Boeing and Nasa working together on LENR aircraft design!

I found an interesting file on Nasa’s website:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120009038_2012008934.pdf

Using a quantitative workshop process, the following technologies, appropriate to aircraft operational in the N+4 2040 timeframe, were identified: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Hydrogen, fuel cell hybrids, battery electric hybrids,<b> Low Energy Nuclear (LENR)</b>, boundary layer ingestion propulsion…

The first question that comes to mind, of course, is how much of this work is dedicated to LENR and how much is dedicated to the other proposed technologies.  I suspect that the report is packaged as it is because LENR lacks scientific respectability.  However, if they are smart the work will be focused on the LENR component of their work.

I wonder what their vision of an LENR aircraft is like.

<— To main blog

About these ads

Tags: , , ,

39 Responses to “Boeing and Nasa working together on LENR aircraft design!”

  1. Greg Goble Says:

    Fix your link… This one works
    http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120009038&qs=N%3D0%26Nn%3D4294957355%257CNASA-Center%257CMarshall%2BSpace%2BFlight%2BCenter%257C%257C4294868711%257CNASA-Center%257C~NACA%2B(Unspecified%2BCenter)

    Also you might want to know… NASA is now sellin its’ LENR/Electric technology to private industy through the Technology Gateway
    Boing has most likely obtained a licence.
    http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=media

    Moderator: link now fixed, thanks.

  2. Brad Arnold Says:

    How LENR will be incorporated into aircraft design hinges heavily upon if LENR can be engineered to create electricity directly, or if the heat has to be converted into mechanical force.

  3. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Brad – if it gets hot enough, you can run a jet-type engine pretty well directly on LENR. Conversion to electricity is nice to have, especially if it’s light and solid-state, but isn’t essential.

    The Tungsten-Carbon reaction seems to be well-suited to high temperatures.

    Greg – thanks for that!

    • Greg Goble Says:

      Your welcome Simon
      You might enjoy reading ‘Cold Fusion NASA LENR part three Spacebound and Earthbound Transportation’

    • Brad Arnold Says:

      Mr Derricutt, thank you very much for your reply. When you say “if the (reaction) gets hot enough, you can run a jet-type engine pretty well directly on LENR,” do you mean using steam (i.e. the Carnot process)? Is 1000C “hot enough” (like Rossi appears to be getting with his “hot Cat”)?

      Furthermore, I googled “tungsten-carbon reaction” and got zilch, could you elaborate? I am particularly eager to learn how BlackLight Power is converting the LENR reaction directly into electricity, since the heat generated by massive LENR could also significantly heat the biosphere (as opposed to the emission of CO2 which indirectly causes warming).

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Brad – we had a bit of discussion about jet engines at http://nickelpower.org/2012/04/26/does-this-work/#comment-12886 and the Tungsten-Carbon reaction was detailed at http://nickelpower.org/2012/04/25/build-instructions-for-pirelli-athanor-cell/. There have also been discussions at Vortex on how the Tungsten reaction could be made to work. There is speculation that this is how Rossi is getting to 1000°C, since at this temperature Nickel would sinter together pretty quickly and stop the reaction.

      Direct production of electricity will probably produce a fair amount of heat too – OK if you can use the waste heat in some way or another, such as in combined heat/power for a house or use a heat-driven refrigerating system (Einstein refrigerator) to give you A/C if you live in Florida (for example) rather than Yukon (as another example).

      Relative to the heat the Earth receives from the Sun, the amount of energy we generate and use is a fraction of a percent – Bruce worked it out a while back but I haven’t a bookmark for that. As such, human-generated energy is well below the normal fluctuations in the Sun’s output, and we’ll not be able to measure any effect on global temperatures – it will be well below experimental error. I do expect that people will get scared about it, though, as government policy requires that people be scared about something in order to make them compliant.

