Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle Update
On Dec 28, 2011, at 3:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:17:21 -0900: Hi, [snip] It is notable that the radioactive isotopes of these elements tend to have nonzero nuclear magnetic moments. ...notable perhaps, but hardly surprising. Pair forming results in stability, hence nuclei with unpaired particles tend to be less stable, i.e. frequently radioactive. Pair forming also results in cancellation of magnetic moments (which is the very reason for the stability in the first place). [snip] This tendency provides some degree of explanation for the mysterious tendency for 2H, 4H, and 6H transmutations, where none exists otherwise. Here “H” means any isotope of hydrogen. ...I assume you mean that none otherwise would exist within your theory. Hydrino molecules provide at least one other explanation for particle pairs, and Axil's notion of entanglement may provide another (though it rubs me the wrong way ;). Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle Update
Sorry for the prior accidental post with no new content. On Dec 28, 2011, at 3:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:17:21 -0900: Hi, [snip] It is notable that the radioactive isotopes of these elements tend to have nonzero nuclear magnetic moments. ...notable perhaps, but hardly surprising. Pair forming results in stability, hence nuclei with unpaired particles tend to be less stable, i.e. frequently radioactive. Pair forming also results in cancellation of magnetic moments (which is the very reason for the stability in the first place). [snip] Yes of course, hardly surprising. I should have said *why* it was notable. I added: This increases their chances of attracting a deflated hydrogen, and thus transmuting into a stable isotope. This tendency provides some degree of explanation for the mysterious tendency for 2H, 4H, and 6H transmutations, where none exists otherwise. Here “H” means any isotope of hydrogen. ...I assume you mean that none otherwise would exist within your theory. Hydrino molecules provide at least one other explanation for particle pairs, and Axil's notion of entanglement may provide another (though it rubs me the wrong way ;). Good point. I changed the statement to: This tendency provides some degree of explanation for the mysterious tendency for 2H, 4H, and 6H transmutations, where none exists otherwise in published theories, as noted by Storms. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
Thanks for the reference, Jay Thanks for downloading the documents, Horace - I kept getting the busy signal from the site. I do not know why consistency of experimental results is a show-stopper for the examiner. Shouldn't all cancer therapies be ruled unpatentable by that standard? The application itself may show that some formerly public skeptics have become closet believers. Wow. Yes, indeed, this should be read. Whatever the intent of the nonsensically broad claims, it did not work out very well! The PTO examiner, John Richardson, did a great job on the rejection. He cites Pons, Miley, etc. Unfortunately, I could only download a page at a time. The server was also overloaded periodically. I uploaded to: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Keeney/ and I will leave it there briefly for those who want to see it. On Dec 28, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Jay Caplan wrote: This was abandoned in 2004 after a non-final rejection by USPTO 1/21/2004. Click Public PAIR link on http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/status/ Choose Application Number and insert 09/514,202 Choose Image File Wrapper tab when this application opens, then the correspondence and actions can be read. I couldn't copy from the Non-Final Rejection, but it should be read - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application Say, if CF breaks as conventional, and this patent is issued, maybe this is intended to provide an excuse for the patent office to reject all subsequent cold fusion patent application claims based on infringement of prior art, until this patent is successfully challenged. On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if this is old news on Vortex, but I was surprised to find this 2003 USPTO patent application -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0112916.html Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium conditions United States Patent Application 20030112916 Kind Code: A1 Inventors: Keeney, Franklin W. (US) Jones, Steven E. (US) Johnson, Alben C. (US) ABSTRACT: A method of producing cold nuclear fusion and a method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion are disclosed. The method of producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material, hydriding the fusion-promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen, and establishing a non-equilibrium condition in the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material and hydriding the fusion- promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion- promoting material for producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. -- which includes Steven E. Jones as an inventor. Further down is -- BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0001] 1. Field of the Invention [0002] The present invention relates to fusion energy. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for producing cold nuclear fusion and a method for preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion. [0003] 2. Description of the Related Art [0004] Mankind employs many energy sources. Oil, coal, natural gas, water (hydroelectric), and nuclear fission number among the most prominent of these sources. However, most of these sources exists in a limited supply, produces a relatively small quantity of energy per unit of the given source, or raises environmental concerns. Thus, because earth's population and energy needs continue to climb dramatically, researchers continue to seek more plentiful, efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy sources. [0005] These needs have led researchers to consider nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun. First, the raw materials for nuclear fusion abound on our planet. For example, deuterium is plentiful in seawater. Second, fusion of atomic particles and/or light nuclei produces more energy for a given amount of material than virtually any other known energy source. Finally, nuclear fusion holds strong promise as an environmentally-safe process. For these reasons, and based on major technological advances in the latter half of the twentieth century, many knowledgeable individuals now anticipate that nuclear fusion may provide a long-term answer to mankind's energy needs. --- The patent application seems to cover quite a wide range of implementations. Unless
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
From: Jed Rothwell Big difference. There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. Really? The highest quality testing which was performed in Bologna was radiation monitoring. Top notch instrumentation and technique. Why is the lack of radiation above background no evidence for the proposition that hydrogen fusion cannot be involved? Sorry for the double negative but it is pretty obvious that radiation was checked for, and that radiation is a relic of fusion, and none was observed above background. In Pd-D fusion, gammas have been observed above background even in experiments in the one watt range - and this is claimed to be contributory evidence for fusion (along with transmutation). Rossi claimed many kilowatts of excess energy in January yet no radiation was observed, even through a gap in the shielding where the monitor was placed. The Swedes did isotopic analysis and found natural isotope ratios and no radioactivity. This is strong evidence against any kind of nuclear reaction having taken place. It bears repeating: There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Big difference. There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. - Jed
[Vo]:Latest from Krivit/NET: Hagelstein knew is wasn't fusion...
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/28/hagelstein-knew-its-not-fusion/ -Mark
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X I have to consider a reaction that only occurs in extreme relativistic warp induced by suppression of larger virtual particles - the resulting radiation would have to likewise translate from this extreme warp back to normal space before we could detect it and therefore be downshifted. Fran OK - but go deeper: even if that happens, there should exist remnant transmuted products of the reaction (isotopic ash) which is still radioactive for an extended period. None has been documented. At the very least there should be a shift in isotope ratio - none has been documented. The Reifenschweiler effect is a good example of the problem of suggesting that radiation can be substantially blocked. In fact in Reifenschweiler only about 25% of the expected radiation from tritium seems to be missing, and the rest is still evident, yet we suspect the same kind of confinement dynamics are at work. How could Rossi be completely different in shieldability, especially using a reaction that should have higher energy spectrum than tritium (if real fusion is the source)? Let's go back to the conservation of miracles. We do not want to be required to justify one miracle with another, and especially not if the second miracle is more difficult to defend. The implication of Reifenschweiler for Rossi is most likely that there CANNOT exist the kind of nuclear reaction (fusion or even beta decay) that produces significant gammas (primary, secondary or bremsstrahlung) since a substantial percentage would be documented. Remember that tritium has about the lowest energy spectrum of any radioactive isotope and still 3/4 of it shows up, despite the cavity confinement. Yes, it could be shielded by lead, but where is the proof of unshielded radiation in Rossi? Ask Bianchini - there is none. The conclusion: we must seek to identify, or in today's early stage: to suggest - the kind of reactions where the expected energy spectrum is at least in below beta decay range but with NO expected transmutation product. Thus the Mills' reaction is a candidate. All that I am seeking to do this year is to put another candidate reaction into the record. Perhaps by early next year, funding will allow researchers to eliminate the candidates- one-by-one. To be honest, a version of Mills' miracle (redundant ground states) may be more likely to be the best bet for now, especially with the addition of Casimir confinement - and with less down-side baggage than the one I am suggesting (tapping into non-quark nuclear mass) but the problem with Mills, for explaining Rossi's results, is that it seems to be not energetic enough. Mills specifically claims about a 200:1 ratio of usable excess energy per atom, compared to combustion of hydrogen. Rossi is an order of magnitude higher (at least). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
