Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
In reply to ny@aol.com's message of Tue, 5 Jun 2012 00:14:05 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] http://sire.com/fusion.htm This page talks about gaps, but you don't need gaps. In fact almost all elements have isotopes that work. Odd numbered elements however tend to make better starting material because there are almost always fewer stable isotopes of the odd numbered elements than of the even numbered ones. That means that the element following the odd one is likely to have quite a few stable isotopes, which are likely to include the ones that would form by addition of a proton to the odd numbered nucleus. In short, if you start with an odd numbered element, you almost always get a stable isotope as end product. e.g. H + Na23 (100%) = Mg24 (stable) + 11.69 MeV H + Al27 (100%) = Si28 (stable) + 11.58 MeV H + P31 (100%) = S32 (stable) + 8.86 MeV H + Cl35 (75%) = Ar36 (stable) + 8.5 MeV H + Cl37 (25%) = Ar38 (stable) + 10.24 MeV H + Cu63 (69%) = Zn64 (stable) + 7.7 MeV H + Cu65 (31%) = Zn66 (stable) + 8.93 MeV etc. Each of these reactions also has a less energetic alternative where an alpha particle is emitted, also producing stable isotopes. Both Na and Al are particularly attractive as they are very common. (The 1 lb packet of salt you have in the cupboard would supply your home with energy for well over 100 years, not counting the Chlorine reactions! ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:OT: Wisconsin will chose their governor in less than 24 hours
This is another OFF TOPIC Wisconsin Political commentary. If not interested, please skip this post! You have been warned! Why don't you use vortex-b for this stuff?
[Vo]:What Happened in CE 774?
http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-radiation-burst-recorded-in-tree-rings-1.10768 Just over 1,200 years ago, the planet was hit by an extremely intense burst of high-energy radiation of unknown cause, scientists studying tree-ring data have found. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11123.html Is it possible that our sun generated an unprecedented energy burst? T
Re: [Vo]:What Happened in CE 774?
I agree with you Terry that it could likely be some form of solar event. Maybe you should check the historical sun spot record if available for that time frame to get some form of correlation. It also makes one wonder if similar, ever more powerful, events in history have resulted in a driving mechanism for evolution. The poor creatures around during such an occasion would not even know what hit them! If this type of event happens frequently in the history of life on earth one would expect DNA to have a built in mechanism to correct for a moderate radiation burst. I do recall reading about repeated sequences within our DNA and these bursts might indicate a good reason for that to be true. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 8:37 am Subject: [Vo]:What Happened in CE 774? http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-radiation-burst-recorded-in-tree-rings-1.10768 Just over 1,200 years ago, the planet was hit by an extremely intense urst of high-energy radiation of unknown cause, scientists studying ree-ring data have found. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11123.html Is it possible that our sun generated an unprecedented energy burst? T
RE: [Vo]:What Happened in CE 774?
Interesting but was it from our sun, and/or was our sun triggered. This was based on tree-ring data in Japan and North America, but I wonder about South America. If there was a substantial variation between North and South it could tell us something - although there are weather mechanisms for mixing radiocarbon between hemispheres. Mauro Lacy may know this, since he follows the subject area. If the 14Carbon increase were higher in the Southern Hemisphere, for instance, then my bet for the culprit is an x-ray burst from eta Carinae. It is the death star that produces massive directed cosmic rays at times - and we do not know how far back its instability began. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg63181.html If the rate of 14C in tree rings were found to be less in the Southern Hemisphere, it would probably rule out this particular source, which at various times has been the brightest star in the night-time sky (Sirius is normally brighter but it is only 8+ light years away while eta Carinae, even at its enormous distance of 8,000 ly - has been as bright as Sirius at times. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-radiation-burst-recorded-in-tree-rings -1.10768 Just over 1,200 years ago, the planet was hit by an extremely intense burst of high-energy radiation of unknown cause, scientists studying tree-ring data have found. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11123.html Is it possible that our sun generated an unprecedented energy burst? T attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
I took a table of nuclides and performed a Energy difference between the different nickel isotopes, plus associated proton and electron, and the daughter copper isotopes and compared the net released energy to the energy required to overcome the coulomb barrier. The most significant energy release which exceeds the barrier occurs when the Ni62 or Ni64 isotopes are converted. The delayed beta plus decay which is present for all of the other transformations looses a large amount of energy to a neutrino which promptly escapes the device. I will demonstrate the numbers below. These components are required to build Cu63 from Ni62 1 u = 931.494 MeV Disregard the slight rounding errors, excel chart source of data Ni62 Mass=61.92835 (u) Energy=57685.88 MeV Proton Mass=1.007276 (u) Energy=938.2716 MeV Electron Mass=.000549 (u) Energy=.510999 MeV Coulomb Barrier Energy ~5.6 MeV according to Rossi in his paper Cu63 Mass=62.9296 (u) Energy=58618.54 MeV Mass of components of Cu63;Ni62 + Proton + Electron=62.936175 (u) Energy=58624.66 MeV Mass decrease that must be released as energy=62.936175 - 62.9296 = .006575 (u) Energy= 6.12457 MeV - 5.6 MeV Barrier = .52457 MeV;Same Calculation for Cu65 yields 1.8532 MeV In these reactions there are no Beta Plus Decay radiation losses due to neutrino release and no 511 keV gammas. Please note that I also calculated the expected energy release due to WL process on the isotopes such as Ni60 and had perfect energy correlation when the energy required to make a neutron from a proton and electron is included. Exactly the same energy is seen in both paths (Rossi and WL) when the starting point is a nickel isotope with a proton and an electron, and the final point is the next higher isotope of nickel. I am working very hard to get a clear understanding of the coulomb barrier energy behavior. I can show that the alpha process within stars stops once iron has been synthesized, but this is only true if the barrier energy is trapped within the nucleus in the form of mass. I am approaching the problem from different directions to prove whether or not this hypothesis is accurate. Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 11:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) David, Can you explain your conclusion. can't see how any energy is released in these Ni -- Cu transmutations. Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: I may have been a bit to fast in pointing out the possible endothermic nature of the Ni62 and Ni64 reactions. They actually are the best two isotopes to use if you were not to rely upon the beta plus decay for a substantial portion of the energy release. They further are not susceptible to having the 511 keV gammas that would no doubt be released by the reactions involving the other nickel isotopes since copper 63 and 65 are stable and do not decay into nickel by that process. So, if Rossi is actually able to overcome the coulomb barrier by some mechanism and his device only uses the Ni62 and Ni64 isotopes then it could be functional. The energy released per atom for these two isotopes is only 1 or 2 MeV after satisfying the coulomb barrier, but that is a lot more than any chemical reaction can deliver. I wonder if the relatively modest amount of energy release also can be more safely directed toward useful forms such as vibrational coupling into the surrounding structure. All of my estimates and calculations assume the reaction path that has been suggested by Rossi instead of the WL process which would be much more energetic. Each of these proposed mechanisms has it's own particular problems to overcome. Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 10:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) I just wanted to point out that if Ni62 and Ni64 are the only isotopes that work then the addition of a proton to either results in the production of a stable isotope of copper which does not undergo beta plus decay. Much less energy is released per atom if the beta plus decay is avoided. My calculations suggest that these two reactions might actually be endothermic due to the large coulomb barrier. Perhaps this is a bit of misdirection? Dave -Original Message- From: integral.property.service integral.property.serv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 9:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) A.R. from Florida with love, Andrea Rossi
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
Robin,
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=338
http://www.ecatplanet.net/rossiblog.php?msg_search=Guglinski
e+p+e = Hydride Anion = *
1. Trap * in lattice (Ni nano, C nano Cone, etc.)
2. Activate * {Cavitation, heat, RFG, Arc, coordinated oscillations,
Lattice wave creation, etc.}
3. p+e portion of * enters Ni nucleus creating unstable isotope leaving
e behind for charge balance.
