QuoteI completed another test last night. The test used 2g Nickel and 0.3g solid Lithium in a Nickel foil capsule. The reactor was made out of 316 stainless steele with Swagelok fittings on each end. COP was measured in my Lead jacket conduction calorimeter. No excess heat was observed.
Even if you did see a little "excess heat" it would have to be extremely massive to make up for all the energy used in your processing to be a net gain.
I've studied the earlier patent at length. Their results are simply spectacular in that they have triggered fusion between protons and lithium at very low energies. In fact, they have determined a sweet spot of 200eV for the proton energy. According to…
The inventor insists on using his own rather wierd theory of gravity which is probably why people tend to ignore him. Also, he claims to have run many hours achieving a COP of 16 with the power drag of the pumps included. If he set that up in any DOE lab he'd be a Nobel winner for sure which is why I'm a bit skeptical.
It is incredible that this is not further taken away by the Hot fusionists. If it is so easy to build a working reactor, why further invest billions in something that will probably hardly or never generate excess energy like ITER?
It is about time main…
Many of those here know that this fusion concept, which I believe is a form of Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion that was originally conceived by the man who invented the electronic television, Philo T. Farnsworth and updated by Hirsch and then Bussard. The point is that it is extremely easy, relatively speaking, to do fusion and make copious amounts of neutrons this way. High school students have done it. I read (Tom Ligon) that up until the late 90's, these 'Fusors' actually performed better than the existing Tokamaks. The Hot fusion folks decided early that this concept would never break even so they abandoned it. Too bad. But it's making a comeback. I do consider it a form of 'hot' fusion because the equivalent temperatures for the thousands of Electron volts is millions of degrees. It's not 'Low Energy' but it certainly is orders of magnitude easier than building the Magnetic Confinement or Inertial Confinement systems that get all the money.
Does anyone have any information of a company named Star Scientific? They claim to be developing a low cost source of pions which decay into muons for use in the Muon Catalyzed Fusion process. Is there any validity to the possibility of cheaply and abundantly making enough pions to make MCF viable? Thanks.
Are there any examples in nature of elements combining together in a specific environment found in nature to give a third element which is a combination of the others?
The only possibility I can think of might be muon catalyzed fusion produced at random in nature from a cosmic ray derived muon hitting a stray deuterium atom which then combines with another and ends up in a fusion process.
From jcf14
This is a report on <span style="text-decoration: underline"><b>16 peer reviewed papers</b></span>, out of which 14 papers were submitted to the editorial board.
Extract:
We, Japan CF-Research Society members, started the research of the cold fusion more than two dozens of years ago. The cold…
If it really works then they need not wait for the worlds permission. Just build something as Mills is attempting to do. On Mills' site it says "Prototypes are already continuously producing hundreds of thousands of watts of light that is ideal for concentrator photovoltaic conversion being engineered and fabricated at leading photovoltaic (PV) companies."
Quote: “Who has the best evidence to date in your opinion?”
I'll agree with Abd here. If correlated He/excess heat evidence from Pd/D could be found that was controlled for the obvious correlations (time/heat/leakage/diffusion) it would indicate…
Thanks. It's sad that nearly thirty years after PF, still no one really has a simple LENR experiment so blatantly energetically obvious as to copious energy production as to be convincing.
Quote: “My claim is, that the Thomas Clarks main task is to produce a negative spin momentum in the LENR research community. He is just a bit more clever than MY.”
Well my main interest here is personal - I am upset at Rossi's blatant ability to…
Who has the best evidence to date in your opinion?
I been a Mills follower and believer for 15 years and I and Mills have facebooked each other for years but I must say that his new light bulb supposedly putting out millions of watts is a joke a 1kw carbon arc would be far more even and brighter, its a…
Here is a 750KW light source which does not seem to melt everything around it.
I been a Mills follower and believer for 15 years and I and Mills have facebooked each other for years but I must say that his new light bulb supposedly putting out millions of watts is a joke a 1kw carbon arc would be far more even and brighter, its a…
300,000 watts! Such power would vaporize the experiment within 5 seconds. Your everyday sense will give an estimate of the power levels. I have worked for years with HMi bulbs and carbon arcs
A 400 HP sports car can put out 300,000 watts, most of which is in the form of heat, and it doesn't melt either. Most of the energy in Mills' reaction is in the form of light so it gets widely dispersed when run open as in the demos. However, Mills has said that melting holes in the steel containment vessels is an issue they have seen already.
Its not useful to compare your experience with bulbs and arcs to Mills since the form of energy and the mechanism are very different. You are comparing a light source with a percent or so optical and virtually all the output as heat, your bulbs, with a source that is virtually all light and very little infrared which is Mills source. In its pure form, the light is not even in the optical range but is mostly EUV and UV, both because the physics of the reaction show two separate continuum. The silver vapor converts the EUV and UV to blackbody optical radiation.
Then it takes 3000J to vaporize each gram of silver and the pump is putting several grams per second into the electrodes. Mills told me that on average some 30KW from the reaction goes directly into vaporizing the silver. That's huge and way more energy than Mills puts into the system.
