[NewCandle] Here is a big "new candle"

[Jones Beene]

Under the category of "too simple to be gainful"....

There is a report going around of simple propane
burner and vortex flame tube - which operates with
compressed air or a fan. There are various ways to
create a vortex with a lean burn by manipulating the
air. The uneducated inventor is a Canadian religious
nut and probably honest (search YouTube for
"flame-pipe"- the videos are tedious...

He has found various distinct "levels" (visual and
otherwise) of flame types in the vortex- one of these
levels does not act at all like one would suspect -
and may be a heat anomaly.

Here is one claim - which is seen in the large
collection of (tedious) videos - and I believe it
could be accurate but incomplete. 

He says, "Did a complete test converting 16 oz of
water into steam using Levels 2, 3 and 4 flames. 

More appearance of the green flame from tapping on the
side of the flame pipe at level 3."[level 3 is the one
of interest here] "In the L3 tests where there was
little visual flame coming out of the pipe using the
"implosion spin", it took 23 seconds to bring the
water to boil and 212 seconds to boil it into steam."

[that is ~3.5 minutes for the best case to convert a
pint of water to steam - BTW the "implosion spin" is
one which noisily "almost" quenches the flame but not
quite]

"In the Level 2 or transition flame where there is a
visible and high profile flame where the bottom of the
tea kettle was completely covered in blue flame. 
After 8 minutes there was still a tab bit of water in
the tea kettle."

[This would be similar to "baseline" or control and
similar to a gas stove flame: 8+ minutes. So the best
case of 3.5 minutes is probably so much better with no
more fuel (or maybe less) to be unimportant. 

Of course this is crude and unscientific, or else it
would probably be proprietary. If it is a "find" then
it should be easy to replicate. 

OK - all this says to me so far is that it is possible
to convert steam into water much faster with a
engineered flame which is "almost" being extinguished
by a compressed air vortex, but not quite. Is there
more to it?

NOTE there is a very strong *sound* component here -
perhaps into ultrasound. Also note a vague similarity
to the Langmuir torch, which had a very large sound
component. 

It may mean nothing when test under more reliable
conditions, but there is a huge apparent difference
here in the apparent energy out -- yet with no
change in the gas consumption. That does not mean that
it is gainful, but it is intriguing in light of the
graphene --> hydrino connection in the paper below.

What could be happening - in my opinion if it is
anomalous - is that some carbon in the propane goes to
carbon soot then to graphene on the flame tube walls.
After it is forming graphene (temporarily) on the
flame tube walls - this surface effect is then able to
boosts some of the hydrogen into hydrinos.

...or not.

Here is the graphene paper from India - and the Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, in Calcutta - a country
which rightfully has enormous interest in both LENR
and the hydrino- but whose credentials may be
suspect..

"Hydrino like states in graphene and Aharonov-Bohm
field"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3309v1.pdf

ABSTRACT We study the dynamics of fermions on graphene
in presence of Coulomb impurities and Aharonov-
Bohm field. Special emphasis is given to the formation
of hydrino like states and its lifting of
degeneracy due to the presence of AB field. The flux
of the AB field can be tuned to make the low
angular momentum hydrino states stable against decay.
END 

All interesting. But there is no suggestion of the A-B
effect in the tube of course.

Now that Labor Day is nearly over, are you ready to
canabalize you old BBQ grill for the sake of science?

Jones