peak result is not 1.56 but 2.00 x input power. I wonder why the maximum figure was ignored by Neal Graneau? But this does tend to highlight the importance of "going back to source" when reading other people's papers.


    Having had some experience of working with explosion chamber pressures, I would be very wary of taking the "output power" calculation as being accurate, even if the peak pressure results could be trusted. And since the author didn't trust the pressure readings, for the reasons set out in the report, I don't think we should either.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Edited 4 times, last by Frogfall ().

    Thanks 2 Like 3

    Watching the above video, I think it is clear that they really haven't a clue how this thing works.


    Mentioning dissolved minerals and gases, and claiming that the water becomes a non-Newtonian fluid (which it normally isn't), just feels like obfuscation.


    Still, at least it looks like the unit has found its way into a proper lab - which is good.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Edited once, last by Frogfall ().

    Like 4
    Quote from Curbina

    I wonder if they account any H to O dissociation.

    At the voltages they are using, I suspect that the inevitable dissociation will result in fairly instant recombination. I haven't seen any evidence in the patent that they need to rely on, say, a platinum recombination mesh as a safeguard against oxyhydrogen explosions. But I've not been through it with a fine toothcomb (yet).

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Edited 2 times, last by Frogfall ().

    Thanks 1 Like 1

    I think (for now) I'll refrain from talking about the legal dispute, just in case we accidentally fall foul of the rather vague UK sub judice laws.  ;)


    In the mean time, just sticking to the science - the suggestion by Biaco that the energy gain could be related to the "flipping" of ortho and para water molecules is an interesting one. Have a read of the website linked below:



    ortho-Water and para-Water

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Like 2

    I've been thinking about the comments in the recent video about the tap water used in the 'cell' being a kind of 'soup' - with one constituent element specifically mentioned being manganese.


    This document says the following about manganese in drinking water:

    Quote

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a health based value of 400 μg/l, based on an upper tolerable intake, while the standard set in the UK is 50 μg/l, based on avoidance of water discolouration and deposition in mains, rather than human health.

    Further on in the document, it lists the results of studies on water taken from various sites, and shows that manganese in tap water taken from chalky groundwater (as is typical around Sussex) is generally under a tenth of the UK limit. Obviously it will have plenty of dissolved calcium (as you would expect in a "hard water" area, such as this), and other minerals, but manganese content should be relatively low. Why, then, was it singled-out in the video commentary?


    At one point there was mention of spectrographic analysis of the light being emitted by the water arc. Maybe signature spectra from manganese were particularly apparent - and so this had been attributed to the natural mineral content of the water.


    However, as we have seen in various LENR studies, manganese often appears as a transmutation product - particularly when arcs are involved (as in this one, for instance).


    I guess that Biaco would wish to play-down the possibility of nuclear reactions occurring within their cells, as it could conceivably complicate matters from a commercial perspective. And, of course, if transmutation products are appearing they might not be directly related to the excess energy production - but could be a result of an unwanted side process.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Like 1 Thanks 1

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.