Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:Question About Conservation of Energy In Plasma Transitions
I think that must be an excited state decay. But I don't know. For a ground state decay, that's very high. What's the mass defect? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I sited this link in my poat, you must have missed it. http://everything2.com/title/proton-proton+chain See the PPIII section at the end of list. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I think the Be-8 ground state decay to 2 He-4 is at about the 93 KeV figure. Not the higher figure. Where did you get 18 MeV? My understanding is that 4D - Be-8 + about 47.6 MeV, which is initially as a nuclear excited state. Some of that may be emitted as a series of photons. If the Be-8 nucleus lasts long enough, it will decay to the ground state, leaving only the 93 KeV to show up as dual He-4 kinetic energy. If the initial fusion was within a BEC, there may also be 4 electrons to share the energy. It's a stretch, but this is a rough idea of how TSC fusion might meet the Hagelstein limit for charged particle radiation in the FPHE. I'm not saying I believe it! Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What I don’t understand is if this is possible: 1 - 4He + 4He → 8Be(-93.7kEV) 2 - Be8 - 2He4(18.074 MeV) If this reaction is possible, and if this is what recombination is, where does the 18 MeV come from. Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. This is a bad assumption. If two helium atoms fuse about 18 MeV is produced along with a positron and a neutrino. I do not understand this reaction. Maybe someone can help. http://everything2.com/title/proton-proton+chain In the PPIII stellar fusion reaction, Steps 1 through 3 can be replaced by the first half of the triple alpha stellar fusion process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process Explicitly 1 - 4He + 4He → 8Be(-93.7kEV) 2 – 8Be + proton → B8 (0.135 MeV) - other possible reactions involver electron and hydrogen capture. 3 - B8 - Be8 + positron + neutrino (followed by spontaneous decay...) 4 - Be8 - 2He4(18.074 MeV) We start out with two helium atoms and we end up with two helium atoms but about 19MeV of additional energy is produced. Where does this energy come from? J. Rohner says that he stops the triple alpha stellar fusion process before a third helium atom is fused. He calls this process recombination as the Be8 fissions back to two helium atoms. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Let's say you've got a xenon atom. It likes to absorb energy and emit photons. You know, xenon lamps etc. OK, so lets ask a real simple question: When a tube filled with xenon gas has some energy pumped into it and the electrons go to higher orbitals -- yes this happens for a very short period of time before photons are emitted but let's talk about just the short period of time. The diameter of the atoms presumably increases. Does the gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets say that the energy is sufficient to actually strip the electrons away and form an ionized gas for a short interval. Does the ionized gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets talk about really-simple magnetic confinement (say a magnetic mirror type bottle) used in conjunction with a solid tube so that the non-conducting (because non-ionized) gas phase is confined by the solid tube and the conducting (because) ionized gas phase is confined by the magnetic bottle: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. However, what if the plasma has expanded during the high pressure phase, ie: done work against the magnetic confinement (like, oh, I don't know, generating an electrical power spike in a conductor associated with the magnetic field). Does that mean the free electrons of the plasma no longer want to return to their ground states and give up exactly the same amount of energy that they would have in the absence of having done work? If not, where did the electrons go and where do the xenon atoms get electrons to substitute for them?
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see *www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt* ** ** *Cheers: Axil* ** On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
by the way comparative calorimetry can assert proofs. the normal COP if mainstream theory is real, is COP=1, and excess heat~= 0, in any condition, on long term. on short term the excess heap should not be out of +/- chemical energy inside the reactor . Einitial-EchemicalEfinalEinitial+Echemical if he prove a difference between two experiments that either prove longterm two COP differences (COPaCOPb) , or any excess heat EaEb on long term, above all error possible, or any short term discrepancy between heat above 2 chemical energy inside the reactor (Ea-Eb2Echemical), then IT IS A BREAKTHROUGH. comparative is not perfect to measure the detail, but it is enough to eliminate the mainstream theory as factually false. Am I right when I say that we are in that situation where whatever is said, the mainstream theory of COP=1 and |Efinal-Einitial|Echemical is refuted with many sigma. I think first about the NASA GRC experiments (89 and 2005) that are far enough to refute mainstream theory. Nothing more seems required. Or did I miss something subtle about error margins ? NB: it is not a rhetorical question, since I'm looking for critic to my reasoning, so I don't tell stupidities in public. 2012/8/20 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 02:02 AM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: So I understood, but then the flip side: why the questions about the calorimetry? Again, what am I missing? I've answered before but these responses are delayed. What you are missing, Jeff, is that Celani's work isn't conclusive, by any means. It's investigational, and he is comparing results between his own experiments. What was demonstrated wasn't even one of these, not really, though maybe he'll be able to use the data. Some enthusiastic supporters of cold fusion exaggerate the importance of such demonstrations. Don't get me wrong. I support cold fusion research. Celani's work is actually quite important, but not for convincing skeptics, or demonstrating absolute, confident calorimetry. That any heat at all is apparent is of interest to most of us. It's an indication that NiH reactions are possible, one more among many. Of course I'd love to see better calorimetry! But it is not Celani's purpose, which is investigating the materials and their responses under test. He only needs *relative* calorimetry for that. And he doesn't need two experimental setups for that. He just runs them all the same and compares outcomes, serially. You may want to see a simultaneous control, but you aren't paying his bills!
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
You're right about the wire size calculations but during the test with Feynman, the Papp engine was not connected to a dyno. Wasn't it just free spinning? Somebody correct me. If it was just free spinning without a load, a single battery would have suffice for a long time. If you are talking about the dyno test with the affidavit from 2 men, I guess it all boils down the veracity of those two men. But the obvious question is, why don't we have a working Papp engine by now. If the patent is public domain, surely someone close to Papp would have realized the potential of this engine and recreated it. The Rohner boys would have been in such a position and yet, after 30 years, all they have are kits and demo poppers. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine? From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com\ Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:46:13 PM While you're at it, calculate the diameter of the 3-wire extension cord needed to power it from the mains! 107 hp = 78.7 KW / 120 V = 655 Amps https://wiktel.com/standards/ampacit.htm Highest gauge listed = = 260A (in insulated 3-wire cable) http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm = Diameter 0.46 (1.6mm). Allowing for insulation, that makes a bundle of about 1 inch diameter. To carry 655 amps you need 2.5 of them -- round up to 3 So, Feynman would have needed to yank out 3 1-inch diameter extension cords.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wakes Up
It is assumed that the brain is the closest thing in life to a quantum
mechanical device or at a minimum requires precise calculations. It makes
sense that those working around these devices unprotected succumb to
strange behavior and ill health.
On Monday, August 20, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I haven't verified that Rossi actually wrote this. If he did, That is
lamer than anything I've ever seen from Rossi. He may be completely losing
it. So to speak, the clowns have empty boxes, they will fill with our
small e-cats. Therefore we won't sell small e-cats. That'll show them!
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 19, 2012, at 2:56 PM, ny@aol.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'ny@aol.com'); wrote:
Wise:
Andrea Rossi
August 19th, 2012 at 2:16
AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695cpage=3#comment-304856
1.
Dear ivan:
We have decided, so far, to limit our sales to the 1 MW plants because
this dimension is the one that gives to Leonardo Corp. the maximum economic
momentum, considering our present structure. We foresee, anyway, to lower,
in future, the power of the products for sale. In this monent there is also
a pending situation regarding the Intellectual Property and there are
around clowns ( think to the ones that claim to have been able to copy us)
that have just mock ups (empty boxes) which they will inmmediately fill up
with our technology as soon as cheap E-Cats will be in the market: this has
been their strategy from the beginning. Marketing only the 1 MW plants we
can select our Customers. When the domestic Ecats will be certified the
numbers will be enough big to allow us a big scale production, so that our
prices will be enough low to defeat the competition even after they will be
able to copy us. About the chance of our competitors to reach us and
compete with us, without copying us, from what I saw recently, they all are
lightyears far from being able to produce something able to produce real
energy: they are making paper aeroplanes, we are manufacturing Boeing 707.
With all respect.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Quickly
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
Super Atom or ultra dense atomic clusters: It can be expected that any
radiation escaping this super atom will be reshifted to lower frequencies
and energy levels and that any particles approaching this super atom will
be blueshifted to extremely high frequencies and energy levels. Very
disruptive to ANYTHING in nature
On Monday, August 20, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:
The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled
particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic
clustering fits into the LENR+ process.
see
*www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt*
**
**
*Cheers: Axil*
**
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil
janap...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'janap...@gmail.com');
wrote:
According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The
paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb
barrier lowering.
Cheers: Axil
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz
pdx...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'pdx...@gmail.com');
wrote:
I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential
peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical
Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/
It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier
drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If
true, that would be ... big.
Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for
variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI
background in the vicinity of the experiment?
Jeff
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher
a...@well.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'a...@well.com');
wrote:
From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'pdx...@gmail.com');
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device
If you open this link:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf
It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR
papers stuck together end to end.
The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the
peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies.
Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4
Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF
stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wakes Up
My experience is that money past, present, future or imagined is much more toxic for the personality than radioactivity. It is however quite good for short-term intelligence, yet very bad for the eyes, and as i say for mental stability. and someone blind, intelligent and personality troubled can be very dangerous for the neighbors and even the world. I feel that this is first the cause of the strupidity of the mainstream science administration, then researchers. Then it seems to spread in the new industrial LENR... the best is normally to build an organizational structure to control group crazyness, canalize it's violence in a useful direction. people call that an enterprise. Blogs and Forum are not good things fro mental stability, of authors and readers, and it is why there is NDA and trade secrets. (end of not so joke) 2012/8/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com It is assumed that the brain is the closest thing in life to a quantum mechanical device or at a minimum requires precise calculations. It makes sense that those working around these devices unprotected succumb to strange behavior and ill health. On Monday, August 20, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I haven't verified that Rossi actually wrote this. If he did, That is lamer than anything I've ever seen from Rossi. He may be completely losing it. So to speak, the clowns have empty boxes, they will fill with our small e-cats. Therefore we won't sell small e-cats. That'll show them! Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 2:56 PM, ny@aol.com wrote: Wise: Andrea Rossi August 19th, 2012 at 2:16 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695cpage=3#comment-304856 1. Dear ivan: We have decided, so far, to limit our sales to the 1 MW plants because this dimension is the one that gives to Leonardo Corp. the maximum economic momentum, considering our present structure. We foresee, anyway, to lower, in future, the power of the products for sale. In this monent there is also a pending situation regarding the Intellectual Property and there are around clowns ( think to the ones that claim to have been able to copy us) that have just mock ups (empty boxes) which they will inmmediately fill up with our technology as soon as cheap E-Cats will be in the market: this has been their strategy from the beginning. Marketing only the 1 MW plants we can select our Customers. When the domestic Ecats will be certified the numbers will be enough big to allow us a big scale production, so that our prices will be enough low to defeat the competition even after they will be able to copy us. About the chance of our competitors to reach us and compete with us, without copying us, from what I saw recently, they all are lightyears far from being able to produce something able to produce real energy: they are making paper aeroplanes, we are manufacturing Boeing 707. With all respect. Warm Regards, A.R. Quickly
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
Let's assume these Super Atoms or Super Atom Clusters obey the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle as do other particles. On one hand they can reward you with redshifted lower energy radiation usable as heat but on the other hand they consume and destroy all matter within their gravitational reach. They bust up coloumb barriers due to the extremely high frequencies they can generate through blueshifting near their center. They magnify uncertainty within their surroundings much more than typical particles due to their size or quantities. They can also collapse into each other creating Super Duper Atoms... On Monday, August 20, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: Super Atom or ultra dense atomic clusters: It can be expected that any radiation escaping this super atom will be reshifted to lower frequencies and energy levels and that any particles approaching this super atom will be blueshifted to extremely high frequencies and energy levels. Very disruptive to ANYTHING in nature On Monday, August 20, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see *www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt* ** ** *Cheers: Axil* ** On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.comwrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
[Vo]:Celani's patent on nickel preparation
Hello group, This got posted today on ecatnews.com [1]. It's a patent by Celani et al. describing a process for the preparation of nanostructured layers on nickel surfaces in order to achieve high hydrogen adsorption values at a relatively low cost. http://goo.gl/Ae57y (shortened very long URL to the uspto.gov website) Abstract: Thin nano structured layers on surfaces of nickel or its alloys for quickly achieving high hydrogen adsorption values (H/Ni.about.0.7) through direct metal/gas contact. The said layers are produced by a process comprising the step of oxidising the said surfaces, applying a film of aqueous silica sol to them, subsequent heating in an -oxidising atmosphere and final activation through reduction in a reducing atmosphere. Celani currently uses Romanowsky alloys (Cu-Ni) rather than pure nickel. Also, from what I understand from his recent presentations, it appears he improved the preparation process as of late. The above linked patent has been filed two years ago (although approved on May 31, 2012) and therefore might not be the state of the art anymore. It still is an interesting and potentially informative read, however. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://ecatnews.com/?p=2359
[Vo]:Homogeniety of space and the Lorentz transformations
I was checking the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and it mentions that it relies on space being homogeneous or on isotropy of the space. Why are these assumptions made? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#From_physical_principles And as far as I have read 1 or 2 or neither holds in the group method of deriving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#From_group_postulates 1. does not hold since two Lorentz transformation correspond to one rotation and one Lorentz transformation. 2. does not hold since Lorentz transformations are not associative I think it is a shortcoming to make preassumptions. David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
James Bowery wrote: Is there a design for this $50,000, 2 man-month high temperature calorimeter? I would suggest a flow calorimeter. A Seebeck calorimeter large enough to hold this would cost a lot. Celani has a precision flow calorimeter but it would not work with this device, at these temperatures. Several people suggested he should stop what he is doing and build another before doing more tests. He says he would like to go straight to a self-sustaining test. Frankly, I think his plan is much better. Unlike a flow calorimeter, a self-sustaining test will not tell us how much heat is coming out, but the first stage of the test will give some indication. The anomalous heat will approximately equal the electric heat needed at first to sustain the operating temperature of 120 deg C. It does not really matter if it sustains at 1 W or 20 W. If it goes for more than a few minutes it is anomalous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
There are no good explanations for the Papp phenomenon. One isn't simply talking about the veracity of two men signing an affidavit but of world-class experts in high power machinery who actually fabricated the device attested by the two men. We can ignore, for the sake of argument, all of the midwestern investors who were from a long tradition of agrarian self-sufficiency which featured a great deal of on-the-spot fabrication of make-shift inventions to get the job done without the support of urban infrastructure. Let's just talk about these 5 people (excluding, of course, Papp himeself). One might be convinced that the Rohner brothers were in some kind of conspiracy to defraud with Rohner but one cannot be convinced that Rohner Machine Works was so inept as to mistake negative net work from one of their own machines for 100 horsepower. So let's run with the Rohner conspiracy theory: The two highest-likelihood conditional hypotheses involving the Joint Affidavit signed by George J. Nolan, PhD and Dennis Hodges are, again, ineptitude in mistaking net negative work for 100hp -- or collusion in the Rohner conspiracy. Do we have any reason to believe that either of Nolan or Hodges had any prior connection with Papp or the Rohners or that Nolan or Hodges had a background of suspected fraud? It seems ineptitude is more likely since neither Nolan nor Hodges could be considered in the same class as the Rohners when it comes to high power machinery. So let's run with that branch in the conditional hypotheses tree: The geographically remote Papp and the Rohners entered into a conspiracy to defraud the public and sought out, as dupes in their scheme, a PhD in chemistry and the owner of an independent diesel service, also geographically remote from Papp and the Rohners. Papp and the Rohners then presented their dupes with a form in which the dupes were to place numbers and signatures. Papp then managed to make it appear that 100hp came out of his fraudulent device for an hour to the satisfaction of the dupes, so that they would sign the affidavit. Papp took the secret to his grave and the Rohners continued in their efforts to defraud to the present day (we can, I suppose, explain the rancor between the brothers Rohner as a continuation of the fraud taking the form of two fraud artists competing for the same pool of marks). Does that about sum up the best alternative to For some mysterious reason no one has been able to get this thing to work for decades but its real. hypothesis? On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: You're right about the wire size calculations but during the test with Feynman, the Papp engine was not connected to a dyno. Wasn't it just free spinning? Somebody correct me. If it was just free spinning without a load, a single battery would have suffice for a long time. If you are talking about the dyno test with the affidavit from 2 men, I guess it all boils down the veracity of those two men. But the obvious question is, why don't we have a working Papp engine by now. If the patent is public domain, surely someone close to Papp would have realized the potential of this engine and recreated it. The Rohner boys would have been in such a position and yet, after 30 years, all they have are kits and demo poppers. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine? From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com\ Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:46:13 PM While you're at it, calculate the diameter of the 3-wire extension cord needed to power it from the mains! 107 hp = 78.7 KW / 120 V = 655 Amps https://wiktel.com/standards/**ampacit.htmhttps://wiktel.com/standards/ampacit.htm Highest gauge listed = = 260A (in insulated 3-wire cable) http://www.powerstream.com/**Wire_Size.htmhttp://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm = Diameter 0.46 (1.6mm). Allowing for insulation, that makes a bundle of about 1 inch diameter. To carry 655 amps you need 2.5 of them -- round up to 3 So, Feynman would have needed to yank out 3 1-inch diameter extension cords.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
Axil, perhaps there is something going on that results in the lowering of the barrier. I have to ask where the additional energy comes from to satisfy the actual energy needed? If it is taken from other particles that might make sense, otherwise it sounds like a free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier.The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as acause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
RE: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
Good point JoJo. Proponents are conflating two different Papp anecdotes which completely warp the story. The flimsiest extension cord would be adequate to run the engine in a no-load condition, and it could continue to run for several minutes with the benefit of a hidden capacitor. This was what happened, in fact. (see below). Plus - A thirty+ year old meaningless affidavit from deceased individuals who supposedly tested the engine for the newly scammed owner of the technology on the premises of a third rate university - that does nothing to make the case … other than by that time, Papp was desperate and could convince no one in LA or the rest of California to buy-into the scam - and had to go all the way to what had recently been known as the Cherokee National Female Seminary to find two chumps to validate. -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro You're right about the wire size calculations but during the test with Feynman, the Papp engine was not connected to a dyno. Wasn't it just free spinning? Yes it was. BTW to set the record straight - Testimony given by Feynman indicates that Papp, not Feynman unplugged the engine. To wit: Mr. Papp pulled the plug from the wall, and the fan propeller continued to turn. 'You see, this cord has nothing to do with the engine; it's only supplying power to the instruments,' Papp said. Well, that was easy. He's got a storage battery inside the engine. 'Do you mind if I hold the plug?' I [Feynman] asked? 'Not at all,' replied Mr. Papp, and he handed it to me. It wasn't very long before he asked me to give me back the plug. 'I'd like to hold it a little longer,' I said, figuring that if I stalled around enough, the damn thing would stop. Pretty soon Mr. Papp was frantic, so I (Richard Feynman) gave him back the plug and he plugged it back into the wall. A few moments later there was a big explosion: A cone of silvery uniform stuff shot out and turned to smoke. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
Erratum: the Rohner brothers were in some kind of conspiracy to defraud with Rohner should (of course) read: the Rohner brothers were in some kind of conspiracy to defraud with Papp On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:59 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There are no good explanations for the Papp phenomenon. One isn't simply talking about the veracity of two men signing an affidavit but of world-class experts in high power machinery who actually fabricated the device attested by the two men. We can ignore, for the sake of argument, all of the midwestern investors who were from a long tradition of agrarian self-sufficiency which featured a great deal of on-the-spot fabrication of make-shift inventions to get the job done without the support of urban infrastructure. Let's just talk about these 5 people (excluding, of course, Papp himeself). One might be convinced that the Rohner brothers were in some kind of conspiracy to defraud with Rohner but one cannot be convinced that Rohner Machine Works was so inept as to mistake negative net work from one of their own machines for 100 horsepower. So let's run with the Rohner conspiracy theory: The two highest-likelihood conditional hypotheses involving the Joint Affidavit signed by George J. Nolan, PhD and Dennis Hodges are, again, ineptitude in mistaking net negative work for 100hp -- or collusion in the Rohner conspiracy. Do we have any reason to believe that either of Nolan or Hodges had any prior connection with Papp or the Rohners or that Nolan or Hodges had a background of suspected fraud? It seems ineptitude is more likely since neither Nolan nor Hodges could be considered in the same class as the Rohners when it comes to high power machinery. So let's run with that branch in the conditional hypotheses tree: The geographically remote Papp and the Rohners entered into a conspiracy to defraud the public and sought out, as dupes in their scheme, a PhD in chemistry and the owner of an independent diesel service, also geographically remote from Papp and the Rohners. Papp and the Rohners then presented their dupes with a form in which the dupes were to place numbers and signatures. Papp then managed to make it appear that 100hp came out of his fraudulent device for an hour to the satisfaction of the dupes, so that they would sign the affidavit. Papp took the secret to his grave and the Rohners continued in their efforts to defraud to the present day (we can, I suppose, explain the rancor between the brothers Rohner as a continuation of the fraud taking the form of two fraud artists competing for the same pool of marks). Does that about sum up the best alternative to For some mysterious reason no one has been able to get this thing to work for decades but its real. hypothesis? On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: You're right about the wire size calculations but during the test with Feynman, the Papp engine was not connected to a dyno. Wasn't it just free spinning? Somebody correct me. If it was just free spinning without a load, a single battery would have suffice for a long time. If you are talking about the dyno test with the affidavit from 2 men, I guess it all boils down the veracity of those two men. But the obvious question is, why don't we have a working Papp engine by now. If the patent is public domain, surely someone close to Papp would have realized the potential of this engine and recreated it. The Rohner boys would have been in such a position and yet, after 30 years, all they have are kits and demo poppers. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine? From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com\ Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:46:13 PM While you're at it, calculate the diameter of the 3-wire extension cord needed to power it from the mains! 107 hp = 78.7 KW / 120 V = 655 Amps https://wiktel.com/standards/**ampacit.htmhttps://wiktel.com/standards/ampacit.htm Highest gauge listed = = 260A (in insulated 3-wire cable) http://www.powerstream.com/**Wire_Size.htmhttp://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm = Diameter 0.46 (1.6mm). Allowing for insulation, that makes a bundle of about 1 inch diameter. To carry 655 amps you need 2.5 of them -- round up to 3 So, Feynman would have needed to yank out 3 1-inch diameter extension cords.
