Re: [Vo]:Uploaded new papers
Further advice, never cut holes in your roof! Terry On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I uploaded ICCF 14 papers by Takahashi, Jiang, Dufour and Chubb. See: http://lenr-canr.org/FilesByDate.htm It takes a long time to edit these papers and then to get them back from the authors along with permission to upload them (or not). Here is an ICCF-14 paper I uploaded a while ago, by Miles: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMisoperibol.pdf Pages 22 and 23 have an analysis by me of the MIT 1989 controversial data. I do not think this aspect of the data has been brought to light until now. It is kind of silly to rehash such old inconclusive data, but I suppose we should set the record straight. I have been kind of busy lately, so I have fallen behind preparing the papers. I have been trying to fix a leaking skylight window on my roof, and volunteering for the Obama campaign. Let me advise anyone who is thinking about installing a skylight window: don't. - Jed
Re: [VO]: Algae Research Update
Jones sez: Richard, Have you set up a Google Alerts ? This gives you a daily 'feed' so to speak. There is more info online than anyone without a large staff can easily digest, even if it weren't so slimy. And staffs work better with sheep anyway. Smiley of the day: Pond Scum as a source of oil ? Good grief, we might be able to power the USA from Congress alone. I'll repeat a recent suggestion I made in regards to how to pick up women at a bar in a future scenario. Lady: And what do you do for a living? Response: I'm a scumbagger. A sure thing. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Banking on BLP?
Assuming that the recent BLP-Rowan report is fairly accurate, and assuming that it does represent a marketable breakthrough in alternative energy - then among the many implications for vorticians are: is there a way to 'play' this by investing on the stock market (assuming you were not wiped out by recent circumstances) ? BLP itself is private, but is that the end of story? No, in fact the best play of all may be WR Grace. That is for several reasons; and one of them is that there could be a LENR application for a competing system which also depends on Raney Nickel. After operating for more than seven years in Chapter 11 (due to asbestos lawsuits, I believe), chemical giant W.R. Grace Co. is getting close to emerging from bankruptcy -- and the stock could be interesting on its own - even if the company did not make Raney nickel and own the trademark. Although the catalyst has been around for over 80 years, Raney is a registered trademark of Grace and there are trade secrets involved. The more generic product which can be called sponge-metal nickel catalyst may be used as a substitute which may have physical and chemical properties similar to those of Raney nickel; and will possibly work as well, but it could take other producers years to get into the market. Usually the first on the scene is the wisest choice, especially if there are trade secrets. CAVEAT: I am perhaps the worst stock picker of all time; and you would probably do better throwing darts at a copy of an old issue of WSJ. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Uploaded new papers
Terry Blanton wrote: Further advice, never cut holes in your roof! My point exactly. A skylight is a hole in the roof made with the optimistic but misguided notion that you can waterproof a hole in the roof. Mind you, this skylight came with the house, and it did not leak much for 45 years. Speaking of holes, my father said that a pleasure boat is defined as a hole in the water into which you pour money. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CAVEAT: I am perhaps the worst stock picker of all time; and you would probably do better throwing darts at a copy of an old issue of WSJ. Not as bad as me. My advice: short anything I buy. :-) Terry
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
- Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:57 AM Subject: [Vo]:Banking on BLP? Assuming that the recent BLP-Rowan report is fairly accurate, and assuming that it does represent a marketable breakthrough in alternative energy - then among the many implications for vorticians are: is there a way to 'play' this by investing on the stock market (assuming you were not wiped out by recent circumstances) ? BLP itself is private, but is that the end of story? Remember this: Raynal-Ni is a trade name of Grace. In the BLP reactor, it is a catalyst in a chemical system producing NaH, which is the catalyst in the energy reaction. Mills is very explicit in stating that only hydrogen is a consumeable in the reaction, producing hydrinos. All else is recoverable in a regeneration step. The material supplied to Rowan by BLP for their test was from another source, not Grace. Why so much is needed is not clear to me at all. BLP is only at the beginning of the design of a production version of the process. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Russian Visas ICCF14
Howdy Horace, I don't believe it is wise to mention certain names of Russian scientists on the web because it can hinder established communication. Richard - Original Message - From: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian Visas ICCF14 On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:00 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: True, but unfortunately they do have a Kremlin in their pocket. This could be a very serious development. Our relationship with the Kremlin was already showing signs of going downhill by ICCF14, when Russian physicists were denied visas. That was before the Georgia attack, and thus a bit mysterious. Perhaps we are now beginning to see the underlying reasons. I thought that might get a response. 8^) Ping That's neither the facts I believe supportable facts are that (1) our relations with Russia have been going downhill since well before the Georgia attack and (2) Russian physicists were denied visas to attend ICCF14. nor the interpretation I have. Regarding the specific cause of the visa denial for ICCF14, stated and otherwise, I only say perhaps ... I received a response today from the Moscow consulate. Sorry, but you'll have to wait until NET #31. Now I know you are a .org an not a .com, but that almost smacks of commercialism. 8^) Previews at 11... Until explained, it still looks mysterious to me. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1738 - Release Date: 10/21/2008 2:10 PM
