Re: [Vo]:Re:
*Some of his catalysts are gasses or free ions such as He4+ or Ar+, so I think the answer to this question is that it will only occasionally be socoincidentally. There are quite a few catalysts including a number of compounds.* Strange as it might seem, noble gases produce multi-atom nanoparticles either by themselves or in combination with other noble gas compounds. http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd245.pdf *Noble gases and their mixtures,* These noble gas nanoparticles are usually positively charged and partially ionized. Any nanoparticle can produce dipole based vortex magnetically active, blue light producing solitons, even noble gases.
Re: [Vo]:FYI, patent issued
That's fantastic! Even if the patent is out of date, it is remarkable that you overcome resistance at the Patent Office to get it through. I guess their attitude is not cast in concrete. Not anymore. Progress at the P.O. is partly per Dennis Cravens. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Helium may not be an effective Mills catalyst - was Re: [blank]
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Hi Robin, It sounds like you are becoming a bit more of an apologist for Randy these days, instead of trying to sort out the details of precisely where he is most likely mistaken. Randy expects the world to believe that cold hydrogen ... which is atomic hydrogen (it is extremely cold compared to the helium ion it reacts with) can reverse thermodynamic vectors and supply massive net energy to remove the remaining electron of helium - so that in essence the helium atom has indeed lost the full 79 eV during the total reaction. No one can deny that hot helium (800,000 degrees K) - would be the net result of Mills' theory. But this is preposterous, and Mills' has no basis in fact or experiment to demand that atomic hydrogen be a required reactant OTHER than an obviously incorrect part of his theory. That is the core and crux of Mills' error. Atomic hydrogen simply CANNOT be a viable reactant, for reasons too numerous to mention. This makes the rest of Mills' theory look like a house of cards. We (on vortex) who are seeking the correct answers from either camp - are not required to accept all of CQM and in fact, we should reject this part out of hand. It is clearly wrong to require atomic hydrogen as a reactant. We can pick and choose among the other details which do work. Same with W-L. That theory is even more clearly incorrect since it has no predictive value (like the Rydberg multiples). Mills' critics have had an easy target when these precise details are exposed under the microscope, so to speak ... yet... it does indeed appear to many open-minded observers (and investors) like there is net gain from his experiments, going back to Thermacore in the early nineties - and that a significant energy anomaly can arise when reactants have these Rydberg level ionizations. But this gain simply cannot be related to the mechanism RM suggests. It is time to dump Mills, dump W-L, and come up with a better understanding. It serves no good to try to rationalize this problem another way. Mills has found an energy anomaly despite a partially incorrect theory and the LENR group found the same anomaly, at almost the same time (early nineties) with an even more inaccurate theory. The way that BLP must squirm to include helium as a catalyst means that they do not understand the dynamics of the reaction very well. It is extremely unlikely that Mills' gainful reactions are any different from the Ni-H of Rossi, Focardi, Piantelli and the rest - and since they do not understand it - at even the Mills' level, the field is wide-open on the theory side. After over twenty years of trying to rationalize Mills, and being disappointed in his continuing delays (Remember the hydrino powered Capstone Turbine, which was market ready a decade ago?) the only conclusion that makes sense is that the truth about nickel hydrogen lies somewhere between the two major proponents. Rydberg values are important but not in the way Mills suggests. The reaction is nuclear but not in the way Focardi/Piantelli/etc profess. Mills may have the Rydberg resonance part correct, and Focardi/Rossi/etc may have the new kind of nuclear reaction part correct, but in both cases there is a major underpinning, which is missing. Yes - Ni-H is a new kind of nuclear reaction - in not having significant gammas, bremsstrahlung, little transmutation product and/or other indicia - but there is also no ultracold neutron, no beta decay, lots of UV, and a strange connection to magnetism ... and eventually there will be a merger of the two camps - which we on Vortex can hasten by exposing the parts of each theory that are obviously incorrect. Atomic hydrogen as a reactant is obviously incorrect. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Helium may not be an effective Mills catalyst - was Re: [blank]
There is a direct connection between magnetism, isospin and charge. isospin produces charge. If isospin is modified, so is charge. The Ni62 and Ni64 enrichment issue with Rossi's reaction is an isospin issue. On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Hi Robin, It sounds like you are becoming a bit more of an apologist for Randy these days, instead of trying to sort out the details of precisely where he is most likely mistaken. Randy expects the world to believe that cold hydrogen ... which is atomic hydrogen (it is extremely cold compared to the helium ion it reacts with) can reverse thermodynamic vectors and supply massive net energy to remove the remaining electron of helium - so that in essence the helium atom has indeed lost the full 79 eV during the total reaction. No one can deny that hot helium (800,000 degrees K) - would be the net result of Mills' theory. But this is preposterous, and Mills' has no basis in fact or experiment to demand that atomic hydrogen be a required reactant OTHER than an obviously incorrect part of his theory. That is the core and crux of Mills' error. Atomic hydrogen simply CANNOT be a viable reactant, for reasons too numerous to mention. This makes the rest of Mills' theory look like a house of cards. We (on vortex) who are seeking the correct answers from either camp - are not required to accept all of CQM and in fact, we should