To clarify one point. Gammas are not always seen in Pd-D experiments - especially with simple Geiger type monitors. In the early days, gammas were even said to be absent. Then with better instrumentation - gammas started to show up - even in watt-level experiments. Rothwell was among the most vocal proponents of using gamma spectroscopy as proof of LENR, so it is a bit surprising that he seems to be backtracking a bit. Well, not backtracking so much as denying that absence of gammas from very high output experiments is indicative of no fusion. Here is a report of an experiment 12 years ago, where - although the experiment produced about 6,000 times less energy than Rossi claims - gammas showed up clearly enough to do convincing spectroscopy. This report from ICCF8 by Rothwell turned up in my files and there are many similar that can be found once the archive server comes back online: Mengoli also showed surprisingly strong evidence for transmutation of titanium into a radioactive scandium isotope, with what looked like unassailable evidence: gamma ray coincidence counting and determination that the half-life of the gamma decay was consistent with the radioactive isotope as identified by the energy of the gamma ray spectrum. END of quote. That was a 2 watt output experiment. Of course, the lack of gammas at massively more energy in Rossi's case does not prove that it cannot be due to hydrogen fusion, since we are trying to disprove a negative - BUT do we really want to cherry-pick past results to the degree that it puts convincing data into jeopardy? The most defensible position, relative to all of these past reports of gammas in the LENR library, is to accept that gamma radiation should show up to some degree when real fusion (or even beta decay) is happening and top rate instrumentation is used. Why compromise that position by offering the remote possibility that fusion can be occurring? At tens of thousands of watts output for many hours when with ZERO radiation over background - the most logical conclusion is NO FUSION. Makes no sense to argue otherwise. Bite the bullet. There is no evidence of hydrogen fusion in Rossi; and there are many hours of data showing that no radiation over background is occurring - and moreover it was done using a very capable monitoring device which was designed to detect positron emission specifically. Jones From: Jed Rothwell Big difference. There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. Really? The highest quality testing which was performed in Bologna was radiation monitoring. Top notch instrumentation and technique. Why is the lack of radiation above background no evidence for the proposition that hydrogen fusion cannot be involved? Sorry for the double negative but it is pretty obvious that radiation was checked for, and that radiation is a relic of fusion, and none was observed above background. In Pd-D fusion, gammas have been observed above background even in experiments in the one watt range - and this is claimed to be contributory evidence for fusion (along with transmutation). Rossi claimed many kilowatts of excess energy in January yet no radiation was observed, even through a gap in the shielding where the monitor was placed. The Swedes did isotopic analysis and found natural isotope ratios and no radioactivity. This is strong evidence against any kind of nuclear reaction having taken place. It bears repeating: There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:high altitude airships now flight testing: Rich Murray 2011.12.29
At 10:10 AM 12/29/2011, Rich Murray wrote: high altitude airships now flight testing: Rich Murray 2011.12.29 Fascinating stuff : the weather / piloting http://airshipstothearctic.com/docs/pr/Weather_and_Piloting.pdf was particularly interesting Dynamic monte-carlo weather simulation route-adjustment. And to keep it on topic . https://vortex.saic.com
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones, Nice argument regarding fusion - I thought a relativistic interpretation had to leave the possibility of fusion open but you are correct in citing the lack of nuclear ash to rule out fusion. I know there are some claims of transmuted elements being detected - Were you implying the amounts are too small to describe the reported excess heat or just that the specific isotopes were not from fusion but decay paths instead? I also agree with your statement [snip] The conclusion: we must seek to identify, or in today's early stage: to suggest - the kind of reactions where the expected energy spectrum is at least in below beta decay range but with NO expected transmutation product. Thus the Mills' reaction is a candidate. [/snip] As I have posited before, the Lyne and Moller model of endless chemical-zero point reactions is also at work in the Mill's reaction and the hydride paths are only poor cousin's to this relativistically warped oscillation between h1 and h2. Locally these gas atoms are unaware of any Rydberg, fractional, hydrino or other monikers. It is my belief that any nuclear reactions, be they fusion, decays or other are all dependent upon this initial process to occur -I'm not saying which is the primary contributor, only that the Moller type reaction has to come first. I disagree however with the logic of one of your supporting arguments [snip]The Reifenschweiler effect is a good example of the problem of suggesting that radiation can be substantially blocked. In fact in Reifenschweiler only about 25% of the expected radiation from tritium seems to be missing, and the rest is still evident, yet we suspect the same kind of confinement dynamics are at work. [/snip] Your argument pre-supposes A radioactive gas is loaded into confinement which we know only occurs to a certain percentage of the gas that actually migrates into confinement while the rest of the population continues to produce radiation at the normal rate. My posit as I mentioned in a previous thread is that the environment that allows these unlikely nuclear events, be it fusion or decay or other also results in warped radiation that is downshifted before we can detect it - I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion based on the lack of ash but just saying this sub argument wasn't a fair comparison. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X I have to consider a reaction that only occurs in extreme relativistic warp induced by suppression of larger virtual particles - the resulting radiation would have to likewise translate from this extreme warp back to normal space before we could detect it and therefore be downshifted. Fran OK - but go deeper: even if that happens, there should exist remnant transmuted products of the reaction (isotopic ash) which is still radioactive for an extended period. None has been documented. At the very least there should be a shift in isotope ratio - none has been documented. The Reifenschweiler effect is a good example of the problem of suggesting that radiation can be substantially blocked. In fact in Reifenschweiler only about 25% of the expected radiation from tritium seems to be missing, and the rest is still evident, yet we suspect the same kind of confinement dynamics are at work. How could Rossi be completely different in shieldability, especially using a reaction that should have higher energy spectrum than tritium (if real fusion is the source)? Let's go back to the conservation of miracles. We do not want to be required to justify one miracle with another, and especially not if the second miracle is more difficult to defend. The implication of Reifenschweiler for Rossi is most likely that there CANNOT exist the kind of nuclear reaction (fusion or even beta decay) that produces significant gammas (primary, secondary or bremsstrahlung) since a substantial percentage would be documented. Remember that tritium has about the lowest energy spectrum of any radioactive isotope and still 3/4 of it shows up, despite the cavity confinement. Yes, it could be shielded by lead, but where is the proof of unshielded radiation in Rossi? Ask Bianchini - there is none. The conclusion: we must seek to identify, or in today's early stage: to suggest - the kind of reactions where the expected energy spectrum is at least in below beta decay range but with NO expected transmutation product. Thus the Mills' reaction is a candidate. All that I am seeking to do this year is to put another candidate reaction into the record. Perhaps by early next year, funding will allow researchers to eliminate the candidates- one-by-one. To be honest, a version of Mills' miracle (redundant ground states) may be more likely to be the best bet for now, especially with the addition of Casimir confinement - and with less down-side baggage than the one I am suggesting (tapping into non-quark nuclear mass) but the problem with Mills, for
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 28, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples where the binding energy of a proton is negative. 1. Protium. 2. Helium. Bingo. But do not miss the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that we are only interested in the strong force interaction of two protons in 2-space. They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not realize that this reaction is strongly endothermic. This is false. Consider: H + H -- D + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV This is followed by: e- + e+ -- 2 gamma + 1.02 MeV This is not different in result from: H + H -- D + v + 2 gamma + 1.44 MeV The key to understanding the overcoming of the Coulomb barrier is the realization that absorbed hydrogen is neither molecular or atomic. Electrons can pass close to to the protons, and thus form strong momentary magnetic bonds via spin coupling. Of course the above reactions have a low probability of occurrence. There are many reactions far more likely to occur if lattice elements are involved. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptH These result in most cases with follow-on weak reactions that further increase the net energy. With the other elements involved in Ni-H (nickel and/or a dielectric) there is almost zero probability of a proton getting close enough to react with any Ni nuclei (or other high Z nuclei). This is wrong if you include the possibility that a proton and electron jointly tunnel to the nucleus. In short, the only thing we should be concerned with, in trying to explaining Rossi/DGT thermal gain - is how do protons in dense accumulations interact with each other, This is mistaken. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf in order to produce excess energy without much gamma radiation (some but not much) and without much transmutation (some but not much). If an electron is in the nucleus to begin with the EM field disruption ejects the electron instead of radiating. The electron then radiates the energy in smaller packets, because it is energetically trapped. Fusion is completely ruled out since the reactants are far too cold. This is false. This is a denial of LENR in general. There is experimental evidence of heavy element transmutations in protium experiments. This could not happen if reactants being cold were a valid reason for denial. It is a mistake to think that gammas can be shielded by low density elements. This would be too easy to demonstrate, if it were true. This I agree with. This kind of shielding was the only claim permitted by the examiner in the WL patent. It was accepted without experimental evidence. That is the point that my proposed dynamic interaction: strong force plus negative binding energy between protons, strives to explain. There is excess energy in a way that convention nuclear physics cannot describe because there is minimal mass-energy conversion per nuclei per reaction. Let me reiterate that it is not precisely a nuclear reaction, in that the energy comes from non-quark nuclear mass. I call it subnuclear, since protium has substantial excess mass which is non-quantized. Only the quark mass is quantized, and that is but a fraction of total nuclear mass, even in protium. Jones I must have missed this. I only read a portion of the posts now. When the content no longer matches the thread name, or is preceded by technical content free discussion, I am likely to miss it. Did you calculate the energy of your proposed reactions? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
At 10:57 PM 12/28/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: Wow. Rossi had better hope he doesn't get the same examiner. (Particularly failure to disclose best mode -- which doesn't even have to be active concealment). All the prior art stuff is well done. A couple of quibbles ... rather fatal to pre-Rossi CF. Paper 9 Page 16 : absence of whole body radiation -- which doesn't seem to happen in Pd-D (At least Rossi needs shielding) Page 19 : identical testing apparatus must give exact result data per settled case law'. -- still too much material-variation in CF. (Surely SOME experimental error / equipment variation is allowed? ) Says there is no reputable evidence of record supporting CF ... but leaves the door open with evidence to indicate appellant has so succeeded where others have failed. In short, I think Rossi COULD pass the technical stuff IF he discloses best mode.
