ZPEnergy.com - Cross post from hydrino list

I am very pleased to read these kind of comments from people like Eric Krieg. This proves again why it is essential for more and more scientists (with recognized credentials) to abandon the apathy/fear and get involved, with courage and honesty (but no ego), on one side or the other for a fair debate on these "fringe" research topics. Even though a functioning prototype/successful replicated experiment remains the ultimate proof, scientific brain storming on these subjects could (and should) only help in revealing the truth faster.

Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 07:47:54 -0400
From: "eric"
Subject: cross post from hydrino list

People,

I find the hydrino list interesting to monitor. It is high volume, on a high scientific level (you probably really need a post doc in chemistry or physics to really make sense of much of the discussion, it is fringe, but even the pro side agrees with most all the fundamental laws of physics. Many educated people still feel that Randy Mills of Blacklight Power is on to something. Randy does not believe in cold fusion and has a bevy of real scientists doing work for him. I remain unconvinced they have something significant, but my scientific training is not adequate to really assess much of their "evidence" and theory. The following is an example of recent dialog on their open (does not censor out skeptics like much of FE) email list:

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:46 PM
Subject: HSG: Digest Number 1147

> There are 10 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Re: Re: Thoughts on Hydrogen From Oil (Black Hydrogen)
> From: "Mike Carrell"
> 2. Re: the problems of getting to kW output levels
> From: "Mike Carrell"
> 3. direct production of electricity from plasma
> From: mrflora
> 4. Borealis v RTI International
> From: "amack43"
> 5. Re: Borealis v RTI International
> From: "kleml29"
> 6. Re: Borealis v RTI International
> From: "orionworks"
> 7. Re: Re: Re: Thoughts on Hydrogen From Oil (Black Hydrogen)
> From: Peter Zimmerman
> 8. Re: Re: Thoughts on Hydrogen From Oil (Black Hydrogen)
> From: Peter Zimmerman
> 9. Re: Borealis v RTI International
> From: "Mike Carrell"
> 10. Re: direct production of electricity from plasma
> From: "Mike Carrell"
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:53:58 -0400
> From: "Mike Carrell"
> Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts on Hydrogen From Oil (Black Hydrogen)
>
> Steve wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> I suspect what I'm about to ask is considered controversial and not
> necessarily proven to some in this group, but...
>
> I have two questions...
>
> One: In your professional opinion has it been proven beyond any
> reasonable doubt that certain experimental BLP processes show
> unequivocally that more heat and energy is being generated and
> recorded than what was input into the process?
>
> If you define "process" as the reaction cell itself, and not the support
> equipment in a particular experiment, my answer is yes. If you include power
> from the wall plug and energy investment in, say, isolation and transporting
> reactant gases to the experiment, the answer is no. To turn the last case
> into a 'yes' requires significant man years of development.
>
> Two: In your professional opinion has it also been proven beyond a
> shadow of doubt that the excess energy being generated and recorded
> exceeds what might possibly be the result of a yet to be identified
> prosaic chemical reaction?
>
> Yes, in specific cases such as the noble gas water bath calorimetry
> experiments. In other cases, such as the thermal reactor, no comparable
> calorimetry has been done, to my knowledge, so I can't make a statement.
>
> Others will disagree, of course, imagining various possible sources of error
> in the stated experiments. I accept the results as face value and do not
> include deliberate falsification in my evaluation.
>
> BTW, I'm not a certified "expert", just a reasonably well seasoned observer
> of these matters.
>
> Mike Carrell
> .
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 20:32:06 -0400
> From: "Mike Carrell"
> Subject: Re: the problems of getting to kW output levels
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: orionworks
> To: hydrino@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 5:24 PM
> Subject: HSG: the problems of getting to kW output levels
>
>
> My subject line is a direct quote extracted from a recent post made
> by Mike Carrell.
>
> It has been brought up several times in this discussion group that
> Dr. Mills has access to a sterling engine. We assume he is attempting
> to configure the device in a manner to ultimately close the loop in
> power generation.