  4. pthieber Says:

    Bruce, I think they may be having some second thoughts regarding LENR. There is a recent NASA video, the first one at:

    http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/what/cif-safari.html

    where Zadowny, for the first time, expresses some healthy skepticism regarding the Widom Larsen (WL) theory. Quoting one of his statements:

    “What we are trying to do is a physics experiment to understand if the WL and its predictions are at least in part correct.”

    From his description it seems that they are getting ready to do something similar to what I suggested towards the end of:

    (http://www.scribd.com/doc/83026935/Cold-Fusion-and-LENR ).

    namely an experiment to see if there really is any abnormal radiation absorption by these plasmon polariton layers as predicted by WL. I hope we’ll see the results some day, but I am not holding my breath.

    • Brad Arnold Says:

      I believe that the WLT is too complicated. A better description is the formation of ultra-low momentum neutrons from the proton and electron of a hydrogen atom joining, which is absorbed by surrounding atoms. Those atoms with the extra neutron(s) then beta-decay, yielding heat. In other words, LENR is simply transmutation, with the side effect of producing heat. How is that complicated? The cracks in the nickel cause a spacial reaction…Mitsubishi seems to think any material that manifests these cracks will cause a LENR reaction to take place using hydrogen.

      By the way, that was the hangup – why “cold fusion” was rejected earlier: those ultra-low momentum neutrons couldn’t be measured like “normal” neutrons from a fusion reaction. No (measured) neutrons, no fusion (what morons).

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Brad – I agree. It makes more sense that gammas are not produced (or only as a low-probability reaction) than that they are produced and are somehow absorbed. Notice that if you can stretch Blacklight’s theory a bit and postulate that instead of Hydrinos ™ (maybe better described without the tm as “fractional Hydrogen” f/H) you get either neutrons or pseudo-neutrons then you can bring Blacklight’s experiments in as well.

    • brucefast Says:

      Hi Peter,
      I’m glad you’re back, though I know that we (I) have been rather harsh with you on this site.

      Peter, you said, “Bruce, I think they may be having some second thoughts regarding LENR. … Zadowny, for the first time, expresses some healthy skepticism regarding the Widom Larsen (WL) theory.” For this statement to make sense, there must be a tight relationship between the term LENR and the WL theory.

      All I can say is that when I refer to LENR or “cold fusion”, I am not espousing a theory, rather I am referring to a phenomenon (the Ni + H = heat and variants). I know that it is quite common for the scientific community and the general public to hold different meanings, or different baggage to the same words all of the time. If so, please understand that I am “general public”, not “scientific community”. I refer to phenomena, not theories.

      If there is a better term than either LENR or “cold fusion” that says, “This is the phenomenon” rather than “this is a scientific theory/hypothesis at work” I am happy to use it.

      On the WL theory: First, I don’t begin to understand it. I certainly have no expertise to judge whether it accurately describes the phenomenon or not. I strongly suspect, however, that it is not accurate, as I expect that the theory that explains the phenomenon will be looked at by the scientific community with an “of course” response, rather than a “this is not right” response. (This in light of the debate between Einstein and Bohr about God’s gambling practices.)

      Peter, I know that you’d love to debate the veracity of the WL theory. Unfortunately, on this topic I am the wrong sparring partner. Simon Derricutt may be able to keep up.

      • Peter Thieberger Says:

        Hi Bruce, harsh is OK, you have never been unreasonable. You are right about separating theory from experimental facts. Physics is an experimental science and theories only survive until they are proven wrong by experiments. WL is no doubt the worst artificial construct (we call it ad-hoc approach) I have ever seen published in a reputable physics magazine. But to prove it wrong takes an experiment. That is what I was talking about and that is what Zadowny seems to be ready to do.

        Can WL be absolutely wrong and LENR still survive. Of course; a totally new interpretation may come along. Or, as I suspect, the small subset of experiments that do show some radiation are the ones we should take seriously. But NASA. with their patented improved Plasmon polariton films seems to be basing much of their LENR space propulsion dreams on WL. Will they tell us if that turns out to be proven incorrect by their experiments? I hope so, but it may be too embarrassing.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – you overestimate my talents. Although I learnt Physics enough to get a degree, I’ve been an engineer since that time and only since the job ended have I had time to get back into solving the paradoxes. Until LENR popped up I was more interested in gravitation and relativity problems than nuclear physics.