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
And perhaps it is the translation from normal 2d to Casimir type 3d by change in conductivity and spacing of the mirror layers that is at work, where locally the gas atoms perceive the spatial distance between the boundaries varying rapidly while from our perspective it is only the mirror conductivity or slight change in orientation to each other that is in play. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi? -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.commailto:mix...@bigpond.com As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy) surface to speak of. You are making a false assumption there. The assumption is three dimensions. Lawandy and Holmlid are 2D. Things are very different in 2D. That's the problem. The real world is 3D. There is no problem here. 2D is inclusive in 3D, so the real world is also 2D. There are no ideal surfaces. So what? There are no ideal gases either but the applicable Laws (generalizations) are usually correct. And on even the most even real surface the smallest features are still individual atoms separated by Angstrom distances. Yes, and that is why - by convention - one atom of thickness is treated as 2D. Were you not aware of that? In the abstract, an atom thickness may not be true 2D, but it always works out that way with high precision, both in the math and in experiment, to be an acceptable approximation of how 3-space and 2-space are connected in the real world. Jones
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On 12/28 Jones Beene said [snip] Fusion is completely ruled out since the reactants are far too cold. It is a mistake to think that gammas can be shielded by low density elements. This would be too easy to demonstrate, if it were true.[/snip] Jones, although I don't think this is fusion either I can't entirely rule it out like you appear to be doing. You know of my conviction regarding Naudt's relativistic interpretation and I have to consider a reaction that only occurs in extreme relativistic warp induced by suppression of larger virtual particles - the resulting radiation would have to likewise translate from this extreme warp back to normal space before we could detect it and therefore be downshifted. Fran -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi? -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples where the binding energy of a proton is negative. 1. Protium. 2. Helium. Bingo. But do not miss the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that we are only interested in the strong force interaction of two protons in 2-space. They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not realize that this reaction is strongly endothermic. With the other elements involved in Ni-H (nickel and/or a dielectric) there is almost zero probability of a proton getting close enough to react with any Ni nuclei (or other high Z nuclei). In short, the only thing we should be concerned with, in trying to explaining Rossi/DGT thermal gain - is how do protons in dense accumulations interact with each other, in order to produce excess energy without much gamma radiation (some but not much) and without much transmutation (some but not much). Fusion is completely ruled out since the reactants are far too cold. It is a mistake to think that gammas can be shielded by low density elements. This would be too easy to demonstrate, if it were true. That is the point that my proposed dynamic interaction: strong force plus negative binding energy between protons, strives to explain. There is excess energy in a way that convention nuclear physics cannot describe because there is minimal mass-energy conversion per nuclei per reaction. Let me reiterate that it is not precisely a nuclear reaction, in that the energy comes from non-quark nuclear mass. I call it subnuclear, since protium has substantial excess mass which is non-quantized. Only the quark mass is quantized, and that is but a fraction of total nuclear mass, even in protium. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On 11-12-29 12:02 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-12-29 01:57 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: Having said all that, Stephen, please prove you exist. That's a tough one. Descartes's proof was defective, of course -- it proved only that I do not see how I could not exist, not that I could not possibly not exist. Among other issues with his proof, the rules of inference with which he was working are an assumption, akin to an axiom, and can't be proven. If you accept the causal nature of the universe Ahem. Correlation is not causality. Repeated correlation is not proof of causality. Causality can, in fact, never be proved for any real events, and the existence of causality in our mental model of the universe is not proof that causality plays a role in the universe itself. then that which is not can not create that which is [not?]. If you deny a causal universe then there can be no meaning in anything, especially logical philosophical discussion. The premises of logic do not hold. Well that was kind of the point -- the premises of logic are just that, premises. They are something we assume. Assuming them turns ones own existence into something of a tautology. If we don't assume them, on the other hand, then we we can't conclude anything, including that we, ourselves, exist. Logical discussion is not possible. I create therefore I am. If you agree with the existence of my creation then you agree with my existence. These words are my creation. Do you have a response? 8^) Do your words exist, or do I just think they do? Do my thoughts exist, or am I merely confused? Or am I? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
I do not mean they got no positive results at all. As I recall, they got small results and made little progress toward reproducibility. One of them retired and the project ground to a halt. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On 29 Dec 2011, at 14:17, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Having said all that, Stephen, please prove you exist. That's a tough one. Descartes's proof was defective, of course -- it proved only that I do not see how I could not exist, not that I could not possibly not exist. Among other issues with his proof, the rules of inference with which he was working are an assumption, akin to an axiom, and can't be proven. Of course, it's really I am, therefore I think, and not the other way around ;) Joe
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Rothwell was among the most vocal proponents of using gamma spectroscopy as proof of LENR, so it is a bit surprising that he seems to be backtracking a bit. I am not backtracking. That's silly. Gamma rays have been seen, but never at levels commensurate with plasma fusion. They are sporadic and at millions of times below that, like the neutrons. They are easy to detect, which makes them useful. Iwamura detected them before he began looking for transmutations. I think he stopped trying to detect them after that. Many others have seen them, but always sporadically, even when the heat is stable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Extraordinary Evidence of nuclear reaction in cold fusion experiment.
At 09:43 AM 12/29/2011, David ledin wrote: Extraordinary Evidence of nuclear reaction in cold fusion experiment. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2006/2006ExtraordinaryEvidence.pdf ... a grin spread across Gordon's face. This is great, he beamed. In the old days, we couldn't even start conversations like this. But now we're back to the old days. (Any news/rumours?)
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. Really? The highest quality testing which was performed in Bologna was radiation monitoring. You would not catch cold fusion Pd D+D reactions with this. They do not produce radiation. I presume H+H would also not produce radiation. I presume it forms deuterium, which is difficult to look for, because it is ubiquitous. I do not know anyone working with Ni+H who has looked for it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Does Miracle Comet presage Miracle Technology?
On 12/29/2011 12:14 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Christmas comet, named Lovejoy no less: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398066,00.asp http://www.space.com/14045-spectacular-christmas-comet-amazes-skywatchers-ch ile.html This kind of thing had staggering importance a few thousand years ago ... Yes. Comets are harbingers of change. They were both feared and revered. They introduce novelty in the system, for worse and for better. Happy new year, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Could they no longer get the *original* *cell* to work, or was it just new cells that didn't work? As far as I know they used the same cell, but different cathodes. In cold fusion, when you fail to reproduce most of the time the problem is in the cathode material. Typically they cannot re-use a cathode because it is used up in destructive analysis, with something like a layer by layer SEM. It has been a long time since I talked to them about this. I do not recall the details. It should be noted that all of these experiments used the same palladium ingot purchased by Lautzenhiser and Eisner in Houston. As McKubre and others have noted, sometimes a sample from the same ingot or wire has very different loading and performance characteristics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On 11-12-29 01:57 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-12-28 08:40 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: Unless I'm greatly mistaken, you've accused a number of people of failing to exist. The only allegation of non existence I've ever made is the non-existence of a proper and credible experiment that proves that the E-cat works as advertised. Of that, I'm quite sure. The other non-existence attributes I've alleged are only potential -- as in: Rossi's anonymous customer may not exist or may be associated with Rossi. -- to give an example. I've never accused anyone of fraud in conjunction with Rossi and Defkalion. I have, however, pointed to Steorn as an example of something which developed similarly and appears very similar and clearly is a fraud -- which has been crystal clear for at least two years. I have said many times that Rossi and Defkalion could be frauds. I think the probability that they are is quite significant. It's an opinion-- not a statement of facts. Having said all that, Stephen, please prove you exist. That's a tough one. Descartes's proof was defective, of course -- it proved only that I do not see how I could not exist, not that I could not possibly not exist. Among other issues with his proof, the rules of inference with which he was working are an assumption, akin to an axiom, and can't be proven.