QuoteThis recent Paper of Mills uses substances which allow more or less no discussion about additional heat effects. Max gain about 50; Published online - behind a pay wall in:
international journal of hydrogen energy 39 (2014) 11930e11944
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319914015821
The paper is available for free on the BrLP website.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/publications/
A more recent paper from Jan 2015 is available. The title is "H2O-based solid fuel power source based on the catalysis of H by HOH catalyst".
Contrarian, I'm sorry. I'm not competent to judge power emitted from a ball of light by looking at it in a video. it is just not on. If you know how to do this I will with interest follow your working, and comment, but I'd like you to state explicitly…
I've asked Mills to provide more details such as a full blackbody spectrum to get the temperature and the actual photon flux at some distance to get the light power. If he does I'll post them. He has given these in the past for some single shot experiments.
QuoteThomas Clarke wrote: I don't watch videos much because they have little information.
Not much point in having a discussion then if you didn't or won't even bother to spend a few minutes looking at them.
You would need dynamic data about plasma ball temperature and size, since it is transient. And more information about emissivity - plasma is unusual. It would be in BLPs interest to release this if it helped their case, so I suspect it does not.
Why do I need dynamic data? If it were a question of a millisecond process maybe but it's a macro process happening in real time. And I can see the size close enough (I estimate the container to be about 0.5 m across).
We agree plasma is unusual. You watched the videos right? What did you think you were seeing? Did you see how it starts out greenish, turns reddish and then brilliant white? Did you see the measured spectrum over time. Did you see how the initial spectrum is in the EUV and UV range then becomes optical? The blackbody plasma ball becomes intense and large and lasts for over thirty seconds.
Would you believe their plasma data if formally published?
QuoteIt would be a lot of work for me to do that quantitative analysis - perhaps you could post yours? I'm only gpoing from the single short (which should be the same) figures given by the invited and published reports. They are near enough 1 given the high errors in this experiment and the fact that IH will obviously publish the more favourable analyses.
I'm working on gathering the information to make an informed calculation. Basically I need to know from Mills about how much Silver was vaporized so I can calculate how much energy it took to go from melting temperature to being vaporized to being at 5000K which was the temperature of the plasma. But it seems fairly clear from the temperature, based on the measured spectrum, that in the blackbody mode we can estimate the power from the Stephan Boltzmann law based on the size of the plasma ball. For example, if we conservatively assign the emissivity of the silver vapor at 0.15 and we assume a smaller size for the plasma ball of about a 10 cm radius, and only using the top half of the ball, the radiated power is already above 300,000 watts.
Quote from Contrarian: “Quote from Thomas Clarke: “Quote from Contrarian: “Quote from Thomas Clarke: “No I mean these (the second and third)
&amp;amp;lt;a href=&amp;amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;<a href="http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/&amp;amp;quot&quot" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">brilliantlightpower.com/valida…eports/&amp;amp;quot&quot</a>;…
All scientific papers are ultimately the work of (opinions) of the scientists writing them and not the position of their bosses. I reject your assertion that Glumac is not competent to say what he said. It's unfounded and based on assumptions on your part. And lets face it, if his report was critical of Mills you would accept it without question.
Quote from Contrarian: “Quote from Thomas Clarke: “No I mean these (the second and third)
&lt;a href=&quot;<a href="http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/&quot" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/&quot</a>; class=&quot;externalURL&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;…
Thomas, Glumac is a University of Illinois professor so I hardly think one can just dismiss his credentials because his work is inconvenient. Your criteria is a moving target that will never be satisfied because you keep thinking up potential mechanisms that cast doubt. In politics they call that throwing mud to see what sticks. One can always do that and by doing so, one is just selectively doubting work they feel doesn't fit in the well established paradigms. In this case, you dismiss Glumac and if that is not enough you dismiss all company related reports are untrustworthy. Really, that's absurd.
We all know the Wright brothers achieved powered flight in 1903 but it took until about 1908 for most people to finally accept the fact that it really happened. What will be the tipping point when Mills convinces you?
No I mean these (the second and third)
<a href="http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/</a>
The 100 J difference for that experiment was well outside of the margin of error according to Glumac who is an expert. But I'm more interested in the high power tests now going on. The plasma ball is like a little 5000 degree star that radiates a lot of power.
Quote: “Looking at at the output of the plasma videos, it's clear that far more energy is being liberated than is used to trigger the reaction. Look at the massive amounts of silver being vaporized. That takes a lot of energy, certainly more than is…
Not sure what reports you are referring to? Are you mixing the Mills and Rossi related discussions?
the continuous pulsed system does not have any data more convincing than the instrumented single pulses. These have calorimetric analyses that show excess heat of a few 100J, and maybe 50% higher than the applied input power.
Unfortunately…
Looking at at the output of the plasma videos, it's clear that far more energy is being liberated than is used to trigger the reaction. Look at the massive amounts of silver being vaporized. That takes a lot of energy, certainly more than is input. And clearly the spectrum changes from EUV to blackbody which would not happen if these were all stray effects due to the high current and associated fields. No, it's consistent with what it's supposed to be.