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
What are the dimensions of the sealed container for Seebeck? Is the diseconomy of scale primarily driven by the large number of thermocouples implied by the squared law of the surface area? On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery wrote: Is there a design for this $50,000, 2 man-month high temperature calorimeter? I would suggest a flow calorimeter. A Seebeck calorimeter large enough to hold this would cost a lot. Celani has a precision flow calorimeter but it would not work with this device, at these temperatures. Several people suggested he should stop what he is doing and build another before doing more tests. He says he would like to go straight to a self-sustaining test. Frankly, I think his plan is much better. Unlike a flow calorimeter, a self-sustaining test will not tell us how much heat is coming out, but the first stage of the test will give some indication. The anomalous heat will approximately equal the electric heat needed at first to sustain the operating temperature of 120 deg C. It does not really matter if it sustains at 1 W or 20 W. If it goes for more than a few minutes it is anomalous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
Quantum gravity blueshifts the incoming particles/radiation to ultrahigh frequencies and ultrahigh energy levels right near its surface. It is this high energy level which busts up the coloumb barrier of atoms pulled close. It is the same effect in reverse which makes any energy leaving this collapsed matter to be of low energy level/frequencies redshifted and less harmful Red Shift Blue ShiftA light source moving *away* from the listener (*v* is positive) would provide an *fL* that is less than *fS*. In the visible light spectrum http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/vislightspec.htm, this causes a shift toward the red end of the light spectrum, so it is called a *red shift*. When the light source is moving *toward* the listener (*v* is negative), then *fL* is greater than *fS*. In the visible light spectrum http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/vislightspec.htm, this causes a shift toward the high-frequency end of the light spectrum. For some reason, violet got the short end of the stick and such frequency shift is actually called a *blue shift*. Obviously, in the area of theelectromagnetic spectrum http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/electrspectrum.htm outside of the visible light spectrum, these shifts might not actually be toward red and blue. If you're in the infrared, for example, you're ironically shifting *away*from red when you experience a red shift. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, perhaps there is something going on that results in the lowering of the barrier. I have to ask where the additional energy comes from to satisfy the actual energy needed? If it is taken from other particles that might make sense, otherwise it sounds like a free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see *www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt* ** ** *Cheers: Axil* ** On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
[Vo]:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion
FYI Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html Originally published in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics quote The engine started to go around, and there was a bit of disappointment: the propeller of the fan went around quietly without the noise of an ordinary engine with powerful explosions in the cylinders, and everything- it looked very much like an electric motor. Mr. Papp pulled the plug from the wall, and the fan propeller continued to turn. 'You see, this cord has nothing to do with the engine; it's only supplying power to the instruments,' he said. Well, that was easy. He's got a storage battery inside the engine. 'Do you mind if I hold the plug?' I asked? 'Not at all,' replied Mr. Papp, and he handed it to me. It wasn't very long before he asked me to give me back the plug. 'I'd like to hold it a little longer,' I said, figuring that if I stalled around enough, the damn thing would stop. Pretty soon Mr. Papp was frantic, so I (Richard Feynman) gave him back the plug and he plugged it back into the wall. A few moments later there was a big explosion end quote Harry
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
I think Papp knew that the charged particles generated from his devices were bad actors and needed to be contained as much as possible, thus his containment coil. I am of the opinion, that the only way to safetly confine this collapsed matter(gremlin) is some type of magnetic/inertial/gravitational confinement field once you have created the collapsed matter. After that you need to feed the suspended gremlin hydrogen to minimize harmful radiation and remove the heat and do not feed him too much too fast (although I think he is so hot that it would be hard to grow him in size very quickly) If I knew collapsed matter evaporated I would feel better. Results from Celani and that Papp video tend to make me believe it sticks around for awhile on its way ultimately to the center of the earth. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: You're right about the wire size calculations but during the test with Feynman, the Papp engine was not connected to a dyno. Wasn't it just free spinning? Somebody correct me. If it was just free spinning without a load, a single battery would have suffice for a long time. If you are talking about the dyno test with the affidavit from 2 men, I guess it all boils down the veracity of those two men. But the obvious question is, why don't we have a working Papp engine by now. If the patent is public domain, surely someone close to Papp would have realized the potential of this engine and recreated it. The Rohner boys would have been in such a position and yet, after 30 years, all they have are kits and demo poppers. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine? From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com\ Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:46:13 PM While you're at it, calculate the diameter of the 3-wire extension cord needed to power it from the mains! 107 hp = 78.7 KW / 120 V = 655 Amps https://wiktel.com/standards/**ampacit.htmhttps://wiktel.com/standards/ampacit.htm Highest gauge listed = = 260A (in insulated 3-wire cable) http://www.powerstream.com/**Wire_Size.htmhttp://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm = Diameter 0.46 (1.6mm). Allowing for insulation, that makes a bundle of about 1 inch diameter. To carry 655 amps you need 2.5 of them -- round up to 3 So, Feynman would have needed to yank out 3 1-inch diameter extension cords.
Re: [Vo]:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion
There was a man killed in this explosion. Either Feynamnn was guilty of manslaughter or Papp was guilty of manslaughter. Neither ever got his day in court. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: FYI Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html Originally published in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics quote The engine started to go around, and there was a bit of disappointment: the propeller of the fan went around quietly without the noise of an ordinary engine with powerful explosions in the cylinders, and everything- it looked very much like an electric motor. Mr. Papp pulled the plug from the wall, and the fan propeller continued to turn. 'You see, this cord has nothing to do with the engine; it's only supplying power to the instruments,' he said. Well, that was easy. He's got a storage battery inside the engine. 'Do you mind if I hold the plug?' I asked? 'Not at all,' replied Mr. Papp, and he handed it to me. It wasn't very long before he asked me to give me back the plug. 'I'd like to hold it a little longer,' I said, figuring that if I stalled around enough, the damn thing would stop. Pretty soon Mr. Papp was frantic, so I (Richard Feynman) gave him back the plug and he plugged it back into the wall. A few moments later there was a big explosion end quote Harry
Re: [Vo]:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion
Yes, in the article Feynman describes the grisly scene after the explosion. He speculates the explosion was planned but a wikipedia entry says the police investigation did not find any evidence of explosives or intentional wrong doing on the part Papp. harry On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:38 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There was a man killed in this explosion. Either Feynamnn was guilty of manslaughter or Papp was guilty of manslaughter. Neither ever got his day in court. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: FYI Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html Originally published in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics quote The engine started to go around, and there was a bit of disappointment: the propeller of the fan went around quietly without the noise of an ordinary engine with powerful explosions in the cylinders, and everything- it looked very much like an electric motor. Mr. Papp pulled the plug from the wall, and the fan propeller continued to turn. 'You see, this cord has nothing to do with the engine; it's only supplying power to the instruments,' he said. Well, that was easy. He's got a storage battery inside the engine. 'Do you mind if I hold the plug?' I asked? 'Not at all,' replied Mr. Papp, and he handed it to me. It wasn't very long before he asked me to give me back the plug. 'I'd like to hold it a little longer,' I said, figuring that if I stalled around enough, the damn thing would stop. Pretty soon Mr. Papp was frantic, so I (Richard Feynman) gave him back the plug and he plugged it back into the wall. A few moments later there was a big explosion end quote Harry
Re: [Vo]:McKubre clarifies his view of the Celani demonstration
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I wish we had more guys looking over these Papp engines to determine whether or not they are real. The concept is interesting, and of course there are problems that need resolution before quantity production could be considered. I have been thinking of the behavior of a crossed field device of this nature and think there may be something there, but it is quite complex. Review the operation of magnetrons if you want to see some similar characteristics. I am still attempting to calculate the electromagnetic power pulse applied to the piston, since it apparently does not operate as a heat engine. At them moment it is not clear how the nobel gas ion mixture supplies the reaction momentum to the piston motion. One day someone will figue this puppy out. Pure speculation: The gas momentarily behaves like a liquid. Harry
[Vo]:Linear motion Sagnac accelerometer
A linear Sagnac interferometer works in regard to producing fringe shifts when accelerated. This can easily be understood by considering the Doppler effect and the retardation that the light does along the linear path of the light. The Doppler effects do not cancel out since there is a delay in mixing source and destination signals. Redo the experiments with light frequency changing over time, for example as a ramp function, to get an effect on speed and not only acceleration. If there is a linear Sagnac effect even in this case the beat frequency would differ at different speeds. Do this experiment on a rotating frame as well. The common understanding is that the rotating frame would be affected by speed and the linear interferometer would not. Agree? Mail this suggestion to Wang if you have his address. David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
Aim for the shield generator, or get a man on the inside to switch it off. harry On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:Homogeniety of space and the Lorentz transformations
Concretely, one should be asking if the laws of motion are isotropic in a given context. Experientially they are not, but the mechanical world view insists they are. Consider a pebble. It does not continue to move in straight line in the direction it is thrown, so to overide the experience that motion tends to be curvy and accelerative, we imagine gravity is a deflecting force or is warped space. harry On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:47 AM, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote: I was checking the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and it mentions that it relies on space being homogeneous or on isotropy of the space. Why are these assumptions made? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#From_physical_principles And as far as I have read 1 or 2 or neither holds in the group method of deriving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#From_group_postulates 1. does not hold since two Lorentz transformation correspond to one rotation and one Lorentz transformation. 2. does not hold since Lorentz transformations are not associative I think it is a shortcoming to make preassumptions. David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:1983 and still no production model
On 08/20/2012 12:22 PM, James Bowery wrote: In 1983, an impressive demonstration of a new energy technology happened. Decades later, there is still no production model. To what technology am I referring? Microsoft Windows.
Re: [Vo]:1983 and still no production model
The power from nitenol? Craig On 08/20/2012 12:29 PM, Andre Blum wrote: On 08/20/2012 12:22 PM, James Bowery wrote: In 1983, an impressive demonstration of a new energy technology happened. Decades later, there is still no production model. To what technology am I referring? Microsoft Windows.
