Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
I just saw this post. I am only reading about 1 in 20 posts due to lack of time. I hope if anything technical develops in long threads that new threads with meaningful titles are created. On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, David Roberson wrote: On an earlier post I suggested that the LENR reactions such as those exhibited by Rossi could have been triggered by cosmic rays. I was a little disappointed by the few comments that were generated and I was hoping to further study this possibility. One of the main skeptic positions is that it takes far more energy to activate the fusion like reaction than is available at normal temperatures. Why should we limit our thoughts to some form of steady state conditions for the initiation of the reactions when it may just take some triggering events to overcome the barriers? How many different initiation locations are required to make a block of TNT explode? Hopefully these are not occurring randomly, and if they were, who could store the material safely? Let’s try to determine whether or not the basic cosmic ray trigger concept is possible. If it is, what evidence should we look for in an effort to make that determination? First, is there enough energy available within a cosmic ray to activate a LENR reaction at any location within a nickel-hydrogen complex? Mr. Cude suggests that it takes in excess of 100 keV to overcome the proton to nickel coulomb barrier. His number seems agreeable to me, and now the question is whether or not this can be obtained by cosmic ray collisions? Second, if a small volume of material achieves reaction and releases several MeV of energy does the material then allow the reaction to spread? Of course the release of many MeV at the active region now would be adequate to enable more reactions since it far exceeds the 100 keV threshold suggested if in the correct form. Is there evidence pro or con as to whether or not this is happening? Third, are the pits seen on the electrodes of electrolysis type systems an indication that small regions are undergoing some form of extreme spot heating? Could this crater forming type of event suggest that miniature reactions involving millions of atoms are occurring? If so, why does the reaction head along one main path toward the surface instead of spread out uniformly? Could it be that the reaction follows the path of one of the suspect cosmic ray particles as it moves like a bulldozer through the matrix? Is it possible that the energy is released in a favorable direction to conserve momentum? Forth, I was reading that muons are one of the main particles remaining once a cosmic ray reaches the ground level. Have they been shown to activate cold fusion reactions in lab experiments and considered a well respected proven concept? I understand that the normal process is for DT reactions to be catalyzed, but there is mention of formation of a neutron like atomic structure. The size of this combination proton-muon group is extremely tiny and might be capable of overcoming the coulomb barrier by tunneling into the nickel nucleus. Why could this not happen within the Rossi type reactor where hydrogen gas is held within a high temperature and pressure environment? Could this then deliver the triggering energy needed? The muon reaction does not work for p + p because p + p is a weak reaction, thus has a very small cross section, very small reaction distance. It requires (in nuclear terms) a much long exposure time and much closer proximity than D+D, D+T or P+D. As you can see, I have listed a lot of questions that seek answers. The vortex community has numerous experts available that could help enlighten me and others if they would take a little time to consider these questions. I would find your responses as a well deserved break from the endless semantic games that are filling the bandwidth. Was the vortex originally formed as a collection of scientifically interested persons intending to discuss new concepts? Please demonstrate that we are here to work together instead of arguing endlessly. Thanks guys. Dave In my deflation fusion theory the Coulomb barrier is overcome due to formation of a small magnetic force based electron orbital. The resulting hydrogen is neutral, thus there is no Coulomb barrier to it tunneling into a nearby nucleus as an ensemble. Further, magnetic gradients make the tunneling energy positive, thus greatly increasing the tunneling range, and thus reducing the lattice half-life of such an entity. Anything that increases electron density and flux around/through absorbed hydrogen nuclei, without destroying the lattice, increases the density of the deflated state and the probability of fusion. I think controlled electron flux is much better than electrons freed by cosmic rays, because lattice destruction should be much less
Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, David Roberson wrote: Second, if a small volume of material achieves reaction and releases several MeV of energy does the material then allow the reaction to spread? Of course the release of many MeV at the active region now would be adequate to enable more reactions since it far exceeds the 100 keV threshold suggested if in the correct form. Is there evidence pro or con as to whether or not this is happening? Chain reactions happen far faster than big atoms move or melt. The melting is a secondary effect that happens after the reaction is finished. The nuclear active site, or NAS, appears to be located below the surface. The melting and expansion drives the material out through the surface, making a crater like formation. Various estimates of energies and reaction rates have been given. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf (vi) Location/size. The presence of discrete, randomly distributed sites (hot spots, craters, boulders, etc) implies the existence of volumes within the electrode material where conditions promoting the highly energetic reactions exist. In estimating their magnitude, one must make a certain number of assumptions, eg (i) energy per single event is that of the reaction D + D He, (ii) the number of single events to produce a crater is on the order of 10^4 or higher, depending upon its radius[9], (iii) the number of single events needed to generate the “hot spot” displayed by IRimaging is on the order of 10^4 or higher, depending upon its size and brightness. Under these conditions and assuming the loading ratio greater than unity, one can calculate the radius of this volume to be on the order of 100 Å or higher. The events take place within the bulk material in the close vicinity to the contact surface. If producing one watt of output requires 6.24x10^11 fusions, as shown earlier, and each comic ray triggers 10^4 reactions, then 6.24x10^7 pits per second should show up, per watt of output. This does not appear to be a reasonable pit formation rate, nor anywhere near a cosmic ray background count. At 4 kW output that would be about 10^16 pits for a 10 hour test. Pit formation then is a very unusual thing if high energy density long term reactions exist, as Rossi claims. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
I just noticed that Krivit just created a few pages that shows that he is declaring war against anyone that uses Cold Fusion name as a description to LENR. Dr. Mitchell Swartz page, disclosing personal email exchange: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Swartz/Mitchell-Swartz-Cold-Fusion-Researcher.shtml Bob Park column page, showing how awful Cold Fusion is: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/bpcf/bpcf.shtml McKubre's M4 bogus experiment index: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml Dougla Morrison's 1990 criticism agains cold fusion. Notice that in Newslatter 23 he compares cold fusion to the persecution of Jewish professors in Nazi Germany. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/DROM/DROM.shtml Now, notice that Krivit declares Holy War against Cold Fusion here (notice that in the linked letter inside the article that most of the arguments are based on religious texts, only): http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/21/lenrs-versus-cold-fusion-and-the-search-for-scientific-truth/ Notice that the purpose of all this is to promote Widom Larsen theory. He even published a clueless letter of a interested layman a few days ago who is clueless about theories that describe transmutations besides WL theories: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/19/lenr-plays-like-a-real-life-science-fiction-movie-2/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
On 2011-12-22 12:08, Daniel Rocha wrote: McKubre's M4 bogus experiment index: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/20111221ToWhomItMayConcern.shtml In the above link it appears to me that Krivit is not just attacking McKubre, but also accusing him of scientific fraud, or at the very least strongly implying that he is involved in it. This is stuff for lawyers that won't benefit at all the entire LENR field, and I mean including WL as well. Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Celani replication boosts Rossi patent
Interesting: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=6#comment-154138 1. Sterling Allan http://Leonardo-ECat.com December 22nd, 2011 at 1:59 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=6#comment-154138 Here’s the latest recap *E-Cat Weekly — December 22, 2011* – The past week saw around 30 unique stories posted about Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, including from at least 2 mainstream sources. The main highlights include talk about crowd funding of a 1 MW purchase; and reports of the Coherence 2011 conference in Rome where Francesco Celani reported achieving overunity with Ni-H fusion. (PESN ; December 22, 2011) 2. Andrea Rossi December 22nd, 2011 at 2:49 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=6#comment-154169 Dear Sterling Allan: The work of Celani (congratulations) shows that in my patent application I gave enough information to allow to an expert to reproduce the effect. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Celani replication boosts Rossi patent
On 2011-12-22 14:09, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Dear Sterling Allan: The work of Celani (congratulations) shows that in my patent application I gave enough information to allow to an expert to reproduce the effect. What Rossi is implying here is that the information disclosed in his patent application has allowed professor Celani to replicate his results. I seriously doubt this is the case. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Celani replication boosts Rossi patent
Don't shoot me, I'm only the reporter. If you have an issue with what Rossi claims, take it up with him on his blog. AG On 12/22/2011 11:43 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-12-22 14:09, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Dear Sterling Allan: The work of Celani (congratulations) shows that in my patent application I gave enough information to allow to an expert to reproduce the effect. What Rossi is implying here is that the information disclosed in his patent application has allowed professor Celani to replicate his results. I seriously doubt this is the case. Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
From Akira: -Original Message- McKubre's M4 bogus experiment index: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/20111221ToWhomItMayConcern.sh tml In the above link it appears to me that Krivit is not just attacking McKubre, but also accusing him of scientific fraud, or at the very least strongly implying that he is involved in it. This is stuff for lawyers that won't benefit at all the entire LENR field, and I mean including WL as well. In the past I believe Krivit has strongly given the impression that scientific fraud was perpetuated by McKubre. I recall this particular issue hit me right in the face when I was still a New Energy Times board member. This happened a year or two ago, when Krivit went on an internet radio show and implied that key CF researchers had lied about their research. Krivit didn't directly say they lied about their data during the interview, but he made it quite clear what he wanted the listeners to draw such a conclusion. I privately talked about the content of Krivit's interview to a lawyer I have known for years. His response back to me was that Krivit was using weasel words... to imply what he really wanted his listeners to conclude. It was the final straw for me - one of the primary reasons I resigned from the NET board of directors. The lawyer thought that my decision to resign was a wise decision on my part. Personally, I have yet to understand what cold fusion really is, what it actually stands for, and particularly the actual physics that might allegedly be behind it. I'm nevertheless astonished that there are people who want to turn the CF word into a pariah - and then conveniently insert their own brand word. I don't think anything good will come of this. Certainly not for Mr. Krivit. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
This is awful. Krivit's attack on McKubre is beyond the pale. I do not want to say anything more about that. I do not want think about it. One thing though. I hesitate to rake over long-ago controversies, but I would like to point out something about this fax from Swartz to Krivit here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Swartz/Mitchell-Swartz-Cold-Fusion-Researcher.shtml Swartz sent me a similar letter when I quoted one of his papers and offered to upload it. He threatened legal action in words similar to this fax if I ever quote his papers or upload one. He sent me two messages like this. That is why I deleted his papers from ICCF Proceedings at LENR-CANR.org. People may have difficulty believing he would make such extreme threats, but he did. From time to time he accuses me of censorship. It is his decision not to allow papers. I told him to send me explicit permission if he has changed his mind. I sent him a suggested draft of a letter granting permission. I would happy to copy to anyone or share here . . . although it seems unimportant. I don't mean to pick at a scab here. But I would like to once again make it clear that I want no adversarial relationship with anyone in this field. That includes even the most extreme skeptics. If Close or Park send me a contribution, I will be happy to upload it. My opinion of the work does not enter into it, except in rare cases when I (or Ed Storms) decide a paper has nothing to do with cold fusion. I would never upload a paper against the wishes of an author. I have never had a problem with any other author making threats, or even getting upset. I am never insistent. I ask. They say no. End of story. Ten or 20 authors have refused permission or not responded. Several publishers have refused, which is understandable. The only exception I make to this rule is when the author is deceased and he or she was someone I knew would not mind. Someone like Okamoto or Lonchampt, who were were great guys. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
From Akira, McKubre's M4 bogus experiment index: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/20111221ToWhomItMayConcern.shtml In the above link it appears to me that Krivit is not just attacking McKubre, but also accusing him of scientific fraud, or at the very least strongly implying that he is involved in it. This is stuff for lawyers that won't benefit at all the entire LENR field, and I mean including WL as well. FWIW, I believe Mr. Krivit has received the equivalent of cease and desist letters from lawyers in the past pertaining to various subjects he was investigating. I think he may even have published a few of those documents, presumably to show the chronological order of the investigation process... but perhaps also to imply that he was getting under their skin. I would speculate that Mr. Krivit probably feels that he has accumulated sufficient experience in such matters such that he feels he can weather the storm. That remains to be seen, however. All I know is that it sure wouldn't be in my own self-interest to look for trouble. This strikes me as terribly reckless behavior. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Solar photovoltaic (PV) versus concentrating solar power (CSP)
This is a complicated balancing act. See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/12/value-of-csp-increases-substantially-at-high-solar-penetration This year, PV is widely seen as winning the competition with CSP, even though CSP has some advantages. Sometimes a promising technology fades away in competition was something that is good enough and becomes widespread for various reasons unrelated to quality. Over the years a lot of money has been invested in PV. This has dramatically driven down the price. Even though this may not be the best solution for all applications it will probably win out. Robert Cringley pointed out that most markets can only support one or two major standards, such as the PC and the Mac, or back in the days of record players 33 rpm and 45 rpm. There are various reasons for this. One is that people working in the field can only master one or two variations. A computer programmer might be adept at PC plus the Mac but it becomes a stretch to also master other operating systems, and to maintain software in them. There are not enough people and not enough talent to go around. - Jed
[Vo]:Defkalion comments on the competent observer visit
See: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4956#p4956 For the record, I do not think anyone is putting pressure on me. I do not mind any of the questions here or at the Defkalion forum. I regret that I cannot address some of them. I hope I can say more in the near future. As I said, we should not make too much of this. It is a positive step, but it would be ridiculous to suddenly believe everything Defkalion claims on the basis of a hearsay report from me. This is at best a reason to turn down your level of doubt by several notches. If I were Mary Yugo, in view of my report I would think twice about making lurid accusations that Defkalion is engaged in fraud. I would cut back on the use of adjectives such as exorbitant, incredible, extreme . . . If it turns out Defkalion has nothing, you can make the case for this now without going out on a limb. You will be just as right when the facts are revealed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: All I know is that it sure wouldn't be in my own self-interest to look for trouble. This strikes me as terribly reckless behavior. It is particularly reckless when you can make every argument without including accusations of fraud. Krivit can say that McKubre is wrong for thus and such technical reasons. If it turns out McKubre is in fact wrong, Krivit wins. He does not need to discuss motivation. Let the reader decide whether McKubre was incompetent or dishonest. Along the same lines, I can show that the data published by MIT was manually manipulated. (See the Miles paper.) I do not have to accuse the profs at MIT of academic fraud. Why should I accuse them of anything? For all I know they manually messed up the data while preparing the graph, and they never noticed it. A mistake is bad enough. It should have been corrected either way. I'm not being hypocritical. I have no inside knowledge about MIT beyond what Gene told me. Naturally I trust his account. I suppose they were probably nefarious. I personally have no proof and I concede it might be an accident. I'm not a police investigator. Also along the same lines, as I just mentioned, if Mary Yugo thinks Defkalion is up to no good, she can make a case for that without resorting to extreme accusations and without going out on a limb. It is enough to say it looks like fraud to me or it looks like incompetence. If it turns out she is right, she will get as much credit and praise for being right as she would for making a bolder assertion. - Jed
[Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Am I to assume you examined the mathematical modeling and resulting curves in the links I provided and have analyzed and rejected them for some good reason? Yes. I have seen blacksmiths at work. I have seen one heat a large chunk of iron, as big as the reactor core, to red hot incandescence. This is hotter than an electric heater could make the core. The iron is dunked into a bucket of water. This produces a cloud of steam, and then rapid boiling for a minute or two. It does not cause the bucket of water to boil for four hours. There is no conceivable way to store that much heat in this much iron. You can verify that with a small-scale experiment. Try heating a nail and putting it in water. I seriously suggest people should try this. Why not? a skeptic who sincerely believes it is possible to achieve this effect by conventional means should do some simple tests to confirm that. Evidently the mathematical modeling is wrong. I do not have to determine the details when it is obvious the conclusions conflict with everyday experience and fundamental observational physics to this extent. If someone makes a mathematical model showing that I can jump over the Empire State building I do not need to prove it is wrong. Note that Rossi means Smith. Perhaps he comes from a long line of blacksmiths. He has the kind of intuitive skills that a good blacksmith has. People have been working with hot iron for thousands of years. They know how it works. I know how it works. All the skeptical hypotheses that attempt to explain these test contradict knowledge going back hundreds of thousands of years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
Rossi is an extremely common Italian surname. I can see Rossi used as a name of a company everywhere here, since several million people in my country descends from Italians. 2011/12/22 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Note that Rossi means Smith. Perhaps he comes from a long line of blacksmiths. He has the kind of intuitive skills that a good blacksmith has. People have been working with hot iron for thousands of years. They know how it works. I know how it works. All the skeptical hypotheses that attempt to explain these test contradict knowledge going back hundreds of thousands of years. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
Horace: The problem I see with some kind of outside trigger is that the turn-on of excess heat would occur randomly. how does one control when that cosmic ray or muon will initiate the reaction? In one of the demos, it appeared to turn on at a specific temperature. -mark From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger? I just saw this post. I am only reading about 1 in 20 posts due to lack of time. I hope if anything technical develops in long threads that new threads with meaningful titles are created. On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, David Roberson wrote: On an earlier post I suggested that the LENR reactions such as those exhibited by Rossi could have been triggered by cosmic rays. I was a little disappointed by the few comments that were generated and I was hoping to further study this possibility. One of the main skeptic positions is that it takes far more energy to activate the fusion like reaction than is available at normal temperatures. Why should we limit our thoughts to some form of steady state conditions for the initiation of the reactions when it may just take some triggering events to overcome the barriers? How many different initiation locations are required to make a block of TNT explode? Hopefully these are not occurring randomly, and if they were, who could store the material safely? Let's try to determine whether or not the basic cosmic ray trigger concept is possible. If it is, what evidence should we look for in an effort to make that determination? First, is there enough energy available within a cosmic ray to activate a LENR reaction at any location within a nickel-hydrogen complex? Mr. Cude suggests that it takes in excess of 100 keV to overcome the proton to nickel coulomb barrier. His number seems agreeable to me, and now the question is whether or not this can be obtained by cosmic ray collisions? Second, if a small volume of material achieves reaction and releases several MeV of energy does the material then allow the reaction to spread? Of course the release of many MeV at the active region now would be adequate to enable more reactions since it far exceeds the 100 keV threshold suggested if in the correct form. Is there evidence pro or con as to whether or not this is happening? Third, are the pits seen on the electrodes of electrolysis type systems an indication that small regions are undergoing some form of extreme spot heating? Could this crater forming type of event suggest that miniature reactions involving millions of atoms are occurring? If so, why does the reaction head along one main path toward the surface instead of spread out uniformly? Could it be that the reaction follows the path of one of the suspect cosmic ray particles as it moves like a bulldozer through the matrix? Is it possible that the energy is released in a favorable direction to conserve momentum? Forth, I was reading that muons are one of the main particles remaining once a cosmic ray reaches the ground level. Have they been shown to activate cold fusion reactions in lab experiments and considered a well respected proven concept? I understand that the normal process is for DT reactions to be catalyzed, but there is mention of formation of a neutron like atomic structure. The size of this combination proton-muon group is extremely tiny and might be capable of overcoming the coulomb barrier by tunneling into the nickel nucleus. Why could this not happen within the Rossi type reactor where hydrogen gas is held within a high temperature and pressure environment? Could this then deliver the triggering energy needed? The muon reaction does not work for p + p because p + p is a weak reaction, thus has a very small cross section, very small reaction distance. It requires (in nuclear terms) a much long exposure time and much closer proximity than D+D, D+T or P+D. As you can see, I have listed a lot of questions that seek answers. The vortex community has numerous experts available that could help enlighten me and others if they would take a little time to consider these questions. I would find your responses as a well deserved break from the endless semantic games that are filling the bandwidth. Was the vortex originally formed as a collection of scientifically interested persons intending to discuss new concepts? Please demonstrate that we are here to work together instead of arguing endlessly. Thanks guys. Dave In my deflation fusion theory the Coulomb barrier is overcome due to formation of a small magnetic force based electron orbital. The resulting hydrogen is neutral, thus there is no Coulomb barrier to it tunneling into a nearby nucleus as an ensemble. Further, magnetic gradients make the tunneling energy positive, thus greatly increasing the tunneling range, and thus reducing the lattice half-life of such an entity.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion comments on the competent observer visit
On 2011-12-22 16:44, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4956#p4956 On a side note, speaking of Defkalion GT, while reading E-Cat related comments on a different website I found this image originating from PESN [1]: http://i.imgur.com/lFWUT.gif I too hope that 2012 will be the year of LENR commercialization. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://pesn.com/2011/12/22/9601988_E-Cat_Weekly_December22/
[Vo]:[OT] New SciFi Author
At least he is new to me. With my commute, I have loads of time to listen to audio books. I usually download these from our library and stumbled across Embassytown by China Mieville. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Mieville He has basically established his own genre called The New Weird and it certainly is. Have you ever heard of a rat king? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_king_(folklore) T
Re: [Vo]:[OT] New SciFi Author
Oh, nice, it seems his political orientation aligns pretty much with mine, which is quite rare for SciFi writers. Makes me want to read his books, hmm. 2011/12/22 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com At least he is new to me. With my commute, I have loads of time to listen to audio books. I usually download these from our library and stumbled across Embassytown by China Mieville. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Mieville He has basically established his own genre called The New Weird and it certainly is. Have you ever heard of a rat king? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_king_(folklore) T -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
*I speculate that the trigger results in a release of potential energy to kinetic energy in a quantum mechanical system.* *The nuclear reaction (fusion) is kept in a state of inaction or IOW, quantum mechanical superposition (QMS) for an indefinite timeframe until triggered.* *This trigger causes decoherence of the state of QMS to release the potential energy stored in the system.* On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Horace: The problem I see with some kind of outside trigger is that the “turn-on” of excess heat would occur randomly… how does one control when that cosmic ray or muon will initiate the reaction? In one of the demos, it appeared to turn on at a specific temperature. -mark ** ** *From:* Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] *Sent:* Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:32 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger? ** ** I just saw this post. I am only reading about 1 in 20 posts due to lack of time. I hope if anything technical develops in long threads that new threads with meaningful titles are created. ** ** ** ** On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, David Roberson wrote: On an earlier post I suggested that the LENR reactions such as those exhibited by Rossi could have been triggered by cosmic rays. I was a little disappointed by the few comments that were generated and I was hoping to further study this possibility. One of the main skeptic positions is that it takes far more energy to activate the fusion like reaction than is available at normal temperatures. Why should we limit our thoughts to some form of steady state conditions for the initiation of the reactions when it may just take some triggering events to overcome the barriers? How many different initiation locations are required to make a block of TNT explode? Hopefully these are not occurring randomly, and if they were, who could store the material safely? Let’s try to determine whether or not the basic cosmic ray trigger concept is possible. If it is, what evidence should we look for in an effort to make that determination? First, is there enough energy available within a cosmic ray to activate a LENR reaction at any location within a nickel-hydrogen complex? Mr. Cude suggests that it takes in excess of 100 keV to overcome the proton to nickel coulomb barrier. His number seems agreeable to me, and now the question is whether or not this can be obtained by cosmic ray collisions?* *** Second, if a small volume of material achieves reaction and releases several MeV of energy does the material then allow the reaction to spread? Of course the release of many MeV at the active region now would be adequate to enable more reactions since it far exceeds the 100 keV threshold suggested if in the correct form. Is there evidence pro or con as to whether or not this is happening? Third, are the pits seen on the electrodes of electrolysis type systems an indication that small regions are undergoing some form of extreme spot heating? Could this crater forming type of event suggest that miniature reactions involving millions of atoms are occurring? If so, why does the reaction head along one main path toward the surface instead of spread out uniformly? Could it be that the reaction follows the path of one of the suspect cosmic ray particles as it moves like a bulldozer through the matrix? Is it possible that the energy is released in a favorable direction to conserve momentum? Forth, I was reading that muons are one of the main particles remaining once a cosmic ray reaches the ground level. Have they been shown to activate cold fusion reactions in lab experiments and considered a well respected proven concept? I understand that the normal process is for DT reactions to be catalyzed, but there is mention of formation of a neutron like atomic structure. The size of this combination proton-muon group is extremely tiny and might be capable of overcoming the coulomb barrier by tunneling into the nickel nucleus. Why could this not happen within the Rossi type reactor where hydrogen gas is held within a high temperature and pressure environment? Could this then deliver the triggering energy needed? ** ** The muon reaction does not work for p + p because p + p is a weak reaction, thus has a very small cross section, very small reaction distance. It requires (in nuclear terms) a much long exposure time and much closer proximity than D+D, D+T or P+D. ** ** As you can see, I have listed a lot of questions that seek answers. The vortex community has numerous experts available that could help enlighten me and others if they would take a little time to consider these questions. I would find your responses as a well deserved break from the endless semantic games that are filling the bandwidth. Was
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion comments on the competent observer visit
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If I were Mary Yugo, in view of my report I would think twice about making lurid accusations that Defkalion is engaged in fraud. Where did I make lurid accusations of fraud? Links please? I would cut back on the use of adjectives such as exorbitant, incredible, extreme . . . Why? 300,000 sales from 3 factories projected in 2012 is exorbitant, incredible, extreme . . . and more. So are claims of placing nuclear fusion reactors in homes with self-destruct technology and entirely remotely controlled safeties and regulation. Don't you read what they write? If it turns out Defkalion has nothing, you can make the case for this now without going out on a limb. You will be just as right when the facts are revealed. Critics of what Defkalion has said and not shown are not out on a limb any more than Rossi's are. Defkalion has still shown absolutely nothing to the general public except a few images of some bizarrely arranged lab equipment.
RE: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
Jed wrote: Swartz sent me a similar letter when I quoted one of his papers and offered to upload it. He threatened legal action in words similar to this fax if I ever quote his papers or upload one. He sent me two messages like this. That is why I deleted his papers from ICCF Proceedings at LENR-CANR.org. People may have difficulty believing he would make such extreme threats, but he did. From time to time he accuses me of censorship. It is his decision not to allow papers. I told him to send me explicit permission if he has changed his mind. I sent him a suggested draft of a letter granting permission. This sounds very much like bipolar or borderline personality disorder . I've known, and once dated, persons who were likely suffering from either of these, and calm rational discourse with the person is completely ineffective. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
From Mary Yugo: Am I to assume you examined the mathematical modeling and resulting curves in the links I provided and have analyzed and rejected them for some good reason? I assume you addressed this query to Mr. Rothwell. Nevertheless, I have two cents of my own to add. Having run thousands of computer simulations using FEMM (Finite Element Method Magnetics) I can say with absolute conviction that the results will be completely worthless if the input and results generated from the computer model are based on inaccurate assumptions. I have been guilty of making such mistakes. My mistakes were brought to my attention when I eventually got around to producing an actual physical model - which was supposed to verify to my satisfaction that all the prior mathematical modeling I had been generating for months was correct. Alas, my assumptions turned out to be wrong, dead wrong. This revelation... well... I can certainly say that it felt personally humiliating. However, I would not have traded the experience for anything in the world. Garbage in, garbage out. Mary, as already suggested by Mr. Rothwell, I suggest you might want to consider performing an actual physical experiment. I'm sure you have sufficient tools at your disposal to perform such an experiment. For example, if you have access to an electric stove, heat up one of the smaller elements to the point that it becomes red hot. Then, carefully remove it from the stove (using tongs and insulated gloves!) and dump it into a pail of water. Carefully record the temperature of the water over a passage of time. Be sure to have some fun while performing the experiment. It's science! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
Daniel Rocha wrote: Now, notice that Krivit declares Holy War against Cold Fusion here (notice that in the linked letter inside the article that most of the arguments are based on religious texts, only): http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/21/lenrs-versus-cold-fusion-and-the-s earch-for-scientific-truth/ Notice that the purpose of all this is to promote Widom Larsen theory. Daniel, that article was written by none other than Lew Larsen himself: LENRs Versus Cold Fusion and the Search for Scientific 'Truth' A Philosophical Comment for 2012 by Lewis G. Larsen, Lattice Energy LLC Krivit simply linked to it. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
Yes, I know the article was written by Larsen. I'm sorry that I was not clear, the linked letter inside the article should be the linked letter inside the blog post. Anyway, Krivit endorses the opinion. 2011/12/22 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Daniel Rocha wrote: ** ** “Now, notice that Krivit declares Holy War against Cold Fusion here (notice that in the linked letter inside the article that most of the arguments are based on religious texts, only): http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/21/lenrs-versus-cold-fusion-and-the-search-for-scientific-truth/ Notice that the purpose of all this is to promote Widom Larsen theory. ** ** Daniel, that article was written by none other than Lew Larsen himself: ** ** LENRs Versus “Cold Fusion” and the Search for Scientific ‘Truth’ A Philosophical Comment for 2012 by Lewis G. Larsen, Lattice Energy LLC ** ** Krivit simply linked to it. ** ** -Mark ** ** -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
On Dec 22, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Horace: The problem I see with some kind of outside trigger is that the “turn-on” of excess heat would occur randomly… how does one control when that cosmic ray or muon will initiate the reaction? In one of the demos, it appeared to turn on at a specific temperature. -mark Cosmic ray background is random but essentially a continuous condition on the time scale of nuclear active site generation. Nuclear active sites capable of chain reactions are not dense. They are islands which apparently grow with time, otherwise events many orders of magnitude larger than 10^4 fusions would occur. The size of craters would not be nearly uniform. The cross section of such islands to cosmic rays etc. apparently grows slowly, and is affected by temperature, and external conditions and forms of stimulation. This is one reason LENR can not be expected to be useful for nuclear explosives. Triggers in the form of cosmic rays and other background radiation are constantly present in the environment. The active sites have to be generated on demand. Practical LENR is inherently a dynamic process. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
The background to this story is that Mitchell lSwartz does not approve of Jed Rothwell and Ed Storms content policy for the LENR library. They have said they prefer to include papers in the library which will raise the credibitily and respectability of the field ( and I don't just mean they prefer nicely formated papers without spelling mistakes). Based on my reading of Swartz anything that smacks of pandering makes his stomach turn so he views the policy as politically motivated censorship. Harry On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jed wrote: “Swartz sent me a similar letter when I quoted one of his papers and offered to upload it. He threatened legal action in words similar to this fax if I ever quote his papers or upload one. He sent me two messages like this. That is why I deleted his papers from ICCF Proceedings at LENR-CANR.org. People may have difficulty believing he would make such extreme threats, but he did. From time to time he accuses me of censorship. It is his decision not to allow papers. I told him to send me explicit permission if he has changed his mind. I sent him a suggested draft of a letter granting permission.” This sounds very much like bipolar or borderline personality disorder … I’ve known, and once dated, persons who were likely suffering from either of these, and calm rational discourse with the person is completely ineffective. -Mark
Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094
Hi, On 22-12-2011 4:07, Jeff Driscoll wrote: Basically a high energy photon's first step towards becoming matter happens at orbitstate n = 1/137.05999679 which Mills terms the transition state orbitsphere. Here's that number 137 again, is it possibly the same 137 which applies to the maximum number of steps for squeezing a hydrino? Kind regards and a Merry X-mas to you all, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
On Dec 22, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Am I to assume you examined the mathematical modeling and resulting curves in the links I provided and have analyzed and rejected them for some good reason? Yes. I have seen blacksmiths at work. I have seen one heat a large chunk of iron, as big as the reactor core, to red hot incandescence. This is hotter than an electric heater could make the core. The iron is dunked into a bucket of water. This produces a cloud of steam, and then rapid boiling for a minute or two. It does not cause the bucket of water to boil for four hours. There is no conceivable way to store that much heat in this much iron. You can verify that with a small-scale experiment. Try heating a nail and putting it in water. I seriously suggest people should try this. Why not? a skeptic who sincerely believes it is possible to achieve this effect by conventional means should do some simple tests to confirm that. Evidently the mathematical modeling is wrong. I do not have to determine the details when it is obvious the conclusions conflict with everyday experience and fundamental observational physics to this extent. If someone makes a mathematical model showing that I can jump over the Empire State building I do not need to prove it is wrong. Note that Rossi means Smith. Perhaps he comes from a long line of blacksmiths. He has the kind of intuitive skills that a good blacksmith has. People have been working with hot iron for thousands of years. They know how it works. I know how it works. All the skeptical hypotheses that attempt to explain these test contradict knowledge going back hundreds of thousands of years. - Jed The heat capacity of a conductor like iron is only useful for storing energy. Insulation is required to limit the rate of dissipation of that energy. A medium, or combined layers, with a net low diffusivity, using materials like ceramics, cement, fire brick, etc. is necessary for significant dynamic effects, like peak heat release long after the source was applied. Those are the purely passive considerations. If good insulation is present, as well as active control, heat can be released to meet any demand curve that conserves energy. Apparently commenting further is of no use, so I'll try to refrain. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:10 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Mary, as already suggested by Mr. Rothwell, I suggest you might want to consider performing an actual physical experiment. I'm sure you have sufficient tools at your disposal to perform such an experiment. For example, if you have access to an electric stove, heat up one of the smaller elements to the point that it becomes red hot. Then, carefully remove it from the stove (using tongs and insulated gloves!) and dump it into a pail of water.SNIP Rossi is not dumping a preheated steel mass into a bucket of water. He's insulating it very carefully and trickling water through it at a very modest rate. I've always been struck at the low and hesitant flow from his pumps. Click... click..click.. And the flow measurements are not impressive. There is discussion at the links I provided that the October 6 flow rate also may have been mismeasured. I admit I did not read that -- the translation really annoys me and I know absolutely no Italian. Anyway, and I don't want to restart that argument all over again, with the output levels Rossi claimed in his early experiments, I'd expect a very healthy looking output of heat and steam and that is not what independent observers, for example Krivit, saw. And to go way back in the history, Levi's claim of a 130kW transient in a small E-cat has to be a measurement or thermocouple placement error -- it should have made enough steam pressure to explode (or to pop a relief plug or valve) if it were real. I won't point out again the details of how these arguments could all have been easily avoided if Rossi had chosen to bother.
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
Jed, Rossi doesn't mean Smith. It is translated sometime by Google as Smith because Smith is such common name in the anglophone world and Rossi is an extremely common (if not the most common) Italian last names. Rossi means red one, probably the ancestors of this family were red headed. The last name Smith if translated literally would be Fabbri that is also a common last name in Italy. Giovanni On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi is an extremely common Italian surname. I can see Rossi used as a name of a company everywhere here, since several million people in my country descends from Italians. 2011/12/22 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Note that Rossi means Smith. Perhaps he comes from a long line of blacksmiths. He has the kind of intuitive skills that a good blacksmith has. People have been working with hot iron for thousands of years. They know how it works. I know how it works. All the skeptical hypotheses that attempt to explain these test contradict knowledge going back hundreds of thousands of years. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Celani replication boosts Rossi patent
On 22 December 2011 15:13, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-12-22 14:09, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Dear Sterling Allan: The work of Celani (congratulations) shows that in my patent application I gave enough information to allow to an expert to reproduce the effect. What Rossi is implying here is that the information disclosed in his patent application has allowed professor Celani to replicate his results. I seriously doubt this is the case. What Rossi is here saying that, patent application gives enough information that Rossi-effect can be replicated. Perhaps not in commercial scale but it is shown clearly. Therefore all the accusations that Rossi's patent is incomplete due to lack of catalyst are not fact based. Catalyst is not an integral part of the setup, but it is only an enhancement. Someone said that cold fusion effect is not reproducible. I think that more the problem is that almost no one has not even bothered to try replicate Rossi's setup. I think that we have here only Brad the ecat builder, who has tried to replicate Rossi-effect but he had also very limited budged. No other person here has not even tried. Outside Vortex Celani, Ahern, Miley, Chan and a phony Defkalion they all say that they have managed to replicate Rossi-like cold fusion effect. So in my counting, of those who have tried, 5 have succeeded and only one has failed due to limited budget. This is rather good ratio, for replicating cold fusion effect. –Jouni
[Vo]:A Consolidated List of Defkalion's Claims
As a background to this, please remember that Rossi claims DGT has never been in possession of the reactor. Defkalion claims that after separating from Rossi, they developed their own core technology. From the Defkalion forum, these are exact quotes from the administrator: Defkalion GT. _ CE TESTING: June 26, 2011 - Out of the CE standards, Hyperion products (kW or MW range) have to pass all tests described the the Greek and EU lows according to their industrial code classification. The Authorities responsible to test and certify are -The Ministry of Regional Development and Industry -The Ministry of Environment and Energy through their appointed by low labs. June 28, 2011 - Safety test in progress by the Greek Authorities include procedures and scenarios (for all ranges of products) on: -Stress tests -Operational and safety test in not normal conditions (fire, earthquake etc). Please note that Greece is a country with earthquakes and very high safety standards because of the earthquakes -EU regulation SEVESO II related tests (hydrogen storage and handling) -Tests on critical components failure -All tests for radiations etc, according to EU standards -Safety/Stability tests -Other safety related tests All tests protocols and results will be released and published in Defkalion's site with the Certificates from the Greek Authorities before any releasing of products in Greece. P.S. E-cat lab prototype shielding is 3 mm thick. Your toaster may produce more radiation than an e-cat . June 29, 2011 - As already stated in the Press Conference with the presense of Ministry of Regional Development (Industry/Energy) and other related Authorities: Greek Authorities testing is in progress Thank you for your attention _ THE FACTORY: July 1, 2011 - We have to start with one factory producing all needed for Hyperions as son as possible. Off course the existing infrastracture is limitted to 6000sqm. In the White Paper it is stated that a second factory, specialy designed and constracted to service our poroduction lines demands and procedures, is planned for operations by Q3 of 2012. With this factory, also in Xanthi, we can reach the production of 300.000 new kW range Hyperions/year, 900.000 recharges/year and fascilities for the setup of MW range Hyperions in 20feet cargo containers. When we set up the second factory, the first will specialize only in certain industrial procedures that are related mainly with the reactor and its contents. The ownership of these factories is in accordance with business plans and roles of our business entities. Defkalion GT is to manufacture and support Hyperions for the Greek and the Balkans Market as well as to export to countries with no local production of Hyperions, while Praxen Defkalion Green Technologies (Global) Ltd has the rights for e-cat technology distribution (except USA). There are plans for a third factory in Greece, the second of Defkalion GT, but no final decisions yet about its capacity or time plans. Thank you for your question July 1, 2011 - We do not intend to release any specific info for our first factory infrastracture for strong security reasons that any professional related with technology or high end technologies would understand. We will do so as soon as we have secured our premisses. Xanthi has an excellent Industrial Zone very close to the city center, very close to Police Academy and quite close to the City Hospital which we intend to power also with waste heat from our production. We offer heat energy to neigbour existing factories to cut their production costs using well known technologies on heat management and distribution, operational in Greece for 25 years now (the main coal electric power plants of the Greek Power Company distributes heat to neigbour cities 25-30km away). This service is know as tele-heating (τηλεθέρμανση) and it is very popular to other civilized countries of Europe as well. The closest beach to our factory is 20 minutes driving away and it is excellent. Dogs are allowed. Not for sale to IMF _ PERFORMANCE: June 26, 2011 - Factor 6 is the minimum guaranteed by Andrea Rossi for any e-cat configuration. During our in house tests we have never observed a performance ratio less than 19 so far. June 26, 2011 - Every kW Hyperion products is equiped with electronics and sensors that, among other, monitor in real time the mass/sec and the temperature difference (Delta) between output and input of the coolant in use (mass calorimeter). If this Delta is beyond a pre-defined point at products installation then: If it is a singe reactor unit, the reactor stops If it is a multi-reactor unit, then either some reactor(s) stop or all reactors stop based to a performance balance algorithm within safety/operational electronics. So, to answer your question: If you consume
Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 19:27 +0100, Man on Bridges wrote: Hi, On 22-12-2011 4:07, Jeff Driscoll wrote: Basically a high energy photon's first step towards becoming matter happens at orbitstate n = 1/137.05999679 which Mills terms the transition state orbitsphere. Here's that number 137 again, is it possibly the same 137 which applies to the maximum number of steps for squeezing a hydrino? Fine Structure Constant: 1/137.035999074 Frank Znidarsic's number = z = 1094000 m /s speed of light = c = 299 792 458 m / s (z * 2) / c = 1 / 137.016662706 Craig
RE: [Vo]:A Consolidated List of Defkalion's Claims
I wasn't done assembling that list, and sent it by accident. It's been sitting in draft form for awhile, and I was adding a bit. Still, since it's out there: Defkalion has claimed to have 115 Hyperions in simultaneous operation for production of a 1 MW reactor. They've never seen gains less than 19x input. They claimed in the beginning of July that the government testing was in progress. This is contradicted by Rossi's claims that they never had a reactor. ___ The revelation that a few people have visted the factory in order to lay the foundation for independent testing is great news. It is obviously not confirmation or hard evidence of any kind, but everyone should agree that it's a positive sign. There may have been suspicious claims in the past, but I think it's possible that great strides have been made since the Rossi-fallout
Re: [Vo]:A Consolidated List of Defkalion's Claims
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: I wasn't done assembling that list, and sent it by accident. It's been sitting in draft form for awhile, and I was adding a bit. Still, since it's out there: Defkalion has claimed to have 115 Hyperions in simultaneous operation for production of a 1 MW reactor. They've never seen gains less than 19x input. They claimed in the beginning of July that the government testing was in progress. This is contradicted by Rossi's claims that they never had a reactor. ___ The revelation that a few people have visted the factory in order to lay the foundation for independent testing is great news. It is obviously not confirmation or hard evidence of any kind, but everyone should agree that it's a positive sign. There may have been suspicious claims in the past, but I think it's possible that great strides have been made since the Rossi-fallout This is both useful and interesting but I am not clear on what you are saying. Rossi and Defkalion can not both be telling the truth. In your estimation, who is lying and why? Do you really think Defkalion had 115 reactors working back in July?
[Vo]:NOT: CFRL News No. 77, carbon in the news
See: http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/News/CFRLEngNews/CFRLEN77.htm A significant transmutation result was reported: 2-1. The Cold Fusion Phenomenon in Hydrogen Graphites In this paper, we took up experimental data sets of nuclear transmutation and excess heat in discharge and electrolysis systems with carbon (graphite) electrodes. The discharge experiments are performed in water with carbon cathode and carbon or metal anodes where measured generation of new elements of Ca, Si, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu and/or Zn. As we have shown a possible explanation of nuclear transmutation in XLPE (cross-linked polyethylene) (Proc. ICCF14 pp. 618 – 622 (2010)) by an interaction between carbon and hydrogen in interlaced superlattice, it is possible to explain the results obtained in the carbon arc experiments with similar mechanism in interlaced superlattice of carbon lattice (graphite) and occluded hydrogen lattice. Some experimental and simulation results favorable for this mechanism are given. Full paper of this work will be published in Proc. JCF12 to be published next year. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094
The tag NOT is very misleading or confusing. Perhaps nOT is more useful? Or maybe something like TECH: is more descriptive. Future searches on TECH: should be more useful than searches on TECH. Non-technical debates, i.e. ones about fraud or no fraud, fake or not fake, political, legal or investment related, etc., that are content light might be on topic but not technical, so TECH and OT are not opposites, but still have useful meaning perhaps? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
Giovanni Santostasi wrote: Rossi doesn't mean Smith. It is translated sometime by Google as Smith because Smith is such common name in the anglophone world and Rossi is an extremely common (if not the most common) Italian last names. Rossi means red one, probably the ancestors of this family were red headed. Wow! That gives us an interesting look at how Google translation works. The computer picks a word that is functionally similar. One that has similar uses, distribution or frequency. Or maybe it is a database error. The word roth also means red, in Middle English. Hence the placename and family name Rothwell means red well. That is, a well with reddish water from iron minerals in the water. See: http://www.rothwelltown.co.uk/historyofrothwel.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi is not dumping a preheated steel mass into a bucket of water. He's insulating it very carefully and trickling water through it at a very modest rate. I've always been struck at the low and hesitant flow from his pumps. Click... click..click.. And the flow measurements are not impressive. It does not matter what rate you add the heat. The flow rate of the water is unimportant. It might be stopped altogether. It takes a certain amount of energy to keep the surface of the reactor at 80°C for four hours. That amount of energy far exceeds the amount that you could store or add to that mass of water and iron, using this equipment. Whether you heat it slow or fast, or heat it beforehand and hide the hot body it makes no difference. Whether the reactor holds mostly iron or mostly water makes no difference. No combination of these materials, insulation, flow rates or power levels can possible keep the surface temperature so high for so long. If you use other equipment that allowed the temperature internally to go up to thousands of degrees perhaps it could work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NOT: CFRL News No. 77, carbon in the news
I found a nice linke there: http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Papers/paperr/paperr.html Including a paper about the 3 laws of CF. 2011/12/22 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net See: http://www.geocities.jp/**hjrfq930/News/CFRLEngNews/**CFRLEN77.htmhttp://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/News/CFRLEngNews/CFRLEN77.htm A significant transmutation result was reported: 2-1. The Cold Fusion Phenomenon in Hydrogen Graphites In this paper, we took up experimental data sets of nuclear transmutation and excess heat in discharge and electrolysis systems with carbon (graphite) electrodes. The discharge experiments are performed in water with carbon cathode and carbon or metal anodes where measured generation of new elements of Ca, Si, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu and/or Zn. As we have shown a possible explanation of nuclear transmutation in XLPE (cross-linked polyethylene) (Proc. ICCF14 pp. 618 – 622 (2010)) by an interaction between carbon and hydrogen in interlaced superlattice, it is possible to explain the results obtained in the carbon arc experiments with similar mechanism in interlaced superlattice of carbon lattice (graphite) and occluded hydrogen lattice. Some experimental and simulation results favorable for this mechanism are given. Full paper of this work will be published in Proc. JCF12 to be published next year. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
Jed sez: Wow! That gives us an interesting look at how Google translation works. The computer picks a word that is functionally similar. One that has similar uses, distribution or frequency. Or maybe it is a database error. The word roth also means red, in Middle English. Hence the placename and family name Rothwell means red well. That is, a well with reddish water from iron minerals in the water. See: So, not only were some your ancestors pirates, you probably had a few blacksmiths sprinkled in there as well. Hello... Yes... uh huh... we make cannon balls. How many would you you like to order? Uh hun... Three hundred fifty? Ok. I can have them ready for shipment in a week. That will cost you five gold pieces. Do you want them shipped by Oxcart or... ... you need them ASAP? Well... I can express the order by horse, ...actually with three hundred fifty balls... that would take several horses. But that would cost you extra... another two or three gold pieces. I can get them to you in two days. No... no sooner. Oh, by the way, I need two gold pieces down payment. Why? Well... considering your line of business... ...and the same to you to, sir! Do we have a deal? Yes... That is correct, sir. I don't think you will get a better deal anywhere else. Ok then. I'll be waiting for the pieces. Nice doing business with you! Martha! Remember that vacation trip you always wanted down to the Florida coast? Pack your bags! We'll be basking on the coast in two weeks! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
Cosmic ray background is random but essentially a continuous condition on the time scale of nuclear active site generation. Both the Rossi and Piantelli reactors are subject to run away burn up conditions when the temperature of the hydrogen and nickel rises above a critical temperature. The essentially continuous Cosmic ray background cannot explain how and why this condition could occur. If heat is a triggering condition, such a triggering mechanism would explain how reactor burn up could happen. Details, details, details…it’s all in the details. If one assumes that the Ni/H reaction occurs as described in detail by both Rossi and Piantelli, many amazing and astounding quantum mechanical clockwork implications must be drawn. Such implications might one day open a doorway to the stars; a good reason to look into the details and implications of this technology with great vigor. On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Dec 22, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Horace: The problem I see with some kind of outside trigger is that the “turn-on” of excess heat would occur randomly… how does one control when that cosmic ray or muon will initiate the reaction? In one of the demos, it appeared to turn on at a specific temperature. -mark Cosmic ray background is random but essentially a continuous condition on the time scale of nuclear active site generation. Nuclear active sites capable of chain reactions are not dense. They are islands which apparently grow with time, otherwise events many orders of magnitude larger than 10^4 fusions would occur. The size of craters would not be nearly uniform. The cross section of such islands to cosmic rays etc. apparently grows slowly, and is affected by temperature, and external conditions and forms of stimulation. This is one reason LENR can not be expected to be useful for nuclear explosives. Triggers in the form of cosmic rays and other background radiation are constantly present in the environment. The active sites have to be generated on demand. Practical LENR is inherently a dynamic process. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The background to this story is that Mitchell lSwartz does not approve of Jed Rothwell and Ed Storms content policy for the LENR library. He may have said that, but we do not have a content policy. They have said they prefer to include papers in the library which will raise the credibitily and respectability of the field ( and I don't just mean they prefer nicely formated papers without spelling mistakes). We have uploaded papers attacking the field, by leading skeptics such as Steve Jones. So that can't be true. Here is his paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEchasingano.pdf We have also uploaded a large number of papers that I personally think have no scientific merit. They range from really bad to nonsense. And no, I will not say which ones I think are garbage. The readers can decide. I am not a gatekeeper. By the way, if there is a spelling mistake, I correct it. Based on my reading of Swartz anything that smacks of pandering makes his stomach turn so he views the policy as politically motivated censorship. It might smack of pandering if there was any truth to it, but anyone looking at the papers in the library can see it is nonsense. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:NOT: CFRL News No. 77, carbon in the news
Daniel, Yes I noted the 2nd paper as well regarding the law of magic numbers and forwarded it to Jones Beene which I believe he has been promoting for years. Fran From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 3:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:NOT: CFRL News No. 77, carbon in the news I found a nice linke there: http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Papers/paperr/paperr.html Including a paper about the 3 laws of CF. 2011/12/22 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netmailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net See: http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/News/CFRLEngNews/CFRLEN77.htm A significant transmutation result was reported: 2-1. The Cold Fusion Phenomenon in Hydrogen Graphites In this paper, we took up experimental data sets of nuclear transmutation and excess heat in discharge and electrolysis systems with carbon (graphite) electrodes. The discharge experiments are performed in water with carbon cathode and carbon or metal anodes where measured generation of new elements of Ca, Si, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu and/or Zn. As we have shown a possible explanation of nuclear transmutation in XLPE (cross-linked polyethylene) (Proc. ICCF14 pp. 618 - 622 (2010)) by an interaction between carbon and hydrogen in interlaced superlattice, it is possible to explain the results obtained in the carbon arc experiments with similar mechanism in interlaced superlattice of carbon lattice (graphite) and occluded hydrogen lattice. Some experimental and simulation results favorable for this mechanism are given. Full paper of this work will be published in Proc. JCF12 to be published next year. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.commailto:danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:A Consolidated List of Defkalion's Claims
I completely and utterly agree that Rossi and Defkalion could not have both been telling the truth. So, now for assumptions that may or may not be accurate, based entirely on opinion, supposition, wild speculation, and a little bit of a gut feeling: It is possible that Defkalion was making, let's be diplomatic and say forward-looking statements, based on a Rossi delivery schedule. They may have intended to build their own cores, after receipt of Rossi's 1 MW demonstration reactor. Suppose they had worked on it quite a bit with Rossi and had seen real gains, but that Rossi never had the level of control that he'd claimed. When Rossi failed to deliver a controllable unit (and became more of a liability with shoddy, unsanctioned demonstrations), they proceeded with their in-house development. It's important to note that the number of claims of independent replication of Ni-H gains is indeed growing. Defkalion MAY have had success in spooling up and controlling the reaction, in a way that Rossi never could. There is no evidence to support this, but the spectre of independent testing should not be ignored. I believe (based solely on my personal interpretations of Rossi's past alleged transgressions) that Rossi is perfectly capable of running a scam without an exit strategy. I have serious doubts that the Defkalion board are cut from the same cloth. I can't imagine them staying in the game without a reason for playing. When the silence fell upon DGT (from July to October), I'd assumed that they were dead in the water. Disappearance would be the logical aftermath if Rossi was unable to supply the necessary reactor. Their reemergence and statements lead me to believe that they believe that they have/will have a viable product. They cannot be fooled into thinking that the product works if they are producing the reactor themselves. As a caveat, they are certainly looking to license the technology, so the revenue stream is not predicated on selling a viable product. This opens the potential for a product-less income, but I see that option as unlikely. My confidence level would be much lower if they were not producing near-term timetables. That they are open to independent testing, and have all ready have a site survey is further evidence that they will be pushing forward. I know that Jed's revelations were not evidence of Defkalion's claims, but they have done a great deal to add weight in Defkalion's favor. Like so many other times in this unfolding epic, we just have to wait-and-see. But, if I were playing a game of chance (with long odds), my money would be on Green, and not Red.
[Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?
I was seriously bummed out to hear the Navy researchers being forced to stop their work due to too much publicity. My question to Vortex members is this: What is the best way to advocate for clean energy from this reaction, which we choose to call cold fusion? This past year, Cold Fusion Now did several mailings to DoE, politicians, and venture capitalists. Do you think writing letters and telephoning is worth the trouble, or, is it actually detrimental? Now that commercial units are imminent, do you feel we should drop political efforts? I am constantly going back and forth on this. The public needs to be informed so that we will have the capacity to demand this technology, and not let it be derailed again. What do you think is the best way to do this? And thanks for a great year of typing from your crew. Ruby
Re: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
I wrote: We have uploaded papers attacking the field, by leading skeptics such as Steve Jones. . . . We have also uploaded a large number of papers that I personally think have no scientific merit. They range from really bad to nonsense. I do not wish to reopen a quarrel with Swartz. Unfortunately, some other people have been saying this kind of thing recently. They are accusing me of censoring the field and trying to control the flow of information. That is preposterous. It is annoying. These people are trying to make trouble. It is true that I do not go out of my way to get lousy papers. In some instances, I ask authors for papers. I would not do that for a paper I consider schlock. But if an author submits schlock, that has been duly published in a proceedings or journal, I take it. And I keep my opinion to myself. I never say: It's schlock, but sure, why not upload it? We have dozens of lousy papers; one more won't hurt. That would be impolite. Plus, after all, I might be wrong. Someone might find it valuable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:30:49 -0900: Hi Horace, You probably did. I also pointed it out to Frank himself a couple of years back. The calculation of the electron speed is nothing new. It's also in the Hydrino calculations on my web site. However I still haven't seen anyone show the connection between that speed and screw like motion. Robin, I think I pointed out a similar relation a while back. My memory is not very good though. It had to do with the speed of thermal pulses though very fine metal whiskers. Heat pulses were measured at the mean speed of the conduction band electrons, which is about 2x10^6 m/ s, which is about twice Frank's constant. I never did find that article though. On Dec 21, 2011, at 4:54 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:34:04 -0800: Hi, alpha*c is the speed you get for the electron in a Bohr orbit, utilizing the De Broglie wavelength. What is not apparent from the snippet quoted is why this velocity follows from a screw type of motion. Might I suggest all Not Off Topic (i.e., technical, aka, signal) postings use NOT in the subject line to make them more obvious to those who care not to waste bandwidth on the personal aspects of the Rossi saga In my latest session of serendipitous surfing, I was scanning a PDF of the document in the Ref: section below, and noticed this little bit of text and the accompanying calculation: == This screw type of motion obviously is optional and let us suppose that it corresponds to the electron motion in Bohr atom at orbit a0 with energy of 13.6 eV. Then the axial velocity is: v = (e^2) / ( 2*h*epsilon_sub_0 ) = alpha*c = 2.18769e6 m/s (3) where: e = charge of electron, h = Planck constant, c = speed of light, alpha = fine structure constant == Now what struck me was the result, 2.188e6 m/s. This is exactly twice the constant in Znidarsics work, 1.094e6 Hz.m Any connection? Frank, does this make sense to you? -Mark Ref: Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM - Supergravitation Unified Theory Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev York University, Toronto, Canada E-mail: stoy...@yorku.ca Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?
Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: I was seriously bummed out to hear the Navy researchers being forced to stop their work due to too much publicity. My question to Vortex members is this: What is the best way to advocate for clean energy from this reaction, which we choose to call cold fusion? The people at SPAWAR are negotiating with management about this. They are hoping to arrange to have the equipment and know-how transferred to the private sector. (Rather than have the equipment chucked into the dumpster, I suppose, which is where a good many cold fusion experiments have ended up.) They say they will let me know as this process shapes up. people interested in supporting this work may have a chance to invest in the company. At some point, it might be a good idea to make polite, positive suggestions to the Navy management. But not now. It might be possible to restart the work in the lab there. I kind of doubt it, but let's see how things work out. The last thing anyone should do is make a stink. There have been some instances in history of cold fusion where I wish people had made a big stink. This is not one of them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094
Yes, it is nothing new - Mills did this in 1990 rather emphatically - and even then it was not new, but Robin - you seem to be downplaying your own contribution. Does not a 'screw-like' motion mesh with a Lissajous? or are you backing off of that? Seems like there is a connection, but maybe not. From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:30:49 -0900: Hi Horace, You probably did. I also pointed it out to Frank himself a couple of years back. The calculation of the electron speed is nothing new. It's also in the Hydrino calculations on my web site. However I still haven't seen anyone show the connection between that speed and screw like motion. Robin, I think I pointed out a similar relation a while back. My memory is not very good though. It had to do with the speed of thermal pulses though very fine metal whiskers. Heat pulses were measured at the mean speed of the conduction band electrons, which is about 2x10^6 m/ s, which is about twice Frank's constant. I never did find that article though. On Dec 21, 2011, at 4:54 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:34:04 -0800: Hi, alpha*c is the speed you get for the electron in a Bohr orbit, utilizing the De Broglie wavelength. What is not apparent from the snippet quoted is why this velocity follows from a screw type of motion. Might I suggest all Not Off Topic (i.e., technical, aka, ‘signal’) postings use NOT in the subject line to make them more obvious to those who care not to waste bandwidth on the personal aspects of the Rossi saga… In my latest session of ‘serendipitous surfing’, I was scanning a PDF of the document in the Ref: section below, and noticed this little bit of text and the accompanying calculation: == “This screw type of motion obviously is optional and let us suppose that it corresponds to the electron motion in Bohr atom at orbit a0 with energy of 13.6 eV. Then the axial velocity is: v = (e^2) / ( 2*h*epsilon_sub_0 ) = alpha*c = 2.18769e6 m/s (3) where: e = charge of electron, h = Planck constant, c = speed of light, alpha = fine structure constant == Now what struck me was the result, 2.188e6 m/s. This is exactly twice the constant in Znidarsic’s work, 1.094e6 Hz.m Any connection? Frank, does this make sense to you? -Mark Ref: Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM - Supergravitation Unified Theory Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev York University, Toronto, Canada E-mail: stoy...@yorku.ca Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?
Regarding the comments about SPAWAR here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Swartz/Mitchell-Swartz-Cold-Fusion-Researcher.shtml As far as I know, Krivit had no role in the demise of the project. No one has complained about him, or mentioned him. The Fox News report was the straw the broke the camel's back and ended the project. That's what Swartz says in his message quoted here. He is right. This is a confusing exchange of messages. . . . A lot of messages stamped confidential here. Krivit *publishes* more confidential messages than I * get*! I feel left out. I don't get confidential messages. I get people asking me to untangle the results of Polish people writing papers in English using an out-of-date Russian version of Microsoft Word. I ask you: What fun is that? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Happy Solstice
Hi, On 21-12-2011 19:27, Terry Blanton wrote: Or, you could take advantage of the endtimes and have some fun: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_MEXICO_APOCALYPSE_2012?SITE=APSECTION=HOMETEMPLATE=DEFAULTCTIME=2011-12-20-15-15-48 There won't be any endtimes, this is a (purposely created?) misconception of some people due to misinterpretation or lack of sufficient knowledge of the Mayian (or for that matter any other) calender system. However as some may notice, a socalled Xiang Sheng season arises on the horizon and the Xiang Ke is fading away. Merry X-mas and Happy Solstice, MoB
Re: [Vo]:A Consolidated List of Defkalion's Claims
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: My confidence level would be much lower if they were not producing near-term timetables. Me too. I like the fact they are making near-term timetables and I also like the fact that they keep missing those timetables. I'm not joking. A real startup company hustles to make deals. It sets impossible deadlines. It misses the deadlines. Things are late. If things get to be too late, you run out of cash and the company fails. If they had set a timetable back in June and they had met it on time I would suspect they are fake. It never goes smoothly. I was amazed that Rossi managed to pull off his 1 MW demo. I am pretty sure it was real. The fact that it was only half a megawatt made it much more believable. I heard somewhere that Rossi made hundreds of reactors of one design, and then tossed them out (or scavenged them) and made hundreds more of another design, floundering around. This too makes me think he must be for real. True or apocryphal, this is what I would expect from him. Try something quick. If it doesn't work, try something else. Go, go, go! That is one way to accomplish great things, if you don't accidentally kill yourself. This is how Edison did things while setting up the first factories to make incandescent lights and generators. He would build a bunch of cables or bulbs that did not work, frantically toss them out, and build another batch. Anything to stay ahead of the creditors. Typically for him, he increased the chaos and failure rate by hiring a bunch of children and Bowery bums for the production line, and using some alcohol derivative chemicals for one stage of the manufacturing. He ended up with a factory staffed by inebriated old geezers and 10-year-old kids. This chaotic mess evolved into . . . General Electric. I do not know if it was that venture or another, but one of Edison's factory managers complained: Our present staff of juveniles are excessively stupid. All of them combined have not as much common sense as would be required to keep a ton of pig iron from floating out to sea in a calm. Just because you a genius that does not mean you know how to run a company. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion : factory location
At 08:25 PM 12/20/2011, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: AND HERE IT IS ! Go on the left of the academy and you see a symbol of a factory. If you translate from Greek this what you get: Former Factory Atmatzidis Defkalion says no : http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4983#p4983 Xanthi's newspaper report was not correct and it was based on speculation of the journalist. Former Atmatzidis factory was one of our first turned down options due to its closeness to a kinder garden, making impossible any factory operations licensing. and then Our production fascilities (one factory in Xanthi already announced), will be presented to the public and the press when completed ready for production and licensed.
[Vo]:Some clarifications from Defkalion.
See: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4982#p4982 Government testing still in progress. Apparently it is way late. As I said, that is not surprising. Some details such as the factory acquisition had to be scrapped because the building was too close to a kindergarten. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
Horace, does your theory mentioned below demonstrate the increased reaction rate that appears as the temperature increases within the device core material? Is it capable of operation at the relatively low temperatures expected within the ECAT type of devices? Any idea about the energy release rate as a function of temperature? Also, is there evidence to support that this mechanism is actually occuring? Thanks, Dave -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 22, 2011 4:32 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger? I just saw this post. I am only reading about 1 in 20 posts due to lack of time. I hope if anything technical develops in long threads that new threads with meaningful titles are created. On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, David Roberson wrote: On an earlier post I suggested that the LENR reactions such as those exhibited by Rossi could have been triggered by cosmic rays. I was a little disappointed by the few comments that were generated and I was hoping to further study this possibility. One of the main skeptic positions is that it takes far more energy to activate the fusion like reaction than is available at normal temperatures. Why should we limit our thoughts to some form of steady state conditions for the initiation of the reactions when it may just take some triggering events to overcome the barriers? How many different initiation locations are required to make a block of TNT explode? Hopefully these are not occurring randomly, and if they were, who could store the material safely? Let’s try to determine whether or not the basic cosmic ray trigger concept is possible. If it is, what evidence should we look for in an effort to make that determination? First, is there enough energy available within a cosmic ray to activate a LENR reaction at any location within a nickel-hydrogen complex? Mr. Cude suggests that it takes in excess of 100 keV to overcome the proton to nickel coulomb barrier. His number seems agreeable to me, and now the question is whether or not this can be obtained by cosmic ray collisions? Second, if a small volume of material achieves reaction and releases several MeV of energy does the material then allow the reaction to spread? Of course the release of many MeV at the active region now would be adequate to enable more reactions since it far exceeds the 100 keV threshold suggested if in the correct form. Is there evidence pro or con as to whether or not this is happening? Third, are the pits seen on the electrodes of electrolysis type systems an indication that small regions are undergoing some form of extreme spot heating? Could this crater forming type of event suggest that miniature reactions involving millions of atoms are occurring? If so, why does the reaction head along one main path toward the surface instead of spread out uniformly? Could it be that the reaction follows the path of one of the suspect cosmic ray particles as it moves like a bulldozer through the matrix? Is it possible that the energy is released in a favorable direction to conserve momentum? Forth, I was reading that muons are one of the main particles remaining once a cosmic ray reaches the ground level. Have they been shown to activate cold fusion reactions in lab experiments and considered a well respected proven concept? I understand that the normal process is for DT reactions to be catalyzed, but there is mention of formation of a neutron like atomic structure. The size of this combination proton-muon group is extremely tiny and might be capable of overcoming the coulomb barrier by tunneling into the nickel nucleus. Why could this not happen within the Rossi type reactor where hydrogen gas is held within a high temperature and pressure environment? Could this then deliver the triggering energy needed? The muon reaction does not work for p + p because p + p is a weak reaction, thus has a very small cross section, very small reaction distance. It requires (in nuclear terms) a much long exposure time and much closer proximity than D+D, D+T or P+D. As you can see, I have listed a lot of questions that seek answers. The vortex community has numerous experts available that could help enlighten me and others if they would take a little time to consider these questions. I would find your responses as a well deserved break from the endless semantic games that are filling the bandwidth. Was the vortex originally formed as a collection of scientifically interested persons intending to discuss new concepts? Please demonstrate that we are here to work together instead of arguing endlessly. Thanks guys. Dave In my deflation fusion theory the Coulomb barrier is overcome due to formation of a small magnetic force based electron orbital. The resulting hydrogen is neutral, thus there is no Coulomb barrier to it tunneling into a nearby
Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
I was reading the Wikipedia about copper isotopes. All of them seem to take an extremely long time before they decay into nickel so I was wondering about the statement about the reaction happening far faster than melting or moving of the large atoms. What type of reactions do you think are occurring within the material? Could you give an example? Dave -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 22, 2011 5:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger? On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, David Roberson wrote: Second, if a small volume of material achieves reaction and releases several MeV of energy does the material then allow the reaction to spread? Of course the release of many MeV at the active region now would be adequate to enable more reactions since it far exceeds the 100 keV threshold suggested if in the correct form. Is there evidence pro or con as to whether or not this is happening? Chain reactions happen far faster than big atoms move or melt. The melting is a secondary effect that happens after the reaction is finished. The nuclear active site, or NAS, appears to be located below the surface. The melting and expansion drives the material out through the surface, making a crater like formation. Various estimates of energies and reaction rates have been given. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf (vi) Location/size. The presence of discrete, randomly distributed sites (hot spots, craters, boulders, etc) implies the existence of volumes within the electrode material where conditions promoting the highly energetic reactions exist. In estimating their magnitude, one must make a certain number of assumptions, eg (i) energy per single event is that of the reaction D + D He, (ii) the number of single events to produce a crater is on the order of 10^4 or higher, depending upon its radius[9], (iii) the number of single events needed to generate the “hot spot” displayed by IRimaging is on the order of 10^4 or higher, depending upon its size and brightness. Under these conditions and assuming the loading ratio greater than unity, one can calculate the radius of this volume to be on the order of 100 Å or higher. The events take place within the bulk material in the close vicinity to the contact surface. If producing one watt of output requires 6.24x10^11 fusions, as shown earlier, and each comic ray triggers 10^4 reactions, then 6.24x10^7 pits per second should show up, per watt of output. This does not appear to be a reasonable pit formation rate, nor anywhere near a cosmic ray background count. At 4 kW output that would be about 10^16 pits for a 10 hour test. Pit formation then is a very unusual thing if high energy density long term reactions exist, as Rossi claims. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094
Yes, I believe the electron moves with a screw like motion too. Niels Bohr described the velocity of the ground state orbit with Planck's constant. It goes back a way. My velocity is 1/2 of that, and it came from observations of cold fusion experiments. That perplexed me for years. I have been following this line of thought through and recently ''discovered' that spin 1/2 electrons do not bounce and spin 1 particles do bounce. Frank z
Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094
The radius I get is 1.409 fermis is also 1/2 of the classical radius of the electron. I believe that it is the crush radius of the electron. Multiply twice the radius times the Compton frequency and the ground state velocity of hydrogen pops out. I now believe that all of this, no bounce, velocities, and radii have to do with impedance matching. Frank Z -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 22, 2011 1:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094 Yes, I believe the electron moves with a screw like motion too. Niels Bohr described the velocity of the ground state orbit with Planck's constant. It goes back a way. My velocity is 1/2 of that, and it came from observations of cold fusion experiments. That perplexed me for years. I have been following this line of thought through and recently ''discovered' that spin 1/2 electrons do not bounce and spin 1 particles do bounce. Frank z
Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
You description of nuclear active sites reminds me of the operation of a laser. If the excited atoms such as copper due to a reaction between nickel and a proton maintain the excess energy for a long time(many seconds according to wikipedia), maybe it can be stimulated by the proper trigger to cascade with others. Seems like a form of population inversion waiting to release the stored energy. Dave -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 22, 2011 1:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger? On Dec 22, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Horace: The problem I see with some kind of outside trigger is that the “turn-on” of excess heat would occur randomly… how does one control when that cosmic ray or muon will initiate the reaction? In one of the demos, it appeared to turn on at a specific temperature. -mark Cosmic ray background is random but essentially a continuous condition on the time scale of nuclear active site generation. Nuclear active sites capable of chain reactions are not dense. They are islands which apparently grow with time, otherwise events many orders of magnitude larger than 10^4 fusions would occur. The size of craters would not be nearly uniform. The cross section of such islands to cosmic rays etc. apparently grows slowly, and is affected by temperature, and external conditions and forms of stimulation. This is one reason LENR can not be expected to be useful for nuclear explosives. Triggers in the form of cosmic rays and other background radiation are constantly present in the environment. The active sites have to be generated on demand. Practical LENR is inherently a dynamic process. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
I agree with you that the details probably contain what we desire if we can read them properly. It is apparent that heat is one of the major factors involved in the reaction rate and we must understand why this is so. I have requested on many occasions for Rossi or Defkalion to release a graph plotting the energy release of a small volume of material as a function of its internal temperature but it has not been delivered. One day I hope to see this chart. It might be that the cosmic rays just begin the process of storing energy since they allow the material to overcome the coulomb barrier at any temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 22, 2011 3:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger? Cosmic ray background is random but essentially a continuous condition on the time scale of nuclear active site generation. Both the Rossi and Piantelli reactors are subject to run away burn up conditions when the temperature of the hydrogen and nickel rises above a critical temperature. The essentially continuous Cosmic ray background cannot explain how and why this condition could occur. If heat is a triggering condition, such a triggering mechanism would explain how reactor burn up could happen. Details, details, details…it’s all in the details. If one assumes that the Ni/H reaction occurs as described in detail by both Rossi and Piantelli, many amazing and astounding quantum mechanical clockwork implications must be drawn. Such implications might one day open a doorway to the stars; a good reason to look into the details and implications of this technology with great vigor. On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 22, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Horace: The problem I see with some kind of outside trigger is that the “turn-on” of excess heat would occur randomly… how does one control when that cosmic ray or muon will initiate the reaction? In one of the demos, it appeared to turn on at a specific temperature. -mark Cosmic ray background is random but essentially a continuous condition on the time scale of nuclear active site generation. Nuclear active sites capable of chain reactions are not dense. They are islands which apparently grow with time, otherwise events many orders of magnitude larger than 10^4 fusions would occur. The size of craters would not be nearly uniform. The cross section of such islands to cosmic rays etc. apparently grows slowly, and is affected by temperature, and external conditions and forms of stimulation. This is one reason LENR can not be expected to be useful for nuclear explosives. Triggers in the form of cosmic rays and other background radiation are constantly present in the environment. The active sites have to be generated on demand. Practical LENR is inherently a dynamic process. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Am I to assume you examined the mathematical modeling and resulting curves in the links I provided and have analyzed and rejected them for some good reason? Yes. I have seen blacksmiths at work. I have seen one heat a large chunk of iron, as big as the reactor core, to red hot incandescence. The idea is the thermal mass might have tens of kg of mass. I don't think blacksmiths very often work with chunks of red-hot iron weighing 20 or 30 kg. This is hotter than an electric heater could make the core. Why? Electric heaters make stove-top elements glow red. The power goes in, something's gotta get hot. The iron is dunked into a bucket of water. This produces a cloud of steam, and then rapid boiling for a minute or two. It does not cause the bucket of water to boil for four hours. There is no conceivable way to store that much heat in this much iron. First, it's not as much iron as proposed for Rossi's 100-kg device. Second, it's doesn't have to be bathed in the water. There could be an insulating barrier to slow down the heat loss process. You can verify that with a small-scale experiment. Try heating a nail and putting it in water. What does that verify? Certainly nothing related to a 100-kg ecat with insulation between the thermal mass and the water. Evidently the mathematical modeling is wrong. I do not have to determine the details when it is obvious the conclusions conflict with everyday experience and fundamental observational physics to this extent. If someone makes a mathematical model showing that I can jump over the Empire State building I do not need to prove it is wrong. Hey, that sounds like the arguments nuclear physicists make about cold fusion. They don't have to bother debunking every new lame claim of cold fusion, when 100 years of experience with nuclear physics tells them it's wrong. The only difference is, their experience is actually relevant; yours is not: It's not rocket science. 30 kg of steel heated to 1000C releases 12 MJ of energy when it cools to 200C. Over 3.25 hours, that amounts to a kW on average. A kW is plenty of power to keep 30L of water boiling gently. The only difficulty is finding the material to keep the flow of heat in check. For this, a phase-change material would be much more compact, lower temperature, and easier to regulate. But to suggest it's inconceivable is just ignorant.
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It does not matter what rate you add the heat. The flow rate of the water is unimportant. It might be stopped altogether. It takes a certain amount of energy to keep the surface of the reactor at 80°C for four hours. Right. But Lewan said 60 - 80C, and I'm guessing since he's an advocate, it was probably closer to 60C, which is about 30C above ambient in that room. A hot-water radiator 30C above ambient delivers about 70 BTU/(hr-sq ft (effective area)), or about 200 W/m^2. That ecat has about 1 m^2 surface exposed, and it's not designed to throw heat, so its insulating surface is likely to have a lower emissivity, but even if it's 200 W, that's only a fraction of what you can store in 100 kg for 3.25 hours, which can easily be a few kW. And at 200 W, that would put about 10 kW into Rossi's megacat. That's more heat than most sauna heaters throw, and yet no one mentioned it was hot in there at all. So, I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near 200 W heat loss per ecat. That amount of energy far exceeds the amount that you could store or add to that mass of water and iron, The water's not relevant because the heat stored in it is not changed over the 3.25 hours. As for storing 200W times 3.25 hours (2.3 MJ) in 100 kg of metal? Piece of cake. In other materials, even easier.
Re: [Vo]:A Consolidated List of Defkalion's Claims
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If they had set a timetable back in June and they had met it on time I would suspect they are fake. It never goes smoothly. I was amazed that Rossi managed to pull off his 1 MW demo. I am pretty sure it was real. The fact that it was only half a megawatt made it much more believable. In other words, it doesn't matter if they meet deadlines or are late, if they meet specs or fall short, you're there for them, always believing, and always interpreting their actions and claims as evidence that they're legit. They're just like Edison, after all.
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
Hi Jed, Google have published some details of their algorithm and that's pretty much how it works. If they want to do say English/Italian translation they find a lot of text (books, menus etc.) that exist in both languages and then they analyse the text counting words by frequency. This gives first mapping between words. There's a lot more to it but frequency mapping is a key element. They must have trained their system using some books where Rossi had been translated to Smith. It's interesting that the computer learns to translate just by analysis of these dual language texts and with very little human input or language understanding. Colin On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Giovanni Santostasi wrote: Rossi doesn't mean Smith. It is translated sometime by Google as Smith because Smith is such common name in the anglophone world and Rossi is an extremely common (if not the most common) Italian last names. Rossi means red one, probably the ancestors of this family were red headed. Wow! That gives us an interesting look at how Google translation works. The computer picks a word that is functionally similar. One that has similar uses, distribution or frequency. Or maybe it is a database error. The word roth also means red, in Middle English. Hence the placename and family name Rothwell means red well. That is, a well with reddish water from iron minerals in the water. See: http://www.rothwelltown.co.uk/**historyofrothwel.htmlhttp://www.rothwelltown.co.uk/historyofrothwel.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com wrote: Google have published some details of their algorithm and that's pretty much how it works. Yup. I read some of their papers. It works surprisingly well. I guess Rossi = Smith can be considered a mistranslation. Then again, maybe this should be considered legit. It isn't how a human would do it, but arguably it is right in a sense. As they say, airplanes do not fly like birds, but they do fly. Machines may not translate like people, but they do translate. If it was English to Japanese you might select Suzuki-san. That's a common name which in context means Mr. Everyman or man-on-the-street. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: The public needs to be informed so that we will have the capacity to demand this technology, and not let it be derailed again. What do you think is the best way to do this? Seek out mainstream journalists and explain to them why this is important and real. Harry
RE: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?
Best: Persuade Rossi to sell (or rent) you a single e-Cat ASAP. I'll contribute $ to that effort. Then have competent engineers instrument it and do a proper test. If done properly, and it's a successful test, you won't have any problems with advocacy. -m From: Ruby [mailto:r...@hush.com] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:09 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate? I was seriously bummed out to hear the Navy researchers being forced to stop their work due to too much publicity. My question to Vortex members is this: What is the best way to advocate for clean energy from this reaction, which we choose to call cold fusion? This past year, Cold Fusion Now did several mailings to DoE, politicians, and venture capitalists. Do you think writing letters and telephoning is worth the trouble, or, is it actually detrimental? Now that commercial units are imminent, do you feel we should drop political efforts? I am constantly going back and forth on this. The public needs to be informed so that we will have the capacity to demand this technology, and not let it be derailed again. What do you think is the best way to do this? And thanks for a great year of typing from your crew. Ruby
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jed, Google have published some details of their algorithm and that's pretty much how it works. If they want to do say English/Italian translation they find a lot of text (books, menus etc.) that exist in both languages and then they analyse the text counting words by frequency. This gives first mapping between words. There's a lot more to it but frequency mapping is a key element. They must have trained their system using some books where Rossi had been translated to Smith. It's interesting that the computer learns to translate just by analysis of these dual language texts and with very little human input or language understanding. Colin Interesting. I wonder if human-computers followed similar rules to translate the texts on the Rosetta stone. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The background to this story is that Mitchell lSwartz does not approve of Jed Rothwell and Ed Storms content policy for the LENR library. He may have said that, but we do not have a content policy. I wonder why he said that. Perhaps it was true in the past but the content policy has been since been dropped. ;-) They have said they prefer to include papers in the library which will raise the credibitily and respectability of the field ( and I don't just mean they prefer nicely formated papers without spelling mistakes). We have uploaded papers attacking the field, by leading skeptics such as Steve Jones. So that can't be true. Here is his paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEchasingano.pdf We have also uploaded a large number of papers that I personally think have no scientific merit. They range from really bad to nonsense. And no, I will not say which ones I think are garbage. The readers can decide. I am not a gatekeeper. By the way, if there is a spelling mistake, I correct it. Based on my reading of Swartz anything that smacks of pandering makes his stomach turn so he views the policy as politically motivated censorship. It might smack of pandering if there was any truth to it, but anyone looking at the papers in the library can see it is nonsense. - Jed So you now allow papers that are not faithful to the commandments of physics? harry
Re: [Vo]:Krivit goes Berserk against Cold Fusion research to promote WL theory.
This detailed, specific critical list of many seemingly arbitrary data alterations in documents by Michael McKubre about a specific series of runs, that have been at times been cited as strong evidence for a predicted correlation of output heat with fusion of deuterium into helium within palladium cathodes in electrolytic cells, is an absolutely devastating critique that presents evidence that is difficult to refute and that justifies extreme skepticism about the claims: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/20111220LetterToSRI.pdf Personally, I regret seeing evidence that an apparently legitimate, careful, trustworthy scientist with a long-standing positive reputation and support within a mainstream scientific establishment has become so entangled in his urgent crusade for strong evidence to legitimate CF as to blunder into making data alterations that would inevitably be exposed. Skepticism about all apparently credible research in CF has to be the pragmatic strategy, if any successful device that shows any apparent anomaly is ever to be evolved and widely replicated. within mutual service, Rich Murray
[Vo]:Dr Takaaki Musha- Field Propulsion- Gravity Shielding Book
Greetings Vortex-L, Dr Takaaki Musha, former electrogravitics researcher with Honda RD and now with the MoD, Ministry of Defense- Japan has a Field Propulsion- Gravity Shielding book: http://www.benthamscience.com/ebooks/9781608052707/index.htm Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:44:10 -0800 (PST): Hi Jones, [snip] Yes, it is nothing new - Mills did this in 1990 rather emphatically - and even then it was not new, but Robin - you seem to be downplaying your own contribution. Does not a 'screw-like' motion mesh with a Lissajous? or are you backing off of that? No. I guess it depends on how you define screw like. The Lissajous model at it's simplest depends on an oscillation and a rotation, whereas a screw like motion depends on two rotations for a closed form (creating a toroid), or one rotation for an open form (i.e. straight line travel). (A rotation may be seen as two perpendicular oscillations). Even so, I still don't see how the screw like motion is used to derive the electron speed, which can be calculated quite adequately without it. Seems like there is a connection, but maybe not. From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:30:49 -0900: Hi Horace, You probably did. I also pointed it out to Frank himself a couple of years back. The calculation of the electron speed is nothing new. It's also in the Hydrino calculations on my web site. However I still haven't seen anyone show the connection between that speed and screw like motion. Robin, I think I pointed out a similar relation a while back. My memory is not very good though. It had to do with the speed of thermal pulses though very fine metal whiskers. Heat pulses were measured at the mean speed of the conduction band electrons, which is about 2x10^6 m/ s, which is about twice Frank's constant. I never did find that article though. On Dec 21, 2011, at 4:54 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:34:04 -0800: Hi, alpha*c is the speed you get for the electron in a Bohr orbit, utilizing the De Broglie wavelength. What is not apparent from the snippet quoted is why this velocity follows from a screw type of motion. Might I suggest all Not Off Topic (i.e., technical, aka, signal) postings use NOT in the subject line to make them more obvious to those who care not to waste bandwidth on the personal aspects of the Rossi saga In my latest session of serendipitous surfing, I was scanning a PDF of the document in the Ref: section below, and noticed this little bit of text and the accompanying calculation: == This screw type of motion obviously is optional and let us suppose that it corresponds to the electron motion in Bohr atom at orbit a0 with energy of 13.6 eV. Then the axial velocity is: v = (e^2) / ( 2*h*epsilon_sub_0 ) = alpha*c = 2.18769e6 m/s (3) where: e = charge of electron, h = Planck constant, c = speed of light, alpha = fine structure constant == Now what struck me was the result, 2.188e6 m/s. This is exactly twice the constant in Znidarsics work, 1.094e6 Hz.m Any connection? Frank, does this make sense to you? -Mark Ref: Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM - Supergravitation Unified Theory Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev York University, Toronto, Canada E-mail: stoy...@yorku.ca Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Best: Persuade Rossi to sell (or rent) you a single e-Cat ASAP. I’ll contribute $ to that effort. Then have competent engineers instrument it and do a proper test. If done properly, and it’s a successful test, you won’t have any problems with advocacy. You know very well that Rossi has never shown the slightest inclination to do anything like that. Many variants of that idea have been proposed to Rossi and he has refused them all, using mostly tangential and irrelevant arguments. You're more likely to be able to purchase an invisible unicorn than a single e-cat to test.
Re: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: You're more likely to be able to purchase an invisible unicorn than a single e-cat to test. Do I get my choice of colors? T
Re: [Vo]:POLITICAL What is the best way to advocate?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: You're more likely to be able to purchase an invisible unicorn than a single e-cat to test. Do I get my choice of colors? T Tinker Bell can see it and she tells me it is blue with a pink mane. harry
Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094
That's I problem I have also. I have found that the angular velocity of the electron equals the speed of sound in the nucleus during quantum transition. I am not really sure what the angular velocity of the electron is. Its a weak point in my arguments. I think it is somehow connected with magnetism but I cant qualify it. Frank Z -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 22, 2011 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094 In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:44:10 -0800 (PST): Hi Jones, [snip] Yes, it is nothing new - Mills did this in 1990 rather emphatically - and even then it was not new, but Robin - you seem to be downplaying your own contribution. Does not a 'screw-like' motion mesh with a Lissajous? or are you backing off of that? No. I guess it depends on how you define screw like. The Lissajous model at it's simplest depends on an oscillation and a rotation, whereas a screw like motion depends on two rotations for a closed form (creating a toroid), or one rotation for an open form (i.e. straight line travel). (A rotation may be seen as two perpendicular oscillations). Even so, I still don't see how the screw like motion is used to derive the electron speed, which can be calculated quite adequately without it. Seems like there is a connection, but maybe not. From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:30:49 -0900: Hi Horace, You probably did. I also pointed it out to Frank himself a couple of years back. The calculation of the electron speed is nothing new. It's also in the Hydrino calculations on my web site. However I still haven't seen anyone show the connection between that speed and screw like motion. Robin, I think I pointed out a similar relation a while back. My memory is not very good though. It had to do with the speed of thermal pulses though very fine metal whiskers. Heat pulses were measured at the mean speed of the conduction band electrons, which is about 2x10^6 m/ s, which is about twice Frank's constant. I never did find that article though. On Dec 21, 2011, at 4:54 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:34:04 -0800: Hi, alpha*c is the speed you get for the electron in a Bohr orbit, utilizing the De Broglie wavelength. What is not apparent from the snippet quoted is why this velocity follows from a screw type of motion. Might I suggest all Not Off Topic (i.e., technical, aka, signal) postings use NOT in the subject line to make them more obvious to those who care not to waste bandwidth on the personal aspects of the Rossi saga In my latest session of serendipitous surfing, I was scanning a PDF of the document in the Ref: section below, and noticed this little bit of text and the accompanying calculation: == This screw type of motion obviously is optional and let us suppose that it corresponds to the electron motion in Bohr atom at orbit a0 with energy of 13.6 eV. Then the axial velocity is: v = (e^2) / ( 2*h*epsilon_sub_0 ) = alpha*c = 2.18769e6 m/s (3) where: e = charge of electron, h = Planck constant, c = speed of light, alpha = fine structure constant == Now what struck me was the result, 2.188e6 m/s. This is exactly twice the constant in Znidarsics work, 1.094e6 Hz.m Any connection? Frank, does this make sense to you? -Mark Ref: Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM - Supergravitation Unified Theory Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev York University, Toronto, Canada E-mail: stoy...@yorku.ca Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Dr Takaaki Musha- Field Propulsion- Gravity Shielding Book
On 23 Dec 2011, at 03:13, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Dr Takaaki Musha, former electrogravitics researcher with Honda RD and now with the MoD, Ministry of Defense- Japan has a Field Propulsion- Gravity Shielding book: http://www.benthamscience.com/ebooks/9781608052707/index.htm $50 and online access only? The price stated for this ebook is for non-library, one-user, online access only, for multi-site or library use and printed copy, please contact our order department Regards, Joe