        Although I’m happy with getting either a neutron or pseudo-neutron from an electron and proton and energy, if gammas were emitted they’d be in opposite directions – somewhat difficult to postulate you’d catch more than half of them. So the WL explanation is most likely wrong there. Whatever the mechanism, gamma production is going to be a small probability.

        So – since I’m an engineer/technologist, I’ll accept that if I can get that slow neutron it’ll probably get captured by the nearest nucleus. The lack of gammas is experimental evidence, and I’m not going to worry about that yet. If I can give Peter the exact circumstances in which it happens (and he accepts it) then he’s far more qualified than I am to get a theory that actually works.

        Whichever comes first (a good technology or a good theory) the other will follow.

      • pthieber Says:

        Simon, there is also abundant experimental evidence of what happens when neutrons down to very low energy get captured. I should really say down to ultra low energy. They barely move, perhaps a few or several feet per second. What happens with these ultra cold neutrons is that they tend to bounce when colliding with solids so that one can keep them confined in a “bottle” for many minutes. But when they do get captured, gamma rays are emitted just the same as for higher energy neutrons. What varies as function of neutron energy is the probability of neutron capture but not the emission of gamma rays.

        By the way, these so called neutron capture gamma rays are not back-to-back and they typically have energies of up to ~12 MeV. Some of the resulting isotopes emit positrons which then get annihilated when combining with an electron, and two back-to-back, 0.51 MeV photons are emitted. That is what Prof. Levi at Bologna University was looking for and didn’t find in Rossi’s reactor.

        And finally, the beta decay of the resulting isotopes also generally start in excited states that emit gamma rays of typically up to a couple of MeV. Summarizing, there are all sorts of gamma rays generated by neutron capture, no matter what the neutron energy is. And that certainly is a well established experimental fact. This is so well established that it is very safe to say that no gammas means no neutrons.

      • brucefast Says:

        Peter, thanks for concluding that I have not been unreasonable. Its sometimes hard to find the line.

        I will say that though I have no horse in the theory race, I am very convinced that the race will be won. I am very interested in sitting in the bleachers and cheering for the race. Let the best horse win.

        Robert Godes of Brillouin says, ”Understanding how LENR works will enable us to be first.” I don’t know for sure that he is right, but the tap of effective R&D will not be turned on full until the real reason this thing works is understood.

        I have a few questions:

        1 – On the proverbial scale from 1 to 10, where are you at regarding the existence of a phenomenon? I’m not asking about any particular researcher’s results, such as Rossi, but are you yet convinced that something is going on beyond scammery?

        2 – Rossi says that he is getting gamma rays, but that they are being absorbed by his 1/2″ lead shield. Every other voice I hear says that that is balderdash. Is his shield or the water/steam doing anything significant in absorbing gamma rays?

        3 – Rossi et. al. have been reporting a whole lot of energy from their machines. If their reports are anywhere near accurate wouldn’t they be well cooked by now according to WL? (I have heard some reports of radiation sickness from cavitation devices, but never from “LENR” devices.)

        4 – You said that “much of [NASA's] LENR space propulsion dreams [are based] on WL”. Can you explain what aspect of their system presumes WL? (I don’t know if explaining it to those who don’t have a rich foundation of knowledge is at all possible.

      • pthieber Says:

        Bruce,
        I will try to answer your questions:

        1 – On the proverbial scale from 1 to 10, where are you at regarding the existence of a phenomenon? I’m not asking about any particular researcher’s results, such as Rossi, but are you yet convinced that something is going on beyond scammery?

        There are certainly some unexplained phenomena going on beyond scammery. The scammers are very few. There are many well intentioned honest researchers trying to figure this out. If this will ever lead to useful energy production is a different question.