>
> MC: More specifically, he has shown pictures of such an engine in some
> presentations and spoken of it to his investor's meeting. The loop is not
> "closed" in the sense of self sustaining operation. A more conservative
> position is that the BLP reaction can get 100 X or more heat energy out of a
> given quantity of hydrogen than any other process. Thus, in the near term,
> with interest in a 'hydrogen economy', BLP could be enabling, for it vastly
> reduces the quantity of hydrogen required, and thus all the storage,
> transportation, and generation problems. All this, without reaching the
> self-sustaining 'water engine' breakthrough.
>
> In the pursuit of closing that mythical loop I want to, once again,
> bring up an interesting company, Borealis (http://www.borealis.gi/) -
> and especially one of its subsidiaries a start-up company, POWERCHIPS
> (http://www.powerchips.gi/) which is in the preliminary stages of
> manufacturing a "power chip" they claim is capable of delivering up
> to 70-80% of the maximum (Carnot) theoretical efficiency for heat
> pumps.
>
> Please correct me if I error here but I would assume that obtaining
> 70-80% efficiency would far exceed even what the best sterling engine
> configuration could deliver.
>
> MC: This is quite correct.
>
> PowerChips may now be closer to realizing their goal than ever
> before. See the following news article dated April 19, 2004:
> (http://www.coolchips.gi/press/pr_040419.shtml). The title
> is: "PIONEER PATENT" ISSUED FOR EFFICIENT NANOSCALE ENERGY
> CONVERSION. The patent describes "...a description of the techniques
> used to create..." the nano-precision chips. The patent
> describes "...how to create the tiny gap which allows efficient
> electron flow from one vacuum diode to the other and maintain it even
> while the device heats up or is subject to sudden shocks." Piezo
> elements are used to continuously fine-tune the nano scaled gaps
> necessary to extract useable electricity based on the heat
> differential between the two gaps. The article goes on to now claim a
> 90% or better success rate using techniques similar to those
> described in their patent.
>
> What really piqued my interest was the following claim, "... a
> prototype production installation has been acquired which, once
> packaging solutions have been completed and production has commenced,
> can meet a substantial part of the initial military and aerospace
> demand for Cool Chips." (FYI, Cool Chips, is another subsidiary under
> the Borealis umbrella that uses the same chips, except in reverse
> order to generate a more efficient refrigeration system which uses no
> moving parts, is smaller and lighter, and consumes less power than
> conventional systems. It's my understanding that "Cool" chips are
> essentially interchangeable with "Power" chips.
>
> Of course this news article is an in-house announcement. It's PR.
> Never the less, it sounds to me as if Power Chips and Cool Chips have
> overcome the most formidable engineering problems associated with
> manufacturing nano-precision devices. It now seems to be more a
> matter of carefully ramping up the production process and learning
> how best to manufacture their revolutionary chip configurations
> within a business plan that allows them to generate sufficient profit
> allowing them to expand their operations. To this goal they are
> shrewdly going after the military and aerospace industries where such
> companies are more than willing to pay the necessary high premiums to
> acquire these first generation chips. One assumes that as the
> manufacturing process ramps up prices will eventually drop and the
> general consumer will get the chance to benefit from the nano-
> technology as well.
>
> Ok, now here's the $64,000 question. What I would like to know is if
> Dr. Mills were able to get his hands on an experimental batch
> of "Power chip" prototypes and either enhance and/or completely
> replace the sterling engine would the alleged added efficiency
> of "70 - 80% of the maximum (Carnot) theoretical efficiency gained"
> be enough to close the mythical loop AS THINGS STAND TODAY.
>
> MC: The Borealis technology is fascinating and may be transformational. They
> are to be congratulated for a very significant technical accomplishment.
> Steve has brought the technology to my attention before, and I have
> mentioned it in email to Mills. The technology could, in principle, 'close
> the loop' to self sustaining sooner than other thermal conversion
> technologies.
>
> MC: For those here unfamiliar with the devices, they are functionally
> equivalent to thermoelectric junctions and exhibit the Peltie (cooling)
> effect. What is different is that the two electrodes are separated by a
> vacuum, which is not thermally conducting, and the current flow is by
> electron tunneling. This requires very close spacing of electrodes over a
> significant area, presently about the diameter of a quarter. The
> manufacturing and control techniques are elegant and costly at present,
> which is why they seek niche, high value markets.