Re: [Vo]:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion
It sounds like this was an accident to me. Civil penalties might be fair, but I do not think it would help to charge anyone with murder. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 11:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion There was a man killed in this explosion. Either Feynamnn was guilty of manslaughter or Papp was guilty of manslaughter. Neither ever got his day in court. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: FYI Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html Originally published in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics quote The engine started to go around, and there was a bit of disappointment: the propeller of the fan went around quietly without the noise of an ordinary engine with powerful explosions in the cylinders, and everything- it looked very much like an electric motor. Mr. Papp pulled the plug from the wall, and the fan propeller continued to turn. 'You see, this cord has nothing to do with the engine; it's only supplying power to the instruments,' he said. Well, that was easy. He's got a storage battery inside the engine. 'Do you mind if I hold the plug?' I asked? 'Not at all,' replied Mr. Papp, and he handed it to me. It wasn't very long before he asked me to give me back the plug. 'I'd like to hold it a little longer,' I said, figuring that if I stalled around enough, the damn thing would stop. Pretty soon Mr. Papp was frantic, so I (Richard Feynman) gave him back the plug and he plugged it back into the wall. A few moments later there was a big explosion end quote Harry
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
If you can think of the coulomb barrier as a soldier, a very good and strong one, this hero, can defeat any individual soldier of the opposing army. Even if the opposing army attacks our hero one fighter at a time the hero can resist the attack since the attack is uncoordinated. But when the opposing army gets its act together and acts a cohesive unit the hero is overcome by the combined and additive strength of the combined and coordinated action of the army. The bigger that the coordinated army is, the more soundly that the hero is defeated. Since electrons and protons are waves also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_interference Cheers:Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, perhaps there is something going on that results in the lowering of the barrier. I have to ask where the additional energy comes from to satisfy the actual energy needed? If it is taken from other particles that might make sense, otherwise it sounds like a free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see *www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt* ** ** *Cheers: Axil* ** On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion
Involuntary manslaughter is a category of manslaughter that implies the death was accidental. Clearly, if Papp was defrauding those present he was guilty of involuntary manslaughter. While it may be that Feynmann would be acquitted on the grounds that he was engaged in no criminal conduct, his failure to return the power plug to Papp on Papp's initial request does create reason to suspect culpability. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:47 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It sounds like this was an accident to me. Civil penalties might be fair, but I do not think it would help to charge anyone with murder. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 11:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion There was a man killed in this explosion. Either Feynamnn was guilty of manslaughter or Papp was guilty of manslaughter. Neither ever got his day in court. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: FYI Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html Originally published in LASER, Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics quote The engine started to go around, and there was a bit of disappointment: the propeller of the fan went around quietly without the noise of an ordinary engine with powerful explosions in the cylinders, and everything- it looked very much like an electric motor. Mr. Papp pulled the plug from the wall, and the fan propeller continued to turn. 'You see, this cord has nothing to do with the engine; it's only supplying power to the instruments,' he said. Well, that was easy. He's got a storage battery inside the engine. 'Do you mind if I hold the plug?' I asked? 'Not at all,' replied Mr. Papp, and he handed it to me. It wasn't very long before he asked me to give me back the plug. 'I'd like to hold it a little longer,' I said, figuring that if I stalled around enough, the damn thing would stop. Pretty soon Mr. Papp was frantic, so I (Richard Feynman) gave him back the plug and he plugged it back into the wall. A few moments later there was a big explosion end quote Harry
Re: [Vo]:McKubre clarifies his view of the Celani demonstration
Yep, it is speculation at this point. Do you have any idea as to how the liquid behavior would generate the piston thrust? We need any new ideas out there as we attempt to understand this device. I am approaching the device from an unusual electric motor design. We know that charged ions are in motion which will generate a magnetic field. I also see evidence that the electrons will head toward the positive voltage electrodes while the ions will go in reverse. The axial magnetic field will cause both types of particles to rotate within the cylinder in opposite directions. I am thinking that the collisions between the neutral atoms and the circulating particles will lead to mass ionization. If LENR occurs due to the ions and other factors, it will add energy to the mix which ultimately does the external work. It is early in the understanding, but it has possibilities. I visualize that the very rapidly changing magnetic field induces currents in both the piston as well as the end cap in opposition. This process may further enhance LENR by behaving as a form of pinch for the ions between the two fields. The force that drives the piston would be supported by a reaction force applied to the end cap of the cylinder. In my way of thinking this would help explain why the ions are not pushed away from the center of the reaction region as the piston accelerates away from them. This process would by necessity require both the piston as well as the end caps to be highly conductive. The process I have outlined is very speculative and I realize that, but if the engine is to function at all and run warm, then it can not be any form of normal heat engine since the efficiency of these is rather poor. The efficiency of an electric motor is quite good and hence my push in that direction. The Papp engine might actually be a form of electric motor that uses LENR to generate linear motion efficiently. Lets hope for such a process. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 11:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre clarifies his view of the Celani demonstration On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I wish we had more guys looking over these Papp engines to determine whether or not they are real. The concept is interesting, and of course there are problems that need resolution before quantity production could be considered. I have been thinking of the behavior of a crossed field device of this nature and think there may be something there, but it is quite complex. Review the operation of magnetrons if you want to see some similar characteristics. I am still attempting to calculate the electromagnetic power pulse applied to the piston, since it apparently does not operate as a heat engine. At them moment it is not clear how the nobel gas ion mixture supplies the reaction momentum to the piston motion. One day someone will figue this puppy out. Pure speculation: The gas momentarily behaves like a liquid. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
I agree. I also believe this army is wearing blue uniforms. These are all blue-shifted high energy particle/waves working together as a concentrated and cohesive force at the location of the battle (horizon). Nothing can stop them, neither matter or energy as they consume both. You might be able to contain this army in some type of magnetic field or inertial confinement, but they are elusive by nature. They magnify the Uncertainty Principle many times over. Best though to keep them isolated as best you can. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you can think of the coulomb barrier as a soldier, a very good and strong one, this hero, can defeat any individual soldier of the opposing army. Even if the opposing army attacks our hero one fighter at a time the hero can resist the attack since the attack is uncoordinated. But when the opposing army gets its act together and acts a cohesive unit the hero is overcome by the combined and additive strength of the combined and coordinated action of the army. The bigger that the coordinated army is, the more soundly that the hero is defeated. Since electrons and protons are waves also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_interference Cheers:Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Axil, perhaps there is something going on that results in the lowering of the barrier. I have to ask where the additional energy comes from to satisfy the actual energy needed? If it is taken from other particles that might make sense, otherwise it sounds like a free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see *www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt* ** ** *Cheers: Axil* ** On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.comwrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
Collapsed Matter. No fraud. No conspiracy theories. Call it Inverted Rydberg Matter, call them Super Atoms, they create blueshifted, high frequency radiation at their surface able to rip apart any matter in their vicinity. They all behave the same way. Papp knew the coil needed to stay energized to collect these charged particles else the machine may quickly self-destruct - that is the secret only he knew. They consume matter and energy and release energy. They can grow and shrink resulting in temporary inversions. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:59 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There are no good explanations for the Papp phenomenon. One isn't simply talking about the veracity of two men signing an affidavit but of world-class experts in high power machinery who actually fabricated the device attested by the two men. We can ignore, for the sake of argument, all of the midwestern investors who were from a long tradition of agrarian self-sufficiency which featured a great deal of on-the-spot fabrication of make-shift inventions to get the job done without the support of urban infrastructure. Let's just talk about these 5 people (excluding, of course, Papp himeself). One might be convinced that the Rohner brothers were in some kind of conspiracy to defraud with Rohner but one cannot be convinced that Rohner Machine Works was so inept as to mistake negative net work from one of their own machines for 100 horsepower. So let's run with the Rohner conspiracy theory: The two highest-likelihood conditional hypotheses involving the Joint Affidavit signed by George J. Nolan, PhD and Dennis Hodges are, again, ineptitude in mistaking net negative work for 100hp -- or collusion in the Rohner conspiracy. Do we have any reason to believe that either of Nolan or Hodges had any prior connection with Papp or the Rohners or that Nolan or Hodges had a background of suspected fraud? It seems ineptitude is more likely since neither Nolan nor Hodges could be considered in the same class as the Rohners when it comes to high power machinery. So let's run with that branch in the conditional hypotheses tree: The geographically remote Papp and the Rohners entered into a conspiracy to defraud the public and sought out, as dupes in their scheme, a PhD in chemistry and the owner of an independent diesel service, also geographically remote from Papp and the Rohners. Papp and the Rohners then presented their dupes with a form in which the dupes were to place numbers and signatures. Papp then managed to make it appear that 100hp came out of his fraudulent device for an hour to the satisfaction of the dupes, so that they would sign the affidavit. Papp took the secret to his grave and the Rohners continued in their efforts to defraud to the present day (we can, I suppose, explain the rancor between the brothers Rohner as a continuation of the fraud taking the form of two fraud artists competing for the same pool of marks). Does that about sum up the best alternative to For some mysterious reason no one has been able to get this thing to work for decades but its real. hypothesis? On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: You're right about the wire size calculations but during the test with Feynman, the Papp engine was not connected to a dyno. Wasn't it just free spinning? Somebody correct me. If it was just free spinning without a load, a single battery would have suffice for a long time. If you are talking about the dyno test with the affidavit from 2 men, I guess it all boils down the veracity of those two men. But the obvious question is, why don't we have a working Papp engine by now. If the patent is public domain, surely someone close to Papp would have realized the potential of this engine and recreated it. The Rohner boys would have been in such a position and yet, after 30 years, all they have are kits and demo poppers. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine? From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com\ Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:46:13 PM While you're at it, calculate the diameter of the 3-wire extension cord needed to power it from the mains! 107 hp = 78.7 KW / 120 V = 655 Amps https://wiktel.com/standards/**ampacit.htmhttps://wiktel.com/standards/ampacit.htm Highest gauge listed = = 260A (in insulated 3-wire cable) http://www.powerstream.com/**Wire_Size.htmhttp://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm = Diameter 0.46 (1.6mm). Allowing for insulation, that makes a bundle of about 1 inch diameter. To carry 655 amps you need 2.5 of them -- round up to 3 So, Feynman would have needed to yank out 3 1-inch diameter extension cords.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
Yeah, the group can defeat the guy soundly! I also believe that there is some form of coordinated effort that overcomes the coulomb barrier. I am merely searching for the lost energy that is required and attempting to see from where it originates. My suspicion is that the surrounding atoms become a bit cooler as the energy is borrowed from them. Once the fusion occurs, all of the borrowed energy would of course be paid back. The net effect is the same, but then there would be no free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 12:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper If you can think of the coulomb barrier as a soldier, a very good and strong one, this hero, can defeat any individual soldier of the opposing army. Even if the opposing army attacks our hero one fighter at a time the hero can resist the attack since the attack is uncoordinated. But when the opposing army gets its act together and acts a cohesive unit the hero is overcome by the combined and additive strength of the combined and coordinated action of the army. The bigger that the coordinated army is, the more soundly that the hero is defeated. Since electrons and protons are waves also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_interference Cheers:Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, perhaps there is something going on that results in the lowering of the barrier. I have to ask where the additional energy comes from to satisfy the actual energy needed? If it is taken from other particles that might make sense, otherwise it sounds like a free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier.The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as acause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