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
From Mike Carrell: Remember this: Raynal-Ni is a trade name of Grace. In the BLP reactor, it is a catalyst in a chemical system producing NaH, which is the catalyst in the energy reaction. Mills is very explicit in stating that only hydrogen is a consumeable in the reaction, producing hydrinos. All else is recoverable in a regeneration step. The material supplied to Rowan by BLP for their test was from another source, not Grace. Why so much is needed is not clear to me at all. BLP is only at the beginning of the design of a production version of the process. Mike Carrell This from Wiki on the properties of Raney Nickel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel Of particular interest to me was what's stated in the last (forth paragraph) in regards to how Raney Nickel reacts to the introduction of Hydrogen. ... Properties Macroscopically Raney nickel looks like a finely divided gray powder. Microscopically, each particle of this powder looks like a three-dimensional mesh, with pores of irregular size and shape of which the vast majority are created during the leaching process. Raney nickel is notable for being thermally and structurally stable as well has having a large BET surface area. These properties are a direct result of the activation process and contribute to a relatively high catalytic activity. During the activation process, aluminium is leached out the NiAl3 and Ni2Al3 phases that are present in the alloy, while most of the aluminium that remains does so in the form of NiAl. The removal of aluminium from some phases but not others is known as selective leaching. It has been shown that the NiAl phase provides the structural and thermal stability to the catalyst. As a result the catalyst is quite resistant to decomposition (breaking down, commonly known as aging).[3] This resistance allows Raney nickel to be stored and reused for an extended period; however, fresh preparations are usually preferred for laboratory use. For this reason commercial Raney nickel is available in both active and inactive forms. The surface area is typically determined via a BET measurement using a gas that will be preferentially adsorbed on metallic surfaces, such as hydrogen. Using this type of measurement, it has been shown that almost all the exposed area in a particle of the catalyst has nickel on its surface.[2] Since nickel is the active metal of the catalyst, a large nickel surface area implies that there is a large surface available for reactions to occur simultaneously, which is reflected in an increased catalyst activity. Commercially available Raney nickel has an average nickel surface area of 100 m² per gram of catalyst.[2] A high catalytic activity, coupled with the fact that hydrogen is absorbed within the pores of the catalyst during activation, makes Raney nickel a useful catalyst for many hydrogenation reactions. Its structural and thermal stability (i.e., the fact that it does not decompose at high temperatures) allows its use under a wide range of reaction conditions. Additionally, the solubility of Raney nickel is negligible in most common laboratory solvents, with the exception of mineral acids such as hydrochloric acid, and its relatively high density (between 6 and 7 g/cm³) also facilitates its separation off a liquid phase after a reaction is completed. ** Of course, theWiki description reveals no useful clues as to how hydrogen, when introduced and subsequently absorbed, is presumed to transform into hydrinos. At present I keep speculating that key components to the design of a BLP reactor chamber might consist of a cylinder containing a series of internal turbine blades, (possibly spinning in opposite directions) at high RPM speeds in order to keep the RN power in a constant agitated state. I wonder if such a configuration would help prevent the powder from clumping together as well as to the sides of the chamber. Of course, such a design consumes valuable energy in order to keep the turbine blades spinning. The $64 question: Would such a configuration consume all or more of the excess energy generated from the formation of hydrinos? It would not surprise me if some of BLP's RD engineers are looking very closely at various turbine designs for useful clues in turbulence characteristics and gas flow dynamics. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
I'm confused. I was under the impression that the NaH was the catalyst required to form the hydrino. If this is true, what is the role of the Reney nickel? Ed On Oct 23, 2008, at 11:00 AM, OrionWorks wrote: From Mike Carrell: Remember this: Raynal-Ni is a trade name of Grace. In the BLP reactor, it is a catalyst in a chemical system producing NaH, which is the catalyst in the energy reaction. Mills is very explicit in stating that only hydrogen is a consumeable in the reaction, producing hydrinos. All else is recoverable in a regeneration step. The material supplied to Rowan by BLP for their test was from another source, not Grace. Why so much is needed is not clear to me at all. BLP is only at the beginning of the design of a production version of the process. Mike Carrell This from Wiki on the properties of Raney Nickel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel Of particular interest to me was what's stated in the last (forth paragraph) in regards to how Raney Nickel reacts to the introduction of Hydrogen. ... Properties