>
> MC: To apply these devices in a BLP context means distributing the generated
> heat to the devices, which will be in arrays or stacks, for they generate
> current from thermal gradients. The voltage per cell is small, like PV
> cells. In the near term, the Borealis cells aren't a good bet for the trip
> to commercialization. In X years, yes, but not 2004. In the near term, they
> might be useful in extracting electricity from waste heat from the Stirling
> engine, perhaps enough to do the electrolysis.
>
> MC: I come back to a position I have made in other posts today. For Mills to
> concentrate on making a self-sustaining demonstration **today** to satisfy
> skeptics is a waste of his resources, and stockholder investment. *Today*
> there is ample money, and the building is off the market. I am told there
> are active negotiations with potential partners and possible IPOs for joint
> development ventures, not BLP itself, which retains a minority interest in
> each venture. In this climate, the opinions of the peanut gallery are worth
> less than the peanut shells. Presumably, the potential partners have done
> their own due diligence.
>
> I'd be curious to know what the learned wise one's in this group
> might care to say about this potential configuration.
>
> I should probably bring this point up within the "CF" vortex-l
> discussion group as well.
>
> MC: Steve, I think that is a good idea. In general, those investigators are
> still trying to get consistent detectable results and to understand the
> reaction process. Mills is much further down the road toward useful devices
> than the LENR group is. But, you will do a service by bringing it to the
> surface.
>
> Mike Carrell
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 20:44:59 -0500 (CDT)
> From: mrflora
> Subject: direct production of electricity from plasma
>
> >
> > Irrespective of whether you think BLP is right, if you had to
> > efficiently, reliably and safely convert plasma directly to
> > electricity (ie. without boiling water-steam-turbine) how would you do it?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Antony
> >
>
> I was going to suggest MHD techniques, but Dr. Z beat me to the punch :).
> I've been working on some aerospace problems related to plasma, and it
> occurred to me that it might be possible to draw energy from a neutral
> plasma with a net flow via a system of nested electrodes. Only the inner
> electrodes are in contact with the plasma; the outer electrodes are
> charged and act to separate the plasma so that there is a net voltage
> between the inner electrodes. Does anyone think this is practical?
>
> Regards,
> M.R.F.
>
> "As you struggle to save humanity be sure to avoid electrodes in your
> path" -- Robotron 2084
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 02:15:31 -0000
> From: "amack43"
> Subject: Borealis v RTI International
>
> The powerchip may have a competitor in RTI International which has
> developed its own power conversion thermoelectric technology funded
> by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the
> Office of Naval Research.
>
> The link is here:
>
> http://www.rti.org/page.cfm?nav=86&objectid=9D41B022-9209-4974-BF209DA85644C33F
>
> An extract from the article:
>
> "Superlattice thermoelectric devices are solid state and can be used
> for power conversion, heating, cooling, and precise temperature
> control. The devices currently being developed by RTI can range in
> size from 1/40th of a U.S. penny to 3 inches on a side.
>
> "With experimental lab-scale devices having already exceeded state-of-
> the-art bulk devices in power-conversion efficiency, power-conversion
> applications have become a priority. These superlattice devices are
> also catching up in cooling applications in terms of efficiency at
> the device level; the devices have already demonstrated advantages
> such as smaller footprint, larger cooling-power density compared to
> commercial devices for electronics cooling."
>
> Like powerchips it's a work in progress (for some years now) but
> there's nothing like healthy competition to drive innovation.
>
> Antony
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 14:23:59 -0000
> From: "kleml29"
> Subject: Re: Borealis v RTI International
>
> My memory may be faulty but the early history of the Borealis effort seemed to involve
> a proprietary doped diamond-like film having a serendipitous suite of properties. The
> connection to Mills has to do as well with my recollection of an experiment suggesting
> that, in the materials-blasting environment of the far UV produced by the process, a
> similar material not only survived but was produced by the experiment. Given the
> torrent of catch-22's in this process, Mills could use all the serendipity he can find.
> Namely, what are the conductive, transmissive, diffusive, formability propertiies of a
> stable material with a zero work function. A confined plasma could conceivably be
> isolated from the rest of the MHD with pumping or gettering support. Should, as
> expected, hydrino diffuse selectively relative to hydrogen, how serendipitous could you
> get?
>
> Bob Lowry
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 14:08:40 -0000
> From: "orionworks"
> Subject: Re: Borealis v RTI International
>
> I couldn't agree more. Thanks for bringing RTI International to my
> attention, Antony. A pinch of healthy competition sprinkled here and
> there should help speed up the development process.