4. Ni Isotope = Cu + Cold Fusion Energy
6. Don't bother with trying to determine reaction with Quantitative
Analysis, Mass changes incredibly small and energy incredibly large. E=MC2
Warm Regards,
Reliable
mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to ny@aol.com's message of Tue, 5 Jun 2012 00:14:05 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
http://sire.com/fusion.htm
This page talks about gaps, but you don't need gaps. In fact almost all
elements have isotopes that work. Odd numbered elements however tend to make
better starting material because there are almost always fewer stable isotopes
of the odd numbered elements than of the even numbered ones. That means that the
element following the odd one is likely to have quite a few stable isotopes,
which are likely to include the ones that would form by addition of a proton to
the odd numbered nucleus.
In short, if you start with an odd numbered element, you almost always get a
stable isotope as end product.
e.g.
H + Na23 (100%) = Mg24 (stable) + 11.69 MeV
H + Al27 (100%) = Si28 (stable) + 11.58 MeV
H + P31 (100%) = S32 (stable) + 8.86 MeV
H + Cl35 (75%) = Ar36 (stable) + 8.5 MeV
H + Cl37 (25%) = Ar38 (stable) + 10.24 MeV
H + Cu63 (69%) = Zn64 (stable) + 7.7 MeV
H + Cu65 (31%) = Zn66 (stable) + 8.93 MeV
etc.
Each of these reactions also has a less energetic alternative where an alpha
particle is emitted, also producing stable isotopes.
Both Na and Al are particularly attractive as they are very common.
(The 1 lb packet of salt you have in the cupboard would supply your home with
energy for well over 100 years, not counting the Chlorine reactions! ;)
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:OT: Wisconsin will chose their governor in less than 24 hours
Despite the high anti-incumbent sentiment in the U.S., Scott Walker should easily win this election. (http://www.intrade.com/ has Walker winning at +90%) The reason Walker has support is simple: The unions tried to bully their way into the governor's office using a recall vote that is usually used only for malfeasance or misconduct. Most gubernatorial recall attempts fail. And people generally prefer tea party ideals over unions. (Unless you happen to be in a union, eh Steven?) Perhaps back on topic: What if we could get a real money wager on LENR+... Say, the demonstration of 1kW electricity continuous using unconventional LENR fuel by 2015. traded on an anonymous system like intrade. That might be the surest and most accurate way to get a read on the current state of commercial LENR. And interesting the effect it would have on energy stocks. - Brad Why don't you use vortex-b for this stuff?
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
David, * NASA's Bushnell UNLEASHED for LENR!* http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/226454-nasas-bushnell-unleashed-for-lenr.html#post5395486 Warm Regards, Reliable David Roberson wrote: I took a table of nuclides and performed a Energy difference between the different nickel isotopes, plus associated proton and electron, and the daughter copper isotopes and compared the net released energy to the energy required to overcome the coulomb barrier. The most significant energy release which exceeds the barrier occurs when the Ni62 or Ni64 isotopes are converted. The delayed beta plus decay which is present for all of the other transformations looses a large amount of energy to a neutrino which promptly escapes the device. I will demonstrate the numbers below. These components are required to build Cu63 from Ni62 1 u = 931.494 MeV Disregard the slight rounding errors, excel chart source of data Ni62 Mass=61.92835 (u) Energy=57685.88 MeV Proton Mass=1.007276 (u) Energy=938.2716 MeV Electron Mass=.000549 (u) Energy=.510999 MeV Coulomb Barrier Energy ~5.6 MeV according to Rossi in his paper Cu63 Mass=62.9296 (u) Energy=58618.54 MeV Mass of components of Cu63;Ni62 + Proton + Electron=62.936175 (u) Energy=58624.66 MeV Mass decrease that must be released as energy=62.936175 - 62.9296 = .006575 (u) Energy= 6.12457 MeV - 5.6 MeV Barrier = .52457 MeV;Same Calculation for Cu65 yields 1.8532 MeV In these reactions there are no Beta Plus Decay radiation losses due to neutrino release and no 511 keV gammas. Please note that I also calculated the expected energy release due to WL process on the isotopes such as Ni60 and had perfect energy correlation when the energy required to make a neutron from a proton and electron is included. Exactly the same energy is seen in both paths (Rossi and WL) when the starting point is a nickel isotope with a proton and an electron, and the final point is the next higher isotope of nickel. I am working very hard to get a clear understanding of the coulomb barrier energy behavior. I can show that the alpha process within stars stops once iron has been synthesized, but this is only true if the barrier energy is trapped within the nucleus in the form of mass. I am approaching the problem from different directions to prove whether or not this hypothesis is accurate. Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 11:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) David, Can you explain your conclusion. I can't see how any energy is released in these Ni -- Cu transmutations. Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: I may have been a bit to fast in pointing out the possible endothermic nature of the Ni62 and Ni64 reactions. They actually are the best two isotopes to use if you were not to rely upon the beta plus decay for a substantial portion of the energy release. They further are not susceptible to having the 511 keV gammas that would no doubt be released by the reactions involving the other nickel isotopes since copper 63 and 65 are stable and do not decay into nickel by that process. So, if Rossi is actually able to overcome the coulomb barrier by some mechanism and his device only uses the Ni62 and Ni64 isotopes then it could be functional. The energy released per atom for these two isotopes is only 1 or 2 MeV after satisfying the coulomb barrier, but that is a lot more than any chemical reaction can deliver. I wonder if the relatively modest amount of energy release also can be more safely directed toward useful forms such as vibrational coupling into the surrounding structure. All of my estimates and calculations assume the reaction path that has been suggested by Rossi instead of the WL process which would be much more energetic. Each of these proposed mechanisms has it's own particular problems to overcome. Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 10:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) I just wanted to point out that if Ni62 and Ni64 are the only isotopes that work then the addition of a proton to either results in the production of a stable isotope of copper which does not undergo beta plus decay. Much less energy is released per atom if the beta plus decay is avoided. My calculations suggest that these two reactions might actually be endothermic due to the large coulomb barrier. Perhaps this is a bit of misdirection? Dave -Original Message- From: integral.property.service integral.property.serv...@gmail.com mailto:integral.property.serv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 9:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and
[Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY in LENR
Dear Colleagues, I hope to discuss a lot of LENR subjects with our colleague Abd. Today, now, here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/discussing-with-my-colleague-abd-about.html starting to exchange ideas re Reliability in CF/LENR. Far from agreement but this makes a dispute interesting. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY in LENR
Dear Reliable, I think you have an special personal interest in this discussion about Reliability. I know well the paper of Bushnell, everything OK however windows do not melt, they break- have seen many major accident and have read about Seveso, Flixborough, Oppau, Chernobyl Why Bushnell does not tell wher and when the windows melted. Is this a reliable statement? Peter On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:36 PM, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: G'Day, Bushnell says it all. http://futureinnovation.larc.**nasa.gov/view/articles/** futurism/bushnell/low-energy-**nuclear-reactions.htmlhttp://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html _Dennis Bushnell http://futureinnovation.larc.**nasa.gov/view/articles/** futurism/bushnell/bushnell-**bio.htmlhttp://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/bushnell-bio.html _ The current experiments are in the 10's to hundreds range. However, several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted, indicating when the conditions are right prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released. Warm Regards, Reliable Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Colleagues, I hope to discuss a lot of LENR subjects with our colleague Abd. Today, now, here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.** ro/2012/06/discussing-with-my-**colleague-abd-about.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/discussing-with-my-colleague-abd-about.html starting to exchange ideas re Reliability in CF/LENR. Far from agreement but this makes a dispute interesting. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:What Happened in CE 774?
Maybe it was due to a terrestial LENR event belched up by volcano. Harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree with you Terry that it could likely be some form of solar event. Maybe you should check the historical sun spot record if available for that time frame to get some form of correlation. It also makes one wonder if similar, ever more powerful, events in history have resulted in a driving mechanism for evolution. The poor creatures around during such an occasion would not even know what hit them! If this type of event happens frequently in the history of life on earth one would expect DNA to have a built in mechanism to correct for a moderate radiation burst. I do recall reading about repeated sequences within our DNA and these bursts might indicate a good reason for that to be true. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 8:37 am Subject: [Vo]:What Happened in CE 774? http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-radiation-burst-recorded-in-tree-rings-1.10768 Just over 1,200 years ago, the planet was hit by an extremely intense burst of high-energy radiation of unknown cause, scientists studying tree-ring data have found. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11123.html Is it possible that our sun generated an unprecedented energy burst? T
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:24:41 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] I took a table of nuclides and performed a Energy difference between the different nickel isotopes, plus associated proton and electron, and the daughter copper isotopes and compared the net released energy to the energy required to overcome the coulomb barrier. The most significant energy release which exceeds the barrier occurs when the Ni62 or You don't need any energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier, if the proton is accompanied by an electron. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:24:41 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Coulomb Barrier Energy ~5.6 MeV according to Rossi in his paper I seriously doubt that Rossi has any idea how this actually works. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
You would not need to overcome the Coulomb barrier if the electron-proton combination is bound together tightly. In that case the attraction that the electron sees is balanced by the repulsion afforded the proton. Perhaps a torque would be generated or some form of extreme tension would be applied to whatever type of bond exists between the two, especially if they formed some form of dipole spatial arrangement. A neutron of course would behave in this manner, but so would a hydrino that is of low energy. One problem that needs to be understood is that Rossi insists that copper is his only transformed element and that would suggest that a proton is driven into the nickel nucleus and not an electron-proton pair. We will need to determine what happened to the energy associated with the electron in the pair and also why this reaction is not extremely common in the world. I tend to believe that a barrier does prevent the reaction from occurring at low temperatures, but that it might be subject to reduction by electron screening of some sort. Many questions remain to be answered. It perplexes me when I try to understand why there is no problem with gamma radiation. At this point in my understanding, I am not ready to accept the WL explanation as they require too many miracles. I am inclined to believe that the only way to prevent the gammas from killing us all is for them to be suppressed from the beginning. Perhaps the dense nature of the nickel crystal substrate does allow phonon processes to absorb the released energy. One day it will seem obvious. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 5:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:24:41 -0400 (EDT): i, snip] I took a table of nuclides and performed a Energy difference between the ifferent nickel isotopes, plus associated proton and electron, and the daughter opper isotopes and compared the net released energy to the energy required to vercome the coulomb barrier. The most significant energy release which exceeds he barrier occurs when the Ni62 or You don't need any energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier, if the proton is ccompanied by an electron. egards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
You may be correct in your assumption regarding knowledge, but there must be some level of barrier or LENR would be occurring all over the place, all the time. I read somewhere that about 100 keV is in the ballpark for the barrier of hydrogen to hydrogen hot fusion. Since the repulsion is proportional to the product of the number of protons, one obtains a guesstimate of 2.8 MeV if you use the number of protons in nickel(28) versus the 1 of the target hydrogen nucleus. I am sure the actual barrier value is different than my rough calculation due to electron shielding and the actual distance required before the strong force takes over among other effects. If anyone has an accurate barrier value for us to plug into our assumption please submit it. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 5:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:24:41 -0400 (EDT): i, snip] Coulomb Barrier Energy ~5.6 MeV according to Rossi in his paper I seriously doubt that Rossi has any idea how this actually works. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
In reply to integral.property.serv...@gmail.com's message of Tue, 05 Jun 2012
11:38:12 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin,
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=338
Contrary to Feynman's hand waving use of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle,
there is no restriction imposed by this principle on the size of Hydrogen atoms.
(See at the end of http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/theory-paper.html )
Hence the implication in the above paper that such orbitals can only exist
momentarily on that basis is incorrect.
For a mathematical description of such orbitals see:
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Non-relativisitic.pdf
http://www.ecatplanet.net/rossiblog.php?msg_search=Guglinski
e+p+e = Hydride Anion = *
1. Trap * in lattice (Ni nano, C nano Cone, etc.)
2. Activate * {Cavitation, heat, RFG, Arc, coordinated oscillations,
Lattice wave creation, etc.}
3. p+e portion of * enters Ni nucleus creating unstable isotope leaving
e behind for charge balance.
This sounds a lot like Horace Heffner's theory. See
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf
4. Ni Isotope = Cu + Cold Fusion Energy
6. Don't bother with trying to determine reaction with Quantitative
Analysis, Mass changes incredibly small and energy incredibly large. E=MC2
[snip]
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Transit of Venus - Live Stream
Best stream i found so far. http://www.ustream.tv/nasaedge Enjoy. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 5 Jun 2012 18:38:46 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] A neutron of course would behave in this manner, but so would a hydrino that is of low energy. One problem that needs to be understood is that Rossi insists that copper is his only transformed element and that would suggest that a proton is driven into the nickel nucleus and not an electron-proton pair. Mills Hydrino may not get small enough to decrease the tunneling time for Ni, to a sufficiently noticeable degree, however in my version, the Hydrino can shrink to just a few fm, allowing it to come within range of the nuclear force, hence effectively bypassing the Coulomb barrier altogether. In Horace's theory, the electron actually enters the nucleus along with the proton. In my version, the electron may also momentarily get sucked in along with the proton, then immediately ejected via an Internal Conversion reaction, carrying the energy of the fusion reaction with it. This would produce fast electrons, about 1% of which would produce x-rays, some of which would be hard (hence the need for Pb shielding in Rossi's reactor). As for Copper being the only product, even Rossi himself admits that a thorough metals analysis is required to settle this issue (see his post about 40 hours @ 600 ºC). BTW the Hydrino concept in general implies that some portion of the energy comes from Hydrino shrinkage. What that percentage might be is yet to be determined, although based on the lack of external radiation, one might guess that it is large, and that consequently the nuclear reactions are in fact only supplying a small portion. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
On occasion I find myself liking the hydrino concept. The gamma radiation associated with element mutation is hard to accept without assuming a large amount of leakage. Unfortunately, there are some serious questions as to whether or not hydinos exist. It would be convenient if the proton and electron were sucked into the nucleus since that would eliminate the barrier entirely. If this is true, why is it difficult to achieve rapid LENR activity and the corresponding high powers? Has anyone been able to answer the question as to why the reaction rate is relatively low under this condition? Is it possible that the reaction rate for LENR devices is throttled by the lack of hydrinos or your version of them? Maybe they are not too easily constructed in the real world and that is why a special condition must be achieved where they can be generated. That would be a neat reason for the difficulties encountered in our experiments. If this is the case, it would be a good idea to concentrate on a method of controlled generation for these components. I wonder about the electron being ejected from the nucleus with all of the reaction energy. Has anyone calculated how much ionization would be generated by an electron with 6 MeV of energy? Would that not be easy to see in the experiments? We are limited in our thought processes by the lack of data and I can hardly wait until we finally obtain output material from Rossi's and DGT's devices that can be independently measured. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 7:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 5 Jun 2012 18:38:46 -0400 (EDT): i, snip] A neutron of course would behave in this manner, but so would a hydrino that is f low energy. One problem that needs to be understood is that Rossi insists hat copper is his only transformed element and that would suggest that a proton s driven into the nickel nucleus and not an electron-proton pair. Mills Hydrino may not get small enough to decrease the tunneling time for Ni, to sufficiently noticeable degree, however in my version, the Hydrino can shrink o just a few fm, allowing it to come within range of the nuclear force, hence ffectively bypassing the Coulomb barrier altogether. In Horace's theory, the electron actually enters the nucleus along with the roton. In my version, the electron may also momentarily get sucked in along with the roton, then immediately ejected via an Internal Conversion reaction, carrying he energy of the fusion reaction with it. This would produce fast electrons, bout 1% of which would produce x-rays, some of which would be hard (hence the eed for Pb shielding in Rossi's reactor). As for Copper being the only product, even Rossi himself admits that a thorough etals analysis is required to settle this issue (see his post about 40 hours @ 00 ºC). BTW the Hydrino concept in general implies that some portion of the energy comes rom Hydrino shrinkage. What that percentage might be is yet to be determined, lthough based on the lack of external radiation, one might guess that it is arge, and that consequently the nuclear reactions are in fact only supplying a mall portion. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Transit of Venus - Live Stream
thanks. Harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Best stream i found so far. http://www.ustream.tv/nasaedge Enjoy. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Transit of Venus - Live Stream
welcome. Please do share if you find a better stream. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: thanks. Harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Best stream i found so far. http://www.ustream.tv/nasaedge Enjoy. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever! -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Transit of Venus - Live Stream
I'd be interested to know if anyone was able to see the transit with a crude pinhole camera. I tried but the clouds would not co-operate. harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: welcome. Please do share if you find a better stream. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: thanks. Harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Best stream i found so far. http://www.ustream.tv/nasaedge Enjoy. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever! -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This is why many of us keep saying that Mills is his own worst enemy for not following up on promises to release samples for independent testing. He may be forced to do this if Rossi is really making the progress he is claiming (highly doubtful). It's amazing how so many people do not listen even though they read this list. Lately, I am amused by those who try to explain the dissociation of the H2 molecule otherwise than the metal surface explanations we have discussed. So, Beene, who do you think will win the race? It seems to be getting close. Ahern? T
Re: [Vo]:Transit of Venus - Live Stream
I used a pair of binoculars to project the image of the transit on to a dark surface. With a bit of eyepiece-focusing, the transit was quite clear. I think that the Venus blemish may be too small to be coherent with a simple pinhole. Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I'd be interested to know if anyone was able to see the transit with a crude pinhole camera. I tried but the clouds would not co-operate. harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: welcome. Please do share if you find a better stream. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: thanks. Harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Best stream i found so far. http://www.ustream.tv/nasaedge Enjoy. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever! -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY in LENR
At 02:29 PM 6/5/2012, Peter Gluck wrote: I hope to discuss a lot of LENR subjects with our colleague Abd. Today, now, here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/discussing-with-my-colleague-abd-about.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/discussing-with-my-colleague-abd-about.html starting to exchange ideas re Reliability in CF/LENR. Far from agreement but this makes a dispute interesting. I don't see that we are far from agreement, but maybe Peter sees something I don't. Here is the discussion, with my responses interspersed: DISCUSSING WITH MY COLLEAGUE ABD ABOUT RELIABILITY I have to apologize again, my old age weaknesses allow me to answer to Abd only step by step, in fragments to his so well ordered arguments. I have to recognize that in our LENR circles, what he says is more happily/readily accepted than my ideas. Perhaps. What that means, I don't know. Maybe nothing. Peter, you have extensive experience, which is to be respected. I'm a writer, so it's my business to be effectively communicative. I'm still learning, though. So, now about reliability. [I wrote:] Well, they *may be* inherent weaknesses of PdD LENR set up by known methods. A premature vision of an ultimate application can kill new discoveries, allowing them to be dismissed as worthless even if they are real, and if their reality is in question, it's a double whammy. What we need is Science, and it comes before Energy, if we need reliability for Energy. *We do not need reliability for Science.* It is desirable, that's all. I think there definitely are inherent weaknesses, uncontrollable hidden parameters in the Pd-D cells and these are almost ubiquitous in this system. and difficultly curable. I have met similar things in my lab-pilot-plant practice, something that went fine 1000 times suddenly became impossible, a colorless product (as it has to be) coming out red or dirty grey with no obvious explanation first. Many times I was thinking to write a report about occult phenomena in technology, but then we found a simple straightforward causal explanation and we solved the problem by removing, killing that cause. Yes. Until you identified the cause, it was totally mysterious. Gremlins. Bad juju. Whatever. The weaknesses of the Pd D cells are unusually stubborn, Electrochemical PdD experiments are *extremely* complex. With gas-loading, the complexity may be reduced, but a great deal depends on the exact structure of the particles or Pd material. And it will change with loading and deloading. I am firmly convinced that poisoning of the active centers (NAE) by adsorption of gases that are NOT deuterium (it seems everything goes not only the very polar gases as I thought) explains this long series of troubles. I will write a new paper about poisoning these days. Nobody will believe it- just the Pd-D cells. I'll believe it in that I consider it possible. Why not? However, I don't see this as explaining the difference between the first, second, and third current excursions in SRI P13/P14, which was a sealed cell. It's not impossible, though, because the first and second excursions, showing no heat, may have cleaned off the cathode. It was crucial to identify the reasons for such variability. The skeptics did not get the import of variability, they thought that it meant that the effect was down in the noise. However, that's what SRI P13/P14 showed so clearly: the effect, when it appears, is striking, not marginal. Of course, sometimes there is an effect close to the noise. But a strong, quite visible effect is one of the characteristics of a successful replication of the FPHE, not something questionable, where we look at a plot and say, Well, see, it's a little bit above the noise there, for a few hours. Maybe. Or maybe that is just noise a little higher than usual. Reality is really good if it is repeatable and it is bad when it plays perfidiously hide and seek with us. Ultimately, it appears, reality does play hide and seek, at the quantum level. But I don't think that's happening here. Regardless, reality is not bad. Period. It's just reality. We make up good and bad. This is not you, but scientists who reject experimental data because they don't see repeatability in it are just fooling themselves. What they don't see means nothing. Saying I don't understand this is fine. Saying you must have made a mistake, is the problem, unless the error can be identified. Not just guessed. I agree with Abd re the premature vision- it is not good to focus only and immediately on applications and not explore the full richness of the phenomena, process, and product, whatever. It's not as powerful, and it runs the risk of an enormous waste of time. Look, it was obvious from the beginning that there *might be* enormous promise from cold fusion. But it was also obvious, within a few months, that this was not going to be easy, at least
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
Thanks ny.min, I assumed that a neutron was captured by 62Ni which then beta-decays to 63Cu. (Unless my quick calculations are wrong,) when you substract the minimum energy required to form a neutron from an electron + proton (approx. 780 Kev) from the energy released from that beta-day, you do wind up with about an excess of over 0.006[u] energy - close to your calculation. I am not sure whether you are proposing direct proton capture via screening. If not, it looks like either W-L theory, or hydrinos could explain the transmutations Rossi is claiming. Lou Pagnucco ny.min wrote: http://sire.com/fusion.htm -Original Message- From: pagnucco lt;pagnu...@htdconnect.comgt; To: vortex-l lt;vortex-l@eskimo.comgt; Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 10:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) David, Can you explain your conclusion. I can't see how any energy is released in these Ni --gt; Cu transmutations. Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: gt; I may have been a bit to fast in pointing out the possible endothermic gt; nature of the Ni62 and Ni64 reactions. They actually are the best two gt; isotopes to use if you were not to rely upon the beta plus decay for a gt; substantial portion of the energy release. They further are not gt; susceptible to having the 511 keV gammas that would no doubt be released gt; by the reactions involving the other nickel isotopes since copper 63 and gt; 65 are stable and do not decay into nickel by that process. gt; gt; So, if Rossi is actually able to overcome the coulomb barrier by some gt; mechanism and his device only uses the Ni62 and Ni64 isotopes then it gt; could be functional. The energy released per atom for these two isotopes gt; is only 1 or 2 MeV after satisfying the coulomb barrier, but that is a gt; lot more than any chemical reaction can deliver. I wonder if the gt; relatively modest amount of energy release also can be more safely gt; directed toward useful forms such as vibrational coupling into the gt; surrounding structure. gt; gt; All of my estimates and calculations assume the reaction path that has gt; been suggested by Rossi instead of the WL process which would be much gt; more energetic. Each of these proposed mechanisms has it's own particular gt; problems to overcome. gt; gt; Dave gt; gt; gt; gt; -Original Message- gt; From: David Roberson lt;dlrober...@aol.comgt; gt; To: vortex-l lt;vortex-l@eskimo.comgt; gt; Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 10:30 am gt; Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) gt; gt; gt; I just wanted to point out that if Ni62 and Ni64 are the only isotopes gt; that work then the addition of a proton to either results in the gt; production of a stable isotope of copper which does not undergo beta plus gt; decay. Much less energy is released per atom if the beta plus decay is gt; avoided. My calculations suggest that these two reactions might actually gt; be endothermic due to the large coulomb barrier. gt; gt; Perhaps this is a bit of misdirection? gt; gt; Dave gt; gt; gt; gt; -Original Message- gt; From: integral.property.service lt;integral.property.serv...@gmail.comgt; gt; To: vortex-l lt;vortex-l@eskimo.comgt; gt; Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 9:30 am gt; Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) gt; gt; gt; A.R. from Florida with love, gt; Andrea Rossi
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
David, According to my rough calculations the Ni-to-Cu transmutations do release significant energy, as you claimed - see my reply to ny.min. I am not sure how much energy is siphoned off by the neutrino, though. I assumed a neutron capture by the Ni nucleus, so no there would be no need to consider the coulomb barrier. Excess energy is released, if we assume the conversion of electron+proton--to--neutron takes approximately 780 Kev. So W-L theory, or hydrinos, or some kind of screening, could explain the transmutations, if they are real. Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: I took a table of nuclides and performed a Energy difference between the different nickel isotopes, plus associated proton and electron, and the daughter copper isotopes and compared the net released energy to the energy required to overcome the coulomb barrier. The most significant energy release which exceeds the barrier occurs when the Ni62 or Ni64 isotopes are converted. The delayed beta plus decay which is present for all of the other transformations looses a large amount of energy to a neutrino which promptly escapes the device. I will demonstrate the numbers below. These components are required to build Cu63 from Ni62 1 u = 931.494 MeV Disregard the slight rounding errors, excel chart source of data Ni62 Mass=61.92835 (u) Energy=57685.88 MeV Proton Mass=1.007276 (u) Energy=938.2716 MeV Electron Mass=.000549 (u) Energy=.510999 MeV Coulomb Barrier Energy ~5.6 MeV according to Rossi in his paper Cu63 Mass=62.9296 (u) Energy=58618.54 MeV Mass of components of Cu63;Ni62 + Proton + Electron=62.936175 (u) Energy=58624.66 MeV Mass decrease that must be released as energy=62.936175 - 62.9296 = .006575 (u) Energy= 6.12457 MeV - 5.6 MeV Barrier = .52457 MeV;Same Calculation for Cu65 yields 1.8532 MeV In these reactions there are no Beta Plus Decay radiation losses due to neutrino release and no 511 keV gammas. Please note that I also calculated the expected energy release due to WL process on the isotopes such as Ni60 and had perfect energy correlation when the energy required to make a neutron from a proton and electron is included. Exactly the same energy is seen in both paths (Rossi and WL) when the starting point is a nickel isotope with a proton and an electron, and the final point is the next higher isotope of nickel. I am working very hard to get a clear understanding of the coulomb barrier energy behavior. I can show that the alpha process within stars stops once iron has been synthesized, but this is only true if the barrier energy is trapped within the nucleus in the form of mass. I am approaching the problem from different directions to prove whether or not this hypothesis is accurate. Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 11:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) David, Can you explain your conclusion. can't see how any energy is released in these Ni -- Cu transmutations. Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: I may have been a bit to fast in pointing out the possible endothermic nature of the Ni62 and Ni64 reactions. They actually are the best two isotopes to use if you were not to rely upon the beta plus decay for a substantial portion of the energy release. They further are not susceptible to having the 511 keV gammas that would no doubt be released by the reactions involving the other nickel isotopes since copper 63 and 65 are stable and do not decay into nickel by that process. So, if Rossi is actually able to overcome the coulomb barrier by some mechanism and his device only uses the Ni62 and Ni64 isotopes then it could be functional. The energy released per atom for these two isotopes is only 1 or 2 MeV after satisfying the coulomb barrier, but that is a lot more than any chemical reaction can deliver. I wonder if the relatively modest amount of energy release also can be more safely directed toward useful forms such as vibrational coupling into the surrounding structure. All of my estimates and calculations assume the reaction path that has been suggested by Rossi instead of the WL process which would be much more energetic. Each of these proposed mechanisms has it's own particular problems to overcome. Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 10:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) I just wanted to point out that if Ni62 and Ni64 are the only isotopes that work then the addition of a proton to either results in the production of a stable isotope of copper which does not undergo beta plus decay. Much less energy is released per atom if the beta plus decay is avoided. My calculations suggest that these two reactions might actually be endothermic due to
[Vo]:Mars One - Humans on Mars in 2023
Funded by marketing it as one big reality show... Possible?? And would you buy a one way ticket to Mars? http://mars-one.com/en/ Regards, Patrick -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 5 Jun 2012 20:42:05 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] On occasion I find myself liking the hydrino concept. The gamma radiation associated with element mutation is hard to accept without assuming a large amount of leakage. If the electron is ejected, which is a fast reaction, then there is no gamma radiation produced (slow reaction). Another possibility is that the reacting particle is actually a Hydrino molecule, and that one of the two protons gets ejected carrying the energy. Since protons are far more massive than electrons, they produce almost no bremsstrahlung. Where proton addition would create an unstable nucleus, it's also possible that the electron is captured in an enhanced electron capture reaction. I say enhanced because in normal EC reactions the nucleus has to try to grab a fast moving K electron on it's way through, whereas the Hydrino electron is already present, and not really intent on going anywhere. ;-) Unfortunately, there are some serious questions as to whether or not hydinos exist. Indeed! It would be convenient if the proton and electron were sucked into the nucleus since that would eliminate the barrier entirely. If this is true, why is it difficult to achieve rapid LENR activity and the corresponding high powers? Has anyone been able to answer the question as to why the reaction rate is relatively low under this condition? Lack of sufficiently shrunken Hydrinos. As they get smaller is gets ever more difficult to catalyze shrinkage to a lower level. (I suspect the primary reason why Mills is using H[n=1/4]). Is it possible that the reaction rate for LENR devices is throttled by the lack of hydrinos or your version of them? Highly probable; see above. Maybe they are not too easily constructed in the real world and that is why a special condition must be achieved where they can be generated. That would be a neat reason for the difficulties encountered in our experiments. If this is the case, it would be a good idea to concentrate on a method of controlled generation for these components. I've already found it (in theory), I just need a bit of technical (engineering) help, and the finances to do it. Depending on what has to be paid for and how much it costs, the cost could vary anywhere from nothing to say 100 grand. Any university with an engineering department and a few willing grad students could probably do it for nothing. The device is quite simple. Testing it however could be a bit dicey, as it *might* produce copious gamma rays. It should produce power at the (multi)kilowatt level. (Consistently and controllably over a wide range). I wonder about the electron being ejected from the nucleus with all of the reaction energy. Has anyone calculated how much ionization would be generated by an electron with 6 MeV of energy? Would that not be easy to see in the experiments? Beta emitters are generally relatively easily shielded AFAIK. However there are not many multi kilowatt beta emitters around! We are limited in our thought processes by the lack of data and I can hardly wait until we finally obtain output material from Rossi's and DGT's devices that can be independently measured. :-) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mars One - Humans on Mars in 2023
In reply to Patrick Ellul's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:10:21 +1000: Hi, [snip] I wrote to Elon Musk offering to help him build a fusion powered shuttle to get us there in 2 days at 1 g with only 20% fuel mass. No response. Funded by marketing it as one big reality show... Possible?? And would you buy a one way ticket to Mars? http://mars-one.com/en/ Regards, Patrick Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mars One - Humans on Mars in 2023
Realities shows are successful because the success of one relies on the humiliation and exclusion of other participants, like in the old Coliseum. That is not possible in this mission, though, unless you kill passengers, like in the old Coliseum. 2012/6/6 Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com Funded by marketing it as one big reality show... Possible?? And would you buy a one way ticket to Mars? http://mars-one.com/en/ Regards, Patrick -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
The half life of Ni63 is 98.7 years. That path would not be useful in Rossi's device. Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 11:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) Thanks ny.min, I assumed that a neutron was captured by 62Ni which then beta-decays to 3Cu. (Unless my quick calculations are wrong,) when you substract the inimum energy required to form a neutron from an electron + proton approx. 780 Kev) from the energy released from that beta-day, you do wind p with about an excess of over 0.006[u] energy - close to your alculation. I am not sure whether you are proposing direct proton capture via creening. If not, it looks like either W-L theory, or hydrinos could xplain the transmutations Rossi is claiming. Lou Pagnucco ny.min wrote: http://sire.com/fusion.htm -Original Message- From: pagnucco lt;pagnu...@htdconnect.comgt; To: vortex-l lt;vortex-l@eskimo.comgt; Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 10:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) David, Can you explain your conclusion. I can't see how any energy is released in these Ni --gt; Cu transmutations. Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: gt; I may have been a bit to fast in pointing out the possible endothermic gt; nature of the Ni62 and Ni64 reactions. They actually are the best two gt; isotopes to use if you were not to rely upon the beta plus decay for a gt; substantial portion of the energy release. They further are not gt; susceptible to having the 511 keV gammas that would no doubt be released gt; by the reactions involving the other nickel isotopes since copper 63 and gt; 65 are stable and do not decay into nickel by that process. gt; gt; So, if Rossi is actually able to overcome the coulomb barrier by some gt; mechanism and his device only uses the Ni62 and Ni64 isotopes then it gt; could be functional. The energy released per atom for these two isotopes gt; is only 1 or 2 MeV after satisfying the coulomb barrier, but that is a gt; lot more than any chemical reaction can deliver. I wonder if the gt; relatively modest amount of energy release also can be more safely gt; directed toward useful forms such as vibrational coupling into the gt; surrounding structure. gt; gt; All of my estimates and calculations assume the reaction path that has gt; been suggested by Rossi instead of the WL process which would be much gt; more energetic. Each of these proposed mechanisms has it's own particular gt; problems to overcome. gt; gt; Dave gt; gt; gt; gt; -Original Message- gt; From: David Roberson lt;dlrober...@aol.comgt; gt; To: vortex-l lt;vortex-l@eskimo.comgt; gt; Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 10:30 am gt; Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) gt; gt; gt; I just wanted to point out that if Ni62 and Ni64 are the only isotopes gt; that work then the addition of a proton to either results in the gt; production of a stable isotope of copper which does not undergo beta plus gt; decay. Much less energy is released per atom if the beta plus decay is gt; avoided. My calculations suggest that these two reactions might actually gt; be endothermic due to the large coulomb barrier. gt; gt; Perhaps this is a bit of misdirection? gt; gt; Dave gt; gt; gt; gt; -Original Message- gt; From: integral.property.service lt;integral.property.serv...@gmail.comgt; gt; To: vortex-l lt;vortex-l@eskimo.comgt; gt; Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 9:30 am gt; Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) gt; gt; gt; A.R. from Florida with love, gt; Andrea Rossi
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Tue, 5 Jun 2012 23:54:39 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] According to my rough calculations the Ni-to-Cu transmutations do release significant energy, as you claimed - see my reply to ny.min. I am not sure how much energy is siphoned off by the neutrino, though. From looking at many beta decay reactions I get the impression that roughly 2/3 of the energy goes to neutrinos, and 1/3 to the electron/positron, but it varies from one reaction the next. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))
Robin, I read your webpage regarding this potential Fusion Project, although I found it rather lacking in detail and I am still unsure what you are trying to achieve or how to achieve it. Are you in a position to reveal more of your theory in terms an Engineer amd a businessman can understand, not a physicist trained in Quantum Mechanics. I'm sure I'm not alone in this forum that is eager to hear a comprehensive and clear presentation of your ideas just as Axil has superbly done. Please gather your ideas into one comprehensive narrative and post them here or at your site. Anyways, I am prepared to spend a small fortune in getting a commercial cold fusion reactor to the market, if (a big IF) I am convinced of the theoritical viability of the project. I have been looking for such an opportunity as well as pursuing this goal myself. Despite my obvious lack of success thus far, many times, I feel that I am closer to commericialization than Mill's endless hydrino pronounciations. Quite honestly, Mills has had decades and considerably more than $100,000 that you estimate, to bring his Hydrino Theory reactor to fruition without apparent success. No insult or ridicule intended, but what makes you think that you can build a reactor based on his theory that will outperform what he has produced so far, when the maestro himself has been unsuccessful? Please do not take this post as a snide remark to ridicule or to insult. I guenuinely want to know. Jojo - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) I've already found it (in theory), I just need a bit of technical (engineering) help, and the finances to do it. Depending on what has to be paid for and how much it costs, the cost could vary anywhere from nothing to say 100 grand. Any university with an engineering department and a few willing grad students could probably do it for nothing. The device is quite simple. Testing it however could be a bit dicey, as it *might* produce copious gamma rays. It should produce power at the (multi)kilowatt level. (Consistently and controllably over a wide range). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 00:27:52 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] The half life of Ni63 is 98.7 years. That path would not be useful in Rossi's device. The capture alone yields over 6 MeV. The beta decay energy is tiny by comparison. Unless you are implying that the reaction is not useful because the Ni63 would remain radioactive for so long. However Ni63 could be a useful portable/remote/no-moving-parts energy source. Initially about 32 W/kg, dropping off to half that after 100 years. Think of the sort of applications that currently use solar panels. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
Lou, If WL works and you capture a neutron to form Ni63 from Ni62 you would have a half life of 98.7 years before the beta decay. There would be a very small quantity of Cu63 as a result. I have made numerous calculations which demonstrate that you get the same amount of energy release regardless of the path between two of these points as long as you start and end at the same isotopes. As example, Ni62 + neutron = Ni63 plus energy. Next Ni63 beta decays to Cu63 and releases energy. The sum of these energy releases is exactly the same as if you take Ni62 and add a proton and electron to arrive at Cu63. You must subtract the energy of formation for the neutron from the first path to make the balance. In this beta decay:Ni63 to Cu63 the neutrino has 49.52 keV while the beta particle has 17.425 keV. Most of the energy shows up in the neutrino which seems typical of the beta plus decays as well. The decay energy in this case is much less than in the other more typical examples. The beta plus decay of Cu59 into Ni59 releases 3.7773 MeV typically. Only 1.7226 MeV is given to the positron. Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 11:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) David, According to my rough calculations the Ni-to-Cu transmutations do release ignificant energy, as you claimed - see my reply to ny.min. I am not ure how much energy is siphoned off by the neutrino, though. I assumed a neutron capture by the Ni nucleus, so no there would be no eed to consider the coulomb barrier. Excess energy is released, if we ssume the conversion of electron+proton--to--neutron takes approximately 80 Kev. So W-L theory, or hydrinos, or some kind of screening, could xplain the transmutations, if they are real. Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: I took a table of nuclides and performed a Energy difference between the different nickel isotopes, plus associated proton and electron, and the daughter copper isotopes and compared the net released energy to the energy required to overcome the coulomb barrier. The most significant energy release which exceeds the barrier occurs when the Ni62 or Ni64 isotopes are converted. The delayed beta plus decay which is present for all of the other transformations looses a large amount of energy to a neutrino which promptly escapes the device. I will demonstrate the numbers below. These components are required to build Cu63 from Ni62 1 u = 931.494 MeV Disregard the slight rounding errors, excel chart source of data Ni62 Mass=61.92835 (u) Energy=57685.88 MeV Proton Mass=1.007276 (u) Energy=938.2716 MeV Electron Mass=.000549 (u) Energy=.510999 MeV Coulomb Barrier Energy ~5.6 MeV according to Rossi in his paper Cu63 Mass=62.9296 (u) Energy=58618.54 MeV Mass of components of Cu63;Ni62 + Proton + Electron=62.936175 (u) Energy=58624.66 MeV Mass decrease that must be released as energy=62.936175 - 62.9296 = .006575 (u) Energy= 6.12457 MeV - 5.6 MeV Barrier = .52457 MeV;Same Calculation for Cu65 yields 1.8532 MeV In these reactions there are no Beta Plus Decay radiation losses due to neutrino release and no 511 keV gammas. Please note that I also calculated the expected energy release due to WL process on the isotopes such as Ni60 and had perfect energy correlation when the energy required to make a neutron from a proton and electron is included. Exactly the same energy is seen in both paths (Rossi and WL) when the starting point is a nickel isotope with a proton and an electron, and the final point is the next higher isotope of nickel. I am working very hard to get a clear understanding of the coulomb barrier energy behavior. I can show that the alpha process within stars stops once iron has been synthesized, but this is only true if the barrier energy is trapped within the nucleus in the form of mass. I am approaching the problem from different directions to prove whether or not this hypothesis is accurate. Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 11:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) David, Can you explain your conclusion. can't see how any energy is released in these Ni -- Cu transmutations. Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: I may have been a bit to fast in pointing out the possible endothermic nature of the Ni62 and Ni64 reactions. They actually are the best two isotopes to use if you were not to rely upon the beta plus decay for a substantial portion of the energy release. They further are not susceptible to having the 511 keV gammas that would no doubt be released by the reactions involving the other nickel isotopes since copper 63 and 65 are stable and do not decay into nickel by that process. So, if Rossi is actually able to overcome the coulomb
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
I have long wondered whether or not protons generate bremsstrahlung radiation in the same manner as electrons. It seems that the charge is responsible for the radiation and not the mass unless you are suggesting that the slower rate of deceleration of a proton versus and electron as it travels through matter is the reason. Would the same deceleration rate for either particle generate the same radiation effect? The flip side of this coin is that the proton would travel proportionally further as a result of the lower deceleration rate. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 12:14 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) snip Another possibility is that the reacting particle is actually a Hydrino olecule, and that one of the two protons gets ejected carrying the energy. ince protons are far more massive than electrons, they produce almost no remsstrahlung. here proton addition would create an unstable nucleus, it's also possible that he electron is captured in an enhanced electron capture reaction. I say enhanced because in normal EC reactions the nucleus has to try to grab a ast moving K electron on it's way through, whereas the Hydrino electron is lready present, and not really intent on going anywhere. ;-) obin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html snip
Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))
In reply to Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:46:44 +0800: Hi Jojo, [snip] Quite honestly, Mills has had decades and considerably more than $100,000 that you estimate, to bring his Hydrino Theory reactor to fruition without apparent success. No insult or ridicule intended, but what makes you think that you can build a reactor based on his theory that will outperform what he has produced so far, when the maestro himself has been unsuccessful? Please do not take this post as a snide remark to ridicule or to insult. I guenuinely want to know. [snip] 1) Mills is not interested in fusion reactions. 2) By concentrating solely on Hydrino reactions Mills is constantly having trouble achieving an acceptable COP. 3) Fusion reactions deliver on average about 1 thousand to 10 thousand times more energy/Hydrino than hydrino reactions themselves, consequently an acceptable COP should not be a problem. 4) I have potentially come up with a way of bypassing the catalysis steps he requires. It is these catalysis steps that prevent him from achieving very large energy output/Hydrino. 5) I would produce mostly severely shrunken Hydrinos, and very rapidly, leading to almost instantaneous fusion (micro to milliseconds). 6) As a consequence, the power output is a simple function of Hydrino production rate and that in turn is simply a matter or regulating an electrical current. (In fact the device shares some aspects of an old electronic vacuum tube, which is why it can be so readily controlled over a wide range of power outputs). 7) I would prefer to use the p-B11 reaction if that proves possible, because it is very clean in a nuclear sense. 8) There is sufficient Boron in the oceans to last us for many millions of years. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