Macroscopically Raney nickel looks like a finely divided gray powder. Microscopically, each particle of this powder looks like a three-dimensional mesh, with pores of irregular size and shape of which the vast majority are created during the leaching process. Raney nickel is notable for being thermally and structurally stable as well has having a large BET surface area. These properties are a direct result of the activation process and contribute to a relatively high catalytic activity. During the activation process, aluminium is leached out the NiAl3 and Ni2Al3 phases that are present in the alloy, while most of the aluminium that remains does so in the form of NiAl. The removal of aluminium from some phases but not others is known as selective leaching. It has been shown that the NiAl phase provides the structural and thermal stability to the catalyst. As a result the catalyst is quite resistant to decomposition (breaking down, commonly known as aging).[3] This resistance allows Raney nickel to be stored and reused for an extended period; however, fresh preparations are usually preferred for laboratory use. For this reason commercial Raney nickel is available in both active and inactive forms. The surface area is typically determined via a BET measurement using a gas that will be preferentially adsorbed on metallic surfaces, such as hydrogen. Using this type of measurement, it has been shown that almost all the exposed area in a particle of the catalyst has nickel on its surface.[2] Since nickel is the active metal of the catalyst, a large nickel surface area implies that there is a large surface available for reactions to occur simultaneously, which is reflected in an increased catalyst activity. Commercially available Raney nickel has an average nickel surface area of 100 m² per gram of catalyst.[2] A high catalytic activity, coupled with the fact that hydrogen is absorbed within the pores of the catalyst during activation, makes Raney nickel a useful catalyst for many hydrogenation reactions. Its structural and thermal stability (i.e., the fact that it does not decompose at high temperatures) allows its use under a wide range of reaction conditions. Additionally, the solubility of Raney nickel is negligible in most common laboratory solvents, with the exception of mineral acids such as hydrochloric acid, and its relatively high density (between 6 and 7 g/cm³) also facilitates its separation off a liquid phase after a reaction is completed. ** Of course, theWiki description reveals no useful clues as to how hydrogen, when introduced and subsequently absorbed, is presumed to transform into hydrinos. At present I keep speculating that key components to the design of a BLP reactor chamber might consist of a cylinder containing a series of internal turbine blades, (possibly spinning in opposite directions) at high RPM speeds in order to keep the RN power in a constant agitated state. I wonder if such a configuration would help prevent the powder from clumping together as well as to the sides of the chamber. Of course, such a design consumes valuable energy in order to keep the turbine blades spinning. The $64 question: Would such a configuration consume all or more of the excess energy generated from the formation of hydrinos? It would not surprise me if some of BLP's RD engineers are looking very closely at various turbine designs for useful clues in turbulence characteristics and gas flow dynamics. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
From Edmund Storms: I'm confused. I was under the impression that the NaH was the catalyst required to form the hydrino. If this is true, what is the role of the Reney nickel? Ed Good point. Out at the BLP web site a graphic revealing the BLP process states: Specifically, molecular sodium hydride, NaH, serves as a catalyst and a source of the atomic hydrogen fuel in the heat releasing reaction to form hydrinos and then molecular hydrinos. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
Ed I'm confused. I was under the impression that the NaH was the catalyst required to form the hydrino. If this is true, what is the role of the Raney nickel? First - there are two very distinct ways to look at this situation. It is somewhat logical to believe, as does Mike Carrell, that Mills got everything right -- and that the energy anomaly he discovered is explainable based precisely on application his CQM theory, and that the theory rules, and that no amount of good fortune is present. This is why Mike constatnly wants people to study Mills theory as if it were gospel. If that is true, then the nickel probably serves only as a proton conductor and catalyst to remove the proton from the sodium. IOW - those who are strict BLP advocates cannot imagine the situation where Mills could have succeeded, though good fortune alone - and found an experimental anomaly but that it is one that his theory does not explain. However, that is merely their interpretation, logical as that may seem, and until more is known - most of us would agree that Mills should be given the benefit of the doubt. Which is not to say that other avenues should not be investigated at the same time. An alternate interpretation is that Mills found a robust energy anomaly and is trying to shoehorn it into a theory which itself is suspect; but which theory is partially correct, and close enough to make it seem like it works to explain the anomaly when it really only goes part of the way. If this alternative interpretation is eventually found to be valid, and it is a long-shot - then the nickel may serve a similar purpose and role as does palladium in LENR, and in fact the excess heat may be nuclear and not the result of redundant ground states. After all, as far back as 1990-1991 others besides Mills were finding excess energy in nickel light water LENR. Personally - I think the truth may be somewhere in between and that redundant ground states are necessary precursor states to low energy nuclear reactions - yet the hydrino states alone are neither endothermic or nor very energetic by themself -- which is why Mills could never get it right with his initial choice of catalysts (sodium was not favored till recently) and that most of the excess heat is coming from LENR. Since this interpretation pleases almost no one but moi, it will probably not be tested for some time. OTOH it would be very easy to falsify by looking for the smoking gun. Therefore - I will name the exact 'make and model' of that smoking gun. There are two excellent candidate low energy reactions where redundant ground states mimic a neutron partially - and end up adding a proton to another nucleus without the expected radioactivity. The evidence shoud be there if they look for these changes and these transmutation elements. One reaction would be 23Na + (hy) -- 24Mg. Where the pseudo-neutron adds a proton and transmutes sodium into magnesium with very little radioactivity - but there could be energetic betas and soft x-rays. One big difference over a neutron reaction is that the beta-electron is not a decay product - since- it never participates at all, except to serve the purpose of allowing the proton to get into the range of the nuclear strong force and perhaps another QM 'trick' or two. The other would be 62Ni + (hy) -- 63Cu. These reactions could easily be hidden since neither transmuted nucleus is radioactive. Are there QM problems with coupling and conservation of spin, you ask? ... more on that later. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
Jones, While speculation is underway, I would like to add my own. The Mills criteria for a catalyst is the energy that is required to remove an electron from a level to infinity, i.e. the ionization potential. However, this can only occur in a gas. In a solid, the electron never goes to infinity. Consequently, the Mills criteria does not apply. Instead, Mills has to find a catalyst in which a transition between a stable level and an energy near the conduction band is equal to the required energy. The energy used to make this kind of transition is impossible to predict. As a result, success is based on trial and error, much like cold fusion. Suppose the Ni in contact with NaH provides a place for the electron released from NaH to go that then gives the energy change the right value. After all, NaH does not have a conduction band and the electron could not find a way out of the local system without a conductor with a conduction band being present. If this is the explanation, any finely divided conductor would work, for example finely divided Pd. This idea would suggest that nanosized Pd in a cold fusion environment is only required to take the released electron away from the actual catalyst, which has not been identified in this case. What do you think about this idea? Ed On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Ed I'm confused. I was under the impression that the NaH was the catalyst required to form the hydrino. If this is true, what is the role of the Raney nickel? First - there are two very distinct ways to look at this situation. It is somewhat logical to believe, as does Mike Carrell, that Mills got everything right -- and that the energy anomaly he discovered is explainable based precisely on application his CQM theory, and that the theory rules, and that no amount of good fortune is present. This is why Mike constatnly wants people to study Mills theory as if it were gospel. If that is true, then the nickel probably serves only as a proton conductor and catalyst to remove the proton from the sodium. IOW - those who are strict BLP advocates cannot imagine the situation where Mills could have succeeded, though good fortune alone - and found an experimental anomaly but that it is one that his theory does not explain. However, that is merely their interpretation, logical as that may seem, and until more is known - most of us would agree that Mills should be given the benefit of the doubt. Which is not to say that other avenues should not be investigated at the same time. An alternate interpretation is that Mills found a robust energy anomaly and is trying to shoehorn it into a theory which itself is suspect; but which theory is partially correct, and close enough to make it seem like it works to explain the anomaly when it really only goes part of the way. If this alternative interpretation is eventually found to be valid, and it is a long-shot - then the nickel may serve a similar purpose and role as does palladium in LENR, and in fact the excess heat may be nuclear and not the result of redundant ground states. After all, as far back as 1990-1991 others besides Mills were finding excess energy in nickel light water LENR. Personally - I think the truth may be somewhere in between and that redundant ground states are necessary precursor states to low energy nuclear reactions - yet the hydrino states alone are neither endothermic or nor very energetic by themself -- which is why Mills could never get it right with his initial choice of catalysts (sodium was not favored till recently) and that most of the excess heat is coming from LENR. Since this interpretation pleases almost no one but moi, it will probably not be tested for some time. OTOH it would be very easy to falsify by looking for the smoking gun. Therefore - I will name the exact 'make and model' of that smoking gun. There are two excellent candidate low energy reactions where redundant ground states mimic a neutron partially - and end up adding a proton to another nucleus without the expected radioactivity. The evidence shoud be there if they look for these changes and these transmutation elements. One reaction would be 23Na + (hy) -- 24Mg. Where the pseudo-neutron adds a proton and transmutes sodium into magnesium with very little radioactivity - but there could be energetic betas and soft x-rays. One big difference over a neutron reaction is that the beta-electron is not a decay product - since- it never participates at all, except to serve the purpose of allowing the proton to get into the range of the nuclear strong force and perhaps another QM 'trick' or two. The other would be 62Ni + (hy) -- 63Cu. These reactions could easily be hidden since neither transmuted nucleus is radioactive. Are there QM problems with coupling and conservation of spin, you ask? ... more
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
Howdy Jones, I place little faith in the Grace people. The leadership at Grace have demonstrated they cannot win. There was an outfit in Louisana we purchased some sponze aluminum from back when that was working on nickel also. I am trying to dig up their name. Guys acted like they had their act together. Richard Assuming that the recent BLP-Rowan report is fairly accurate, and assuming that it does represent a marketable breakthrough in alternative energy - then among the many implications for vorticians are: is there a way to 'play' this by investing on the stock market (assuming you were not wiped out by recent circumstances) ? BLP itself is private, but is that the end of story? No, in fact the best play of all may be WR Grace. That is for several reasons; and one of them is that there could be a LENR application for a competing system which also depends on Raney Nickel. After operating for more than seven years in Chapter 11 (due to asbestos lawsuits, I believe), chemical giant W.R. Grace Co. is getting close to emerging from bankruptcy -- and the stock could be interesting on its own - even if the company did not make Raney nickel and own the trademark. Although the catalyst has been around for over 80 years, Raney is a registered trademark of Grace and there are trade secrets involved. The more generic product which can be called sponge-metal nickel catalyst may be used as a substitute which may have physical and chemical properties similar to those of Raney nickel; and will possibly work as well, but it could take other producers years to get into the market. Usually the first on the scene is the wisest choice, especially if there are trade secrets. CAVEAT: I am perhaps the worst stock picker of all time; and you would probably do better throwing darts at a copy of an old issue of WSJ. Jones No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1741 - Release Date: 10/23/2008 7:54 AM
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
- Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP? I'm confused. I was under the impression that the NaH was the catalyst required to form the hydrino. If this is true, what is the role of the Reney nickel? Ed = Ed, I share your confusion. The paper Commercializable has lots of details but doesn't look well organized. As far as I can tell: 1) The R-Ni acts as a catalyst to dissociate H2 input to 2H. It also absorbs H2, servig as a resivoir. 2) In the BLP paper 0.5% [5 mg] of NaOH is coated on the R-Ni. They only way I know to do this is in solution. 3) Having coated the R-Ni, the cell is evacuated. This will remove the water, leaving crystalline NaOH dispersed through the R-Ni 4) The evacuated cell is heated. Reactions with the residual Al, the H , the Na, and the O yield NaH. 5) NaH begins to decompose, with Na now becoming a BLP catalsy for the proximate H atom. Boom. 6) However, NaH is listed as a catalyst itself, as if it can react with acailable H atoms captured in the R-Ni. Mills is quite specific that the only consumable in the cycle is H2, converted to H[1/4]. All else is regenerated - somehow - in what is called 'bench chemistry'. I can imagine the Na getting spead all over the cell during the reaction. I don't know if just opening the cell and adding water will cause the Na to reaact to produce NaOH again, or just what. No clues given. [An exercise to left for the chemist]. Mike Carrell.
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
OK Mike, let's say your description is correct. This means that many chemical combinations are available in the system on a nanoscale. Why does Mills focus on NaH? In fact, we have no idea what material or chemical combination of elements is acting as the catalyst. Also, we have no reason to believe the H goes to H[1/4] even if we accept that some level of hydrino forms. So, us skeptics can only marvel at Mills actually creating an energy source even though he can have no understanding of what is actually happening in the system. His description is based completely on what he EXPECTS to happen. Ed On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Mike Carrell wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP? I'm confused. I was under the impression that the NaH was the catalyst required to form the hydrino. If this is true, what is the role of the Reney nickel? Ed = Ed, I share your confusion. The paper Commercializable has lots of details but doesn't look well organized. As far as I can tell: 1) The R-Ni acts as a catalyst to dissociate H2 input to 2H. It also absorbs H2, servig as a resivoir. 2) In the BLP paper 0.5% [5 mg] of NaOH is coated on the R-Ni. They only way I know to do this is in solution. 3) Having coated the R-Ni, the cell is evacuated. This will remove the water, leaving crystalline NaOH dispersed through the R-Ni 4) The evacuated cell is heated. Reactions with the residual Al, the H , the Na, and the O yield NaH. 5) NaH begins to decompose, with Na now becoming a BLP catalsy for the proximate H atom. Boom. 6) However, NaH is listed as a catalyst itself, as if it can react with acailable H atoms captured in the R-Ni. Mills is quite specific that the only consumable in the cycle is H2, converted to H[1/4]. All else is regenerated - somehow - in what is called 'bench chemistry'. I can imagine the Na getting spead all over the cell during the reaction. I don't know if just opening the cell and adding water will cause the Na to reaact to produce NaOH again, or just what. No clues given. [An exercise to left for the chemist]. Mike Carrell.
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
Ed, Suppose the Ni in contact with NaH provides a place for the electron released from NaH to go that then gives the energy change the right value. After all, NaH does not have a conduction band and the electron could not find a way out of the local system without a conductor with a conduction band being present. If this is the explanation, any finely divided conductor would work, for example finely divided Pd. This idea would suggest that nanosized Pd in a cold fusion environment is only required to take the released electron away from the actual catalyst, which has not been identified in this case. What do you think about this idea? Well - there is plenty of evidence that finely divided Pd does produce excess heat if there is 'something else', correct? And it certainly looks like trial and error is the best way to find that 'something else', At a minimum, with Arrata it was zirconia and almost no added energy and with others it was some form of carbon etc. even coconut shells ;-) It could be that the main difference between using deuterium with palladium instead of Mills protium with nickel is that in the end one gets helium, and possibly more energy per molecule but possibly less in total due to a reverse economy of scale. At least no one has been able to scale-up any CF reactor like Mills has done. It could be that your glow discharge is simply a brute force way of doing what local field gradients on nanoparticles can do somewhat more elegantly... or else the discharge itself is producing the nanoparticle in situ. It seems that all of these various phenomena have a nexus or a connection with the increased surface-area afforded by the small particulate size, and the high field-gradient which can results from simply the geometry, especially if an exciton puts a nominally free electron in some kind of group orbital - say with the quantum dot. One of the biggest things about the Rowan confirmation is the scale-up to commercial size. Can that be done with palladium as easily ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
- Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP? Ed I'm confused. I was under the impression that the NaH was the catalyst required to form the hydrino. If this is true, what is the role of the Raney nickel? First - there are two very distinct ways to look at this situation. It is somewhat logical to believe, as does Mike Carrell, that Mills got everything right -- and that the energy anomaly he discovered is explainable based precisely on application his CQM theory, and that the theory rules, and that no amount of good fortune is present. This is why Mike constatnly wants people to study Mills theory as if it were gospel. No, Jones, not gospel. I simply want to counter the opposite, that Mills *can't* [or is it musn't?] be right. Many take a quick look a Mills claim or paper, and then go off on a tangent, as you have done, looking for an explanation that fits your accustomed world view. I [and I suspect Mills also] fully expect a firestorm of criticism and search for explanations as the reality of this reaction sets in. Mills may not be entirely correct, but I have seen enough criticism of SQM to realize it is not a gospel to be worshipped either. If that is true, then the nickel probably serves only as a proton conductor and catalyst to remove the proton from the sodium. IOW - those who are strict BLP advocates cannot imagine the situation where Mills could have succeeded, though good fortune alone - and found an experimental anomaly but that it is one that his theory does not explain. In the paper http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/WFC101608WebS.pdf , equations 23-35, outline the chemical reactions involved. Why assume these are not necessary and suffcient until one has understood them? However, that is merely their interpretation, logical as that may seem, and until more is known - most of us would agree that Mills should be given the benefit of the doubt. There is something much simpler. NaH is formed by reactions given from NaOH coating of the R-Ni and heating. At some point the NaH decomposes, releasing Na and H atoms in close proximity, whereby Na++ then catalyses the H producing H[1/3]. There are aspects of this which puzzle me. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:36:46 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] One reaction would be 23Na + (hy) -- 24Mg. Where the pseudo-neutron adds a proton and transmutes sodium into magnesium with very little radioactivity - but there could be energetic betas and soft x-rays. One big difference over a neutron reaction is that the beta-electron is not a decay product - since- it never participates at all, except to serve the purpose of allowing the proton to get into the range of the nuclear strong force and perhaps another QM 'trick' or two. The other would be 62Ni + (hy) -- 63Cu. The latter reaction is far less likely, because the Coulomb barrier is much higher for Ni than for Na. Furthermore, if the latter were happening, then one would also expect to get a few radioactive Cu isotopes forming, based on reactions with the other (more abundant) stable Ni isotopes, e.g. Ni58 + Hy - Cu59. Also, the alternate Na reaction: Na23 + Hy - Ne20 + He4 *may* be more likely, because it uses particles to rapidly rid itself of the reaction energy. The reaction:- Na23 + Hy - Mg24 + e- (fast) is an IC reaction (internal conversion), and essentially relies upon the electron momentarily finding itself inside the new born nucleus. This may be the case if the shrunken Hydrino is captured in its entirety, rather than just the proton being captured. IOW perhaps when the nuclear force captures the proton, the proton takes the shrunken electron along for the ride, then the new nucleus snubs it's nose at the electron and says what are you doing here!, and promptly gives it the boot. ;) (Or perhaps the nuclear force is actually a short range combination of EM forces, and capture of the positive proton is accompanied by a concurrent repulsion of the negative electron - i.e. consider the short range negative field around a neutron)or the fusion reaction results in an excited nucleus, in which baryons are rapidly shifting position, creating EM disturbances that couple to the electron, expelling it in the process...i.e. a transfer of energy via virtual photon. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
Mike Here is why you are puzzled. You say: At some point the NaH decomposes, releasing Na and H atoms in close proximity, whereby Na++ then catalyses the H producing H[1/3]. There are aspects of this which puzzle me. No Kidding! Not the least of which puzzlement should be that this species is NOT a decent fit for a catalyst under Mills' CQM criteria. I have a version of CQM written in 2001. Now you may want to say that Mills has refined things since then, but I say instead that he has shoehorned them, based on a lucky finding of an energy anomaly with sodium. For the moment - let's say that back then after nearly a dozen year of going at it - he should have been able to tell what was, and what was not a catalyst, under his theory and here is what he where he places sodium on page 147: Na+ the ion, and not the atom - becomes a catalyst - only when - forced all the way to IP4 by adding the enormous energy of almost 218 eV per atom (a fairly strong x-ray) which will never happen, even of on the far end of Boltzmann's tail - when the input to his reactor is considered. Basically he rejects the idea that Na++ is a catalyst and says that not only must you start with the single Na+ ion, which is no problem, but then all at once you must remove AT THE SAME TIME three additional electrons and with a proton in the vicinity. This is unrealistic, of course, in that type of reactor. This is why I claim that he is shoehorning lucky results, found in experiment, into the theory when in actuality - it is very likely that something else is happening. Jones
[Vo]:ICCFgate
On Oct 22, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Steven Krivit wrote [in the Russian Visas ICCF14 thread]: Hopefully you read the section Russian Visa Problems in NET30 http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.htm#iccfoverview and you are at least up to speed on what I have already reported. No, I must confess I haven't. I'm way behind on my reading. I had scanned NET30 briefly, but haven't read it through, though I watched the videos. I don't hear so well in upper ranges and could not understand David Nagel's talk on the visas. Much ore importantly, I just now read a most startling and troubling entry buried (not prominent anyway) in NET30: The second oddity that occurred at the conference is that this reporter received a threat (with stated consequences) to back off from his LENR investigations. Needless to say, he has not and will not, and the incident has been reported to the FBI. This is major news. ICCFgate. Hopefully you will be able to provide the full story at some point. I would take the above to mean investigations of LENR researchers or issues, not so much actual LENR experimental investigations? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:48:33 -0400: Hi, [snip] There is something much simpler. NaH is formed by reactions given from NaOH coating of the R-Ni and heating. At some point the NaH decomposes, releasing Na and H atoms in close proximity, whereby Na++ then catalyses the H producing H[1/3]. There are aspects of this which puzzle me. [snip] According to Randy, the NaH decomposes directly in Na+++ + H[1/3] + 3e- . Na++ is not a catalyst. (The ionization energy is 71.641 eV). In going from H[1] to H[1/3] the H requires an energy hole of 54.4. eV. This is the sum of the first and second ionization energies of Na (5.1391 eV 47.286 eV resp.) and the energy required to break NaH into atoms (about 1.98 eV). IOW the molecule can decompose directly into the final products, and in so doing provides its own energy hole. This is probably why it is so effective (the coupling is all internal within the molecule). BTW the whole hydrino reaction actually produces 108.8 eV, so the difference between the total energy released and the energy hole (54.4 eV) will likely be released as additional kinetic energy IMO. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:04:52 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Robin, The other would be 62Ni + (hy) -- 63Cu. RvS: The latter reaction is far less likely, because the Coulomb barrier is much higher for Ni than for Na. Yes. That is the traditional viewpoint for a charged particle but if the Hy is neutral, up until it gets within range of the strong force, then essentially the Coulomb barrier does not figure in. Hydrinos are generally still so large, that they don't directly come within range of the strong force. That implies that tunneling is still the mechanism, and hence the Coulomb barrier does play a role. This remains true unless minimal sized Hydrinos can form, and even then only if the radius goes as the square of the quantum number, rather than linearly as it does according to Mills. [snip] But yes - I think that the sodium to magnesium route is where things would be more likely to be happening, and once again - why not at least make the minimum effort to look for magesium? [snip] I agree that it should be looked for, however take into account that it is also likely to be a minor contaminant in the Na before the start, and it would only take 23 micrograms of new Mg to account for the excess energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
Hi Robin, According to Randy, the NaH decomposes directly in Na+++ + H[1/3] + 3e- . LOL !! In going from H[1] to H[1/3] the H requires an energy hole of 54.4. eV. This is the sum of the first and second ionization energies of Na (5.1391 eV 47.286 eV resp.) and the energy required to break NaH into atoms (about 1.98 eV). OK - Here is why that cannot happen. The energy required to break the two into atoms could never result (very low statistical probability) in the H becoming un-ionized while at the same time staying very close by (geometric proximity), while at the exact instant 3 electrons are removed from the sodium. Bizarre. This would be almost laughable if there were not real proof of an anomaly - which there is. Does the anomaly validate the 'shoehorning' and make the bizarre mechanism correct? Possible but doubtful. Which is why I will repeat once again, that the energy anomaly is there -yes- but is extremely unlikely to be related to this exact mechanism; and possibly is more likely IMHO to be related to LENR in some way, since for a dozen or more years on the LENR side, excess energy has been seen with protium+nickel (not this huge of an anomaly but still there). As Ed concludes, we really do not have a workable theory, but it is clear that nanoparticles are very useful and this may be outside of CQM altogether. Please Rowan U, if you are listenting - turn this over to some energetic grad students and test the residue for everything - esp magnesium, copper, helium, etc - and if you cannot tell Randy the results - at least tell me or Robin what you find ! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:49:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi Jones, Hi Robin, According to Randy, the NaH decomposes directly in Na+++ + H[1/3] + 3e- . LOL !! In going from H[1] to H[1/3] the H requires an energy hole of 54.4. eV. This is the sum of the first and second ionization energies of Na (5.1391 eV 47.286 eV resp.) and the energy required to break NaH into atoms (about 1.98 eV). OK - Here is why that cannot happen. The energy required to break the two into atoms could never result (very low statistical probability) in the H becoming un-ionized while at the same time staying very close by (geometric proximity), while at the exact instant 3 electrons are removed from the sodium. Bizarre. [snip] I think you misunderstand. The energy required to break NaH into atoms is 1.98 eV. The energy required to then ionize the Na to Na+ is 5.1391 eV. The energy required to then ionize the Na+ to Na++ is 47.286 eV. Total 54.405 eV which is an excellent match for an m=2 energy hole. That means that by shrinking from the ground state to n=1/3, the Hydrogen atom gives up first 54.4 eV (the energy hole value), resulting in the specified dissolution, then a further 54.4 eV as kinetic energy of the particles. The total energy released is 108.8 eV. Ionization of the H isn't even on the table, because either the H shrinks to a Hydrino, or nothing at all happens and the NaH simply remains NaH. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Vo]:Re: ICCFgate
Steve Krivit wrote in: http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.htm#iccfoverview The second oddity that occurred at the conference is that this reporter received a threat (with stated consequences) to back off from his LENR investigations. Needless to say, he has not and will not, and the incident has been reported to the FBI. This is major news, and shocking. ICCFgate. Hopefully you will be able to provide the full story at some point Steve. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
Robin I think you misunderstand. The energy required to break NaH into atoms is 1.98 eV. The energy required to then ionize the Na to Na+ is 5.1391 eV. The energy required to then ionize the Na+ to Na++ is 47.286 eV. Total 54.405 eV which is an excellent match for an m=2 energy hole. I understand all that, but the 1.98 eV is the problem ! ... and its inclusion is irrelevant, almost a fraud. It has no business being considered, since it does not relate to the ionization potential and the hole itself - as it is the obvious shoehorn which unrelated to the electrons which DO make up the hole (at least they do in their absence). I cannot agree in any remote way that an energy hole is created by this additional invention. Where would it end? you could add in all sorts of extraneous stuff to try to balance the books ... and even if it were arguably relevant, he has not even addressed the larger issue of how the atomic hydrogen manages to remains non-ionized in close proximity to the 52+ eV which removes all of the 3 electrons from the sodium. That would be a modern day miracle in itself. This is not even wrong, as they say. I am rather amazed that you have bought into it, if you really have. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: ICCFgate
Yes, I hope so too. Steve At 04:14 PM 10/23/2008, you wrote: Steve Krivit wrote in: http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET30-jgk39gh12f.htm#iccfoverview The second oddity that occurred at the conference is that this reporter received a threat (with stated consequences) to back off from his LENR investigations. Needless to say, he has not and will not, and the incident has been reported to the FBI. This is major news, and shocking. ICCFgate. Hopefully you will be able to provide the full story at some point Steve. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:34:47 -0700 (PDT): Hi Jones, [snip] Robin I think you misunderstand. The energy required to break NaH into atoms is 1.98 eV. The energy required to then ionize the Na to Na+ is 5.1391 eV. The energy required to then ionize the Na+ to Na++ is 47.286 eV. Total 54.405 eV which is an excellent match for an m=2 energy hole. I understand all that, but the 1.98 eV is the problem ! ... and its inclusion is irrelevant, almost a fraud. It has no business being considered, since it does not relate to the ionization potential and the hole itself - as it is the obvious shoehorn which unrelated to the electrons which DO make up the hole (at least they do in their absence). Ah, perhaps this is the clue. When Mills talks about an energy hole he is *not* talking about a missing electron as in a hole in a semi-conductor. He simply means an energy sink or sump (like a hole in the ground). IOW something capable of resonantly absorbing a multiple of 27.2 eV. Used in that sense, NaH clearly fits the bill. The 1.98 eV is energy that was released when the NaH was formed from atoms, hence needs to be returned in order to break the molecule apart. I cannot agree in any remote way that an energy hole is created by this additional invention. Where would it end? you could add in all sorts of extraneous stuff to try to balance the books ..and indeed he sometimes does, as long as it results in a net energy hole of 27.2 eV. ... and even if it were arguably relevant, he has not even addressed the larger issue of how the atomic hydrogen manages to remains non-ionized in close proximity to the 52+ eV which removes all of the 3 electrons from the sodium. That would be a modern day miracle in itself. Actually only 2 electrons. I made a mistake in my first email. The atomic Hydrogen doesn't exist, and hence isn't in proximity to anything. The molecule simply decomposes directly into the final bits. (Alternatively a single H atom approaching an NaH molecule undergoes shrinkage while supplying the energy required to break up the molecule and doubly ionize the Na. In this scenario, some of the remaining 54.4 eV may indeed directly ionize the H from the molecule, though that is going to be indistinguishable from H ionized by kinetic energy elsewhere in the cell.) Both mechanisms would have the same result, and hence could be operating concurrently and indistinguishably. The second would require the Ni to create H atoms, and both mechanisms require it, along with the NaOH, to produce NaH. This is not even wrong, as they say. I am rather amazed that you have bought into it, if you really have. It's no more outrageous than K losing three electrons while acting as a catalyst. (Mind you, it's (probably) not harmonically resonant in the tuning fork sense, but it is energetically resonant, where perhaps a virtual photon plays an intermediary role). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