David, Yes, it is borrowing the energy from the red-shifted low energy radiation leaving the surface and focusing it with the blueshifted high energy radiation at the point of battle at the surface. Total energy stays the same, perfect conservation. Velocity of all particles stay the same, just cohesive shifts in frequency and lambda all maximizing energy at a point near the surface guided in by quantum gravity. No atom stands a chance. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Yeah, the group can defeat the guy soundly! I also believe that there is some form of coordinated effort that overcomes the coulomb barrier. I am merely searching for the lost energy that is required and attempting to see from where it originates. My suspicion is that the surrounding atoms become a bit cooler as the energy is borrowed from them. Once the fusion occurs, all of the borrowed energy would of course be paid back. The net effect is the same, but then there would be no free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 12:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper If you can think of the coulomb barrier as a soldier, a very good and strong one, this hero, can defeat any individual soldier of the opposing army. Even if the opposing army attacks our hero one fighter at a time the hero can resist the attack since the attack is uncoordinated. But when the opposing army gets its act together and acts a cohesive unit the hero is overcome by the combined and additive strength of the combined and coordinated action of the army. The bigger that the coordinated army is, the more soundly that the hero is defeated. Since electrons and protons are waves also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_interference Cheers:Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Axil, perhaps there is something going on that results in the lowering of the barrier. I have to ask where the additional energy comes from to satisfy the actual energy needed? If it is taken from other particles that might make sense, otherwise it sounds like a free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see *www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt* ** ** *Cheers: Axil* ** On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.comwrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What are the dimensions of the sealed container for Seebeck? You can make one any size, but the materials are expensive so the bigger you make it, the more you pay. Oriani used one that was designed to hold a baby. Here are some made by Ed Storms of various sizes: http://lenr-canr.org/?page_id=187#PhotosStorms - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Stronghold argument and Feynman (was:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion)
Let's cut thru this cloud of confusion, shall we? In historical warfare, opposing armies would build Strongholds. A stronghold is a fortified position from which an army could launch offensive strikes or retreat to for defense. A typical example would be a walled city and/or a tower in such a wall. A typical charateristic of a Stronghold is that it takes considerably less resources and manpower to defend a stronghold than to overcome it. Such a stronghold is very hard to overcome. It would take considerable effort, energy and resources to overcome a well fortified stronghold. Any action of the opposing army for any other tactical goal becomes less important as long as the stronghold remains intact - in fact, they are irrelevant. Any tactical goal achieved by the opponent will quickly be overcomed by offensive actions launched from a stronghold. This operating base doctrine is still applicable today, of which our concept of a carrier battle group is based on. (Why do you think other countries like China are so concerned about our carriers?) Overcoming a stronghold requires an overwhelming majority of forces and resources. In fact, the outcome of the battle is always determined on whether such a stronghold holds or is overrun. In ancient times, the capital of the Assyrian Empire Nineveh was surrounded by an inner and outer wall over 60 feet high. The walls enclosed an area with enough planting land to sustain a population of over 600,000. Such a stronghold is very difficult to overcome as any tactical gains achieved by the enemy can quickly be recovered with offensive stikes launched from such a stronghold. In fact, it took the combined resources of 3 rival kingdoms (Babylonians, Medes and Scythians) to finally overcome Nineveh. With this background, I would like to introduce my way of thinking, to help me cut thru the cloud of wrong information, confusing statements, and incomplete facts, I always like to identify what I call Stronghold arguments that are very hard to demolish. Every argument point or logic by the opponent is less important and even irrelevant until he can satisfactorily address and overcome the Stronghold Argument. Let me illustrate a couple of actual examples of a Stronghold argument. 1. In the case of Darwinian Evolution, there are over a dozen Stronghold arguments. These include: Abiogenesis, Genetic Improbabality, Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, Biological Chirality and others. Until such time as proponents of DE can address these concerns, any other argument they make is irrelevant. For example, proponents can introduce clever arguments like Punctuated Evolution, but until they can address how life arose out of non-life chemicals, all their Punctuated Evolution arguments are irrelevent. Now, I am only mentioning this to illustrate my point. I am not necessarily inclined to reopen the DE vs Intelligent Design argument. 2. With the Brither issue, the Stronghold argument is Why Obama still has a gag order in place for access to his vault Birth Certificate. College dropouts can argue with all their verbose eloquence that the BC presented was real, etc. etc., but until they can answer why Obama is still restricting access to this most basic of all documents, all their other arguments are irrelevant. 3. In the case of this Papp engine. The stronghold argument consists of asking why after 30 years, is there still no viable Papp engine we can buy. We can argue about whether confinement, gremlins, Rydberg matter or plasma is the source of the power, but until we can answer this simple question, all those arguments are irrelevant. 4. In the case of Rossi and his cats, I have not identified a stronghold argument, that is why I am still undecided. His lying and misbehaviour can be explained as part of his business strategy. 5. In the case of DGT, the stronghold argument may consist of recognizing why DGT has not released the data from half a dozen third party testers. This glaring and deliberate omission is a very strong argument for recognizing whether DGT has something or nothing. 6. In the case of whether Feynman or Papp was at fault for manslaugther, well, let's examine a few facts and I will present my stronghold argument. First, Papp sued Feynman. The University defended their star professor. A settlement was reached. The stronghold argument consists of recognizing that the University would not settle unless Feynman was guilty. A University has access to incredible resources, and high-priced lawyers. Even after deploying these considerable resources, they could not prove that Papp rigged his engine to explode. When one recognizes this stronghold argument, it becomes clear who the guilty party is. Feynman should have been incarcerated for this, but I guess, miscarriage of justice was evident. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To:
Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract
On 2012-08-20 20:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: *Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical* [...] This should be the result of what was mentioned in the 2012 DARPA budget review: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.html Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:1983 and still no production model
http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO1982002126 T
Re: [Vo]:Stronghold argument and Feynman (was:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion)
They were probably both guilty of ignorance of what the reaction actually was/is and its potential although Papp had an idea. Unfortunately more injury may result until the reaction(s) are nailed down. There is a reason Plasmerg/Rohners maintain Lexan bullet proof glass around their devices, they have no %^%! idea how to control it from self-destructing the devices. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Let's cut thru this cloud of confusion, shall we? In historical warfare, opposing armies would build Strongholds. A stronghold is a fortified position from which an army could launch offensive strikes or retreat to for defense. A typical example would be a walled city and/or a tower in such a wall. A typical charateristic of a Stronghold is that it takes considerably less resources and manpower to defend a stronghold than to overcome it. Such a stronghold is very hard to overcome. It would take considerable effort, energy and resources to overcome a well fortified stronghold. Any action of the opposing army for any other tactical goal becomes less important as long as the stronghold remains intact - in fact, they are irrelevant. Any tactical goal achieved by the opponent will quickly be overcomed by offensive actions launched from a stronghold. This operating base doctrine is still applicable today, of which our concept of a carrier battle group is based on. (Why do you think other countries like China are so concerned about our carriers?) Overcoming a stronghold requires an overwhelming majority of forces and resources. In fact, the outcome of the battle is always determined on whether such a stronghold holds or is overrun. In ancient times, the capital of the Assyrian Empire Nineveh was surrounded by an inner and outer wall over 60 feet high. The walls enclosed an area with enough planting land to sustain a population of over 600,000. Such a stronghold is very difficult to overcome as any tactical gains achieved by the enemy can quickly be recovered with offensive stikes launched from such a stronghold. In fact, it took the combined resources of 3 rival kingdoms (Babylonians, Medes and Scythians) to finally overcome Nineveh. With this background, I would like to introduce my way of thinking, to help me cut thru the cloud of wrong information, confusing statements, and incomplete facts, I always like to identify what I call Stronghold arguments that are very hard to demolish. Every argument point or logic by the opponent is less important and even irrelevant until he can satisfactorily address and overcome the Stronghold Argument. Let me illustrate a couple of actual examples of a Stronghold argument. 1. In the case of Darwinian Evolution, there are over a dozen Stronghold arguments. These include: Abiogenesis, Genetic Improbabality, Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, Biological Chirality and others. Until such time as proponents of DE can address these concerns, any other argument they make is irrelevant. For example, proponents can introduce clever arguments like Punctuated Evolution, but until they can address how life arose out of non-life chemicals, all their Punctuated Evolution arguments are irrelevent. Now, I am only mentioning this to illustrate my point. I am not necessarily inclined to reopen the DE vs Intelligent Design argument. 2. With the Brither issue, the Stronghold argument is Why Obama still has a gag order in place for access to his vault Birth Certificate. College dropouts can argue with all their verbose eloquence that the BC presented was real, etc. etc., but until they can answer why Obama is still restricting access to this most basic of all documents, all their other arguments are irrelevant. 3. In the case of this Papp engine. The stronghold argument consists of asking why after 30 years, is there still no viable Papp engine we can buy. We can argue about whether confinement, gremlins, Rydberg matter or plasma is the source of the power, but until we can answer this simple question, all those arguments are irrelevant. 4. In the case of Rossi and his cats, I have not identified a stronghold argument, that is why I am still undecided. His lying and misbehaviour can be explained as part of his business strategy. 5. In the case of DGT, the stronghold argument may consist of recognizing why DGT has not released the data from half a dozen third party testers. This glaring and deliberate omission is a very strong argument for recognizing whether DGT has something or nothing. 6. In the case of whether Feynman or Papp was at fault for manslaugther, well, let's examine a few facts and I will present my stronghold argument. First, Papp sued Feynman. The University defended their star professor. A settlement was reached. The stronghold argument consists of recognizing that the University would not settle unless Feynman was guilty. A
Re: [Vo]:1983 and still no production model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus T
RE: [Vo]:Homogeniety of space and the Lorentz transformations
Well basically Lorentz is all about V^2 as you approach C but if the isotropy is broken as suggested by Casimir geometry or suppression then the square of the distance is trumped by the cube or fourth of 1/ the plate separation.-(A relativistic interpretation is supported by a 1996 paper, Cavity QEDhttp://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula which proposes an abrupt break in isotropy between Casimir plates and a 1999 paper The Light Velocity Casimir Effecthttp://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9911/9911062.pdf by Tom Ostoma and Mike Trushyk which proposes the Casimir cavity as a relativistic environment where the velocity of light appears to increase relative to outside the cavity. It is also supported by a paper from Dr Carlos Calvet Evidence for the Existence of 5 Real Spatial Dimensions in Quantum Vacuumhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/calvet-final.htm. It is further evidenced by claims of modified radioactive decay rates in metal pores and powders of Casimir geometry. In all cases above the normal Lorenntzian formulas fall apart, in fact the relationship becomes dynamic with change in Casimir geometry having far more effect on the isotropy then any gravitational effect... what we call isotropic is really just a very slow gradual change we call gravity - we always knew this din't exist below the planl scale with quantum foam and wormholes coming into play but what remains controversial is that these breaches in isotropy can be aggregated or segregated to manifest themselves in the physical world via Casimir geometry. Where we are accustomed to Lorentzian contraction on the single axis approaching C the contraction observed due to suppression would be symmetrical with no need for any spatial displacement. Fran From: David Jonsson [mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 9:48 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Homogeniety of space and the Lorentz transformations I was checking the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and it mentions that it relies on space being homogeneous or on isotropy of the space. Why are these assumptions made? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#From_physical_principles And as far as I have read 1 or 2 or neither holds in the group method of deriving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#From_group_postulates 1. does not hold since two Lorentz transformation correspond to one rotation and one Lorentz transformation. 2. does not hold since Lorentz transformations are not associative I think it is a shortcoming to make preassumptions. David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract
I am looking this paper with very mixed feelinga. Admiration for a great effort, however 5% success rate due to palladiumphilia can be described by two nasty Latin sayings- too: Errare humanum est, persverare diabolicum Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything.. Don't make the skeptics happy! Peter On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-20 20:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: *Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical* [...] This should be the result of what was mentioned in the 2012 DARPA budget review: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/**07/darpa-nanotech-projects-** nanoscale.htmlhttp://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.html Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract
On 2012-08-20 21:23, Peter Gluck wrote: [...] I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything.. Don't make the skeptics happy! Here's where experiments such as Celani's come into help: by showing the LENR community that excess heat can be [scientifically] large and reproducible at will pretty much anywhere. Hopefully others will learn. Cheers, S.A.
Re: Stronghold Argument Against Papp Engine (was: Re: [Vo]:Stronghold argument and Feynman)
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** 3. In the case of this Papp engine. The stronghold argument consists of asking why after 30 years, is there still no viable Papp engine we can buy. We can argue about whether confinement, gremlins, Rydberg matter or plasma is the source of the power, but until we can answer this simple question, all those arguments are irrelevant. The most likely explanation. other than the criminal conspiracy theory involving Papp and the Rohner brothers I previously put forth in some detail, is that Papp deliberately excluded a key piece of information from his patent. Papp's patents were never valid outside the US's first to invent policy -- although the technology may, indeed, be valid. I say this is the most likely (of the its real theories) because, to the best of my knowledge, no one ever provided third party-validated reports of the technology working in his absence. Its very much akin to Rossi's secret ingredient story.
Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract
Radio-Frequency Emissions !? Is there prior history of the detection of RF emissions from F-P type experiments? Jeff On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-20 21:23, Peter Gluck wrote: [...] I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything.. Don't make the skeptics happy! Here's where experiments such as Celani's come into help: by showing the LENR community that excess heat can be [scientifically] large and reproducible at will pretty much anywhere. Hopefully others will learn. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
What are the expensive materials? On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What are the dimensions of the sealed container for Seebeck? You can make one any size, but the materials are expensive so the bigger you make it, the more you pay. Oriani used one that was designed to hold a baby. Here are some made by Ed Storms of various sizes: http://lenr-canr.org/?page_id=187#PhotosStorms - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
Well, now that I think about it, I am not really sure they need to borrow any energy, the Blue-shifting of the incoming particle waves diverging upon the same point in space might be enough to do it by themselves. Need to break out the calculator. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: David, Yes, it is borrowing the energy from the red-shifted low energy radiation leaving the surface and focusing it with the blueshifted high energy radiation at the point of battle at the surface. Total energy stays the same, perfect conservation. Velocity of all particles stay the same, just cohesive shifts in frequency and lambda all maximizing energy at a point near the surface guided in by quantum gravity. No atom stands a chance. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Yeah, the group can defeat the guy soundly! I also believe that there is some form of coordinated effort that overcomes the coulomb barrier. I am merely searching for the lost energy that is required and attempting to see from where it originates. My suspicion is that the surrounding atoms become a bit cooler as the energy is borrowed from them. Once the fusion occurs, all of the borrowed energy would of course be paid back. The net effect is the same, but then there would be no free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 12:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper If you can think of the coulomb barrier as a soldier, a very good and strong one, this hero, can defeat any individual soldier of the opposing army. Even if the opposing army attacks our hero one fighter at a time the hero can resist the attack since the attack is uncoordinated. But when the opposing army gets its act together and acts a cohesive unit the hero is overcome by the combined and additive strength of the combined and coordinated action of the army. The bigger that the coordinated army is, the more soundly that the hero is defeated. Since electrons and protons are waves also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_interference Cheers:Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Axil, perhaps there is something going on that results in the lowering of the barrier. I have to ask where the additional energy comes from to satisfy the actual energy needed? If it is taken from other particles that might make sense, otherwise it sounds like a free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see *www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt* ** ** *Cheers: Axil* ** On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.comwrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:LENR- Cold Fusion from Siemens
On 2012-08-20 22:14, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-l The website below was sent to me by a Siemens employee: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-829229 To clarify, what you linked is a short fiction written by Joe Shea [1], who is not affiliated with either Siemens or CNN. It's interesting that a Siemens employee sent you this, though. By the way, It looks like there's strong interest for LENR by German users (yes, I'm aware that Siemens is a global company): http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=lenrcmpt=q Cheers, S.A. [1] editor-in-chief of The American Reported, the first Internet newspaper started on April 10, 1995
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What are the expensive materials? The thermoelectric devices. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEthemethoda.pdf Good controls are also expensive. The test rig that NI built in Texas for Celani's experiment cost about $25,000. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR- Cold Fusion from Siemens
On 2012-08-20 22:28, Akira Shirakawa wrote: [1] editor-in-chief of The American Reported, Typo. should have been Reporter. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
Those blue shifted particles would need to shift a fair distance to reach the energy of the barrier. The shift would need to be several MeV to reach the coulomb barrier level. I think that we should make every attempt to preserve the COE when we consider LENR reactions. If a barrier is set, then let's see if it can be overcome by some cooperative particles instead of assuming that the barrier itself is eliminated. How much energy do we assume is released by the fusion reaction that follows? Do we automatically get less energy to compensate for the low initiation level? This problem is nonexistent if we find that the same barrier energy is required in all cases, but can be defeated by borrowing the needed energy from the system. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 4:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper Well, now that I think about it, I am not really sure they need to borrow any energy, the Blue-shifting of the incoming particle waves diverging upon the same point in space might be enough to do it by themselves. Need to break out the calculator. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: David, Yes, it is borrowing the energy from the red-shifted low energy radiation leaving the surface and focusing it with the blueshifted high energy radiation at the point of battle at the surface. Total energy stays the same, perfect conservation. Velocity of all particles stay the same, just cohesive shifts in frequency and lambda all maximizing energy at a point near the surface guided in by quantum gravity. No atom stands a chance. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Yeah, the group can defeat the guy soundly! I also believe that there is some form of coordinated effort that overcomes the coulomb barrier. I am merely searching for the lost energy that is required and attempting to see from where it originates. My suspicion is that the surrounding atoms become a bit cooler as the energy is borrowed from them. Once the fusion occurs, all of the borrowed energy would of course be paid back. The net effect is the same, but then there would be no free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 12:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper If you can think of the coulomb barrier as a soldier, a very good and strong one, this hero, can defeat any individual soldier of the opposing army. Even if the opposing army attacks our hero one fighter at a time the hero can resist the attack since the attack is uncoordinated. But when the opposing army gets its act together and acts a cohesive unit the hero is overcome by the combined and additive strength of the combined and coordinated action of the army. The bigger that the coordinated army is, the more soundly that the hero is defeated. Since electrons and protons are waves also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_interference Cheers:Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, perhaps there is something going on that results in the lowering of the barrier. I have to ask where the additional energy comes from to satisfy the actual energy needed? If it is taken from other particles that might make sense, otherwise it sounds like a free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier.The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as acause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
So, to be clear, when I asked: Is the diseconomy of scale primarily driven by the large number of thermocouples implied by the squared law of the surface area? The answer was Yes. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What are the expensive materials? The thermoelectric devices. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEthemethoda.pdf Good controls are also expensive. The test rig that NI built in Texas for Celani's experiment cost about $25,000. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
At 08:36 PM 8/19/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Subject was Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration At 10:43 PM 8/17/2012, James Bowery wrote: Isn't 23 years of torture enough? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.commailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Several experts in calorimetry expressed doubts about the Celani demonstration at ICCF17. Mike McKubre in particular feels that it is impossible to judge whether it really produced heat or not, because the method is poor. He does not say he is sure there was no heat; he simply does not know. Others feel that he exaggerates the problem. But that's not the purpose. Celani is investigating the behavior of materials, and for his purpose, every experiment is a control, with respect to variations in material processing. He doesn't need to scale up, and he doesn't need to know absolute heat production. He only needs to know *relative* heat production, and for that purpose, absolute calorimetric error is not so important. When he's found a reasonable optimization of his processes, *then*, before he attempts to scale up or to finalize his work, he'd want absolute accuracy in his calorimetry. This is incommensurate with McCubre's criticism which is that he doesn't know if there is heat being produced. If Celani has a bunch of systems that are more or less below unity, he's not getting the information he seeks. Below unity systems are rare and special. It's unlikely. However, this misunderstands and assigns inappropriate weight to McKubre's comment. McKubre is quite conservative, and when he says he doesn't know something, it doesn't mean that he knows the opposite. It means that he's not certain about the actual power in Celani's system. Because negative power is unusual, comparison, for a first approximation, suffices. I've often seen experimentalists rely upon rough methods, when they work for them. Absolutely, if we want proof, we'll want more. On the other hand, expanding on my terse exasperation: The calorimetry problem should, for the purposes of cold fusion, have been solved by now -- not just technically but economically. There have been enough experiments done that the instrumentation design should not only be relatively standardized but inexpensive. Should be apparently has no economic clout. Celani's device, it may not be realized, will not fit in most standard calorimeters. What I know from long discussions is that accurate calorimetry is, indeed, expensive. Miles showed a home-made calorimeter. Perhaps indeed there should be some standard and cheap designs. But what I see most experimenters rely upon, first-pass, is isoperibilic calorimetry and other approximate methods. As mentioned, if conditions are kept the same, it can suffice *for comparisons.* I am not familiar with Celani's specific methods. I understand that there can be problems with the kind of calorimetry that many use, informally.
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: if conditions are kept the same, it can suffice *for comparisons.* What if the comparison is between a known heat source (ie: unity) and a suspected anomalous heat source (ie: above unity)? Why isn't that adequate for a qualitative demonstration that puts to rest all questions concerning the _existence_ of the phenomenon?
Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova
At 10:52 PM 8/19/2012, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Indeed, small traces of transmutations (e.g. PdAg, TiâVd and NiCu) may be explained by neutron production in light element fusion reactions. Afterall Fleischmann thought that he saw some neutrons, although there were no where near enough of them to be statistically significant or what is expected from hot fusion reactions. Just an idea. Fleischmann's neutrons were also based on a defective understanding of the instrumentation, apparently. There were really far, far fewer neutrons than what he though he found. This caused an enormous amount of confusion! Therefore it would be important to look for helium and tritium also from Ni-H cells. Where Celani's cell is perhaps the most advanced. Celani should send his cell for someone who has mass spectrosopy available. A sound practice would be more complex than that. One should look at what Miles ultimately did. Isolated measurements of helium, tritium, etc., aren't terribly impressive, because these elements can exist normally. Rather, the goal would be to correlate release of helium and tritium with measured heat. It requires care in sampling, and blinding the elemental analyses.
Re: [Vo]:McKubre clarifies his view of the Celani demonstration
At 11:27 PM 8/19/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I don't think Mike is likely to make any announcement soon He said enough on the stage at TeslaTech That's too bad for us, but understandable. I listened to a shorter version of the TeslaTech video once more to better understand what McKubre was saying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS1MsymF8hchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS1MsymF8hc At 5:27 minutes, McKubre says that he was intrigued by the Papp engine and set up a challenge. Â The challenge, presumably to replicators, was to demonstrate that more than 10 times the electrical energy being put into the system was being produced. Â McKubre and coworkers set up the test and showed those involved what to do. Â He then explains that the challenge was successfully met, presumably by Bob Rohner. You cannot assume that. Mike hasn't said that. Later it becomes apparent that Bob Rohner's group does not have a final product yet, and I think Jones is partly correct that I have misrepresented things when I said that McKubre endorses Rohner's work. Â It is also clear, however, from McKubre's description of the (Rohner) test, from his comments on the history of the Papp engine and from his description of an interview of an eyewitness to the Feynmann accident that he believes there is probably something to the Papp engine and that it is a worthy line of exploration. Mike has made it clear that there is a mystery here. Until we have independent, open confirmation, where fraud can be ruled out (as well as error), it will remain a mystery. At TeslaTech, Bob Rohner demonstrated a popper. We were not given operational data, and shortcomings like this help maintain the mystery. At the same conference, Bob's arch-enemy, his brother John, showed a popper of his own construction, but did not demonstrate it. He's selling it. Anyone who looks into this can see that something is very fishy. But what? Mystery means we don't know. People seem to love to jump to conclusions from however things appear to them. That is either gullible or pseudoskeptical. Real skepticism rests with mystery until we know.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 12:40 AM 8/20/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: That PESN report gives me practically no confidence. So they've sold the poppers before they are ready to ship any? Has anyone seen an Inteligentry popper function? I should be more careful. They have 100 orders, they claim. They may not have accepted payment for these orders yet, and it is certainly legal to sell something for future delivery. It isn't even reprehensible to make the offer of sale and to accept orders, even if you don't have the product yet. Routinely, in my own business, I only charge credit cards when I ship. Under some conditions, if people accept it, you can actually accept prepayment. I don't recommend it for buying anything from a company that might vanish or otherwise be unable to deliver. Money-back guarantees only work when a company needs to maintain its reputation and/or has assets that can be targeted. And that can be far more trouble than it's worth
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
In reply to ChemE Stewart's message of Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:46:51 -0400: Hi, [snip] 1) Very small black holes are much smaller than atoms. The mostly fall straight through. 2) Upon giving this some further thought, it occurred to me that a charged back hole won't remain charged for very long. Assume for a moment that a small neutral black hole swallows a proton. It acquires a positive charge. That positive charge will tend to *repel* other protons, and *attract* electrons, so it is very likely that the charge will soon be neutralized by an electron. In short this mechanism ensures that black holes essentially remain neutral. (There is also the possibility that, once swallowed the charge is either annihilated, or disappears forever behind the time barrier that is the Schwarzschild radius.) 3) I suggest you calculate the pressure that a small black hole would exert on solid matter due to gravitational forces (i.e. gravitational force/cross sectional area of black hole), and compare this to the compression strength of solid matter (see e.g. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/compression-tension-strength-d_1352.html). It's not going to be swayed by thermal currents. 4) If the hole is neutral, it won't be affected by magnetic fields. 5) At the core of the Earth, it is not safetly away from life. It is sitting there consuming the planet from the inside out, growing *exponentially* in mass as it does so, until there is no more planet left. Mark, I absolutely agree that they will want to fall to earth, i just do not agree that micro black holes will necessarily zoom directly thru the earth. At 23 micrograms, about like a grain of sand, the smallest predicted mass of one at a planck length, I more pictured it acting like ball lighting while it is in the air. In addition to the acceleration due to gravity, i envisioned it might be also be subject to thermal currents and magnetic fields causing it to drift some on its way down. I envisioned it might get lodged in matter such as rocks and metal lattices in the ground. Over time it should make its way to the center, triggering local fusion and fission reactions in local matter on its way to the core, safetly away from life. I think the only safe place for this stuff might be the center of the earth. 1/3 of the heat at the center of the earth is thought to be from radiation of some kind. Jupiter and Saturn are also thought to have something generating excess heat at their core. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:27:41 -0400 (EDT): Hi, That would be consistent with my suggestion below. I have always wondered exactly what happens to matter that is heading directly toward the singularity. Doesn't time for the matter slow down due to the intense gravity to such a degree that it appears to stop in mid path at the horizon from our observation perspective? Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 6:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous? In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:31:41 -0400: Hi, [snip] A *gravitational singularity* or *spacetime singularity* is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitationalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitationalfield become infinite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_Riemannian_manifoldsof spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. I suspect that the only singularity is the center point of the black hole. (Like the center of a circle.) However I don't think that there is actually anything in the center. I think that all matter is converted to EM radiation by the time it reaches the Schwarzschild radius, where the curvature of space time is so strong that the EM radiation basically just goes around in a circle. My guess is that there is only vacuum inside the Schwarzschild radius. Black holes are hollow. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:DGT Forum Back Online
As promised. With new rules. T
Re: [Vo]:LENR- Cold Fusion from Siemens
In reply to Ron Kita's message of Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:14:42 -0400: Hi, Note that author of the story still really hasn't grasped the importance of CF himself. Quote:- We have no proximity to the auto assembly plant where the new vehicles are being produced, but it is our engine that will power these cars and permit their 1,200 MPG fuel consumption. In fact real CF would allow a vehicle to run for it's entire lifetime on about 0.1L (about half a cup) of water. (Assumptions: 1) 5 MeV / H atom - on the low side. 2) 50 hp required for a speed of 60 km/hr - generous. 3) Total distance traveled during lifetime of vehicle = 2.4 million km - extremely generous.) Greetings Vortex-l The website below was sent to me by a Siemens employee: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-829229 Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex the mW should have been changed. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT Forum Back Online
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: As promised. With new rules. I posted a couple 'o questions; but, the new rules show the questions are moderated. I guess we will see the responses tomorrow if at all. I asked about the spark plugs, are they OTS, iridium/platnium, and how long they take to foul. I also asked about the difference in run numbers in the XRF data in their NIWeek presentation, slide 33. T
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Is the diseconomy of scale primarily driven by the large number of thermocouples implied by the squared law of the surface area? The answer was Yes. Right. Yes. Note that this is not a problem with flow calorimeters, which is why I recommend one for this application. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I am not familiar with Celani's specific methods. There is nothing to it. He measures the outer surface temperature of the cell. It comes to 120 deg C with 48 W input when the ambient temperature is 30 deg C. It comes to that temperature whether you use H or Ar, which I think is a pretty good indication the response is predictable. McKubre disagrees with me. He thinks that changes in gas conduction from the heater at the center of the cell to the outer surface might change the temperature. He also thinks the temperature may be inhomogeneous. I doubt such problems can be as large as 20 deg C. Has someone posted a photo of the device? You can see the TC mounted on the outer surface. There is also a TC at the core but it is not used for calorimetry. I understand that there can be problems with the kind of calorimetry that many use, informally. There are definitely problems, but I do not think they are big enough to cause a 20 deg C false reading. Let me define what I mean by a false reading. There is no chance the instruments are registering incorrectly. When NI installs $25,000 in equipment, and it measures a 20 deg C temperature increase, you can be sure that increase is real. The only question is: Does it come from internal heating, or from change the physical conditions? As far as I know, only two kinds of changes can happen: 1. Faster transport of heat from the core to the surface. In other words, decreased insulation. A coffee cup surface is a lot hotter than a thermos bottle surface because the heat escapes faster. For example, if you were to let some of the gas out of the cell, the core temperature would rise and the outer surface would cool, because the gas would not transport the heat out as quickly (mainly by convection, not conduction or radiation). In fact, this cell is leaking slightly. If anything, that should cause the surface to cool, and the metal at the center to heat up. Both heat up in this experiment. 2. Surface temperature inhomogeneity. In other words, uneven heat distribution, such that the surface is hotter but that does not actually indicate a real power increase. That would mean some other part of the surfaced is cooler. I am sure there are inhomogeneities but I am also sure they are far smaller than this. I say that based on the numbers from Mizuno's gas calorimeters. This reminds me a little of Taubes' claim that thermal gradients can produce a cell temperature say fifty degrees hotter on one side than the other. No, they can't. 1. A thermal gradient is vertical not horizontal. Heat rises. It does not go South. 2. A gradient in liquid is much smaller than that. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf By the way, the fact that this cell leaks so much precludes the possibility of doing mass spectroscopy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Has someone posted a photo of the device? You can see the TC mounted on the outer surface. There is also a TC at the core but it is not used for calorimetry. There's a good image at 1:22 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5rcEvsek0feature=plcp T
RE: [Vo]:DGT Forum Back Online
The most fundamental question is of the power figures being claimed. Neither Rossi nor Defkalion have yet produced an independent test / report from a reputable third party organisation so far despite assurances that this would occur by now.Personally, I think they need to address the elephant in the room before we get into the minutia. Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Forum Back Online From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Date: Tue, August 21, 2012 8:22 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: As promised. With new rules. I posted a couple 'o questions; but, the new rules show the questions are moderated. I guess we will see the responses tomorrow if at all. I asked about the spark plugs, are they OTS, iridium/platnium, and how long they take to foul. I also asked about the difference in run numbers in the XRF data in their NIWeek presentation, slide 33. T
Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract
translations: To err is human, to knowingly persist in error is diabolical. The mountains will be in labor, and a ridiculous mouse will be brought forth very apt. On 20 August 2012 20:23, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: I am looking this paper with very mixed feelinga. Admiration for a great effort, however 5% success rate due to palladiumphilia can be described by two nasty Latin sayings- too: Errare humanum est, persverare diabolicum Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything.. Don't make the skeptics happy! Peter On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-20 20:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: *Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical* [...] This should be the result of what was mentioned in the 2012 DARPA budget review: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/**07/darpa-nanotech-projects-** nanoscale.htmlhttp://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.html Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
I agree with you Jed. The surface that is emitting the heat should be at the same temperature regardless of what the internal structure looks like. If the test wire dissipates 48 watts, then that much must exit through the surface. If less is released into the environment, then it must be stored continuously which of course is not possible. If more is released, then the internal temperature must continue to drop. Your discussion matches my thoughts completely. Perhaps McKubre is chasing that last .01 degrees where great care is required and everything is suspect. If this is the case, he might very well see variations due to second order effects. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 6:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Is the diseconomy of scale primarily driven by the large number of thermocouples implied by the squared law of the surface area? The answer was Yes. Right. Yes. Note that this is not a problem with flow calorimeters, which is why I recommend one for this application. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I am not familiar with Celani's specific methods. There is nothing to it. He measures the outer surface temperature of the cell. It comes to 120 deg C with 48 W input when the ambient temperature is 30 deg C. It comes to that temperature whether you use H or Ar, which I think is a pretty good indication the response is predictable. McKubre disagrees with me. He thinks that changes in gas conduction from the heater at the center of the cell to the outer surface might change the temperature. He also thinks the temperature may be inhomogeneous. I doubt such problems can be as large as 20 deg C. Has someone posted a photo of the device? You can see the TC mounted on the outer surface. There is also a TC at the core but it is not used for calorimetry. I understand that there can be problems with the kind of calorimetry that many use, informally. There are definitely problems, but I do not think they are big enough to cause a 20 deg C false reading. Let me define what I mean by a false reading. There is no chance the instruments are registering incorrectly. When NI installs $25,000 in equipment, and it measures a 20 deg C temperature increase, you can be sure that increase is real. The only question is: Does it come from internal heating, or from change the physical conditions? As far as I know, only two kinds of changes can happen: 1. Faster transport of heat from the core to the surface. In other words, decreased insulation. A coffee cup surface is a lot hotter than a thermos bottle surface because the heat escapes faster. For example, if you were to let some of the gas out of the cell, the core temperature would rise and the outer surface would cool, because the gas would not transport the heat out as quickly (mainly by convection, not conduction or radiation). In fact, this cell is leaking slightly. If anything, that should cause the surface to cool, and the metal at the center to heat up. Both heat up in this experiment. 2. Surface temperature inhomogeneity. In other words, uneven heat distribution, such that the surface is hotter but that does not actually indicate a real power increase. That would mean some other part of the surfaced is cooler. I am sure there are inhomogeneities but I am also sure they are far smaller than this. I say that based on the numbers from Mizuno's gas calorimeters. This reminds me a little of Taubes' claim that thermal gradients can produce a cell temperature say fifty degrees hotter on one side than the other. No, they can't. 1. A thermal gradient is vertical not horizontal. Heat rises. It does not go South. 2. A gradient in liquid is much smaller than that. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf By the way, the fact that this cell leaks so much precludes the possibility of doing mass spectroscopy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:23 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: if conditions are kept the same, it can suffice *for comparisons.* What if the comparison is between a known heat source (ie: unity) and a suspected anomalous heat source (ie: above unity)? Why isn't that adequate for a qualitative demonstration that puts to rest all questions concerning the _existence_ of the phenomenon? I don't know why it isn't good enough, but until independent replications are made the possibility of fraud or faulty instruments will be used by prominent skeptics (such as the editors of Nature and Scientific American) to dismiss the achievement. Harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps McKubre is chasing that last .01 degrees where great care is required and everything is suspect. If this is the case, he might very well see variations due to second order effects. Oh, there were bigger problems than that, readily observable. The perturbations in the graph I sent were probably caused by ambient temperature changes. Back in the lab in Italy they use a constant temperature enclosure, I think (an incubator). But in the exhibition hall the noise was easily seen. I do not know what it translated to in degrees Celsius but when converted to Watts it was large. More than 1 W. This is a crude method. It could easily be improved, for example, by adding several TCs to the surface, to look for temperature variations. They had an IR sensor but it did not work well. A calorimeter such the one Miles used would be an improvement. If the self-sustaining test does not work, Celani and others intend to improve the calorimetry soon. I guess they will improve it anyway, even if it does work, but anyway, the self-sustaining test is the first priority. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know why it isn't good enough, but until independent replications are made the possibility of fraud or faulty instruments will be used by prominent skeptics (such as the editors of Nature and Scientific American) to dismiss the achievement. Faulty instruments is one thing you can rule out! Those people at NI are really, really good. The experiment looked like a product brochure illustration. I am sure the temperature readings are correct. The question is: do they represent what they seem to represent? Actually, as a practical matter, if this method were as problematic as McKubre thinks, I suppose the people at NI would have fixed it. They are world class experts at measurements and I am sure they have in-house experts in calorimetry. They worked on this night and day for 12 days before NIWeek. (I think they said 12 days.) If this method is hopeless someone within NI would have said so. When the President and CEO personally orders his top people to drop everything and work on a project for 12 days, and when he -- in person -- is in there working on the equipment, I expect that every relevant expert in the company was consulted. From what Brian told me, they are not shy about expressing technical doubts. It is not that kind of corporate culture. I am not worried about this. NI being heavily involved for the last month inspires confidence. Anyway, no experiment will convince the editors at Nature and Sci. Am. They are a lost cause. Only commercial sales in the hundreds of millions will convince them. Then they will modestly take credit for it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre clarifies his view of the Celani demonstration
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Yep, it is speculation at this point. Do you have any idea as to how the liquid behavior would generate the piston thrust? We need any new ideas out there as we attempt to understand this device. Consider a hydraulic piston. It works because a liquid is extremely incompressible. At the moment of the hypothetical phase transition from gas to liquid, the liquid finds itself under compression by the mass of the position, but since a liquid strongly resists any compression it pushes the piston. A plasma is often referred to as the 4th state of matter, so plasmas may have some liquid-like properties that don't occur in gases. I am approaching the device from an unusual electric motor design. We know that charged ions are in motion which will generate a magnetic field. I also see evidence that the electrons will head toward the positive voltage electrodes while the ions will go in reverse. The axial magnetic field will cause both types of particles to rotate within the cylinder in opposite directions. I am thinking that the collisions between the neutral atoms and the circulating particles will lead to mass ionization. If LENR occurs due to the ions and other factors, it will add energy to the mix which ultimately does the external work. It is early in the understanding, but it has possibilities. I visualize that the very rapidly changing magnetic field induces currents in both the piston as well as the end cap in opposition. This process may further enhance LENR by behaving as a form of pinch for the ions between the two fields. The force that drives the piston would be supported by a reaction force applied to the end cap of the cylinder. In my way of thinking this would help explain why the ions are not pushed away from the center of the reaction region as the piston accelerates away from them. This process would by necessity require both the piston as well as the end caps to be highly conductive. The process I have outlined is very speculative and I realize that, but if the engine is to function at all and run warm, then it can not be any form of normal heat engine since the efficiency of these is rather poor. The efficiency of an electric motor is quite good and hence my push in that direction. The Papp engine might actually be a form of electric motor that uses LENR to generate linear motion efficiently. Lets hope for such a process. harry
Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract
I have suggested that palladium is a red herring. If the phenomena is a surface effect then the outer surface of the palladium or material X will have the greatest number of defects or surface-effect areas and it has been found that roughening the surface will increase the effect. So too, I speculate will loading a bulk sample of palladium to the point that you induce fatigue cracks which will appear first on the surface and propogate inward as the internal pressure within the sample builds up due to the loading with hydrogen. You could get the same effect by first stressing a sample of palladium with proteum to the point that it would have shown the heat effect had it been loaded with deuterium then unloading the proteum and reloading it with deuterium. If the phenomena is a surface effect it should show up almost immediately just as in the case with the codeposited palladium and deuterium. The heat phemonema has show up in so many different material combinations and conditions that there is some other governing parameter other than palladium material. Granted palladium being open to hydrogen would allow it to migrate into the intersticies a little faster but just breaking up the material into a powder could produce the necessary surface defects and porosity needed to allow the heat effect to show up. - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract I am looking this paper with very mixed feelinga. Admiration for a great effort, however 5% success rate due to palladiumphilia can be described by two nasty Latin sayings- too: Errare humanum est, persverare diabolicum Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything.. Don't make the skeptics happy! Peter On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-20 20:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: *Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical* [...] This should be the result of what was mentioned in the 2012 DARPA budget review: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.html Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Celani's patent on nickel preparation
In between the time of the patent application and the ICCF paper, Dr. Celani also made available these slides: http://www.iscmns.org/work10/Celani.pdf which also speak to materials processing, including SEM photos of prepared wires and failed attempts to prepare wires. My interpretation of the timeline is that this work displayed in April was the last before Dr. Celani began working with the unnamed Italian company leading to the wire (wire #2) that was shown at NI week and ICCF. Jeff On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: Hello group, This got posted today on ecatnews.com [1]. It's a patent by Celani et al. describing a process for the preparation of nanostructured layers on nickel surfaces in order to achieve high hydrogen adsorption values at a relatively low cost. http://goo.gl/Ae57y (shortened very long URL to the uspto.gov website) Abstract: Thin nano structured layers on surfaces of nickel or its alloys for quickly achieving high hydrogen adsorption values (H/Ni.about.0.7) through direct metal/gas contact. The said layers are produced by a process comprising the step of oxidising the said surfaces, applying a film of aqueous silica sol to them, subsequent heating in an -oxidising atmosphere and final activation through reduction in a reducing atmosphere. Celani currently uses Romanowsky alloys (Cu-Ni) rather than pure nickel. Also, from what I understand from his recent presentations, it appears he improved the preparation process as of late. The above linked patent has been filed two years ago (although approved on May 31, 2012) and therefore might not be the state of the art anymore. It still is an interesting and potentially informative read, however. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://ecatnews.com/?p=2359
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
Nicely done. The most likely conclusion to the Papp Engine story is that there is nothing there. Papp retired after tinkering with toys and then luring in investors and the Rohner bro's took up the thread. Nothing will ever come of the Papp engine other than unrequited expectations. It has been said before, and is worth repeating, A sucker is born every minute. Rather inspiring, I must say, as it suggests there is a plentitude of fools that I too might bilk. Should a fool and his money necessarily be parted for their, and society's own good? - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine? Erratum: the Rohner brothers were in some kind of conspiracy to defraud with Rohner should (of course) read: the Rohner brothers were in some kind of conspiracy to defraud with Papp
Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract
I have suggested that palladium is a red herring. I think that Ed Storms has made a conceptual breakthrough that has yet to has impact in the broader LENR developer community. Ed Storms knows that It is not the material that matters, but its topology. The key to the LENR process is to find the proper shape of the material that is reactive. In essence, all the work put into material preparation is just a search for the mechanisms hidden in the shapes that are worked into the successful active substance. Any material can carry these wondrous shapes and some materials are more amenable to their production than others. When the essence of Ed Storms Ideas find wider acceptance in the LENR developers community, then progress will be swift and efforts will be fruitful. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.comwrote: ** I have suggested that palladium is a red herring. If the phenomena is a surface effect then the outer surface of the palladium or material X will have the greatest number of defects or surface-effect areas and it has been found that roughening the surface will increase the effect. So too, I speculate will loading a bulk sample of palladium to the point that you induce fatigue cracks which will appear first on the surface and propogate inward as the internal pressure within the sample builds up due to the loading with hydrogen. You could get the same effect by first stressing a sample of palladium with proteum to the point that it would have shown the heat effect had it been loaded with deuterium then unloading the proteum and reloading it with deuterium. If the phenomena is a surface effect it should show up almost immediately just as in the case with the codeposited palladium and deuterium. The heat phemonema has show up in so many different material combinations and conditions that there is some other governing parameter other than palladium material. Granted palladium being open to hydrogen would allow it to migrate into the intersticies a little faster but just breaking up the material into a powder could produce the necessary surface defects and porosity needed to allow the heat effect to show up. - Original Message - *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2012 12:23 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Dominguez ICCF17 abstract I am looking this paper with very mixed feelinga. Admiration for a great effort, however 5% success rate due to palladiumphilia can be described by two nasty Latin sayings- too: Errare humanum est, persverare diabolicum Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus I am very sorry but Pd is not good despite...everything.. Don't make the skeptics happy! Peter On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-20 20:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: *Anomalous Results in Fleischmann-Pons Type Electrochemical* [...] This should be the result of what was mentioned in the 2012 DARPA budget review: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/**07/darpa-nanotech-projects-** nanoscale.htmlhttp://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67364.html Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Celani's patent on nickel preparation
Why reinvent the wheel. http://www.thirdwave.de/3w/tech/mnt/metfoam_nickel.pdf CelanI can buy nickel foam off the shelf in the same why that DGTG has. Cheers:Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: In between the time of the patent application and the ICCF paper, Dr. Celani also made available these slides: http://www.iscmns.org/work10/Celani.pdf which also speak to materials processing, including SEM photos of prepared wires and failed attempts to prepare wires. My interpretation of the timeline is that this work displayed in April was the last before Dr. Celani began working with the unnamed Italian company leading to the wire (wire #2) that was shown at NI week and ICCF. Jeff On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello group, This got posted today on ecatnews.com [1]. It's a patent by Celani et al. describing a process for the preparation of nanostructured layers on nickel surfaces in order to achieve high hydrogen adsorption values at a relatively low cost. http://goo.gl/Ae57y (shortened very long URL to the uspto.gov website) Abstract: Thin nano structured layers on surfaces of nickel or its alloys for quickly achieving high hydrogen adsorption values (H/Ni.about.0.7) through direct metal/gas contact. The said layers are produced by a process comprising the step of oxidising the said surfaces, applying a film of aqueous silica sol to them, subsequent heating in an -oxidising atmosphere and final activation through reduction in a reducing atmosphere. Celani currently uses Romanowsky alloys (Cu-Ni) rather than pure nickel. Also, from what I understand from his recent presentations, it appears he improved the preparation process as of late. The above linked patent has been filed two years ago (although approved on May 31, 2012) and therefore might not be the state of the art anymore. It still is an interesting and potentially informative read, however. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://ecatnews.com/?p=2359
Re: [Vo]:McKubre clarifies his view of the Celani demonstration
Le Aug 20, 2012 à 3:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com a écrit : People seem to love to jump to conclusions from however things appear to them. That is either gullible or pseudoskeptical. Real skepticism rests with mystery until we know. Perhaps. But so far we have addressed details that are tangential to my main point: the video makes it clear that Michael McKubre sees promise in the Papp engine and implies that a related device has been tested under his watch. Eric