        2 – Rossi says that he is getting gamma rays, but that they are being absorbed by his 1/2″ lead shield. Every other voice I hear says that that is balderdash. Is his shield or the water/steam doing anything significant in absorbing gamma rays?

        ½” of lead is totally insufficient to significantly absorb the expected gamma rays. The water and steam do even less. Gamma ray absorption is roughly proportional to the interposed mass per unit area.

        3 – Rossi et. al. have been reporting a whole lot of energy from their machines. If their reports are anywhere near accurate wouldn’t they be well cooked by now according to WL? (I have heard some reports of radiation sickness from cavitation devices, but never from “LENR” devices.)

        They would certainly be cooked but not according to WL. WL postulated the existence of these miraculous super-absorbing plasmon-polariton sheets to “explain” the absence of observable gamma rays.

        4 – You said that “much of [NASA's] LENR space propulsion dreams [are based] on WL”. Can you explain what aspect of their system presumes WL? (I don’t know if explaining it to those who don’t have a rich foundation of knowledge is at all possible.

        It is very simple. That is what they refer to in their videos and in their patent application:

        http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20110255645.PGNR.

        The purpose of their invention is to improve the WL plasmon polariton sheets. Below I copy a few paragraphs from that patent application:

        ******************************************
        As mentioned above, U.S. Pat. No. 7,893,414 issued to Larsen et al. discloses the general relationship link between “surface plasmon polaritons” (SPPs) on a metal hydride’s surface and the resulting heavy electron production at random regions or patches of the surface. Accordingly, U.S. Pat. No. 7,893,414 is incorporated by reference in its entirety.
        Unfortunately, such heavy electron production has only occurred in small random regions or patches of sample materials/devices. In terms of energy generation or gamma ray shielding, this limits the predictability and effectiveness of the device. Further, random-patch heavy electron production limits the amount of positive net energy that is produced to limit the efficiency of the device in an energy generation application.
        The present invention is a method for making a device that can produce heavy electrons where such heavy electron production can be used in a variety of applications that includes energy generation. In addition, the present invention is the device made from the disclosed method as well as a system that uses the device to produce heavy electrons.
        The present invention is adaptable to a variety of physical states/geometries and is scalable in size thereby making it available for energy production in a wide variety of applications (e.g., hand-held and large scale electronics, automobiles, aircraft, surface ships, electric power generation, rockets, etc.)

        ******************************************
        The author of this patent based on WL is Joe Zadowny, the same guy who is now saying “what we are trying to do is a physics experiment to understand if the WL theory and its predictions are at least in part correct”

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Peter – If a group of protons (or electrons or atoms) acting together can donate energy to create the neutron from a proton and electron, then it would seem that they could also accept energy back as a group so that a gamma need not be emitted as such, but this requires a group of maybe 1000 or more particles acting as a coherent entity. Getting this coherence is quite easy close to absolute zero, but much more difficult at room temperature and above. If this is indeed the mechanism, it would explain why it is not often seen in the previous experimental results. Einstein suggested this explanation to Sternglass in (if I remember correctly) 1951 to explain the anomalous results from Parrett’s X-ray tube experiment. At the moment it’s a suggestion not a theory, but I’ll run with it till someone gets a better explanation.

      • pthieber Says:

        Simon,
        It seems to me that you are essentially adopting the WL explanation. Your “If a group of protons (or electrons or atoms) acting together can donate energy to create the neutron from a proton and electron” is an enormous IF. WL talk about a coherent group of electrons forming a “heavy electron” which then interacts with a neutron. That is a taking literally what solid state physicists mean when they talk about heavy electrons. For them it is just a figure of speech or shorthand for some collective macroscopic phenomena such as abnormal conductivity or specific heat. This is a misunderstanding one could perhaps expect from an undergraduate student but certainly not from a professor in physics. I tried to explain my view on these and other issues in a short note I put on line at

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/83026935/Cold-Fusion-and-LENR ).