>
> It's my understanding that Borealis already has an impressive number
> of registered patents on the manufacturing process. One would assume
> that RTI International has done the same. It would be interesting to
> find out if both companies developed completely different approaches.
> It would be a good thing if there is more than one way to skin the
> cat.
>
> If not, I would think there could be some interesting court battles
> in the near future.
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.orionworks.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:49:19 GMT
> From: Peter Zimmerman
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Thoughts on Hydrogen From Oil (Black Hydrogen)
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 11:22:48 -0400
> >From: "Mike Carrell"
> >Subject: HSG: Re: Re: Thoughts on Hydrogen From Oil (Black Hydrogen)
> >To:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: r mj
> > To: hydrino@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:38 PM
> > Subject: HSG: Re: Thoughts on Hydrogen From Oil (Black Hydrogen)
> >
> > MC: The ACS presentation featured a thermally driven cell which can also be
> > seen on the website. This does not require a microwave generator but uses a
> > crystalline catalyst which must be recovered and recycled as indicated in
> > the system diagrams of that presentation. That presentation is fairly
> > complete in illustrating the kind of support system the reactor requires.
> > The energy density is not as high as the microwave noble gas catalyst cells,
> > or the microwave water vapor cell.
>
> ++++Let us be quite clear about this. The ACS presentation featured a sketch
> of the wiring diagram of a thermally driven cell. There warn't no operating
> cell there.
>
> > MC: The nature of your 'doubt' is unclear. Do you doubt that the BLP reports
> > are responsible, honest descriptions of experiments performed and
> > measurements made? Do you doubt that the underlying physical processes are
> > correctly described -- hydrinos, etc.? Do you doubt Mills' path because BLP
> > has not produced the devices and product you want?
>
> +++Speaking for myself alone, "yes" on all counts.
>
>
> >
> > I personally am nearing completion of a device which will make LENR/CF
> > reliable and reproducible at will.
> >
> > MC: Such would be welcomed far and wide. But are you aware that Patterson
> > demonstrated substantial power outputs from 'simple' cells using coated
> > beads, on TV, and widely acclaimed, only to have his results vanish when a
> > critical supply of plastic beads was exhausted? [He did not realize the
> > beads provided more than a spherical substrate for his coatings, and never
> > characterized them.] Are you aware that Pons & Fleischmann's early success
> > [and that of many other successful pioneers] depended on using cathodes from
> > a specific ingot of palladium alloy made by Johnson-Mathey and no longer
> > obtainable? Are you aware that Case announced early success with a
> > commercial catalyst consisting of palladium deposited on a carbonaceous
> > substrate [cooked coconut shells] and that he, too, failed when a particular
> > batch also was no longer available? I know of no evidence that anyone has a
> > firm enough grasp of the essentials of the reaction to confidently scale up
> > as you suggest.
>
> +++With all those failures and inconsistencies and borderline replications and
> all that, it sure sounds like it fits the pattern of pathological science to me.
>
> --pz
>
>
> >> Mike Carrell
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 16:02:53 GMT
> From: Peter Zimmerman
> Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts on Hydrogen From Oil (Black Hydrogen)
>
>
> >I'm not even saying BLP has to develop a marketable
> >product that lasts > 6 months without service. As
> >several people on here have said, merely demonstrating a
> >self-running "over-unity" generator prototype would be
> >more than sufficient to prove their point (personally,
> >I think Mills probably has found something here, but
> >it may be, for all intents and purposes, useless).
> >
> >MC: Of course, if it can't be commercialized, its value is limited beyond
> >scientific interest, and that is not what the investors expect. Do not
> >forget the chemical fallout, which could be very, very extensive and
> >rewarding, but will also have a long gestation cycle. I suggest that in the
> >long view building OU prototypes can be a distraction from establishing a
> >bulletproof patent and technology foundation. If you understand the posted
> >reports, and do not think them fiction or delusion, then you know that the
> >self-sustain goal can be reached. If you doubt all this, you will also doubt
> >any particular demo, for there have been many such, exposed as fakes in one
> >way or another. You will not be satisfied. So, in the end, the only "proof"
> >is replicated, useful commercial product. This is the real tough part, and
> >where Mills is and has been headed. He has continued to attract private
> >investors to whom he must answer and reward. The impatience of others is not
> >important.
>
> +++Mike, that's nonsense. If BLP could put a demo device on the road, one that
> critics could examine carefully to make sure there were no hidden wires and so
> on, it would not only silence the critics, it would bring in investment $$ at a
> rate that would make Mills the next Gates. You need replicated demos, of
> course, but they do not/not have to be commercial when first shown. The
> transistor certainly wasn't (and I hope you remember that was a Bell Labs, not
> an RCA, invention).
> >
> --pz
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 12:02:41 -0400
> From: "Mike Carrell"
> Subject: Re: Borealis v RTI International
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: amack43
>
> MC: This thread is about to run off topic, but let me make a point before
> Luke blows the whistle. Thermoelectric junctions, from thermocouples to
> Power Chips, work on thermal gradients. You push current through the
> junction in the reverse direction, and the junction cools, the Peltier
> Effect. A basic problem is that the materials of the the junctions are
> thermally conductive, which tends to keep the two elements of the junctions
> at the same temperature. So what you want is a junction which is
> electronically active but thermally nonconductive. No solid state device can
> do that as well as the Borealis technology, for the two electrodes are
> separated by a ***vacuum***, a thermal non-conductor, and the current is
> carried by **tunneling** through the ******very small****** gap separating
> the electrodes. Creating such a gap and maintaining it between two surfaces
> which are rough at the nano-scale involved is a very elegant trick.
>
> So, while RTI may have something better than all the other *solid state*
> devices, in which you can have confidence because they are *solid*, the
> Borealis technology is something else altogether and it will have to earn
> confidence the hard way.
>
> Mike Carrell
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:50:07 -0400
> From: "Mike Carrell"
> Subject: Re: direct production of electricity from plasma
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mrflora
>
>
> >
> > Irrespective of whether you think BLP is right, if you had to
> > efficiently, reliably and safely convert plasma directly to
> > electricity (ie without boiling water-steam-turbine) how would you do it?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Antony
> >
>
> I was going to suggest MHD techniques, but Dr. Z beat me to the punch :).
> I've been working on some aerospace problems related to plasma, and it
> occurred to me that it might be possible to draw energy from a neutral
> plasma with a net flow via a system of nested electrodes. Only the inner
> electrodes are in contact with the plasma; the outer electrodes are
> charged and act to separate the plasma so that there is a net voltage
> between the inner electrodes. Does anyone think this is practical?
>
> MC: I don't have the dates at hand, but BLP had some papers on MHD
> technology as applied to BLP reactors before Peter made any comments I
> remember. I posted critiques of the BLP approach at the time (years ago).
> The catch is that MHD extracts energy from the kinetic energy of a flowing
> plasma, like the exhaust of a jet engine. The BLP plasma reactions are very
> energetic indeed and one aches to find a way to efficiently capture that
> energy. But the reaction run efficiently a low pressures, in the 1 Torr
> region, which is necessary to keep enough separation between the reacting
> atoms so that 2H>H2 and ionized catalyst atoms capturing electrons don't out
> run the energy-producing reactions. What you want is a cloud of reacting
> atoms, while capturing the kinetic energyof those that react and leave the
> cloud in all directions.
> The magnetic fields of an MHD generator acting directly on that cloud could
> mess things up, as the catalysts are ions. So you need a flow from the
> plasma cloud to the MHD section -- but you then have to keep replenishing
> the plasma and its operating conditions as presently known. These are
> fundamentally conflicting requirements. In the long run you don't want to
> waste the helium or argon by blowing it though an MHD generator.
>
> It's not simple. Conceivably one could use electrostatic and magentic fields
> to shepherd atoms of hydrogen and catalyst ions into high yield close
> encounters of the catalytic kind, and use other fields to aid in extracting
> the energy. This belongs in the realm of electron optics, and possibly
> microelectronics. This is on a level of technology that the BLP staff could
> dream about, but is far beyond their reach at present. There are
> laboratories that have the technology base to explore this area, but they
> are not in the loop --- yet.
>
> Mike Carrell
>
> Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
> A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
> Web Site http://www.hydrino.org
> Post message: hydrino@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: hydrino-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: hydrino-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: hydrino-owner@yahoogroups.com
> Complaints: hydrino-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links