[Vo]:Extraordinary Evidence of nuclear reaction in cold fusion experiment.
Extraordinary Evidence of nuclear reaction in cold fusion experiment. Scientists at the U.S. Navy’s San Diego SPAWAR Systems Center have produced something unique in the 17-year history of the scientific drama historically known as cold fusion: simple, portable, highly repeatable,unambiguous, and permanent physical evidence of nuclear events using detectors that have a long track record of reliability and acceptance among nuclear physicists. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2006/2006ExtraordinaryEvidence.pdf
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: Horace Heffner They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not realize that this reaction is strongly endothermic. This is false. Consider: H + H -- D + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV That is half the story. You neglect the threshold condition. IOW this reaction is meaningless to consider for any form of LENR or even Tokomak fusion, since it does NOT take into account the required threshold condition. Not to mention the neutrino carries away the bulk of energy, so it is endothermic in the sense of being able to sustain a continuing reaction. IOW this reaction cannot happen outside of massive gravity conditions (solar, or else and earthly accelerator that can never reach breakeven). The threshold temperature for protium fusion is on the order of 10,000,000 K (10 million degrees Kelvin). Rossi is getting excess heat at a threshold of about 500 K. Big difference. There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
Come on guys! What the proof is of the existence of this big customer ? A lot of Rossi's words of course, a mysteriuos engineer named Fioravanti (Colonel uh ?) Retired ? Unenployed ? Not appearing anywhere in any phonebook or internet professional board ... ?! Just for the record, Fioravanti is a very common lastname in Bologna area. 2011/12/29 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com ** On 11-12-29 01:57 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 11-12-28 08:40 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: Unless I'm greatly mistaken, you've accused a number of people of failing to exist. The only allegation of non existence I've ever made is the non-existence of a proper and credible experiment that proves that the E-cat works as advertised. Of that, I'm quite sure. The other non-existence attributes I've alleged are only potential -- as in: Rossi's anonymous customer may not exist or may be associated with Rossi. -- to give an example. I've never accused anyone of fraud in conjunction with Rossi and Defkalion. I have, however, pointed to Steorn as an example of something which developed similarly and appears very similar and clearly is a fraud -- which has been crystal clear for at least two years. I have said many times that Rossi and Defkalion could be frauds. I think the probability that they are is quite significant. It's an opinion-- not a statement of facts. Having said all that, Stephen, please prove you exist. That's a tough one. Descartes's proof was defective, of course -- it proved only that I do not see how I could not exist, not that I could not possibly not exist. Among other issues with his proof, the rules of inference with which he was working are an assumption, akin to an axiom, and can't be proven.
[Vo]:high altitude airships now flight testing: Rich Murray 2011.12.29
high altitude airships now flight testing: Rich Murray 2011.12.29 This technology, now growing exponentially, will in a decade put huge solar powered airships into one-week spirals into orbit, and then into orbit around Moon, Mars, and entire solar system, in perfect safety without polluting, for hundreds of people in luxury at low costs. http://airshipstothearctic.com/itinerary.html Airships to the Arctic VI [ conference ]: A Game-Changer December 5-6, 2011, Seattle Wa. The sixth Airships to the Arctic conference explores the forward and backward linkages of the emerging airship industry. The introduction of transport airships will require new locations for transshipment and generate economic opportunities that do not exist today. Just as these other modes of transport spawned an array of input suppliers, this conference examines the supply base of the airship industry. Construction of large transport airships will create the need for materials, engines, pilots, avionics and many other large and small input suppliers. http://airshipstothearctic.com/presenations.html Lockheed has an airship in the works dubbed SkyTug that should be commercially available by late 2013 with a range of 1,000 nautical miles and a 20-ton payload. The 50-ton Skyfreighter is expected to follow in late 2014. Lockheed Martin's P-791 prototype airship sits on the tarmac following its initial flight in 2006. Lockheed and several other aerospace companies see modern airships as a low-carbon future for the cargo industry. Photo courtesy Lockheed Martin. May 3, 2011 A safer generation of airships is trying to usher in a low-carbon future for air cargo. The initial target: Developing markets -- China, Africa, northern Canada - where transportation infrastructure is nonexistent. By Bruce Dorminey For The Daily Climate The notion that airships represent the future of air cargo is being revived by a new generation of entrepreneurs some 75 years after a catastrophic fireball brought the industry to a screeching halt. We may always carry freight in the bellies of passenger jets. But in a fully mature hybrid market, airships should replace the rest of the fixed-wing cargo fleet. -- Barry Prentice, University of Manitoba Far safer than the Hindenburg, whose tragic 1937 docking remains an icon of aerospace gone wrong, these modern airships are a hybrid of lighter-than-air and fixed-wing aircraft. They can loft enormous payloads without requiring the acres of tarmac or miles of roadway necessary for conventional air and truck transport. And they do so at a fraction of the fuel and cost of aircraft. Airships give you access and much larger payloads at much lower costs, said Peter DeRobertis, project leader for commercial hybrid air vehicles at Lockheed Martin's Aeronautics and Skunk Works division in Fort Worth, Texas. It's also a green aircraft; you're not polluting. Today's airships could conceivably be used to transport everything from ripe pineapples to heavy industrial equipment direct to the customer. Shippers, for example, could roll tractors, backhoes, and road graders onto a 50-ton hybrid vehicle at a factory and roll them off at the job site, easing logistics and cost. A handful of companies have prototypes under development. Lockheed has an airship in the works dubbed SkyTug that should be commercially available by late 2013 with a range of 1,000 nautical miles and a 20-ton payload. The 50-ton Skyfreighter is expected to follow in late 2014. The industry's future is initially aimed at leapfrogging the conventional cargo transport infrastructure, freighting goods where highways and airports don't exist -- Canada's frozen north; China's western frontier; remote parts of Africa, Asia, and South America. No airships are commercially available for cargo transport there yet. But once established on the frontiers, experts say their versatility, cost and fuel advantages should allow airships to penetrate mature freight markets like the United States http://www.blimpinfo.com/uncategorized/argus-one-scheduled-for-flight-testing/ Argus One Scheduled for Flight Testing Posted on November 19, 2011 by LighterThanAirSociety Source: UPI.com KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla., Nov. 18 (UPI) -- The mid-altitude Argus One unmanned airship will undergo free-flight testing in December at the U.S. Department of Energy Nevada Test Site. World Surveillance Group, maker of the unmanned aerial vehicle, said the tests and demonstrations are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense and were rescheduled from a proving ground facility in Yuma, Ariz. Pentagon sponsors will provide pre-flight, frequency and free flight coordination testing and access to facilities, while flight preparation and testing will be conducted by WSGI’s technical partner, Eastcor Engineering. The Argus One (Credit: World Surveillance Group, Inc.) WSGI says its Argus One is equipped with a “newly developed stabilization system that autonomously controls the level of
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On Dec 29, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-12-29 01:57 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-12-28 08:40 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: Unless I'm greatly mistaken, you've accused a number of people of failing to exist. The only allegation of non existence I've ever made is the non- existence of a proper and credible experiment that proves that the E-cat works as advertised. Of that, I'm quite sure. The other non-existence attributes I've alleged are only potential -- as in: Rossi's anonymous customer may not exist or may be associated with Rossi. -- to give an example. I've never accused anyone of fraud in conjunction with Rossi and Defkalion. I have, however, pointed to Steorn as an example of something which developed similarly and appears very similar and clearly is a fraud -- which has been crystal clear for at least two years. I have said many times that Rossi and Defkalion could be frauds. I think the probability that they are is quite significant. It's an opinion-- not a statement of facts. Having said all that, Stephen, please prove you exist. That's a tough one. Descartes's proof was defective, of course -- it proved only that I do not see how I could not exist, not that I could not possibly not exist. Among other issues with his proof, the rules of inference with which he was working are an assumption, akin to an axiom, and can't be proven. If you accept the causal nature of the universe then that which is not can not create that which is not. If you deny a causal universe then there can be no meaning in anything, especially logical philosophical discussion. The premises of logic do not hold. Logical discussion is not possible. I create therefore I am. If you agree with the existence of my creation then you agree with my existence. These words are my creation. Do you have a response? 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
At 11:31 AM 12/29/2011, Jones Beene wrote: Makes no sense to argue otherwise. Bite the bullet. There is no evidence of hydrogen fusion in Rossi; and there are many hours of data showing that no radiation over background is occurring - and moreover it was done using a very capable monitoring device which was designed to detect positron emission specifically. This was measured only in the January experiment. Celani noted that Focardi was surprised by their absence http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41536.html * It was assembled also a twin gamma ray detector in order to detect e+e- annihilation: this time almost no results. Focardi was confident that they will get large amounts of such signal, as in previous experiment. This time the counts were close to background for coincidences and only some uncorrelated signal were over background. This was the start up burst experiment : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42665.html Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to delete overrange, which was 7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. - - - - - I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from the lack of expected e-/e+ gammas AND the occurrence of an unexpected burst.
Re: [Vo]:Extraordinary Evidence of nuclear reaction in cold fusion experiment.
I read this almost five years ago. Am I missing something here? (he said removing the Q-Tip from his ear) T
[Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-
Primarily for the theorists in the Collective. This from the Ni-H yahoo group... -Mark I try to explain it: All you have to do is, to put the electron from the H-atom nearer to the nucleus and Fusion will happen. From the K-electron capture from Be-7 I know, that a faktor 4 is enough. So, how can this be done? Idea comes from Muon, where it is proved, so just enhance the effective mass of the surrounding electron. Vektorpotential A = 1/2 B * r (B orthogonal A, B=const, r is distance) For Fusion, A = sqr(5.405961)*mc/e=0.004 Tesla*meter (to enlarge elektron energy about 782.333keV from proton to Neutron) and from this B=0.008 Tesla (r=1m). For a 5 cm chamber diameter, it is B = 0.16 Tesla (if I am right :-)). Iron is also important, because it has a high Curie temperature. For Nickel is T Curie 360 Celsius, for Iron T Curie 768 Celsius. So, the iron in the chamber enlarges the magnetic field from outside by about a factor 1000. Dietmar
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 10:57 PM 12/28/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: Wow. Rossi had better hope he doesn't get the same examiner. (Particularly failure to disclose best mode -- which doesn't even have to be active concealment). All the prior art stuff is well done. A couple of quibbles ... rather fatal to pre-Rossi CF. Paper 9 Page 16 : absence of whole body radiation -- which doesn't seem to happen in Pd-D (At least Rossi needs shielding) Page 19 : identical testing apparatus must give exact result data per settled case law'. -- still too much material-variation in CF. (Surely SOME experimental error / equipment variation is allowed? ) I think it means within reasonable error bars, as opposed to sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Says there is no reputable evidence of record supporting CF ... but leaves the door open with evidence to indicate appellant has so succeeded where others have failed. In short, I think Rossi COULD pass the technical stuff IF he discloses best mode. Yes, if it works as advertised. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not realize that this reaction is strongly endothermic. This is false. Consider: H + H -- D + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV That is half the story. You neglect the threshold condition. I certainly do not ignore the threshold condition. Did you even bother to read the reference? IOW this reaction is meaningless to consider for any form of LENR or even Tokomak fusion, since it does NOT take into account the required threshold condition. Not to mention the neutrino carries away the bulk of energy, so it is endothermic in the sense of being able to sustain a continuing reaction. It takes nominal energy to accommodate deflation fusion, and zero energy to form the deflated state. IOW this reaction cannot happen outside of massive gravity conditions (solar, or else and earthly accelerator that can never reach breakeven). The threshold temperature for protium fusion is on the order of 10,000,000 K (10 million degrees Kelvin). Rossi is getting excess heat at a threshold of about 500 K. In a gas or vacuum yes, in a lattice I would expect a very very small amount, as I noted in my article and repeated here. A very very small amount. A very very small amount. A very very small amount. A very very small amount. I also noted that ... this gamma producing reaction was not observed above background in the Rossi E-cats. Big difference. There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. Jones Hydrogen fusion with hydrogen - yes. Hydrogen fusion with heavy elements - there is evidence, if it if Rossi's circus is not all boondoggle. You are merely making a straw man argument here. You make the straw man, you tear it down. You ignore the important issues. As explained in my article, I think these are the feasible reactions: 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV [-1.842] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV [-11.657] 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV [-8.777] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev [-3.560] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843] Ni28 + 2 p* --- Ni28 + 2 1H1 + 0 MeV [+6 Mev ZPE] and of these, the following are the primary energy producing reactions: 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918] It is not possible to tell at this point what proportion of the energy might come from the purely zero point energy fueled interaction. If it is the great majority, then little isotopic shift would be observed, especially for short experiments. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Primarily for the theorists in the Collective… This from the Ni-H yahoo group... Add a smitch of neodymium and a dash of boron and you probably have a WMD! :-) HNY! T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-12-29 12:02 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-12-29 01:57 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: Having said all that, Stephen, please prove you exist. That's a tough one. Descartes's proof was defective, of course -- it proved only that I do not see how I could not exist, not that I could not possibly not exist. Among other issues with his proof, the rules of inference with which he was working are an assumption, akin to an axiom, and can't be proven. If you accept the causal nature of the universe Ahem. Correlation is not causality. Repeated correlation is not proof of causality. Causality can, in fact, never be proved for any real events, and the existence of causality in our mental model of the universe is not proof that causality plays a role in the universe itself. then that which is not can not create that which is [not?]. If you deny a causal universe then there can be no meaning in anything, especially logical philosophical discussion. The premises of logic do not hold. Well that was kind of the point -- the premises of logic are just that, premises. They are something we assume. Assuming them turns ones own existence into something of a tautology. If we don't assume them, on the other hand, then we we can't conclude anything, including that we, ourselves, exist. Logical discussion is not possible. I create therefore I am. If you agree with the existence of my creation then you agree with my existence. These words are my creation. Do you have a response? 8^) Do your words exist, or do I just think they do? Do my thoughts exist, or am I merely confused? Or am I? If you accept Aristotelean logic, and you acknowledge my statements, you thus acknowledge my existence. I acknowledge your statements, thus I acknowledge your existence. This of course says nothing about our physical nature or location though. Perhaps we are merely subtask clusters in a great parallel computer. Given that the universe is stochastic in nature at its fundamental level, perhaps Aristotelean logic is not justifiable, thus only Bayesian inference is justifiable. Since you acknowledge my statements, you thereby acknowledge the significant probability of my existence. I acknowledge your statements, thus I acknowledge the significant probability of your existence. This of course says nothing about our physical nature or location though. Perhaps we are merely subnetworks in a great quantum computer, or at least one of us is. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Complete nonsense. The monitor used by Rossi's team in January is specifically designed to detect positrons, which must be there if there is to be H+H fusion. None were detected. All other forms of fusion with nickel produce radioisotopes of varying half-lives - easy to detect - which Rossi himself claims are absent, and no test has found them either. Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. Jones From: Jed Rothwell There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. Really? The highest quality testing which was performed in Bologna was radiation monitoring. You would not catch cold fusion Pd D+D reactions with this. They do not produce radiation. I presume H+H would also not produce radiation. I presume it forms deuterium, which is difficult to look for, because it is ubiquitous. I do not know anyone working with Ni+H who has looked for it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-
On Dec 29, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Primarily for the theorists in the Collective… This from the Ni-H yahoo group... -Mark I try to explain it: All you have to do is, to put the electron from the H-atom nearer to the nucleus and Fusion will happen. From the K-electron capture from Be-7 I know, that a faktor 4 is enough. So, how can this be done? Idea comes from Muon, where it is proved, so just enhance the effective mass of the surrounding electron. Vektorpotential A = 1/2 B * r (B orthogonal A, B=const, r is distance) For Fusion, A = sqr(5.405961)*mc/e=0.004 Tesla*meter (to enlarge elektron energy about 782.333keV from proton to Neutron) and from this B=0.008 Tesla (r=1m). For a 5 cm chamber diameter, it is B = 0.16 Tesla (if I am right :-)). Iron is also important, because it has a high Curie temperature. For Nickel is T Curie 360 Celsius, for Iron T Curie 768 Celsius. So, the iron in the chamber enlarges the magnetic field from outside by about a factor 1000. Dietmar Something being overlooked here is that a single iron atom in a nano- cluster of about 100 Ni atoms can magnetize the entire cluster, without an external field. Add a bit of iron (and in some cases copper) to the Ni, heat treat with hydrogen, and you have mu metal. This can increase the permeability by a factor of 40! See my comments on this at: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59662.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.html There are many forms of mu metal. I noted a specific mu metal composition as an example: 80% Ni, 14% Fe, 5% Mo, 0.5% Mn, plus trace S, Si, C, P. This is a very good protium cold fusion lattice prospect. Curie temp about 454°C. The saturation induction is surprisingly low though, at 7500 gauss. Permeability is 325,000! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Domestic eCat spec : 10 kW Heat + AC
Kai Tønder December 29th, 2011 at 4:44 PM Dear Rossi, Will it be possible to connect your unit to a 12V car battery? I would like to use it at a hut where we do not have any other form for power then 12V. Also, is one unit sufficient to keep a jacuzzi warm ? If yes to both, please add me to your preorder list Warm regards K.T Andrea Rossi December 29th, 2011 at 5:47 PM Dear Kai Tonder: The power of the domestis E-Cats will be 10 kW, and will produce heat and conditioned air. Your pre-order has been accepted: the utilizations you said probably are a joke, but if you are not really interested can cancel the order when we will send you the offer. Warm Regards, A.R. (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Ah yes, I see. Are you then saying the FPE Alchemists used a Philosopher's stone to generate all the observed transmutations? AG On 12/30/2011 8:58 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Domestic eCat spec : 10 kW Heat + AC
Not fair. I had that idea to use a 5 kW Hyperion or 10 kW E-Cat to heat my spa. Big market there and very low tech. Of course via external heat exchanger as who knows what spa water would do to the inside of a FPE reactor. Hot Tub Time Machine??? AG On 12/30/2011 9:32 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Kai Tønder December 29th, 2011 at 4:44 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=8#comment-159406 Dear Rossi, Will it be possible to connect your unit to a 12V car battery? I would like to use it at a hut where we do not have any other form for power then 12V. Also, is one unit sufficient to keep a jacuzzi warm ? If yes to both, please add me to your preorder list Warm regards K.T Andrea Rossi December 29th, 2011 at 5:47 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=8#comment-159449 Dear Kai Tonder: The power of the domestis E-Cats will be 10 kW, and will produce heat and conditioned air. Your pre-order has been accepted: the utilizations you said probably are a joke, but if you are not really interested can cancel the order when we will send you the offer. Warm Regards, A.R. (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 29, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Complete nonsense. I like your candor! 8^) The monitor used by Rossi's team in January is specifically designed to detect positrons, which must be there if there is to be H+H fusion. None were detected. Yes. I stated this in my article: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf All other forms of fusion with nickel produce radioisotopes of varying half-lives - easy to detect - which Rossi himself claims are absent, and no test has found them either. Not true. Did you see my reaction set and their justification? Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. Jones How about the detection of gammas by Celani on start-up and shut down? Celani is credible. The gammas admittedly could be faked. From: Jed Rothwell There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. Really? The highest quality testing which was performed in Bologna was radiation monitoring. You would not catch cold fusion Pd D+D reactions with this. They do not produce radiation. I presume H+H would also not produce radiation. I presume it forms deuterium, which is difficult to look for, because it is ubiquitous. I do not know anyone working with Ni +H who has looked for it. - Jed Metal + H can create heavy transmutations. These should be far more probable than hydrogen plus hydrogen reactions, provided the species of hydrogen involved have zero net charge, or less. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHreviewoftr.pdf and for some amusement on the side: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEalchemynig.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones Beene wrote: Complete nonsense. The monitor used by Rossi's team in January is specifically designed to detect positrons, which must be there if there is to be H+H fusion. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that like saying there must be neutrons if D+D fusion is occurring? It is definitely occurring with Pd-D. There is no doubt about the helium, pace Krivit. But there are a ~11 million times fewer neutrons than there should be, according to theory. Until they look for deuterium in a Ni-H cell, I do not think you can rule out hydrogen fusion. I do not think you can dictate what nature can do, or to what must be there. Only an experiment can determine this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi?
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Looks like the Philosopher's Stone was working overtime ;) AG On 12/30/2011 9:46 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: and for some amusement on the side: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEalchemynig.pdf
Re: [Vo]:high altitude airships now flight testing: Rich Murray 2011.12.29
On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 10:10 AM 12/29/2011, Rich Murray wrote: high altitude airships now flight testing: Rich Murray 2011.12.29 Fascinating stuff : the weather / piloting http:// airshipstothearctic.com/docs/pr/Weather_and_Piloting.pdf was particularly interesting Dynamic monte-carlo weather simulation route-adjustment. And to keep it on topic . https://vortex.saic.com The notion of flying airships through passes in the Alaska range, as shown in one of the frames, strikes me as out of touch with reality. Mountain passes here are dangerous and unpredictable moment to moment even for high power to volume prop aircraft. In the 1960's I worked for a company that evaluated the use of blimps to transport natural gas from the North Slope of Alaska to the lower 48. Natural gas is lighter than air. This is or will be likely economically viable, if the danger of flying tons of hazardous stuff to unchosen locations is ignored. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Radio24 interviews : 12/21 Rossi,Lewan 12/22 Giudice,Celani
22passi on 21 December : Mr Kilowatt finisce in bellezza (Mr Kilowatt ending in Beauty) http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/12/mr-kilowatt-finisce-in-bellezza.html The following from google translate (I'm not sure if the links come through .. go via 22passi ) Tonight at 21 on Radio24 , Maurizio Melis will provide its update each other on the E-Cat with brand new interviews with Andrea Rossi and Mats Lewan ; Listen to the 21/12/11 episode of the player through or alternatively here Tomorrow , same time and same issuer, Melis address the issue of LENR in general with new interviews with Emilio Del Giudice andFrancesco Celani . Listen to the 22/12/11 episode of the player through or alternatively here In Italian, and no transcript that I can see. Anything interesting? (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Horace * Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. How about the detection of gammas by Celani on start-up and shut down? Celani is credible. The gammas admittedly could be faked. Yes Celani is credible, but this is evidence of a startup device and nothing more. He admits as much.
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Well finding deuterium would be definitive proof of 'something anomalous' but not fusion, since they can absolutely rule out ALL varieties of hydrogen fusion now. You absolutely have to get rid of a positive charge somehow to get to deuterium, and no positron is seen in an instrument designed for that specific purpose. No positron - no H+H fusion. It is almost that simple. But yes ! we all agree that experiment rules and there could be an unknown reaction going on here which also violates conservation of charge, in addition to everything else - and my arguments assume either known reactions or those that have a substantial theoretical basis. BUT . isn't violating conservation of charge adding yet another miracle to the one or two you are trying to salvage? From: Jed Rothwell * Until they look for deuterium in a Ni-H cell, I do not think you can rule out hydrogen fusion. I do not think you can dictate what nature can do, or to what must be there. Only an experiment can determine this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method available, other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital description has gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's. The addition of spin coupling magnetic considerations puts the complexity over the top, as far as I know. I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt, experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have. but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept. However, the deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics. Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi? I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am. In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -- intermediate product -- 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D -- X + 4He nuclear catalysis idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the massive heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary. Any such theory that is adequate to do this can not assume neutrons precede the cold fusion reactions, because neither neutron activation nor radioactive byproducts are observed except in very small amounts that do not correspond to the overall transmutation rate. I think heavy element transmutation is where the essence of the field lies. It is unfortunate so much thinking is focused on D+D. Perhaps it is assumed that since D+D is difficult to explain, that X+H or X+D is far more difficult or impossible to explain, or even does not exist. This I think is far from the truth. The most critical impediments are tunneling distance and tunneling energy. These are impediments overcome by the shorter distance to lattice atoms from lattice sites, and the net energy gain to be had from the tunneling of deflated state hydrogen. Heavy element transmutation is far more credible and probable to me than direct hydrogen + hydrogen fusion. Perhaps the latter does not even happen to any significant degree. The lack of conservation of energy, both on the positive and negative sides, is explained by the trapped electron concept, which is also not conventional thinking, but rather part of the deflation fusion concept. The trapped electron can kinetically absorb the initial EM pulse of the strong nuclear reaction, radiate in small increments, and be involved in follow-on weak reactions with greatly elevated probabilities due to extended lingering time. In some cases it may help induce fission. Understanding the trapping mechanism in the first place, once tunneling is accepted, is high school physics. Understanding how the electron can escape without a weak reaction, however, takes some understanding of zero point energy. My theory is really just common sense. I am surprised that it is so non-palatable. I have assumed that is because my writing skills are so bad and because I need pictures. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at all though. Many cold fusion theories are only accepted by their authors. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Could be an unknown reaction going on here??? You mean There is an unknown reaction going on here. As for salvaging, there is nothing to salvage. The experiment rules. Game, Set, Match. Should I again mention the observed transmutations? Yea I know, they can't be real as there are no nuclear reactions occurring here, even those that we may not understand. So what is it a Philosopher's Stone (ZPE powered per chance?) causing the observed transmutations, if they are not the result of a nuclear reaction, which you claim is not happening? Maybe simpler to admit there are nuclear reactions occurring and you can't explain them using existing knowledge. That said do you accept wide ranging transmutations are occurring in FPE devices, even though you have no idea how they are occurring? AG On 12/30/2011 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: But yes ! we all agree that “experiment rules” and there could be an unknown reaction going on here which also violates conservation of charge, in addition to everything else - and my arguments assume either known reactions or those that have a substantial theoretical basis. BUT … isn’t violating conservation of charge adding yet another miracle to the one or two you are trying to salvage?