        I hope you will have a look.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Peter – thanks indeed for the explanation. I really don’t expect the electrons to be organised over such a large number, and as you say if they were they would of necessity have no outliers in the energy spectrum. On the other hand it’s noted by Piantelli that the Debye temperature needs to be exceeded before anything happens, and I feel this is important and points to the coherent vibrations of the lattice having something to do with the process. I certainly never thought an electron would get that ‘heavy’ anyway – with that much energy it would be extremely close to lightspeed and would not react with anything unless it was a direct hit – very unlikely. It would produce a lot of ionisation, though, while shedding that energy.

        We have a divergent approach here. You are looking from your experience and saying it can’t happen within currently known theory. I’m looking as an engineer and saying it does happen, so what can I see in the experiments that have been published and try to maximise the things that seem to have worked. Incidentally I’m discounting any information from Rossi, since I believe that he is intentionally misdirecting his competitors. I think that there is intention behind the “bad science” we’ve seen from him which is intended to keep good scientists from accepting the idea and possibly beating him to a useful device. Since at the start he was using Piantelli’s patent information, it wasn’t exactly secret and anyone realising this could get in and make something with a COP of 2, and with luck improve on it.

        Since my time is paid for (retired) the costs of playing with conditions likely to generate the reaction is not expensive, yet the rewards for succeeding are pretty large. I also have no reputation to get lost – just a crazy engineer. I can’t get fired for thinking the wrong thoughts. Since I have a solid industrial background, I can make what I need.

        Whether it’s a variant of W+L ideas, or whether it’s the electrical gradients caused by lattice distortions that depress the Coulomb barrier and allow a proton in, or something no-one’s thought of yet is something we can find out once we have a working system that you can inspect and analyse in a properly independent fashion. As you’ve pointed out, the current theories are not adequate to point us in the right direction. Having a lot of people going in different directions seems like a good strategy in this situation, even if a lot of them will be wrong. Again, the rewards are high enough.

        Around last October or so, I also did not think that LENR was possible, but after reading a lot of the papers held on lenr-canr.org (Jed Rothwell) I came to the conclusion it did happen. Unless there are a lot of scientists throwing their reputations away, that is. Mitsubishi would not have continued with their million-dollar experiments unless they were convinced, too – and Japan really needs this technology. I thus accept that it works, and that we only need to find the way it works in order to use it.

        Just in case, make sure you buy a Nacho hat!

      • pthieber Says:

        Hi Simon, I agree that there are interesting and unexplained phenomena and I am glad to learn that you plan to start experiments in this field. Let me know if I can help in any way. How much time do you give Rossi before starting to doubt that he has something? Thank you for your suggestion regarding the Nacho hat, I will keep it in mind. But please remember, I will only need it if WL turn out to be right.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Peter – thanks for the encouragement. Your help will be most useful if I think I have succeeded, and I’ll then need an independent lab to validate what I’ve got and prove that I haven’t made any stupid errors. At that point I expect I will ask for your help – thanks again.

        I’m pretty certain that Rossi has something now. What is in doubt for me is whether he can control it and thus whether he can make a commercial version. As a hunch, I’d say that he may have it sorted in a couple of years, but since in all probability he also hasn’t got the right theory then he’ll be looking for the effects of modifications in order to change his designs. He may hit on the right combination of conditions (or may have done so) by chance, given enough iterations. Until that time, there will remain room for doubt, and that does work to his advantage. Meantime, through his JONT blog, he’s getting a lot of free ideas from interested people around the world – some will be good ideas he wouldn’t have thought of himself, or may spark valid ideas. It’s really pretty clever, if you think about it.

      • brucefast Says:

        Thanks, Peter, for the rich response.

        1- “Unexplained phenomena” sounds very exciting for a scientist!

        2 – “½” of lead is totally insufficient to significantly absorb the expected gamma rays.” Yes, I think that the lead is there for show. (Its the code of the inventor, not of the scientist, that runs Rossi’s show.) Somehow, and I know it makes no sense, these things don’t seem to be outputting a significant amount of gamma rays. I know that it seems way too good to be true. The other possibility, of course, is that even though Rossi has reintroduced this technology to the public, he is actually a total fraud. (You may note that other blogs publish what Rossi says. I don’t. I am prepared to believe that his demonstrations are substantially legitimate, but I don’t know which of his words are true and which is “marketing” bull-shit.)

        3 – “WL postulated the existence of these miraculous super-absorbing plasmon-polariton sheets to “explain” the absence of observable gamma rays.” Oh. As there seems to be some miraculous shortage of gamma rays in nearly all of the reported experiments, any valid theory must somehow explain this shortage.

        4 – “The purpose of their [NASA's] invention is to improve the WL plasmon polariton sheets.” Ah, makes sense. If WL is bogus then “plasmon polariton sheets” is bogus. If “plasmon polariton sheets” is bogus, then the NASA patent, and presumably a lot of their research, is bogus.

        ‘Goes to why we need a theory that reasonably explains the data, doesn’t it. I may not be a scientist, but I do find science, and especially scientific mystery, exciting.

      • Greg Goble Says:

        The data from observed phenomenon explained in terms of hypothesized theories…
        http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Storms-JCMNS-published.pdf

  5. Greg Goble Says:

    Magnetically Möbius WOW

    Möbius track for magnetically levitating train (Uploaded by MOSEMwp7 on Jun 18, 2011)

    These following six articles were written as a series and are best read in order. Explore the links with a cup of tea…
    A friend of mine used to say, “Find the mobius strip of your heart and the mobius strip of your mind and you’ll do alright.”
    Halfway through writing the series I came along the Magnetically Mobius youtube; WOW!
    Watching it certainly helps wrap ones’ mind around everything. I suggest you do as I did and watch it from time to time through out the series.
    I don’t know if I could have done it without it. WOW!

    Long Cold Fusion Summer

    1. http://coldfusionnow.org/hot-and-cold-fusion-at-mit/
    2. http://coldfusionnow.org/evolution-through-cold-fusion/
    3. http://coldfusionnow.org/real-popular-cold-fusion/
    4. http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-nasa-lenr-future/
    5. http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-nasa-lenr-part-two-flight/
    6. http://coldfusionnow.org/nasa-cold-fusion-lenr-part-three-spacebound-and-earthbound-transportation/

    Thank you Nicklepower

    Zoom Zoom

    Awaiting

    Activate

    Engage

    Then…

    a Fall

    Greg Goble

    • Peter Thieberger Says:

      Sure, no gamma rays! I am all for that! But Nature may not be so kind. We have accumulated a large body of experimental and theoretical nuclear physics knowledge over more than 100 years which we can’t just throw overboard because it would be convenient for explaining a few controversial observations. We know exactly what happens when a neutron gets captured. The excess energy due to nuclear binding causes the resulting nucleus to be created in an excited state; not in the ground state. We also know a lot about beta decay. It tends to be much slower than gamma decay. That is because the weak interaction is way weaker than the electromagnetic interaction. The consequence is that most nuclei will first de-excite by emitting a gamma ray and later may beta-decay, long after reaching the ground state.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      OK you brainy types, here’s my mind-bending question, at least it bends mine. On this Möbius tract, could two trains continuously drive around the tract in opposite directions without colliding? Could the two trains be timed so that when they passed, one would be on top and the other beneath? I’m thinking it would work….but wait, a Möbius tract has no upper and lower side because it only has one side, therefore they would have to collide, right?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – if they went in the same direction they would not collide (same speed, synchronised), if in opposite directions they’d crash. You could also make the train long enough to fill the entire length of the loop so it eats its own tail. Fun….

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        That makes sense, Simon, but imagine this. Both “cars” start at the same time, one on top and the other on bottom at the South side of the loop, moving in opposing directions at the same speed. Wouldn’t they meet on the North side of the loop but still being “over and under” and avoid collision?

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        What I’m missing is this. Each car switches from over to under and vice versa, each 1/2 loop. That may be when they collide.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – sorry but you’ve missed it again. In one complete revolution there is only 1/2 a flip (180°). Halfway round it’s only 1/4 of a flip (90°). If you start with one at 0° and one at 180°, halfway round the track (when they collide) they are both at 90°, since they are going opposite directions round the track they are also counter-rotating.

        The other way of looking at it is that the strip really only has one side. Things in the opposite direction have to collide. Make a Moebius strip using a piece of paper with a half-flip at the join, and use coloured pens to leave a permanent mark of where the cars have gone.

        Moebius jugs are even more mind-bending – can’t decide whether something is inside or outside it.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Simon, I haven’t give up yet. In order to increase the rate of “flip”, could you add 1 or more twists to the ribbon before attaching the ends? So that both cars would have done 180° flips by the time that they meet.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy- put a full twist (360°) in the end when you join them, and the strip has two sides again and the trains will keep to their respective sides and can’t crash whatever direction they go. Multiple full-twists also do this. Multiple full-twists then half a twist extra give you a one-sided strip, where if they run in opposite directions they will crash. After a while, it can get difficult to see just how many half-twists there are, and you can start running bets on whether they crash or not.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Thanks Simon. By the way, there are several patents for Möbius bandsaw blades. There is also a neat looking Möbius loveseat.
        http://www.linghome.com/Image/Home-plan-ideas-moebius-rattan-sofa.jpg

      • Greg Goble Says:

        Now may be a time for poetry… or prose’

        The Earth is Quite Small and Precious

        The Earth is quite small seen from the moon yet
        The circumference is immense

        When stuck in a corner
        Crowded

        Skyscrapers and habitat
        Of humanity

        Windows looking into walls yet
        Windows seeing out into

        Immensity of life’s diversity

        No where to live

        Yet

        All life does expand
        Space science
        Tiny circle

        Earth

        Asteroids surround the orbit of Mars
        Circumferences easy to compare
        Territory so vast the
        Cold fusion LENR
        Earth empties
        Parkland
        Source
        Love
        Life
        Yet

        The Earth is quite small
        and Precious

        Thanks gbgoble2012

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – I was thinking about the bandsaw blades, and although it gives you twice the number of teeth (so ought to last longer) there are going to be problems in putting a backstop to the blade without it either blunting the teeth or cutting the backstop. Unless it’s very narrow, it’s also going to suffer fatigue of the weld, and thus would probably break before the teeth need sharpening. The drive wheels will also suffer a fair amount of wear also since the blade will not be flat on the return side. Probably better to stick with the standard blade.

        The Möbius loveseat on the other hand looks like fun.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        In a busy shop, say a robotic factory, instead of a backstop, you could saw on both sides…..IOW, use work for you backstop. Having said that, I think the Möbius bandsaw blade was a whimsical invention. You’d think that if the patent office has time to patent such frivolity, they’d also consider LENR.
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~
        The Butt Kicking Machine

        This is a machine we all could use at certain times, and some people could use daily. I could see possibilities for a franchise of these, set up in shopping malls. Your friends would buy you a “ride” after you did something really stupid. Or you could treat yourself to a session, as a reminder to never do “that” again. This is US Patent # 6,293,874.
        http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/images/capture1108200413010_pm.jpg

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – maybe I’m looking at the picture too exactly, but it seems that the user is a bald, naked and slightly paunchy man. Since he has to turn the handle, isn’t this a bit masochistic?

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Anglos imagine kicking themselves when they goof. Poles are more proactive and whack their foreheads with their hands (the cumulative effect of all the mini-concussions further aggravating the situation).

  6. NASAand BOeng working on LENR Sp[acecraft design/Research - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum Says:

    [...] [...]

  7. http://branenlmin.wallinside.com/ Says:

    However, taking a Dieting Juices Fruit And Vegetable pill usually does not lead
    to sustained weight loss or I just can’tseem to find the time to write on. Weight reduction meals like olives, avocados, nuts, and frozen dinners can make your head spin! However, in addition to these physiological factors, some misunderstandings and habits in dieting juices fruit and vegetable can also lead to iron-deficiency anemia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers

%d bloggers like this: