Re: [Vo]:Trapped electrons
On Mar 4, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: As I clarified, it is useful to think of the deflated state as a physical state, a cloaked state, or masked state in your terms, of the proton (or deuteron) involved in the long range tunneling which is only possible for a net charge zero ensemble. I'm getting a bit absent minded. I didn't finish the above thought, due to being distracted by googling for references. I was meant to be an introduction to saying that, despite this being a convenient conceptual notion, such a state might not exist in a real sense, especially in the case where the cloaked hydrogen tunnels to a heavy nucleus. Reality might just be a collection of probability waves, which have physical meaning only upon the occasional collapse of those waves, also known as observations. The difficulty in interpretations comes with the question of whether mother nature can make those observations by herself, or if they require intelligent observers, like people, or cats. My interpretation is the former. Something else I overlooked writing about was another way of looking at the nature of the nucleus post fusion. Pre-fusion the deflated state involves a high kinetic energy, of both the electron and hydrogen nucleus, or electron and quark, and a very very small radius r. Post heavy element fusion this very small radius r, much smaller than the normal rest radius of the composite element Z nucleus, or the target element Z-1 nucleus, guarantees a high degree of momentum transfer between both the incoming hydrogen-electron ensemble, and the heavy nucleus. This electron-hadron interaction, through spin flipping, permits photon radiation. The electron through this phase is as heavy as the hadrons, due to a high gamma. Also, and more to the point I'm trying to make now, the composite heavy nucleus gains kinetic energy, its group or ensemble energy, establishing a smaller de Broglie wavelength for itself, as well as a mutual orbital, as an ensemble, with the nuclear electron. This in effect shrinks the composite nucleus and thus reduces the r which is applicable to it during the initial interactions. The initial energy deficit is therefore larger than what I compute in my reports, because the effective r is smaller. This can be alternatively viewed as a small initial wavefunction appearing post-collapse. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Vimana Found in Afghanistan?
Yes, but I don't think it is India's research which is driving up the price of Pd. All precious metals are rising due to the economy. I wonder if the Red Mercury interview is available? T On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Terry, Very interesting radio-interview. Did you listen to the Second part too? It really becomes very interesting around 1:45 when a link with cold-fusion and materials like Red Mercury, Platinum, Paladium, Graphite rods etc are made. So the suggestion that Rossi is from the future isn't as far fetched as someone suggested before??? Kind regards, MoB On 4-3-2011 1:00, Terry Blanton wrote: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?14114-Vimana-(UFO)-Found-In-Cave-In-Afghanistan!!!s=a4cac42f6f636c2cb9015ae1a68805c3 What's a Vimana? http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS360US360aq=fsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=vimana (Submitted mostly for entertainment purposes.) T
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
I forgot to mention: Levi looked in the control unit and found no battery or fuel, just electronics. This was described in NyTeknik. So you can delete the sections about the Control Unit such as: Fuel Cell using Compressed Hydrogen in the Control Unit Actually, in real life, the entire concept of chemistry or electricity causing this effect is impossible. It is completely out of the question. A 1 L device would not even be big enough to hold the burners and igniters for combustion or any other chemical reaction capable of producing 15 kW, never mind 130 kW. There is no place to put any fuel at all, and if you did put any fuel in there, it would explode. The internal temperature must be quite high. Things like fuel cells are also ruled out. I doubt they have any that are only 1 L, and if they did, it would produce a few watts, not kilowatts. For any kind of combustion using outside air, you would need ventilation holes much bigger than the entire 1 L space. To hold the heat exchangers and other components, the secret compartment would have to be at least the size of this water heater: http://www.geappliances.com/products/introductions/tankless_gas_water_heater/ http://products.geappliances.com/ApplProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=SpecPageSku=GN94DNSRSA#WEIGHTS; DIMENSIONS This is 199,000 Btu/h = 58 kW Dimensions are 10 * 23 * 14 = 3220 cu. in. = 53 L You can't just generate the heat inside the secret compartment; you also have to transfer it to the flowing water, and you have to keep the fuel tank from exploding. So a calculation based on the volume of fuel alone is totally unrealistic. This is interesting to think about, but there is not the slightest chance the effect is actually chemical. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
I wrote: For any kind of combustion using outside air, you would need ventilation holes much bigger than the entire 1 L space. By that I mean it would only work if the burner and flames were fully exposed to the open air, like a radiant kerosene heater. Or unless you had a fan or pump driving air into it, like a Mr Heater F270270 MH75KT 75,000 BTU Kerosene Forced Air (see). That's 22 kW. (You gotta love the name Mr Heater.) My guess is that a 15 kW flame placed in the middle of the Rossi device would gutter out or smoke like the dickens, even if both sides of the secret compartment were fully open to the air with the flames visible to anyone who glanced inside the tube (visible like the glow from the radiant heater). I am sure that is true at 130 kW. As I said before, with a 15 kW flame, using outside air, you could not fail to notice the light from the flame through the vents. Look at a gas furnace or water heater to see what I mean. By the way, here is a handy on line power-unit converter: http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/units-converter/power/calculator/ The one sanity test that I wish someone had reported would be to hold your hand some distance above the Rossi device while it is operating. Even though most of the heat was removed by the steam, and even more by the flowing water in the second test, heat transfer is never perfect, and the device must have been radiating quite a bit into the surroundings. As I reported here, in the first test, Dufour held his above the outlet hose and determined that it was much to hot to touch. That's almost as good as holding your hand over the unit itself. The pipe overall could not be too hot to touch with only 400 W input. People have speculated about various ways to fool a temperature sensor by dividing the flow into an inner chamber and an outer chamber of a specially made hose. That might work, but the overall temperature of the hose from the outside would not change. - Jed
[Vo]:(Rossi) Results of calorimetry test performed at University of Bologna
Dear Rossi, the results of the *calorimetry test* at University of Bologna will be published as soon as possible or in october? Dear Mr Mattia Rizzi: The University of Bologna will publish all the results of the RD that will be done at the end of the work, which I assume will be in *one year from now*. Very VERY bad news.
[Vo]:The Rossi mechanism explained ?
This is an excellent video in which Bernard Haisch explains the extraction of ZPE via Casimir cavities. You may not be able to fully grasp the way this could work wrt the Rossi E-Cat, unless you watch the entire video and then apply the alternative details suggested below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5IAugkmNso The patent that he and Moddel received describes one particular way to extract ZPE, but the experiments they performed were not successful. Why not? I think that they used the wrong gas medium - noble gases. Haisch says that these gases are preferable, when in fact they are counter-indicated, particularly for manipulating the Lamb shift along with the Casimir force. Had they used hydrogen in such a way that spillover could have been happened at the same time as sequential Casimir cavity filling/refilling, then IMO they would have been successful. I think it is a reasonable suggestion that this is precisely what Andrea Rossi has done in his reactor by filling a tube with a critical mass of Casimir cavities, combined with a spillover catalyst, such that dense hydrogen is continually and sequentially condensed and expanded in cavities to give off heat in a continuous flux. He does this by providing a travelling wave in pressurized hydrogen around a phase change in the catalyst. The catalyst could be zirconia, and there has been recent mention (on the Italian blog) of the Rossi tube containing two grams of nickel nanopowder and one kilogram of zirconia. Perhaps that is a guess, based on Arata/Takahashi/Kitamura. Or perhaps it is right-on. Zirconia is well-known to have an extremely pronounced phase-change in the range of 350C and overcoming that problem is why it took the 'Bloom Box' and other SOFC devices so long to get to market. Now the 'problem' becomes a 'feature'. The second part of the equation, which can explain everything which has been seen in the Bologna demo, and other claims - is that in so doing, the Rossi active material is locally depleted in a way that allows secondary nuclear reactions to happen in a novel way. Since the nuclear (weak force, or decay) reactions happen because of location in an energy depleted space there is little radioactivity, and the other normal indicia of standard nuclear reactions, like gammas are strongly diminished. IOW - the nuclear reactions which are seen in the Rossi device, and mistakenly thought to be the active means for gain - are instead a by-product, and a secondary effect of the previous extraction energy via ZPE. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Alan's website seems to have mistakes - http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density Alan does calculations assuming that Rossi's 1 liter reactor (as described by professor Levi) was filled with some type of chemical that could heat the water. Supposedly the February test ran 16 kW on average for 18 hours. (16,000 W) x (18 hour) x (3600 sec/hour) x (1 J/sec per Watt) x (1 MJ/100 W) = 1037 MJ emitted by 1 liter. This means there needs to be a chemical that has an energy density of 1037 MJ/liter Diesel equals 32 MJ/liter For example at the end of his website Alan incorrectly writes that 1 liter of diesel would run 7.25 hours if it were producing 16 kW and using external air. The correct number is that 1 liter of diesel could run only 0.55 hours at 16 kW. This is 17.45 hours short of the actual run of 18 hours. So diesel has an energy density (MJ/liter) that is off by a factor of 33 (because 18 hours divided by 0.55 hours equals 33). In other words, burning diesel would not explain Rossi's test. Beryllium at 125 MJ/l would last 2.2 hours so it is too low by a factor of 8 (because 18 hours divided by 2.2 hours equals 8.6) Aluminum at 83.8 MJ/l would last 1.45 hours so it is too low by a factor of 12 (because 18 hours divided by 1.45 hours equals 12). But this is for solid aluminum and solid aluminum is almost 4 times more dense than powdered aluminum. So if Rossi had used 1 liter of powdered aluminum he would only get 0.38 hours (or 23 minutes) of 16 kW of heat output. It would be impossible to ignite solid aluminum - but I assume easy to ignite powdered aluminum. I assume powdered aluminum would make a lot of Al2O3 smoke - which is white (like steam). Did anyone smell the steam output? Did they smell steam or anything else? I assume the same would apply for extremely toxic Beryllium which would have to be in powdered form for it to ignite with air. The product is Beryllium Oxide which is not toxic in solid form from what I read. But I don't know if this produces Beryllium Oxide smoke which may or may not be toxic. 16 kW using the following would be: Boron at 138 MJ/l would last 2.4 hours (but would have to be in powdered form and this lessens the energy density) Graphite at 72.9 MJ/l would last 1.3 hours (about same as anthracite coal) Nitroglycerine at 65 MJ/l would last 1.1 hours TNT at 32 MJ/l would last .55 hours (33 minutes) Liquid H2 at 10.1 MJ/l would last .17 hours (10 minutes) Note that the different numbers for MJ/l for diesel, gasoline, H2 etc. used by wikipedia and Alan can be attributed to Higher Heating Value versus Lower Heating Value (I assume). Higher Heating Value assumes the products of combustion are cooled to 25 C (room temp) while the Lower Heating Value assumes the resulting water vapor is not condensed (so I assume that means the gasses stay above 100 C - but I see references to 150 C also - and I assume that is to make sure nothing condenses) If Rossi's reactor were 2 liters rather than 1 liter then all the calculations of run time hours can be multiplied by two (such as diesel could run for 1.1 hours instead of .55 hours). But still, how do you burn diesel without a combustion chamber and various air and fluid pumps? this is from Alan's website: If the ENTIRE *1 liter* volume is composed of the fake material : Lithium ion battery : 0.81 hours Diesel, external oxygen : 7.25 hours Compressed Hydrogen, external oxygen : 0.81 hours Beryllium, external oxygen : 28.1 hours (I haven't set up the calculations for Beryllium with Compressed Oxygen). On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Thanks for your comments. I think it's worth finishing this up. I've taken the liberty of renaming the subject line to separate it from the 1MW discussion and to add keywords Previous discussion started at : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg43298.html The index remains as : http://lenr.qumbu.com/ (which will pick up the latest version). I've posted a new version V2 : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php Main changes : a) On re-reading the Feb report, I see that Levi was allowed to look INSIDE the reactor chamber The bad news is that he doesn't provide a volume for the reactor as a whole! b) I've summarized some of the discussions (mainly with Jed Rothwell)
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
to do the calculations in my previous email I used 16 kW = 57.6 MJ/hour because: (16,000 W) x (3600 sec/hour) x (1 MJ/100 J) x (1 J/sec per Watt) = 57.6 MJ/hour Boron (137.8 MJ/liter) and Berylium (125.1 MJ/liter) have the highest energy densities that I listed.But note that this is for the solid form only. Powdered form would be 3 or 4 times less dense (assuming the same change in density as aluminum to aluminum powder) in terms of energy per volume. That puts them in the 30 to 50 MJ/liter range and means they would not last more than 1 hour at 16 kW. Note that thermite (powdered aluminum and iron oxide) at 18.4 MJ/liter would last 19 minutes when producing 16 kW from 1 liter of material. On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: Alan's website seems to have mistakes - http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density Alan does calculations assuming that Rossi's 1 liter reactor (as described by professor Levi) was filled with some type of chemical that could heat the water. Supposedly the February test ran 16 kW on average for 18 hours. (16,000 W) x (18 hour) x (3600 sec/hour) x (1 J/sec per Watt) x (1 MJ/100 W) = 1037 MJ emitted by 1 liter. This means there needs to be a chemical that has an energy density of 1037 MJ/liter Diesel equals 32 MJ/liter
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
From: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2011 10:03:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device Alan's website seems to have mistakes - I don't doubt it ! I put it up here for review. http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density Alan does calculations assuming that Rossi's 1 liter reactor (as described by professor Levi) was filled with some type of chemical that could heat the water. Supposedly the February test ran 16 kW on average for 18 hours. (16,000 W) x (18 hour) x (3600 sec/hour) x (1 J/sec per Watt) x (1 MJ/100 W) = 1037 MJ emitted by 1 liter. This means there needs to be a chemical that has an energy density of 1037 MJ/liter No ... I'm NOT saying that 1 liter of X will run it at 16KW for 18 hours. I'm calculating how long it COULD theoretically run at that power level. If the candidate runs out of steam BEFORE the recorded end of the trial, then it fails, and is a FAKE. If the candidate can run longer than the trial then it is NOT eliminated. Either the experiment has to be more constrained, or it has to be run longer. For example at the end of his website Alan incorrectly writes that 1 liter of diesel would run 7.25 hours if it were producing 16 kW and using external air. The correct number is that 1 liter of diesel could run only 0.55 hours at 16 kW. This is 17.45 hours short of the actual run of 18 hours. I'll triple-check my numbers. I'll upload the Excell spreadsheet. So diesel has an energy density (MJ/liter) that is off by a factor of ... etc ... I'll hold off on reviewing the rest of your numerical comments for now until I'm sure my numbers are right or (more likely) I've corrected the spreadsheet. Thinks ... maybe I'll redo the calculations in Javascript, so my calculations can be checked directly. (In most web browsers you can view source.) Some of your other comments also apply to Jed's : From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2011 7:56:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device I forgot to mention: Levi looked in the control unit and found no battery or fuel, just electronics. This was described in NyTeknik. So you can delete the sections about the Control Unit such as: Fuel Cell using Compressed Hydrogen in the Control Unit I'm reporting on both the January and February trials. The document is a bit of a mess in that respect, as I visit the same material three different times. I think I'll separate out the various methods (eg Hydrogen+Fuel Cell, Hydrogen + Air ) and then refer to these for the two experiments. The January trial MUST include the control box. The February trial is at the moment anecdotal --- particularly as it has only ONE observer, and we don't have a report yet. Also, it misses a key element for me -- the TOTAL volume of the reactor, not just the chamber. I'll leave the January trial IN, as a historical record. Actually, in real life, the entire concept of chemistry or electricity causing this effect is impossible ... You can't just generate the heat inside the secret compartment; you also have to transfer it to the flowing water, and you have to keep the fuel tank from exploding. So a calculation based on the volume of fuel alone is totally unrealistic. . This is interesting to think about, but there is not the slightest chance the effect is actually chemical. I agree with you entirely. As soon as you start talking about how could the fake be implemented then you open up whole new avenues of denying the experiment. Gee .. maybe you could implement THAT in a more efficient way and pass the test. (Picking a random thought out of my head : if I used gasoline and air, I could just spray water into the flame and avoid the need for a heat exchanger.) That's not to say that discussing the details of fakes isn't interesting ... I'll incorporate some of the comments into the document. (I tend to over-write stuff and then prune it back if needed.) I thought that my Devil's Advocate line and Methodology section were clear -- I'll rewrite them with a 2x4 .. I'm reducing all adjectives (unlikely, implausible ... ) to impossible and all probabilities to ZERO. Alan ps I'm out of town part of this week ... so it may be a while before I do all that.
Re: [Vo]:(Rossi) Results of calorimetry test performed at University of Bologna
Sigh . . . No sense of urgency. If these people were grad students in their 20s they would be working night and day and they would publish as quickly as possible to establish priority and win a Nobel. It is a shame everyone in this field is o-l-d. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: The January trial MUST include the control box. Why? It is the same box. I don't get it. It seems to me you trivialize the exercise here by playing what if the box were different. If you are going to unrealistic extremes you might as well compute how much heat the 1 L mystery box would produce if it were filled with plutonium-238 oxide. (Ans: 19 kg which produces ~11 kW, I think. So if Rossi has stolen millions of dollars worth of Pu-238 from Uncle Sam -- that explains it!) The February trial is at the moment anecdotal --- particularly as it has only ONE observer, and we don't have a report yet. It is all anecdotal. If you don't trust Levi then none of it means anything. I thought the NyTeknik report was as authoritative and technically complete as anything you will ever find in the mass media. It may be a year before we have any reports. Also, it misses a key element for me -- the TOTAL volume of the reactor, not just the chamber. The total volume is irrelevant. Levi poked around inside it and found nothing unusual and nothing that can generate energy. No hidden wires, no hidden fuel. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
From: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2011 10:03:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device Alan's website seems to have mistakes - You're right I reversed the conversion factor. and used KWH to MJ instead of MJ to KWH. What's a factor of 12 (in Rossi's favor) ... For the moment, I've just added a note at the top of V2 --- I'll change the figures for Version 3. (ps -- the spreadsheets are corrected and uploaded -- see http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_spread_v1.php ) Where's the smiley for (blush)
[Vo]:NIST phases out mercury thermometers
See: http://www.slate.com/id/2258112/ NIST no longer offers calibration services for mercury thermometers. They say that other types are as reliable and accurate. I think the main reason they phased them out is because mercury is toxic. My doctor still has a mercury blood pressure gauge (sphygmomanometer) and I must admit, I don't fully trust the electronic ones. Interesting quote: National Institute of Standards and Technology says that temperature is the second-most measured quantity on earth (after time), and most chemical process in most industries require scientists to monitor temperatures closely. Tell THAT to the skeptics who claim that people don't know how to measure temperatures! - Jed
[Vo]:Storms interview on Cash-flow, March 1, 2011, discussing Rossi
See transcript: http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/edmund-storms-on-the-rossi-device-there-will-be-a-stampede/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: Aluminum at 83.8 MJ/l would last 1.45 hours so it is too low by a factor of 12 (because 18 hours divided by 1.45 hours equals 12). But this is for solid aluminum and solid aluminum is almost 4 times more dense than powdered aluminum. So if Rossi had used 1 liter of powdered aluminum he would only get 0.38 hours (or 23 minutes) of 16 kW of heat output. Powdered aluminum is an explosive. I believe it was used in WWII air-dropped bombs. In the 1950s it was developed into a slurry explosive. See: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-82.htm Daisy Cutter This is a 15,000 lb bomb that has 12,600 lbs of aluminum powder. Several of the proposed chemical reactions could not be controlled except with elaborate delivery systems, which could not fit into the 1 L mystery box. Even non-elaborate delivery systems such as 12 kW gas burners would not fit. The burners in a 12 kW gas water heater take up far more space than 1 L. Also, as I mentioned, canisters of H2 and O2 placed inside the box at these high temperature would explode. I think this is not intended to be an analysis of what might have actually happened, since it is obvious that none of the proposed reactions could actually occur in only 1 L at such high temperatures. I think this is a look at the extreme limits of chemical reactions, ignoring practical considerations such as the fact that the fuel would explode, or it would emit toxic smoke and kill the observers. It is interesting as such. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
I still think it is a mistake to approach the demo from its purpose was to prove mode and it could be fake. However, what if the Hydrogen gas measure was wrong (say gauge jammed) and the 1 L vessel only held a hot Pt wire and an air leak. How much heat could you get from burning H2 to H20? There would be no smoke, nothing but steam as a product. The control would need to be nothing more than something to heat a Pt wire ( s ). How can you rule it out? What if you assume the counter positive. that it was not a Fake and Rossi new that? What information can we glean? The part I don't understand is why did Rossi have any demo at all? What was his motive if he already had funding and people working on multiple devices to cascade together. Why not just wait for the 1MW? Dennis From: Jed Rothwell Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: .. Also, as I mentioned, canisters of H2 and O2 placed inside the box at these high temperature would explode. I think this is not intended to be an analysis of what might have actually happened, since it is obvious that none of the proposed reactions could actually occur in only 1 L at such high temperatures. I think this is a look at the extreme limits of chemical reactions, ignoring practical considerations such as the fact that the fuel would explode, or it would emit toxic smoke and kill the observers. It is interesting as such. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Storms interview on Cash-flow, March 1, 2011, discussing Rossi
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See transcript: http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/edmund-storms-on-the-rossi-device-there-will-be-a-stampede/ I don't recall AR saying anything about performing the 1MW demo in Florida. Does Dr. Storms know something we do not? T
Re: [Vo]:Storms interview on Cash-flow, March 1, 2011, discussing Rossi
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I don't recall AR saying anything about performing the 1MW demo in Florida. Does Dr. Storms know something we do not? Rossi told me he will demonstrate the device before shipping it to Greece. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device
Dennis den...@netmdc.com wrote: However, what if the Hydrogen gas measure was wrong (say gauge jammed) and the 1 L vessel only held a hot Pt wire and an air leak. How much heat could you get from burning H2 to H20? This is ruled out. They weighed the hydrogen canister before and after. It would have weighted a lot less if hydrogen had been burning. What was his motive if he already had funding and people working on multiple devices to cascade together. I have heard he did the test as a favor to Focardi, who is old and may not live much longer. He wanted to see the results made public. It was a kind thing to do. - Jed
[Vo]:Word of the Day: Mesoscopic
Mesoscopic deals with submicron materials, generally between the size of a molecule and the largest bacterium. The lower limit can be atoms; so it is more of a superset of nano than an adjoining range on the high side; but it can be that as well. Mesoscopic usually implies at least a few dozen atoms, as with an 'exciton', up to many thousands, as in single biological cells. A macroscopic object obeys classical mechanics but when scaled down to a nano-size, it starts having overwhelming quantum mechanical properties. Why do we need a competing term with nano? Because the mesoscopic object has BOTH classical and quantum features as well as a mix of both, all at the same time in the same particle. It is simply a wider range, and implies a composite. It also implies complexity. The paper by Takahashi and Kitamura Mesoscopic Catalyst and D-Cluster Fusion http://rxiv.org/pdf/1012.0041v1.pdf supplies a number of interesting factoids and implications about Mesoscopic particles in LENR. The paper does not seem to be on the LENR/CANR site yet, but it could become a classic, so it should be. Under the auspices of Technova Inc (as in Toyota) these guys may have answers to the technical questions that the Rossi demo raises, but which Rossi is apparently ill-equipped to understand, or at least does not want to share. BTW - Technova is probably as close to solving the Rossi riddle as anyone, and with Toyota's money, they may try to upstage the MW demo with one of their own. Wouldn't it be a hoot if an alternative to E-Cat it turned up as a prototype in a Prius ??? One senses, in watching these developments as they emerge, that beating Rossi may become almost an issue of national pride for the Japanese in some ways, due to the pioneering work of Arata and Mizuno. Sadly, there is no deep pocket funder in the USA with the kind of longer range foresight as Toyota. On page 8 of the paper, there is an crude image worth only 999 words, showing why mesoscopic describes the active powder for this kind of LENR (which was discovered by Arata) better than nano. The nano-constituent of the particle requires a support which can be micron sized, and is usually a ceramic within which are imbedded the nano particles, and with subnano structural features, like pits and cavities. The 'support' at the meso level is needed to avoid stiction . which as we all remember from not-too-long ago was the bugaboo of hard-drives, in their swift evolution to terabyte, back when they started to go over 100 megs. The drive would fail due to the close tolerances and stiction. Any non-dielectric in the meso-size range, and some dielectrics will experience stiction, becoming less active. This is related to van der Waals forces. Jones
[Vo]:March 2011 Journal of Cosmology- Cyanobacteria = Alien Life
Greetings Vortex-L From the March 2011 Journal of Cosmology Cyanobacteria in Metrorites as Alien Life: http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html Ron Kita Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:March 2011 Journal of Cosmology- Cyanobacteria = Alien Life
Thank you, very interesting- I have included it in my weekly INFORMAVOREs SUNDAY No 445- at my blog Peter On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex-L From the March 2011 Journal of Cosmology Cyanobacteria in Metrorites as Alien Life: http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html Ron Kita Chiralex -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