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method available, other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital description has gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's. The addition of spin coupling magnetic considerations puts the complexity over the top, as far as I know. I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt, experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have. but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept. However, the deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics. How so? It sounds like an electron level below the ground state, forbidden by QM. Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi? I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am. Sorry, I didn't mean criticism of him personally, but his theory. Doesn't it have less New Physics, and so should be preferable? In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -- intermediate product -- 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D -- X + 4He nuclear catalysis idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the massive heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary. I thought I understood you a few days ago to mean that the energy difference (23MeV?) typically seen as a gamma ray, here is seen as heat. That was my interpretation when you said the heat was the correct quantity to the helium. Any such theory that is adequate to do this can not assume neutrons precede the cold fusion reactions, because neither neutron activation nor radioactive byproducts are observed except in very small amounts that do not correspond to the overall transmutation rate. I think heavy element transmutation is where the essence of the field lies. It is unfortunate so much thinking is focused on D+D. Perhaps it is assumed that since D+D is difficult to explain, that X+H or X+D is far more difficult or impossible to explain, or even does not exist. This I think is far from the truth. The most critical impediments are tunneling distance and tunneling energy. These are impediments overcome by the shorter distance to lattice atoms from lattice sites, and the net energy gain to be had from the tunneling of deflated state hydrogen. Heavy element transmutation is far more credible and probable to me than direct hydrogen + hydrogen fusion. Perhaps the latter does not even happen to any significant degree. The lack of conservation of energy, both on the positive and negative sides, is explained by the trapped electron concept, which is also not conventional thinking, but rather part of the deflation fusion concept. The trapped electron can kinetically absorb the initial EM pulse of the strong nuclear reaction, radiate in small increments, and be involved in follow-on weak reactions with greatly elevated probabilities due to extended lingering time. In some cases it may help induce fission. Understanding the trapping mechanism in the first place, once tunneling is accepted, is high school physics. Understanding how the electron can escape without a weak reaction, however, takes some understanding of zero point energy. My theory is really just common sense. I am surprised that it is so non-palatable. I have assumed that is because my writing skills are so bad and because I need pictures. I would guess people want more math. It's hard to convey over email, but I have a solution for that I'll write up this weekend. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at all though. Many cold fusion theories are only accepted by their authors.
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
I'm pretty sure you have not followed this thread very closely, or else you are a bit too trustworthy of Rossi. What observed transmutations are you speaking of? Please do not say this is what AR told me. BTW, nickel to copper is NOT an acceptable answer. There is no such thing as nickel to copper at tens of kilowatts of excess - without deadly levels of radiation... and, last time I check AR was still ticking, so to speak. Maybe radiation poisoning explains a few things. Jones From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Could be an unknown reaction going on here??? You mean There is an unknown reaction going on here. As for salvaging, there is nothing to salvage. The experiment rules. Game, Set, Match. Should I again mention the observed transmutations? Yea I know, they can't be real as there are no nuclear reactions occurring here, even those that we may not understand. So what is it a Philosopher's Stone (ZPE powered per chance?) causing the observed transmutations, if they are not the result of a nuclear reaction, which you claim is not happening? Maybe simpler to admit there are nuclear reactions occurring and you can't explain them using existing knowledge. That said do you accept wide ranging transmutations are occurring in FPE devices, even though you have no idea how they are occurring? AG On 12/30/2011 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: But yes ! we all agree that “experiment rules” and there could be an unknown reaction going on here which also violates conservation of charge, in addition to everything else - and my arguments assume either known reactions or those that have a substantial theoretical basis. BUT … isn’t violating conservation of charge adding yet another miracle to the one or two you are trying to salvage?
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
You must be joking? Right? Jed's archives are full of reports of transmutations. Even the high school kids reported transmutations. May I suggest you need to step outside your Standard Model mind set and actually read what other are reporting? Remember the Experiment Rules. There are transmutations occurring, going both ways. Time to accept the experimental evidence is real even though your understanding of physics can't explain it. So maybe stop trying to deny what is happening is not happening. Closing your eyes to the reality of transmutations will not help you to come to grips with the experimental evidence. So lets all say in one voice: *What is happening is happening. It is not explainable using current understanding of our world.* At least then we are ALL on common ground. AG On 12/30/2011 12:15 PM, Jones Beene wrote: I'm pretty sure you have not followed this thread very closely, or else you are a bit too trustworthy of Rossi. What observed transmutations are you speaking of? Please do not say this is what AR told me. BTW, nickel to copper is NOT an acceptable answer. There is no such thing as nickel to copper at tens of kilowatts of excess - without deadly levels of radiation... and, last time I check AR was still ticking, so to speak. Maybe radiation poisoning explains a few things. Jones *From:* Aussie Guy E-Cat Could be an unknown reaction going on here??? You mean There is an unknown reaction going on here. As for salvaging, there is nothing to salvage. The experiment rules. Game, Set, Match. Should I again mention the observed transmutations? Yea I know, they can't be real as there are no nuclear reactions occurring here, even those that we may not understand. So what is it a Philosopher's Stone (ZPE powered per chance?) causing the observed transmutations, if they are not the result of a nuclear reaction, which you claim is not happening? Maybe simpler to admit there are nuclear reactions occurring and you can't explain them using existing knowledge. That said do you accept wide ranging transmutations are occurring in FPE devices, even though you have no idea how they are occurring? AG On 12/30/2011 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: But yes ! we all agree that “experiment rules” and there could be an unknown reaction going on here which also violates conservation of charge, in addition to everything else - and my arguments assume either known reactions or those that have a substantial theoretical basis. BUT … isn’t violating conservation of charge adding yet another miracle to the one or two you are trying to salvage?
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
OK - I see that you are conflating prior LENR with Rossi. That is easy to do, but complicates everything. We are in agreement that LENR is very strange if you try to distill knowledge from the full range, since it covers too much territory to make easy generalizations. Deuterium experiments are very different from hydrogen, and transmutation is common in deuterium. There are many proved anomalies in either field, but it is too easy to conflate the two. But it is a huge mistake to try to justify Ni-H with Pd-D. The two are very different. Look at the elements as they are seen in reactions: H compared to D. The mass difference alone is a staggering ratio of ~2:1. Imagine Uranium with an isotope at 170 g Are we in agreement so far? From: Aussie Guy E-Cat You must be joking? Right? Jed's archives are full of reports of transmutations. Even the high school kids reported transmutations. May I suggest you need to step outside your Standard Model mind set and actually read what other are reporting? Remember the Experiment Rules. There are transmutations occurring, going both ways. Time to accept the experimental evidence is real even though your understanding of physics can't explain it. So maybe stop trying to deny what is happening is not happening. Closing your eyes to the reality of transmutations will not help you to come to grips with the experimental evidence. So lets all say in one voice: *What is happening is happening. It is not explainable using current understanding of our world.* At least then we are ALL on common ground. AG On 12/30/2011 12:15 PM, Jones Beene wrote: I'm pretty sure you have not followed this thread very closely, or else you are a bit too trustworthy of Rossi. What observed transmutations are you speaking of? Please do not say this is what AR told me. BTW, nickel to copper is NOT an acceptable answer. There is no such thing as nickel to copper at tens of kilowatts of excess - without deadly levels of radiation... and, last time I check AR was still ticking, so to speak. Maybe radiation poisoning explains a few things. Jones *From:* Aussie Guy E-Cat Could be an unknown reaction going on here??? You mean There is an unknown reaction going on here. As for salvaging, there is nothing to salvage. The experiment rules. Game, Set, Match. Should I again mention the observed transmutations? Yea I know, they can't be real as there are no nuclear reactions occurring here, even those that we may not understand. So what is it a Philosopher's Stone (ZPE powered per chance?) causing the observed transmutations, if they are not the result of a nuclear reaction, which you claim is not happening? Maybe simpler to admit there are nuclear reactions occurring and you can't explain them using existing knowledge. That said do you accept wide ranging transmutations are occurring in FPE devices, even though you have no idea how they are occurring? AG On 12/30/2011 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: But yes ! we all agree that “experiment rules” and there could be an unknown reaction going on here which also violates conservation of charge, in addition to everything else - and my arguments assume either known reactions or those that have a substantial theoretical basis. BUT … isn’t violating conservation of charge adding yet another miracle to the one or two you are trying to salvage?
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Transmutations are observed in both Palladium and Nickel based systems. Excess heat is observed in both Palladium and Nickel based systems. Lack of radiation is observed in both Palladium and Nickel based systems. Heat after Death is observed in both Palladium and Nickel based systems. DDSLA (Different Dog, Same Leg Action). Maybe zoom out a bit and look at the macro observed effects as from where I sit, then sure seem to be the same. AG On 12/30/2011 12:47 PM, Jones Beene wrote: OK - I see that you are conflating prior LENR with Rossi. That is easy to do, but complicates everything. We are in agreement that LENR is very strange if you try to distill knowledge from the full range, since it covers too much territory to make easy generalizations. Deuterium experiments are very different from hydrogen, and transmutation is common in deuterium. There are many proved anomalies in either field, but it is too easy to conflate the two. But it is a huge mistake to try to justify Ni-H with Pd-D. The two are very different. Look at the elements as they are seen in reactions: H compared to D. The mass difference alone is a staggering ratio of ~2:1. Imagine Uranium with an isotope at 170 g Are we in agreement so far? *From:* Aussie Guy E-Cat You must be joking? Right? Jed's archives are full of reports of transmutations. Even the high school kids reported transmutations. May I suggest you need to step outside your Standard Model mind set and actually read what other are reporting? Remember the Experiment Rules. There are transmutations occurring, going both ways. Time to accept the experimental evidence is real even though your understanding of physics can't explain it. So maybe stop trying to deny what is happening is not happening. Closing your eyes to the reality of transmutations will not help you to come to grips with the experimental evidence. So lets all say in one voice: *What is happening is happening. It is not explainable using current understanding of our world.* At least then we are ALL on common ground. AG On 12/30/2011 12:15 PM, Jones Beene wrote: I'm pretty sure you have not followed this thread very closely, or else you are a bit too trustworthy of Rossi. What observed transmutations are you speaking of? Please do not say this is what AR told me. BTW, nickel to copper is NOT an acceptable answer. There is no such thing as nickel to copper at tens of kilowatts of excess - without deadly levels of radiation... and, last time I check AR was still ticking, so to speak. Maybe radiation poisoning explains a few things. Jones *From:* Aussie Guy E-Cat Could be an unknown reaction going on here??? You mean There is an unknown reaction going on here. As for salvaging, there is nothing to salvage. The experiment rules. Game, Set, Match. Should I again mention the observed transmutations? Yea I know, they can't be real as there are no nuclear reactions occurring here, even those that we may not understand. So what is it a Philosopher's Stone (ZPE powered per chance?) causing the observed transmutations, if they are not the result of a nuclear reaction, which you claim is not happening? Maybe simpler to admit there are nuclear reactions occurring and you can't explain them using existing knowledge. That said do you accept wide ranging transmutations are occurring in FPE devices, even though you have no idea how they are occurring? AG On 12/30/2011 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: But yes ! we all agree that “experiment rules” and there could be an unknown reaction going on here which also violates conservation of charge, in addition to everything else - and my arguments assume either known reactions or those that have a substantial theoretical basis. BUT … isn’t violating conservation of charge adding yet another miracle to the one or two you are trying to salvage?
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:16:32 -0800: Hi Jones, [snip] Yes, and that is why - by convention - one atom of thickness is treated as 2D. Were you not aware of that? In the abstract, an atom thickness may not be true 2D, but it always works out that way with high precision, both in the math and in experiment, to be an acceptable approximation of how 3-space and 2-space are connected in the real world. Jones My point is that an Angstrom = 10 fm. Angstrom distances also exist within a monatomic layer, between the atoms of the layer. Nuclear distances are on the order of a few fm, i.e. tens of thousands of times less than the distance between atoms. That's why there is no surface to speak of at nuclear distances, and one of the major problems of the Lawandy approach. His contention is that mirror charges can hold protons(deuterons) in place at distances close enough to enable fusion, which implies distance much less than normal inter atomic distances, yet the concept of a charge mirroring that he relies on depends upon the existence of a surface, and as just explained, at the short distances required, there is no surface, because one is between atoms. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Update from Thane Heins: Electric Scooter Project Video #4.
Electric Scooter Project Video #4. http://youtu.be/lcfUoS30LgM Harry
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 29, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Charles Hope wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method available, other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital description has gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's. The addition of spin coupling magnetic considerations puts the complexity over the top, as far as I know. I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt, experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have. but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept. However, the deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics. How so? It sounds like an electron level below the ground state, forbidden by QM. The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice. A prolonged small state is only forbidden by QM if magnetic binding force and energy is excluded from the Hamiltonian. I provided the deflated deuteron calculation as reference 3 in Deflation Fusion, Speculations Regarding the Nature of Cold Fusions, Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14, Issue 80, July/August 2008: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf It references this spread sheet: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf I later provided the additional deflated state calculations: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf These are of course all rough approximations, but they demonstrate the main points. I expect to improve the calculations using custom code soon. Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi? I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am. Sorry, I didn't mean criticism of him personally, but his theory. The difference is indiscernible. Doesn't it have less New Physics, and so should be preferable? Preferable to what for describing what? In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -- intermediate product -- 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D -- X + 4He nuclear catalysis idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the massive heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary. I thought I understood you a few days ago to mean that the energy difference (23MeV?) typically seen as a gamma ray, here is seen as heat. That was my interpretation when you said the heat was the correct quantity to the helium. That is correct, or correct to an approximation, as far as it goes. Here you are referring to helium creation. This is the focus of many theories. I can not emphasize enough that this is a tiny portion of the field to be explored. The extreme energy anomalies, COE violations, are not associated with the helium production itself. The heat from He production was measured to 23 MeV within experimental error, i.e about 50% if I recall. What is missing is the energy, and the giant signatures, that should have accompanied the Pd transmutations which occur simultaneously. This missing energy and the missing signatures are associated with Pd+D experiments, as well as numerous other cold fusion heavy element transmutation modes, including protium initiated modes. Those who look for heavy element transmutations, even in the original Fleischmann and Pons type experiment, find them, even when they don't expect them. For example, see Table 1 in: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEalchemynig.pdf There are references to heavy isotopes in Storm's book and some of
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace Ø Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. How about the detection of gammas by Celani on start-up and shut down? Celani is credible. The gammas admittedly could be faked. Yes Celani is credible, but this is evidence of a startup device and nothing more. He admits as much. I seem to recall the gammas occurred at cool down too. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion device for pB11 fusion? 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 29, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Charles Hope wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method available, other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital description has gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's. The addition of spin coupling magnetic considerations puts the complexity over the top, as far as I know. I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt, experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have. but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept. However, the deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics. How so? It sounds like an electron level below the ground state, forbidden by QM. The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice. A prolonged small state is only forbidden by QM if magnetic binding force and energy is excluded from the Hamiltonian. I provided the deflated deuteron calculation as reference 3 in Deflation Fusion, Speculations Regarding the Nature of Cold Fusions, Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14, Issue 80, July/August 2008: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf It references this spread sheet: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf I later provided the additional deflated state calculations: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf These are of course all rough approximations, but they demonstrate the main points. I expect to improve the calculations using custom code soon. Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi? I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am. Sorry, I didn't mean criticism of him personally, but his theory. The difference is indiscernible. Doesn't it have less New Physics, and so should be preferable? Preferable to what for describing what? In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -- intermediate product -- 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D -- X + 4He nuclear catalysis idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the massive heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary. I thought I understood you a few days ago to mean that the energy difference (23MeV?) typically seen as a gamma ray, here is seen as heat. That was my interpretation when you said the heat was the correct quantity to the helium. That is correct, or correct to an approximation, as far as it goes. Here you are referring to helium creation. This is the focus of many theories. I can not emphasize enough that this is a tiny portion of the field to be explored. The extreme energy anomalies, COE violations, are not associated with the helium production itself. The heat from He production was measured to 23 MeV within experimental error, i.e about 50% if I recall. What is missing is the energy, and the giant signatures, that should have accompanied the Pd transmutations which occur simultaneously. This missing energy and the missing signatures are associated with Pd+D experiments, as well as numerous other cold fusion heavy element transmutation modes, including protium initiated modes. Those who look for heavy element transmutations, even in the original Fleischmann and Pons type experiment, find them, even when they don't expect them. For example, see Table 1 in:
