Re: [Vo]:A Third Way
Yes, the protons are far apart, however because the protons are in orbit they experience a relatively lengthy period of association compared to the brief encounter experienced by two protons randomly wandering about. The amount time they spend in orbit would tend to increase the probability of fusion by QM tunneling, although this temporal advantage might be completely offset by a probability reduction due to the large separation. Harry - Original Message From: mix...@bigpond.com mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 12:42:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Third Way In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:30:27 -0700 (PDT): Hi, In order for the ion to be negative it would have to have more electrons than are required of the neutral atom. Such ions are larger than atoms (quite a bit larger), and so the proton would be even further away than normal. IOW fusion would be less likely, rather than more likely. Furthermore, as the proton approached it would get inside the outer electrons of the ion, and would see a net positive body rather than a negative one, hence would be repelled. Would a proton *orbiting* a negatively charged ion be more likely to undergo spontaneous fusion with ion's nucleus than two free protons wondering around at room temperature? Harry From: Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 14, 2011 9:29:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Third Way This have very large orbits, but might heavy rydberg systems play role? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Rydberg_system (They were first observed in 2000) Harry From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 14, 2011 8:07:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Third Way I believe that the Randell L. Mills hydrino technology and the Rossi H-Ni technology are one in the same. From the mills patent application: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110114075 [quote]The power source of claim 2 wherein the reaction mixture comprising an oxidation-reduction reaction to cause the catalysis reaction comprises: (i) at least one catalyst chosen from Li, LiH, K, KH, NaH, Rb, RbH, Cs, and CsH[/quote] As a general statement, the catalyst for H-Ni technology is one or more of the following compounds Li, LiH, K, KH, NaH, Rb, RbH, Cs, and CsH. the catalyst is one among the alkali metals including lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), caesium (Cs). These elements will produce Rydberg matter in abundance when exposed to a hot hydrogen atmosphere. Because Rydberg matter is hard to detect and categorize, I believe that Mills is producing Rydberg matter and misinterpreting it as being fractionally charged hydrogen. It looks to me that Mills has every possible combination of catalysts and lattice material locked down and it will be an interesting legal battle for the courts to determine who controls the rights to the H-Ni technology. Mills has not yet recognized that Rydberg matter is at the bottom of his reactor just like it is for the reactors of Rossi and the rest. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future
Jed, I agree with our vision re. the competition between bulk and surface of Pd for D. It is about active sites on the surface call them NAE if you wish. The thirst of bulk for deuterium has a negative influence on the functionality of the active sites and therefore the conditions necessary for an usable energy source are not fulfilled: INTENSITY- depends on the density of the active sites; REPRODUCIBILITY- if the active sites are inactivated by gases different from deuterium, good-by reproductibility! CONTINUITY- active sites are dynamic, they have to be generated constantly for long time It seems the fact that cold fusion (largo sensu) was discovered in palladium was historical bad luck to the field. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: See: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/brian-ahern-getting-8-watts-in-low.html This article includes some quotes which I assume are from Ahern made during his MIT presentation. I wish people would attribute quotes more carefully. Some quotes: A rough calibration suggests that the 30 grams of hydrated nanopowder is putting out 5 watts of excess power. Rather too rough, in my opinion. I wish he would use a Seebeck calorimeter or something like that. Yesterday Peter Gluck suggested that the relationship between loading and excess power may be a myth. This seemed to be true for electrolysis with Pd and heavy water where loading levels exceeding 0.9 D/M were a prerequisite for observing excess power. I think Peter overstates this. Loading is correlated with excess power in bulk palladium-deuterium systems, especially with electrolysis. However that does not mean it correlates with gas loaded powder systems, or with hydrogen. In other words, the loading is necessary with bulk material, but that may be for some secondary reason. The high loading triggers unknown condition X, and condition X in turn triggers the heat. With gas loaded powder, condition X occurs by itself. My guess is that with bulk material, without high loading, the deuterons are not presented to the surface from underneath, and for some reason that is necessary. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Hot air rises, even in constant volume
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 11-06-11 01:58 PM, David Jonsson wrote: Hi This obvious fact from hot air balloons and rising smoke is also the case in constant volume. Just do the math if you can't see what I mean. Imagine a ball on lying at rest in a box. This is equivalent of a cold gas. All pressure from the ball is on the bottom of the box. The weight of the ball is just added to the box. Now let the ball do very fast bounces up and down. The box will not weigh as much as before because the ball is also bouncing on the ceiling of the box with almost as strong impulse as it is bouncing on the bottom. The box + ball weighs less. Wrong. You are claiming that a bouncing ball violates conservation of momentum, which is certainly false. What's more, you're attempting to show it with a gedanken experiment, based on the Newtonian mechanics model of the world, which includes conservation of momentum in its postulates! You can know with certainty before you start that the effect you're claiming isn't going to show up in your gedanken, unless arithmetic itself is logically inconsistent! If momentum is conserved, then total impulse on the ball due to impacts with the sides of the box, over a period of time, must exactly negate the total impulse delivered by gravity. Otherwise the ball's net momentum will change, and it obviously doesn't (at the end of the experiment, in the middle of a cycle, the ball's moving at the same speed it was, in the middle of a cycle, at the beginning of the experiment). Net weight of the ball is the average force needed to hold it up, which is the total impulse delivered to it divided by the total time. That *can't* change, by conservation of momentum, no matter how you assume the ball moves within the box. Do a real experiment, and demonstrate this, and you will have proved Newtonian mechanics is busted. That's very unlikely, but not absolutely ruled out on logical grounds. But using the Newtonian mechanics model itself, if you arrive at the conclusion that the box is lighter when the ball is bouncing, you can safely conclude that you did something wrong. That's not a conclusion you can ever get to from the Newtonian model. OK, sorry, but I also later came with a correction. Lets change the setup so that the ball bounces sideways. Do you agree that it now becomes lighter? This is because the centrifugal forces. The increase and decrease does not balance to zero. Do you also agree that with the sideways bouncing ball there is also a small torque on the box, due to the same differences in centrifugal acceleration? David
[Vo]:EM waves in water
Hi Is there a chance that an electrical heater from 50 Hz AC will leave electromagnetic waves in the water? Are there any good pages on this subject? I remember someone connecting a coil to a sound source and had water in the coil and that the water picked up the magnetic field. Who was this? Besrt wishes, David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future
Peter, Does your comment regarding reproducibility also apply to Brian Ahern's baking of nano powder in regular air? Do you think he would do better to bake in a vacuum? Would even inert gases like helium be inferior to vacuum? The recent thread on different alloying methods of spin melting, sputtering, electroless plating and deposition already suggests the preparation is just as important as material selection in creating these active sites but now it appears these sites, from the moment of creation, must be protected from contamination or they will simply self destruct. I am still of the old MAHG school of thought where the initial energy source is thought to be ZPE / dynamic Casimir effect which repeatedly translates the orbitals of whatever gas molecules are trapped at the active sites in the changing Casimir geometry/changing energy density. The Haisch-Moddel patent suggests there is something to be gained even when applying noble gas to these sites based on Lamb Pinch but I don't think this would be considered a destructive force since the geometry is much less active and the endless gas circulation is controlled through a large surface area of alternating Casimir and non Casimir geometry forcing endless LESSER translations in both directions as compared to hydrogen which would need smaller geometry and alternate between H1 and H2. I think the Haisch Moddel theory of operation being based on noble gas indirectly supports your perspective on gas loading density being a misleading metric - a coincidence of bulk properties that doesn't apply to powder. My point is that we may need to start testing matrices of different baking procedures with different cover gases or vacuum conditions along with the different alloying methods and secret catalysts already being discussed. It may be that the real difficulty is in maintaining these active sites once created and if we solve that issue we could find the sites are being created and self destructing all around us all the time but so reactive they simply vanish faster than we can detect. Regards Fran From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Jed, I agree with our vision re. the competition between bulk and surface of Pd for D. It is about active sites on the surface call them NAE if you wish. The thirst of bulk for deuterium has a negative influence on the functionality of the active sites and therefore the conditions necessary for an usable energy source are not fulfilled: INTENSITY- depends on the density of the active sites; REPRODUCIBILITY- if the active sites are inactivated by gases different from deuterium, good-by reproductibility! CONTINUITY- active sites are dynamic, they have to be generated constantly for long time It seems the fact that cold fusion (largo sensu) was discovered in palladium was historical bad luck to the field. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/brian-ahern-getting-8-watts-in-low.html This article includes some quotes which I assume are from Ahern made during his MIT presentation. I wish people would attribute quotes more carefully. Some quotes: A rough calibration suggests that the 30 grams of hydrated nanopowder is putting out 5 watts of excess power. Rather too rough, in my opinion. I wish he would use a Seebeck calorimeter or something like that. Yesterday Peter Gluck suggested that the relationship between loading and excess power may be a myth. This seemed to be true for electrolysis with Pd and heavy water where loading levels exceeding 0.9 D/M were a prerequisite for observing excess power. I think Peter overstates this. Loading is correlated with excess power in bulk palladium-deuterium systems, especially with electrolysis. However that does not mean it correlates with gas loaded powder systems, or with hydrogen. In other words, the loading is necessary with bulk material, but that may be for some secondary reason. The high loading triggers unknown condition X, and condition X in turn triggers the heat. With gas loaded powder, condition X occurs by itself. My guess is that with bulk material, without high loading, the deuterons are not presented to the surface from underneath, and for some reason that is necessary. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future
Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Stremmenos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple, cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Peter, Does your comment regarding reproducibility also apply to Brian Ahern’s baking of nano powder in regular air? Do you think he would do better to bake in a vacuum? Would even inert gases like helium be inferior to vacuum? The recent thread on different alloying methods of spin melting, sputtering, electroless plating and deposition already suggests the preparation is just as important as material selection in creating these active sites but now it appears these sites, from the moment of creation, must be protected from contamination or they will simply self destruct. I am still of the old “MAHG” school of thought where the initial energy source is thought to be ZPE / dynamic Casimir effect which repeatedly translates the orbitals of whatever gas molecules are trapped at the active sites in the changing Casimir geometry/changing energy density. The Haisch-Moddel patent suggests there is something to be gained even when applying noble gas to these sites based on Lamb Pinch but I don’t think this would be considered a destructive force since the geometry is much less active and the endless gas circulation is controlled through a large surface area of alternating Casimir and non Casimir geometry forcing endless LESSER translations in both directions as compared to hydrogen which would need smaller geometry and alternate between H1 and H2. I think the Haisch Moddel theory of operation being based on noble gas indirectly supports your perspective on gas loading density being a misleading metric – a coincidence of bulk properties that doesn’t apply to powder. My point is that we may need to start testing matrices of different baking procedures with different cover gases or vacuum conditions along with the different alloying methods and secret catalysts already being discussed. It may be that the real difficulty is in maintaining these active sites once created and if we solve that issue we could find the sites are being created and self destructing all around us all the time but so reactive they simply vanish faster than we can detect. Regards Fran *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:21 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Jed, I agree with our vision re. the competition between bulk and surface of Pd for D. It is about active sites on the surface call the m NAE if you wish. The thirst of bulk for deuterium has a negative influence on the functionality of the active sites and therefore the conditions necessary for an usable energy source are not fulfilled: INTENSITY- depends on the density of the active sites; REPRODUCIBILITY- if the active sites are inactivated by gases different from deuterium, good-by reproductibility! CONTINUITY- active sites are dynamic, they have to be generated constantly for long time It seems the fact that cold fusion (largo sensu) was discovered in palladium was historical bad luc k to the field. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/brian-ahern-getting-8-watts-in-low.html This article includes some quotes which I assume are from Ahern made during his MIT presentation. I wish people would attribute quotes more carefully. Some quotes: A rough calibration suggests that the 30 grams of hydrated nanopowder is putting out 5 watts of excess power. Rather too rough, in my opinion. I wish he would use a Seebeck calorimeter or something like that. Yesterday Peter Gluck suggested that the relationship between loading and excess power may be a myth. This seemed to be true for electrolysis with Pd and heavy water where loading levels exceeding 0.9 D/M were a prerequisite for observing excess
[Vo]:An invention looking for a market?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/06/14/137172713/is-this-even-real?ps=cpr s attachment: winmail.dat
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future
Peter, The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reactor wall surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don't think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum. Fran From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Stremmenos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple, cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
Re: [Vo]:EM waves in water
At 06:06 AM 6/15/2011, David Jonsson wrote Is there a chance that an electrical heater from 50 Hz AC will leave electromagnetic waves in the water? Are there any good pages on this subject? If you mean, are EM waves left in the water after the heater is turned off : NO ! If you mean, will 50hz AC propagate in the water : Short answer : probably not. Long answer : Pure water is an insulator. Sea water is only slightly conductive. http://www.qsl.net/vk5br/UwaterComms.htm The attenuation in db/Meter = 0. 0173 * sqrt ( frequency_in_herz * conductivity_mohs_per_meter) Conductivity : Sea water : 4.8 Drinking water: 5×10-4 to 5×10-2 Attenuation for drinking water : db/M = 0.0085 Since we're only talking about a few cm, I guess the answer is : yes, they COULD propagate. But there are two heaters : the external one is outside of the copper tubing, so nothing would propagate. The internal one is probably made from a coil of resistive wire, so I suppose it COULD transmit a little. But it is unlikely to be inside the reactor chamber itself. So I doubt that it would have any effect on anything.
Re: [Vo]:An invention looking for a market?
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/06/14/137172713/is-this-even-real?ps=cpr s Pooper scooper? Hey, speaking of poop, the ultimate in recycling: http://inhabitat.com/poop-burger-japanese-researcher-creates-artificial-meat-from-human-feces You want fries with that? T
[Vo]:What is the aggregate mass of virtual particles in our universe
These are follow-up questions, and the questions posed are very much related to my previous subject thread: A Third Way. It's my understanding that certain types of subatomic virtual particles possess mass, such as fermions, electrons, positrons, etc... It's also my understanding virtual particles are no different than real particles - only that their existence in our universe is fleeting. Nevertheless, I gather there are circumstances (which includes special experiments that have been conducted) where the fleeting nature of virtual particles can be disentangled in such a manner that causes their fundamental nature to become permanent in our universe. I could be wrong on this point but I get the impression that the universe as it, how shall I put it... -quantum fluctuates- produces a LOT of virtual particles, this despite the fact that individually speaking their life spans are exceedingly short. Nevertheless this suggests that at any moment in time, the aggregate total mass of all of these virtual particles could turn out to be a LOT. This begs several questions... Could the aggregate total mass of all these virtual particles account for some of the dark matter detected in our universe? Better yet, has this premise already been questioned and pursued by scientists and physicists? Due to the fact that individual virtual particles exist ever-so briefly in our universe, they would NEVER EVER get the chance to clump up into physical objects like planets, stars, and such. The mass of virtual particles would just sort of suddenly hang around in certain areas of the universe and remain frustratingly undetectable. This has also let me to wonder whether r if quantum fluctuations DO vary in different areas of the universe, thus producing more virtual mass than in other areas... there would seem to be more dark matter detected in certain areas of the universe than in other areas. If so, what circumstances would produce an increase in quantum fluctuations in these areas of the universe. In conclusion, I'm speculat'in here that... state changes in various types of elements (and/or alloys) as they transition back and forth between crystalline solids and that of a liquid might also possibly account for an increase in certain kinds of quantum fluctuations, which in turn results in an increase in sub-atomic particle generation, as well as additional mass. Inquiring minds want to know. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future
Dear Fran, We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of partially damaged sites. There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps Rossi has found a better one. Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be achieved and maintained? Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than Ni- but only experiment can say. Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1 ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Peter, The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don’t think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum. Fran *From:* Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple, cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:OxyVac?
I have wondered why a better vacuum might be made by filling it with oxygen, pumping it out, then chemically trapping the rest of the oxygen. --Not saying its a good idea, but does anyone care to comment? Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:42:15 +0300 Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dear Fran, We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of partially damaged sites. There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps Rossi has found a better one. Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be achieved and maintained? Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than Ni- but only experiment can say. Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1 ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Peter, The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don’t think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum. Fran From: Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple, cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories.Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: -- Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romaniahttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future
Dear Peter, My posit wasn't very clear but what I was trying to suggest is that these sites under discussion are only poor cousins to what could be accomplished in a vacuum where the geometry is unlimited. My premise is that without vacuum the changes in energy density will heat any ambient gases and make the metal plastic hot such that the stiction forces are relieved by either melting closed or growing whiskers perpendicular to the surfaces. If we could prevent this damage we would have far more reactive sites. Fran From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:42 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Dear Fran, We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of partially damaged sites. There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps Rossi has found a better one. Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be achieved and maintained? Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than Ni- but only experiment can say. Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1 ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Peter, The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don't think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum. Fran From: Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.commailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple, cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:OxyVac?
The concentration of oxygen at that point would be so slight that most methods of chemically removing it, any I can think of, simply won't work. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Wm. Scott Smith scott...@hotmail.com wrote: I have wondered why a better vacuum might be made by filling it with oxygen, pumping it out, then chemically trapping the rest of the oxygen. --Not saying its a good idea, but does anyone care to comment? Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:42:15 +0300 Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dear Fran, We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of partially damaged sites. There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps Rossi has found a better one. Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be achieved and maintained? Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than Ni- but only experiment can say. Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1 ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Peter, The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don’t think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum. Fran From: Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple, cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:OxyVac?
Interesting- if oxygen replaces the other gases. can you suggest a method of chemically trapping oxygen? Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Wm. Scott Smith scott...@hotmail.comwrote: I have wondered why a better vacuum might be made by filling it with oxygen, pumping it out, then chemically trapping the rest of the oxygen. --Not saying its a good idea, but does anyone care to comment? -- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:42:15 +0300 Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dear Fran, We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of partially damaged sites. There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps Rossi has found a better one. Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be achieved and maintained? Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than Ni- but only experiment can say. Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1 ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Peter, The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don’t think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum. Fran *From:* Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple, cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:OT:Economic crisis and post-capitalism
Economic crisis and post-capitalism http://www.redpepper.org.uk/economic-crisis-and-post-capitalism/ First of all, it involves recognising that maximising the growth of output is not a valid guiding principle of economic management in a modern society. While in pre-industrial societies, where scarcity and famine always threatened, a tendency to produce as much as possible may have been an understandable default position, it is no longer justified in an era when the production problem has effectively been solved, i.e. we have the technical capacity to produce far beyond our capacity or need to consume. Given the ever growing global surplus of labour noted above, it is no longer possible to pretend, if it ever was, that full employment is a realistic goal. This is already widely understood, though not explicitly recognised, across the political spectrum in the UK, where attempts to devise a welfare system that encourages people to work while ensuring they avoid deprivation have proved futile over the years – as illustrated by New Labour’s attempt to cajole single mothers to take menial or non-jobs on the basis that they could then afford to hire a child minder. This points to the necessity of devising a system of income distribution which incentivises people to undertake only work which is necessary – including caring activities which at present are largely unpaid – and does not penalise people for being unemployed. The most obvious benefits of a basic or citizen’s income, paid at a flat rate to every adult irrespective of their income or employment status, would be that every individual would be assured of basic subsistence without the need for means testing. The administrative costs of means testing would be saved, as would the personal irritation and humiliation. People could undertake paid work or start small businesses without losing any benefit, while at the same time they could afford to undertake unpaid work of value to the community – including as carers – which might otherwise not be done.
[Vo]:mass-energy of virtual photons in our universe
Just calculating the energy density of a single wavelength appears to give us infinite mass-energy at a point as the particle size approaches zero. John Wheeler pointed out that one cannot physically go smaller than the planck length for a wavelength size, because the Universe would collapse into a giant black hole at these neutron-star type mass-energy densities. Cosmologically speaking, others worry that allowing wavelengths that are quite a bit larger than that would make the universe expand out of control. Now I don't know if somehow these two considerations balance each other out. All I know is that ZPE proponents have argued that very small wavelengths exist, but are somehow gravitationally neutral or that their Gravitational attraction wears out as we consider ever-smaller sizes. I have heard that around the size where the em wavelengths are strong enough to explain the Strong Nuclear Force, is about where a runaway inflation of the Universe is no longer a concern. Personally, I don't think that runaway inflation is a problem to this model, because I think that gravity is caused by these smaller wavelengths. Recent papers in advanced optical theory have calculated that ordinary light can exert a negative pressure on certain materials. Perhaps the reverse could also be true: that some kinds of light can exert negative pressure on ordinary matter. At this level of consideration, one would have to think of Energy, momentum, inertia and gravity as forces that are informing matter where to go and how fast. Scott Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:37:46 Scott0500 From: svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:What is the aggregate mass of virtual particles in our universe These are follow-up questions, and the questions posed are very much related to my previous subject thread: A Third Way. It's my understanding that certain types of subatomic virtual particles possess mass, such as fermions, electrons, positrons, etc... It's also my understanding virtual particles are no different than real particles - only that their existence in our universe is fleeting. Nevertheless, I gather there are circumstances (which includes special experiments that have been conducted) where the fleeting nature of virtual particles can be disentangled in such a manner that causes their fundamental nature to become permanent in our universe. I could be wrong on this point but I get the impression that the universe as it, how shall I put it... -quantum fluctuates- produces a LOT of virtual particles, this despite the fact that individually speaking their life spans are exceedingly short. Nevertheless this suggests that at any moment in time, the aggregate total mass of all of these virtual particles could turn out to be a LOT. This begs several questions... Could the aggregate total mass of all these virtual particles account for some of the dark matter detected in our universe? Better yet, has this premise already been questioned and pursued by scientists and physicists? Due to the fact that individual virtual particles exist ever-so briefly in our universe, they would NEVER EVER get the chance to clump up into physical objects like planets, stars, and such. The mass of virtual particles would just sort of suddenly hang around in certain areas of the universe and remain frustratingly undetectable. This has also let me to wonder whether r if quantum fluctuations DO vary in different areas of the universe, thus producing more virtual mass than in other areas... there would seem to be more dark matter detected in certain areas of the universe than in other areas. If so, what circumstances would produce an increase in quantum fluctuations in these areas of the universe. In conclusion, I'm speculat'in here that... state changes in various types of elements (and/or alloys) as they transition back and forth between crystalline solids and that of a liquid might also possibly account for an increase in certain kinds of quantum fluctuations, which in turn results in an increase in sub-atomic particle generation, as well as additional mass. Inquiring minds want to know. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OxyVac?
Peter Gluck: Interesting- if oxygen replaces the other gases. can you suggest a method of chemically trapping oxygen? nano iron particles that we prepared in a noble gas and then released into the chamber only after the vacuum had been pumped out as much as possible. Other elements would probably be better, sodium? On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Wm. Scott Smith scott...@hotmail.com wrote: I have wondered why a better vacuum might be made by filling it with oxygen, pumping it out, then chemically trapping the rest of the oxygen. --Not saying its a good idea, but does anyone care to comment? Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:42:15 +0300 Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dear Fran, We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of partially damaged sites. There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps Rossi has found a better one. Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be achieved and maintained? Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than Ni- but only experiment can say. Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1 ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Peter, The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don’t think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum. Fran From: Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple, cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories.Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: -- Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romaniahttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romaniahttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future
Dear Fran, you are right re vacuum, please take a look to Molecular Beam Epitaxy- this happens in very high and creative vacuum. The sites are daughters of Vacuum- at least for MBE and Piantelli. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Dear Peter, My posit wasn’t very clear but what I was trying to suggest is that these sites under discussion are only poor cousins to what could be accomplished in a vacuum where the geometry is unlimited. My premise is that without vacuum the changes in energy density will heat any ambient gases and make the metal plastic hot such that the stiction forces are relieved by either melting closed or growing whiskers perpendicular to the surfaces. If we could prevent this “damage” we would have far more reactive sites. Fran *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:42 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Dear Fran, We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obt ains his nanoNi by a physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of partially damaged sites. There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps Rossi has found a better one. Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be achieved and maintained? Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than Ni- but only experiment can say. Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compun ds, even under 1 ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Peter, The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. nbsp ;I would suggest instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don’t think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum. Fran *From:* Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) w orks only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple, cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Italian voters reject nuclear power
There was a referendum on nuclear power in Italy a few days ago. The voters overwhelmingly rejected re-opening or building new nuclear plants. This has been big news in Japan, but I have not seen much about in the U.S. press. Here is a short article about it: Italian voters overwhelmingly reject nuclear power 14 June 2011 | 08:12 | FOCUS News Agency Rome. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has acknowledged defeat in opposition-backed referendums aimed at blocking the revival of nuclear energy and abolishing a law exempting government ministers from attending trials against them, the Voice of America reports. Mr. Berlusconi said Monday the government will accept the clear result of the vote on the four referendums. The other two involved plans to privatize Italy's water utilities. Official results released Tuesday showed that nearly 95 percent of those who turned out rejected plans to return to nuclear power. The final results show a 57 percent voter turnout, which exceeds the 50 percent quorum needed to validate the vote. Even before the polls had closed, Mr. Berlusconi conceded that Italy “probably” would have to give up plans to return to nuclear energy and commit itself to renewable energy. Mr. Berlusconi's government proposed last year to restart nuclear power plants, but then put the plan on hold following the nuclear disaster at Japan's Fukushima plant in March. Italy's nuclear plants were shut down in 1987 after a similar referendum. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:OxyVac?
Scott, Why oxygen over an inert gas? I would fear the oxygen would either form oxides with the nickel or alloy surfaces which would then short out the Casimir geometry, Or start disassociating and then reforming molecular O2 rapidly due to changes in the smallest Casimir geometry which would then create hot spots that melt closed or grow whiskers across the most active sites. Fran From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:OxyVac? I have wondered why a better vacuum might be made by filling it with oxygen, pumping it out, then chemically trapping the rest of the oxygen. --Not saying its a good idea, but does anyone care to comment? Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:42:15 +0300 Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dear Fran, We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of partially damaged sites. There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps Rossi has found a better one. Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be achieved and maintained? Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than Ni- but only experiment can say. Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1 ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Peter, The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don't think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum. Fran From: Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.commailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple, cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:OxyVac?
Does anyone have a recipe for removing oxides from Ni powder? How about baking the Ni nano powder in nitrogen (or He, or ??) Or is a vacuum best? For how long and at what temperature? How does one calculate oxide levels in nickel powder to compare one method over another? Curious minds want to know... - Brad
[Vo]:The irony if Pd turns out to be suboptimal
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: It seems the fact that cold fusion (largo sensu) was discovered in palladium was historical bad luck to the field. It will be hugely ironic if that turns out to be case. I am trying to think of some similar event in this history of technology, in which people devoted several decades to a suboptimal method or material. Offhand, I cannot think of a good example. There are examples of somewhat-suboptimal branches of technology continuing for a while, such as germanium transistors being developed before silicon. But there were good reasons for using Ge for a while. They could not make Si pure enough. It wasn't a mistake so much as a limitation that was later overcome. You can't compare a laboratory phenomenon such as cold fusion to a practical technology such as Ge transistors in 1952. There may be some laboratory-scale phenomena that flailed around for decades because people were using the wrong approach. I guess a close example would be technology that stalled for a long time. It did not advance to the next logical step. Electromagnets being used in practical motors and generators, for example. Electromagnets were discovered by Oersted in 1819. The first practical one was made by Sturgeon in 1825, and greatly improved by Henry in 1830. That led to the first practical application: the telegraph. Henry deserves most of the credit but Morse got the cash. For some reason, unclear to me, it took a long time to make the first practical electric motors. I guess you could say researchers floundered around with unpromising or suboptimal approaches. See: http://www.sparkmuseum.com/MOTORS.HTM Incredibly smart people such as Faraday worked on this. They invented many other things that were practical and commercially successful. Yet as you see, even in the 1870s their electric motors were impractical. More like something from the 18th century gentleman scientist era. I think Edison was the first to make a commercially useful generator, as part of the incandescent electric light system. He brought out an entire system of lights, generators and meters, not just the bulbs. - Jed
[Vo]:Chlorine Gas, Sodium electrical attraction to collect molecules
The powder is introduce to the chamber after inert gas is evacuated from it. I chose oxygen, but really, Chlorine Gas would be better, it could be reacted with sodium. It might be necessary to electrically attract the remaining Chlorine since it might be two dispersed to react out very fast, even with sodium nano particles. Actually, water is the hardest thing to get rid of, glass absorbs unbelievable quantities of it. I don't know if they ever solved the problem, but that was what Langmuir was working on about the time he made his anomalous heat discovery. Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:48:10 -0400 From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:OxyVac? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Scott,Why oxygen over an inert gas? I would fear the oxygen would either form oxides with the nickel or alloy surfaces which would then short out the Casimir geometry, Or start disassociating and then reforming molecular O2 rapidly due to changes in the smallest Casimir geometry which would then create hot spots that melt closed or grow whiskers across the most active sites.Fran From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:OxyVac? I have wondered why a better vacuum might be made by filling it with oxygen, pumping it out, then chemically trapping the rest of the oxygen. --Not saying its a good idea, but does anyone care to comment?Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:42:15 +0300 Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dear Fran, We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of partially damaged sites. There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps Rossi has found a better one. Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be achieved and maintained? Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than Ni- but only experiment can say. Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1 ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:Peter,The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don’t think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum. Fran From: Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal sur face- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple,cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories.Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: -- Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romaniahttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Hot air rises, even in constant volume
On 11-06-15 09:03 AM, David Jonsson wrote: On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: But using the Newtonian mechanics model itself, if you arrive at the conclusion that the box is lighter when the ball is bouncing, you can safely conclude that you did something wrong. That's not a conclusion you can ever get to from the Newtonian model. OK, sorry, but I also later came with a correction. Lets change the setup so that the ball bounces sideways. Do you agree that it now becomes lighter? This is because the centrifugal forces. The increase and decrease does not balance to zero. Do you also agree that with the sideways bouncing ball there is also a small torque on the box, due to the same differences in centrifugal acceleration? Dunno -- I'm going to have to think about that one, and I haven't had the time to really understand it. It seemed wrong when a similar assertion was first posted (months ago) and still seems wrong to me but I haven't got a proof that it's wrong, so I could be the one who's wrong.
Re: [Vo]:OT:Economic crisis and post-capitalism
Who all this global debt is owed to is of course the 64 quadrillion dollar question. I suspect global lenders of this delicious debt are not likely to give up all the accumulated power they have amassed over the decades either. Like hell they are not going to go past Go and not expect to collect another $200! After all, they carefully designed the Monopoly game to suit their invested interests! ;-) Here lies a major global revolution that is sure to come, and possibly in my lifetime too. I suspect the event will terrify many. Thanks for posting the article, Harry. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Liq N2 Milling the best
Milling just about anything goes much better in liq N2. They even crush car tires to dust!!! Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:48:10 -0400 From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:OxyVac? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Scott,Why oxygen over an inert gas? I would fear the oxygen would either form oxides with the nickel or alloy surfaces which would then short out the Casimir geometry, Or start disassociating and then reforming molecular O2 rapidly due to changes in the smallest Casimir geometry which would then create hot spots that melt closed or grow whiskers across the most active sites.Fran From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:OxyVac? I have wondered why a better vacuum might be made by filling it with oxygen, pumping it out, then chemically trapping the rest of the oxygen. --Not saying its a good idea, but does anyone care to comment?Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:42:15 +0300 Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dear Fran, We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of partially damaged sites. There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps Rossi has found a better one. Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be achieved and maintained? Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than Ni- but only experiment can say. Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1 ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:Peter,The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don’t think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum. Fran From: Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal sur face- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple,cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories.Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: -- Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romaniahttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:OT:Economic crisis and post-capitalism
I mentioned a similar set of ideas a few months ago: http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ See also the book by Rifkin, The End of Work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-15 00:47, Akira Shirakawa wrote: A week of news is incoming, apparently: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/e-cat-settimana-di-novita-in-arrivo.html More photos in this Google-translated link of the latest Blog entry from 22passi. For additional information it looks like we will have to wait some more time: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1sl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F06%2Fquattro-gatti-e-sette-persone.html Short URL: http://goo.gl/C854K Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:EV World discusses Rossi's e-Cats Is it real or Fake?
http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=12blogid=972archive=1 Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Liq N2 Milling the best
There was a discussion somewhere on vortex about the 2 large red cylinders in the background of the Jan 14 video (I think) someone said these were Nitrogen tanks. Food for thought On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Wm. Scott Smith scott...@hotmail.comwrote: Milling just about anything goes much better in liq N2. They even crush car tires to dust!!! -- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:48:10 -0400 From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:OxyVac? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Scott, Why oxygen over an inert gas? I would fear the oxygen would either form oxides with the nickel or alloy surfaces which would then short out the Casimir geometry, Or start disassociating and then reforming molecular O2 rapidly due to changes in the smallest Casimir geometry which would then create hot spots that melt closed or grow whiskers across the most active sites. Fran *From:* Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:59 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:OxyVac? I have wondered why a better vacuum might be made by filling it with oxygen, pumping it out, then chemically trapping the rest of the oxygen. --Not saying its a good idea, but does anyone care to comment? -- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:42:15 +0300 Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dear Fran, We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology and the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of partially damaged sites. There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps Rossi has found a better one. Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be achieved and maintained? Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than Ni- but only experiment can say. Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers are extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1 ppm. To determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of copper salt to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Peter, The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall surface. Perhaps the external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction forces? I don’t think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum. Fran *From:* Peter Gl uck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially, WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process. We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing. I believe that clean metal sur face- is a sine qua non condition for a working material/setup. This is a simple, cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories. Peter On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:The irony if Pd turns out to be suboptimal
Germanium has advantages over silicon. The forward voltage drop for the p/n junction is 0.2 V vs. 0.7 V. Also, switching speeds are higher for germanium. T
Re: [Vo]:The irony if Pd turns out to be suboptimal
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Germanium has advantages over silicon. The forward voltage drop for the p/n junction is 0.2 V vs. 0.7 V. Also, switching speeds are higher for germanium. That should read faster instead of higher.
Re: [Vo]:EV World discusses Rossi's e-Cats Is it real or Fake?
Quoting Fletcher in the article: The first type of fake has a “Fixed Energy Content” – such as chemicals or batteries. To detect these, we make it “run out of gas”. How long would that take? To be very, very conservative, assume that the ENTIRE volume of the eCAT contains “Fakium”, that NO space is taken by tanks or burners, and that it is 100% efficient. Nope, sorry. Such assumptions are not very, very conservative. They are very, very unrealistic, to the point of being a fantasy. As I have said before, the exercise become unhelpful when you assume there is fuel but no tanks or burners. A critique has to be plausible for it to be meaningful. Waving your hands and saying: suppose there is some kind of fuel that does not require tanks or burners makes the discussion so hypothetical, and so far removed from how things work, it seems pointless. If we are talking about medical science, this is like saying, suppose we discover the perfect medicine that cures all diseases and lets people live forever. It is empty speculation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:EV World discusses Rossi's e-Cats Is it real or Fake?
As previously stated: What would it benefit a Professor with standing to do a fake. A fake is pointless. It is harder to do a fake than the real deal. The words : scam and fakes ..I think Rossi is a milennia beyond such. Ron Kita..it is time to move on. it was time months ago. as they would say in my youth: UNCLE. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:58 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=12blogid=972archive=1 Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:EV World discusses Rossi's e-Cats Is it real or Fake?
At 02:49 PM 6/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Nope, sorry. Such assumptions are not very, very conservative. They are very, very unrealistic, to the point of being a fantasy. As I have said before, the exercise become unhelpful when you assume there is fuel but no tanks or burners. There are heat producing machines at 100% thermal efficiency, and rockets at 96% fuel content. Why quibble over 5% ? As I've said again and again, these are UPPER BOUNDS which CANNOT be exceeded. What should one do ... postulate a design and say that the fuel content is 50% -- then someone will pop up and say but I can design it with 50.5% efficiency, so your conclusion is wrong. eg http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2011/ICCF16/pres/ET01Grabowski-RobustPerformanceValidation.pdf The test should be conducted for a sufficient continuous period to strongly exclude the possibility of stored chemicals generating the observed energy output. Where do you put strongly exclude ? 50%, 50% ? 49% 51% ? Setting it at 100% fuel 100% efficiency puts it BEYOND argument.
Re: [Vo]:The irony if Pd turns out to be suboptimal
Terry Blanton wrote: Germanium has advantages over silicon. Obsolete technology usually does have some advantages. It is rare that the new version is optimum in every way. That is why old and even ancient technology is almost immortal. A carpenter uses hand tools such as knives from time to time. Fishing boats still use sails for trawling. I have been completely dependent on computers since 1979 but I still use a pen and paper occasionally. As Arthur Clarke said, mankind never gives up a tool. I'll bet there are people who find it handy to use stone cutting tools. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:EV World discusses Rossi's e-Cats Is it real or Fake?
Alan J Fletcher wrote: There are heat producing machines at 100% thermal efficiency, and rockets at 96% fuel content. Why quibble over 5% ? No liquid-fueled rocket as small as the eCat can have 96% fuel. A solid fuel rocket might be. Your analysis should either exclude liquid fuels or include a plausible margin for the tank and burners. As I've said again and again, these are UPPER BOUNDS which CANNOT be exceeded. What should one do ... postulate a design and say that the fuel content is 50% -- then someone will pop up and say but I can design it with 50.5% efficiency, so your conclusion is wrong. No, you should say that the smallest tank and burner on the market takes up a certain volume -- which you can estimate within reasonable bounds -- and unless this person wants to engage in a pointless fantasy she should accept this. The test should be conducted for a sufficient continuous period to strongly exclude the possibility of stored chemicals generating the observed energy output. Where do you put strongly exclude ? 50%, 50% ? 49% 51% ? Look that up in an engineering textbook. Setting it at 100% fuel 100% efficiency puts it BEYOND argument. It puts it beyond a reasonable, reality-based discussion. From my point of view, you are only feeding the fantasies of the deny-everything school of pseudo-skeptics. Don't play this game by their rules, or they will always win. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone.html Looks like AR has four EKits running simultaneously similar to the plan for the 1MW reactor. T
Re: [Vo]:Italian voters reject nuclear power
Hi, In Europe it was mentioned in several countries in news bulletins on radio and tv. In the mean time the Dutch government has agreed to go ahead with the building of the second nuclear power plant in Borssele, while Germany is planning to stop nuclear power plants. People in Germany have already been warned that winter might be very cold when insufficient energy is available. Andrea we are much in need for your eCat, please let the kitten out of the bag. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Italian voters reject nuclear power
The Japanese will be colder. Already, they have totally changed their business culture. They are wearing Hawaiian shirts and sandals to work because the air conditioning is off. One worker said that had he dressed like this before the accident he would have been fired. Saki sales are up! T
Re: [Vo]:Italian voters reject nuclear power
Hi, On 16-6-2011 1:12, Terry Blanton wrote: The Japanese will be colder. Already, they have totally changed their business culture. They are wearing Hawaiian shirts and sandals to work because the air conditioning is off. One worker said that had he dressed like this before the accident he would have been fired. Saki sales are up! T That was on German TV as well, but certain businessmen that were also interviewed said they still wore ties, as their company didn't issue a new dress code (yet). Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Italian voters reject nuclear power
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: That was on German TV as well, but certain businessmen that were also interviewed said they still wore ties, as their company didn't issue a new dress code (yet). Interesting. The report I heard was on our National Public Radio, audio only. T
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone.html Looks like AR has four EKits running simultaneously similar to the plan for the 1MW reactor. Looks like 4 Ekits running in series with white rubber hoses for the water interconnecting the units. There's only one temperature probe . . . on the last Ekit. Pure speculum. T
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
Has the black wrapping replaced the tin foil or is the foil underneath? What sort of material is black wrapping? Harry - Original Message From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 7:33:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/quattro-gatti-e-sette-persone.html Looks like AR has four EKits running simultaneously similar to the plan for the 1MW reactor. Looks like 4 Ekits running in series with white rubber hoses for the water interconnecting the units. There's only one temperature probe . . . on the last Ekit. Pure speculum. T
[Vo]:Japanese news plays up Kamiokande neutrino experiment
This was featured on NHK today: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/first-results-from-japanese-neut.html What gets me is that one of the reports in Japanese ( http://www.asahi.com/science/update/0615/TKY201106150551.html) says they have been at it since 2010 and they have seen 6 particles. Six! And these high-energy physicists claim that cold fusion is not reproducible enough to be believe! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The irony if Pd turns out to be suboptimal
I wrote: I'll bet there are people who find it handy to use stone cutting tools. Come to think of it, I do! My daughter got me a Kyocera ceramic knife. Very handy. It is an updated stone-age tool. As Jarad Diamond pointed out in the book Collapse, the stone age was not one continuous, unchanging epoch. Stone tools evolved and improved radically in different parts of the world. The ones from later periods are much better than the early ones. Kyocera is a continuation of that development. We still build houses out of stone, too. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 05:20 PM 6/15/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Has the black wrapping replaced the tin foil or is the foil underneath? What sort of material is black wrapping? The black wrapping first appeared on the vertical column the mini eCat -- see the March experiment by Kullander and Essén. It's shown partly unwrapped at http://lenr.qumbu.com/110406-c-Img+4+OUTPUT.jpg Looks like fancy duct tape.
Re: [Vo]:The irony if Pd turns out to be suboptimal
At 05:35 PM 6/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: I'll bet there are people who find it handy to use stone cutting tools. Come to think of it, I do! My daughter got me a Kyocera ceramic knife. Very handy. It is an updated stone-age tool. I recently collected some obsidian .. and cut my hand while doing so. It's reportedly still used for ultra-sharp scalpels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
On 2011-06-16 02:37, Alan J Fletcher wrote: The black wrapping first appeared on the vertical column the mini eCat -- see the March experiment by Kullander and Essén. It's shown partly unwrapped at http://lenr.qumbu.com/110406-c-Img+4+OUTPUT.jpg Looks like fancy duct tape. It looks quite thick to me. Couldn't it be lead-bitumen or lead sheet wrapping? Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:mass-energy of virtual photons in our universe
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:22 Wm. Scott Smith wrote [snip] All I know is that ZPE proponents have argued that very small wavelengths exist, but are somehow gravitationally neutral or that their Gravitational attraction wears out as we consider ever-smaller sizes. I have heard that around the size where the em wavelengths are strong enough to explain the Strong Nuclear Force, is about where a runaway inflation of the Universe is no longer a concern.[/snip] Scott, Papers by Christian Beck and Michael Mackey Measureability of vacuum fluctuations and dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605418 and Electromagnetic dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703364 propose virtual photons with frequency less than 2 THz are more gravitationally active than those above. Their claims are presently only theoretical awaiting experimental evidence to prove slower virtual photons are more gravitationally active. [Abstract] from Electromagnetic Dark Energy We introduce a new model for dark energy in the universe in which a small cosmological constant is generated by ordinary electromagnetic vacuum energy. The corresponding virtual photons exist at all frequencies but switch from a gravitationally active phase at low frequencies to a gravitationally inactive phase at higher frequencies via a Ginzburg-Landau type of phase transition. Only virtual photons in the gravitationally active state contribute to the cosmological constant. A small vacuum energy density, consistent with astronomical observations, is naturally generated in this model. We propose possible laboratory tests for such a scenario based on phase synchronisation in superconductors. [/abstract] My posit, derived from Naudt's suggestion of the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen, is that energy density only changes from a relativistic perspective and that a local observer at the bottom of a huge gravitational well or in a supression zone created by Casimir geometry will always perceive the local energy density as unchanged, unaware of any changes in energy density or t' or C. Yes the gravitational attraction will APPEAR to wear out but my point is that this appearance is due to a relativistic perspective and that it is due to the ratio of t to t'. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:The irony if Pd turns out to be suboptimal
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I recently collected some obsidian .. and cut my hand while doing so. It's reportedly still used for ultra-sharp scalpels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian Wow. That's neat! So the stone age is literally continuing to up the present moment. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 02:15 PM 6/14/2011, Alan Fletcher wrote: He sure is a hard-liner on the term Cold Fusion. -- Krivit's previous blog entry is a doozy: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/06/cold-fusion-may-ye-rest-in-peace/ He's nuts on this. There is some ambiguity in the term fusion, a confusion between process and result. If I have a black box and you put deuterium in, and get helium and energy out, is it a fusion box? Or does fusion refer only to a specific process, say two deuterons being slammed together at high velocity, or coaxed together with some catalyst, such as muons? As we know, most directly, the ash or product, fusion is most clearly applied to this. If we put in deuterium and get fusion out, it's fusion, even if neutron formation is part of the process. Basically, Widom-Larsen makes ULM neutrons from deuterium and heavy electrons, and the neutrons fuse with various nuclei, in a proposed series of reactions that end with, among other products, helium. Problem is, only the helium product is seen in large quantities, compared to produced energy. And an amazingly efficient process of absorption of gamma rays, expected from the neutron activations, is hypothesized for the heavy electrons. No leakage around the edges. Be that as it may, Krivit went on a crusade to discredit the strongest evidence in existence for a nuclear reaction, the ash findings, i.e., helium, and the results from which the heat/helium ratio is estimated. It seems impossible to me to reconcile the heat/helium data, as it is, with Widom-Larsen, but W-L theory is inadequately elaborated, a point that Krivit does not seem to appreciate. With some, W-L theory seems popular because it allows a person to dissociate themselves from the allegedly rejected (and definitely detested by some) cold fusion label. The original rejection, howeve, was based almost entirely on an assumption that, if there is fusion, it must be ordinary d-d fusion, when, obviously, it isn't. I heard a number of theoretical physicists, at the LANR colloquium at MIT last weekend, describe reasons why even d-d fusion might be occurring, but most theories seem to be inclined to multibody fusion, or at least the involvement of clusters, which can fairly readily explain the branching issue and the lack of gammas. I know of no cold fusion theory, however, that adequately explains or predicts all the experimental data. When I say It's fusion!, I mean that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect is due to the conversion of deuterium to helium, *mechanism unknown. That's a fusion theory, to be sure, but it's one with ample experimental evidence, that avoids specifying the mechanism. It predicts that if you set up an F-P experiment, or some other technique that exploits the same (unknown) mechanism, you will see helium generated in proportion to the heat, at about 25 MeV/He-4. Because of the predictive value, this is a scientific theory -- some have ridiculed the idea of a theory without a mechanism. A theory need not explain *everything,* if it can predict *something*, that ought to be obvious. Now, what does W-L predict that can be measured? Someone tell me!
Re: [Vo]:Steve Krivit's initiative
At 02:30 PM 6/14/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Since the Widom-Larsen theory explains the positive results, can it also explain the negative results. A good theory should be able to do both. I don't see W-L theory explaining positive results, at all. If so, it's been very badly explained! Krivit completely failed to be the investigative journalist, asking hard questions, with W-L theory. Yes, a good theory would explain both positive and negative results. Nothing is really close to that yet, though what I heard at MIT last weekend does give me some hope. Still, Peter Hagelstein was struggling with models for electrochemical loading. Apparently the standard models suck, to use a technical term. Peter has more or less figured out why, but it's very difficult to model, since it depends on quite a chaotic and very individual process, for each cathode, as it develops what he calls internal leaks, that is, leaks into internal cavities and domain boundaries, that eventually communicate to the outside. Put another way, the palladium can develop a high surface area, with most of the surface being internal and not exposed to the electrolyte and thus to loading, only to deloading.
