Re: [Vo]:Request claque support
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Reasonable, I'd say, if the 10W experiment looked like it had a prayer of being scalable. 10 W would already be a significant scale up, by a factor of ~10. If it worked I am sure any larger size would work. Also, I know of no reason to think it would not scale up. Kitamura has already scaled up substantially. If not, it would still be worth substantial continued support, depending on such things as the economics. Substantial compared to what? Compared to what it costs to develop a new shade of lipstick or to build yet another marginal shopping mall in an overcrowded market in Atlanta? If one needs $100,000 worth of palladium to generate 10 W, it may be striking as a phenomenon, but not as a commercial product. The nanoparticle approach uses less palladium than others. A nanoparticle cold fusion device capable of practical levels of energy generation would use no more palladium than an automobile catalytic converter. The priority at first should be exploring the science, WTF is happening in there? Without knowing, speculating about commercial applications is just that: speculating. Not engineering. I think it is far beyond speculation. Also, many technologies in the past were developed without a theoretical basis. I recently wrote to a correspondent about this: Other technological revolutions in the past got underway and made tremendous progress before a theoretical understanding was developed. That has not happened often since 1945, but it is not out of the question. Look at telegraphy, railroads, heat engines and incandescent lights. The thermodynamics of heat engines (steam and internal combustion) was not understood before 1870, and not fully understood until around 1910, but tremendous progress was made before that. Melich says that much of nuclear engineering and solid state and catalytic effects is still understood only as an empirical model, not a theory. Medicine is largely empirical. 'Medical science' is practically an oxymoron . . . The importance of theory is overrated in the modern era, in my opinion. - Jed
[Vo]:OT: Greenergy - political satire
The counterpart to Mother Jones (no relation) is called the People's Cube. It is a scream, as far as humor goes, ROTFL - even when the political message is totally Ayn Randish. as in Ayn Radish, aka Misander Ayn . ;-) Come to think of it, Mother J is almost as Misanderish as Ayn. Maybe that's what happens when we let gals wear pant suits and venture outside of the kitchen and nursery ;-) Anyway, the Cubic offering of the week is: Congress Passes New Law of Thermodynamics By Will Beria In a bid to free the nation from foreign oil and bring its carbon footprint to naught, Congressional Democrats passed a new law of thermodynamics, which states, From each according to ability; to each according to need. This should lead to real energy independence once supply of energy becomes independent of its demand. In practical terms, the new legislation establishes a new energy regime called greenergy, according to which supply will match demand based on need and not on any particular technology's ability. Under this scheme, alternating current (AC) will be replaced with alternative current. The new AC will work by adjusting the needy consumer rather than the supply. Said one Senator, For alternative energy we need an alternative consumer. That much is clear. This will be accomplished by attaching a series of government greenergy regulators to the energy grid at the user end, to adjust the customer need as required. In the unlikely event a government regulator loses efficiency or fails, causing a short-term shortage of greenergy available, the alternative empowerment proviso kicks in. In such an event the greenergy system will run a temporary energy budget deficit which will be paid back at a later date as new technologies come online. Finally alternative energies will be able to compete with traditional ones on an equal footing, said the Senator. This bill allows the conservation of energy to conserve energy. What could be simpler or more obvious? END I find this hilarious in a most unusual role reversal. And in a perverse way, the remedies being parodied here may indeed have a strong appeal (if applied slightly differently and humanely). This is laugh-and-cry cynicism turned on its pinhead: and with a bill that allows the conservation of energy to really conserve energy. LOL. At any rate, it is refreshing to see that humor did not totally depart the conservatives with Reagan. He was a funny guy, always a disarming smile; and nobody doesn't like a good laugh, both in and at a profession that takes itself way too seriously.
Re: [Vo]:Request claque support
At 12:34 PM 1/10/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Reasonable, I'd say, if the 10W experiment looked like it had a prayer of being scalable. 10 W would already be a significant scale up, by a factor of ~10. If it worked I am sure any larger size would work. Also, I know of no reason to think it would not scale up. Kitamura has already scaled up substantially. Jed, I'm afraid that's naive. But I should have, perhaps, been more specific than scalable. It's clear you can, in a simple way, scale up the Arata effect. If so much material generates so much energy, presumably more material will generate more energy. That's scaling up. But has any such experiment recovered all the energy used to set it up? And then produce a positive return, more productive than alternatives *considering the investment*? Jed, I know that you know that when someone shows the necessary conditions, venture capitalists will be falling all over themselves trying to rush to the head of the line. I haven't seen it yet, and, apparently, neither have they, except a few hardy souls, perhaps, willing to go for a very long shot. It's not a long shot in the sense of the field being a known blind alley, it's a long shot in the sense that any particular investment is very risky at this time. Because what is clearly open and needing funding is basic science, that -- most likely -- won't *directly* create a commercial opportunity, we should be pushing for academic and public funding of basic science. We need more and better understanding of LENR processes before the *engineering* can kick in. If not, it would still be worth substantial continued support, depending on such things as the economics. Substantial compared to what? Compared to what it costs to develop a new shade of lipstick or to build yet another marginal shopping mall in an overcrowded market in Atlanta? Depends on the goals of the investor. Right now, in my view, a sensible investor will be parsimonious. If I had the money, I'd retain some experts to watch the field and look for opportunities. Low-cost, relatively. The temptation is to try to pick some expert and pour in tons of money to the expert's favorite project and approach. That's what is highly speculative, and, notice: it's been done. Many times. Any profits result from it? Sure. For at least one expert, whom we both know, profiting from consulting fees or other non-energy-producing sources. Maybe, even, I'll make a profit, but selling science and materials for science (including education), not energy. If one needs $100,000 worth of palladium to generate 10 W, it may be striking as a phenomenon, but not as a commercial product. The nanoparticle approach uses less palladium than others. A nanoparticle cold fusion device capable of practical levels of energy generation would use no more palladium than an automobile catalytic converter. Jed, you hope so. Got any evidence to back that up? The basic problem I've seen described by experts: the reaction disrupts the lattice, and the reaction energies are such that preventing this disruption may be impossible. There are possible approaches, for sure, but none that are proven yet. Maybe the Arata approach will work, it depends on how long the material continues to function. If your auto catalytic converter only worked for a few days or weeks, even though the palladium could be recovered and reprocessed, it would be quite impractical. When I wrote $100,000, I was considering what information I had about the nanoparticle approach, already. It's possible that this will be reduced, of course. But the problem must be noticed! That we know LENR is taking place isn't necessarily even half-way there. Lots of people have known that for quite some time. It doesn't solve the engineering problem. And to solve it will probably take better understanding of the science, otherwise every experiment is more or less a stab in the dark, it can take a lot of stabs until you bring down the bear. In the dark, the bear might eat you first. The priority at first should be exploring the science, WTF is happening in there? Without knowing, speculating about commercial applications is just that: speculating. Not engineering. I think it is far beyond speculation. Also, many technologies in the past were developed without a theoretical basis. I recently wrote to a correspondent about this: Sure, it can happen. But with fields whre basic understanding was much better. Other technological revolutions in the past got underway and made tremendous progress before a theoretical understanding was developed. That has not happened often since 1945, but it is not out of the question. Look at telegraphy, railroads, heat engines and incandescent lights. The thermodynamics of heat engines (steam and internal combustion) was not understood before 1870, and not fully understood until around 1910, but
Re: [Vo]:Casimir effect and SR to explain fractional states
David, I can't help you with the math description of virtual particles giving rise to Casimir effect as you put it, but, as to your final question Is their ground state determined by the zero point energy? I am convinced that YES, the ground state is determined by zero point energy in the manner described by Puthoff keeping the orbital from decaying and restoring energy after spontaneous emission.. If you are referring to the different theories of fractional ground states associated with Casimir cavities then I would contend those ground states still appear unchanged to a local observer in the same inertial frame as the orbital. And that the fractional states only exist from a relativistic perspective between different inertial frames. I base the previous assertion on proposals by Jan Naudts that the hydrino can be explained relativisticly and later work by Ron Bourgoin that proved 137 fractional states actually exist using equations that dictate a relativistic environment where electrons can appear to occupy the same spatial position through time dilation... On a more speculative note I suspect the inertial frames are created by reducing the energy sum of virtual particles inside the cavity which is unable to meet the demand of the plate surfaces due to a concentrating effect of plate geometry - this would account for failed experiments to accumulate this force into any measurable gravitational effects such as attempted by DiFiore et all. I am proposing the Casimir effect breaks the isotropy through segregation and that the lower energy in the cavity is balanced by higher energy diffused throughout the plates. Metal atoms start out covalent then change into clusters before forming the almost free electron/ metallic bond -something that makes me suspect a natural imbalance that may be the engine behind this quantum effect.. I have been trying to draw an analogy between the Twin paradox and fractional hydrogen where the space bound twin uses a dead star to tap equivalent acceleration relative to the earth bound twin so that you are dealing with the difference between 2 different equivalent accelerations which is what I feel we are dealing with in regards to fractional hydrogen inside a Casimir cavity vs outside. The dead stars crushing gravity is to our normal environment outside the Casimir cavity just as our normal environment outside the Casimir cavity is to the energy depleted region inside the cavity. An observer inside the cavity would see us outside the cavity to appear slower due to time dilation in the same way we observe the space faring twin to age slower as he accelerates relative to us. This may explain the engine behind catalytic action and certainly fits the geometry of Rayney nickel pore sizes. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Request claque support
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: It's clear you can, in a simple way, scale up the Arata effect. If so much material generates so much energy, presumably more material will generate more energy. That's scaling up. Yup. It is. And I'll bet with 100 g of the stuff you could run a small thermoelectric device. But has any such experiment recovered all the energy used to set it up? What does that have to do with it? Anyway, yes, that has been done, at the NRL. Put a cell in a Seebeck calorimeter and you recover every joule. Put in a flow calorimeter and you recover 95%. What difference does it make? Making the thing into a practical source of energy is an engineering job that any of a thousand industrial corporations could accomplish. And then produce a positive return, more productive than alternatives *considering the investment*? It will pay off a million times over. Better than inventing semiconductors, railroads or the Internet. Jed, I know that you know that when someone shows the necessary conditions, venture capitalists will be falling all over themselves trying to rush to the head of the line. I haven't seen it yet, and, apparently, neither have they . . . I have talked to venture capitalists. So far, I have only encountered two kinds: 1. Those who do not yet believe that cold fusion exists, because they are like Taubes; they do not understand the ABCs of science and technology. 2. Those who are only interested in a near-term sure thing. A proven technology or an Internet venture that someone else is already making boodles of money on, where they hope to grab some market share. Sooner or later an investor will come along with real money and real guts, who will see the wisdom of doing cold fusion. All it takes is one investor. Others will soon follow. It's not a long shot in the sense of the field being a known blind alley, it's a long shot in the sense that any particular investment is very risky at this time. And cold fusion is particularly risky compared to what? Can I interest you in commercial real estate? Stock in AIG or GM? How about the Chinese stock market? Because what is clearly open and needing funding is basic science, that -- most likely -- won't *directly* create a commercial opportunity, we should be pushing for academic and public funding of basic science. I have heard that for years, but frankly, I don't believe it. I do not think that Arata or even Kidwell has any grasp of the basic science, but they are making tremendous progress toward a practical device. More progress in the last year than the previous 19 years put together. We need more and better understanding of LENR processes before the *engineering* can kick in. Apparently not. Depends on the goals of the investor. Right now, in my view, a sensible investor will be parsimonious. If I had the money, I'd retain some experts to watch the field and look for opportunities. Low-cost, relatively. There are people who have billions of dollars burning a hole in their pockets, and nothing much to invest in. Some of the biggest advances in practical technology such as air conditioning and dishwashers were made in the 1930s because the money had nowhere else to go. The nanoparticle approach uses less palladium than others. A nanoparticle cold fusion device capable of practical levels of energy generation would use no more palladium than an automobile catalytic converter. Jed, you hope so. I know so. Got any evidence to back that up? That's what the people making the stuff told me. It is easy to confirm with a back-of-the-envelope calculation. And they are nowhere near the limits of power density. Plus they say high temperatures will not be a problem. 200 or 300 deg C would be fine, and at those temperatures Carnot efficiency is high enough to do just about anything you like, short of aerospace applications. The basic problem I've seen described by experts: the reaction disrupts the lattice, and the reaction energies are such that preventing this disruption may be impossible. . . . Maybe the Arata approach will work, it depends on how long the material continues to function. If your auto catalytic converter only worked for a few days or weeks, even though the palladium could be recovered and reprocessed, it would be quite impractical. My point is that there is no evidence for that with nanoparticles. That's what I have been saying. Arata's cells have run for weeks with no diminution in power. Kidwell degassed and re-gassed the same samples time after time, hundreds of times, and they kept working, and producing the same output. Theory is a poor term for what I'm talking about. Rather, models would be more like it. I'm an engineer, Jed, basically. If I don't have some model for what to expect from a variation, it could take me way too much time to discover what works well enough to be practical. You know the history of this field: worker finds effect.