Actually I am far from convinced that the WL theory is sound. Everything that I have seen thus far suggests that neutrons decay into protons, electrons and neutrinos but that the chance of a reversal is not very good unless you are within a nucleus. All of the neutron generators that I am familiar with use fusion or fission reactions to generate them. Does anyone know of a proven design which operates according to the WL theory? That is the main reason that I do not believe that the process you outline is valid. The WL theory looks like a free lunch to me. I would love to be found wrong in my belief toward that theory as it would make life so much less complicated, but I just can not accept the many miracles. NASA please prove me wrong! Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 12:52 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 00:27:52 -0400 (EDT): i, snip] The half life of Ni63 is 98.7 years. That path would not be useful in Rossi's evice. he capture alone yields over 6 MeV. The beta decay energy is tiny by omparison. Unless you are implying that the reaction is not useful because the i63 would remain radioactive for so long. However Ni63 could be a useful ortable/remote/no-moving-parts energy source. Initially about 32 W/kg, dropping ff to half that after 100 years. Think of the sort of applications that urrently use solar panels. egards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 01:12:10 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] I have long wondered whether or not protons generate bremsstrahlung radiation in the same manner as electrons. It seems that the charge is responsible for the radiation and not the mass unless you are suggesting that the slower rate of deceleration of a proton versus and electron as it travels through matter is the reason. Precisely. Furthermore the actual velocity of a proton is about 2000 times lower than that of an electron of the same energy (relativistic considerations aside). Would the same deceleration rate for either particle generate the same radiation effect? I suspect so. The flip side of this coin is that the proton would travel proportionally further as a result of the lower deceleration rate. Actually, I don't think they travel as far. I suspect this is because they are much slower, and consequently have more time to interact with the electrons of the atoms they pass through than an electron of equivalent energy. Alpha particles have even shorter trajectories. Besides, the positively charged particles tend to attract the electrons of other atoms, dragging them away from their parent atoms, whereas a fast electron pushes other electrons away, making them more inclined to simply move over a little rather then get stripped from their parent atom. This means that fast electrons don't get as many opportunities to dispose of their energy and hence travel farther. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 01:31:12 -0400 (EDT): Hi Dave, [snip] Actually I agree. I was just playing Devil's advocate a little. Actually I am far from convinced that the WL theory is sound. Everything that I have seen thus far suggests that neutrons decay into protons, electrons and neutrinos but that the chance of a reversal is not very good unless you are within a nucleus. All of the neutron generators that I am familiar with use fusion or fission reactions to generate them. Does anyone know of a proven design which operates according to the WL theory? That is the main reason that I do not believe that the process you outline is valid. The WL theory looks like a free lunch to me. I would love to be found wrong in my belief toward that theory as it would make life so much less complicated, but I just can not accept the many miracles. NASA please prove me wrong! Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 12:52 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 00:27:52 -0400 (EDT): i, snip] The half life of Ni63 is 98.7 years. That path would not be useful in Rossi's evice. he capture alone yields over 6 MeV. The beta decay energy is tiny by omparison. Unless you are implying that the reaction is not useful because the i63 would remain radioactive for so long. However Ni63 could be a useful ortable/remote/no-moving-parts energy source. Initially about 32 W/kg, dropping ff to half that after 100 years. Think of the sort of applications that urrently use solar panels. egards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR))
Have you come up with a way to produce these hydrinos cheaply (in terms of energy.)? It seems to me that the first step is to prove your theory with a relatively cheap Hydrino Generator. I guess once you are able to create copious amounts of hydrinos, it would be a simple thing to produce power, whether there is actual Fusion or not; did I understand you correctly? Jojo - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills Hyrdrino project (was :about Triumph Management (and LENR)) In reply to Jojo Jaro's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:46:44 +0800: Hi Jojo, [snip] Quite honestly, Mills has had decades and considerably more than $100,000 that you estimate, to bring his Hydrino Theory reactor to fruition without apparent success. No insult or ridicule intended, but what makes you think that you can build a reactor based on his theory that will outperform what he has produced so far, when the maestro himself has been unsuccessful? Please do not take this post as a snide remark to ridicule or to insult. I guenuinely want to know. [snip] 1) Mills is not interested in fusion reactions. 2) By concentrating solely on Hydrino reactions Mills is constantly having trouble achieving an acceptable COP. 3) Fusion reactions deliver on average about 1 thousand to 10 thousand times more energy/Hydrino than hydrino reactions themselves, consequently an acceptable COP should not be a problem. 4) I have potentially come up with a way of bypassing the catalysis steps he requires. It is these catalysis steps that prevent him from achieving very large energy output/Hydrino. 5) I would produce mostly severely shrunken Hydrinos, and very rapidly, leading to almost instantaneous fusion (micro to milliseconds). 6) As a consequence, the power output is a simple function of Hydrino production rate and that in turn is simply a matter or regulating an electrical current. (In fact the device shares some aspects of an old electronic vacuum tube, which is why it can be so readily controlled over a wide range of power outputs). 7) I would prefer to use the p-B11 reaction if that proves possible, because it is very clean in a nuclear sense. 8) There is sufficient Boron in the oceans to last us for many millions of years. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:discussion about RELIABILITY in LENR
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Of the 33 cells, 12 were showing no anomalous heat, and no anomalous helium was detected. 18 showed heat, and, from them, helium was detected within an order of magnitude of the helium expected from d - He-4. The more heat, the more helium, within experimental error. (The measurements were rough, unfortunately, only order-of-magnitude detection.) Forgive my introducing a tangential but related question to this thread. An important possibility that has been raised by Ed Storms and possibly others is that there is a nuclear active environment that is only gradually formed, and that once this environment is sufficiently present, for example, on the surface of a palladium cathode, LENR will proceed more readily (for the present purpose, let's assume a single family of reactions here, excepting cavitation and so on). Implicitly this possibility is to be contrasted with a nuclear active environment that does not undergo modification over time and remains unchanged by the reaction. In the limiting case, there is the general understanding that known substrates are modified after a temperature spike above some threshold. Once a large excursion has occurred, substrates appear to become ineffective. Below this limit, however, the makeup of the nuclear active environment (NAE) could be dynamic or it could be static. One motivation for introducing a changing, cumulative NAE, as I understand it, is to explain the long initiation times that were needed in Pd-D electrolysis experiments, especially in the early days. Sometimes it took weeks or months before anything was seen. So we have two broad possibilities -- (1) a changing NAE and (2) a static NAE. One way to model (2) is to assume independent power excursion events that occur at some average rate X. I think this system can be studied with a Poisson distribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution If the average rate X is high, the first excursion is likely to happen earlier than in a system for which the average rate is low, but there is variability, so you can't be sure. If the average rate is very low, you might not see even a single excursion during the course of your observations over a period of months, say. For a moderate average rate, you could see several events in close in time and then not see anything, at which point the experiment is terminated. Presumably if the NAE is dynamic, all bets are off and something altogether different could be happening. Two questions: - Do we have solid evidence that there is a dynamic NAE rather than a static one? Or is the evidence just barely above noise at this point? - If there is no clear evidence yet, is there a clever experiment that could settle this question for at least one system? Eric