reject this part out of hand. It is clearly wrong to require atomic hydrogen as a reactant. We can pick and choose among the other details which do work. Same with W-L. That theory is even more clearly incorrect since it has no predictive value (like the Rydberg multiples). Mills' critics have had an easy target when these precise details are exposed under the microscope, so to speak ... yet... it does indeed appear to many open-minded observers (and investors) like there is net gain from his experiments, going back to Thermacore in the early nineties - and that a significant energy anomaly can arise when reactants have these Rydberg level ionizations. But this gain simply cannot be related to the mechanism RM suggests. It is time to dump Mills, dump W-L, and come up with a better understanding. It serves no good to try to rationalize this problem another way. Mills has found an energy anomaly despite a partially incorrect theory and the LENR group found the same anomaly, at almost the same time (early nineties) with an even more inaccurate theory. The way that BLP must squirm to include helium as a catalyst means that they do not understand the dynamics of the reaction very well. It is extremely unlikely that Mills' gainful reactions are any different from the Ni-H of Rossi, Focardi, Piantelli and the rest - and since they do not understand it - at even the Mills' level, the field is wide-open on the theory side. After over twenty years of trying to rationalize Mills, and being disappointed in his continuing delays (Remember the hydrino powered Capstone Turbine, which was market ready a decade ago?) the only conclusion that makes sense is that the truth about nickel hydrogen lies somewhere between the two major proponents. Rydberg values are important but not in the way Mills suggests. The reaction is nuclear but not in the way Focardi/Piantelli/etc profess. Mills may have the Rydberg resonance part correct, and Focardi/Rossi/etc may have the new kind of nuclear reaction part correct, but in both cases there is a major underpinning, which is missing. Yes - Ni-H is a new kind of nuclear reaction - in not having significant gammas, bremsstrahlung, little transmutation product and/or other indicia - but there is also no ultracold neutron, no beta decay, lots of UV, and a strange connection to magnetism ... and eventually there will be a merger of the two camps - which we on Vortex can hasten by exposing the parts of each theory that are obviously incorrect. Atomic hydrogen as a reactant is obviously incorrect. Jones
[Vo]:New Celani paper
This has lots of experimental detail. Celani, F., et al., *Improved understanding of self-sustained, sub-micrometric multicomposition surface Constantan wires interacting with H2 at high temperatures: experimental evidence of Anomalous Heat Effects*. Chemistry and Materials Research, 2013. *3*(12). http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFimprovedun.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Helium may not be an effective Mills catalyst - was Re: [blank]
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 2 Dec 2013 07:36:52 -0800: Hi Jones, If I were to argue in the same way that you do, I would say that you are flapping your arms a lot, but not getting anywhere. ;) [snip] -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Hi Robin, It sounds like you are becoming a bit more of an apologist for Randy these days, instead of trying to sort out the details of precisely where he is most likely mistaken. I am not apologizing for Mills, just trying to explain his theory to those who don't appear to want to understand it. That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with it completely. I have no problem with specific and valid criticism, but just stating that something is ridiculous with no further explanation is mo more than political point scoring, and doesn't really advance human knowledge. Randy expects the world to believe that cold hydrogen ... which is atomic hydrogen (it is extremely cold compared to the helium ion it reacts with) can reverse thermodynamic vectors and supply massive net energy to remove the remaining electron of helium - so that in essence the helium atom has indeed lost the full 79 eV during the total reaction. No one can deny that hot helium (800,000 degrees K) - would be the net result of Mills' theory. You are confusing kinetic and potential energy. Temperature (in the ordinary sense), is a measure of *average* kinetic energy. It's quite possible for individual energetic exchanges to take place without the temperature of the whole being equal to the kinetic equivalent of the energetic exchange. Take as an example your average gasoline engine. The energy of formation of CO2 is about 4 electron volts. If one converts this to a temperature, one gets about 30,000 K, yet no one in their right mind would suggest that car engines run at 30,000 degrees (they would vaporize, not to mention having a phenomenally high Carnot efficiency ;). Clearly the energy release is averaged over lots more molecules than are actually involved in the reaction. No thermodynamic vector need be reversed, because the reaction mostly converts potential energy of the Hydrogen electron relative to it's proton into potential energy of the catalyst atom electron relative to it's nucleus (by ionizing the catalyst). This doesn't usually involve much kinetic energy at all. (It's like transferring the tension in one spring to a second spring). So yes, I am denying that hot helium is produced, in so far as the reaction energy largely does not appear as kinetic energy of the Helium atom. Most of it will fairly directly end up as photons when the helium ion recaptures it's lost electrons, some may end up as fast Hydrinos when the stage II energy of the reaction is transferred in the form of kinetic energy mostly to the Hydrino, rather than appearing as UV. But this is preposterous, Yes it is, but you are the only one proposing it. and Mills' has no basis in fact or experiment to demand that atomic hydrogen be a required reactant OTHER than an obviously incorrect part of his theory. Actually the requirement that atomic Hydrogen be a reactant explains a.o. why we still have an ocean. It explains why spillover catalysts do well in LENR. That is the core and crux of Mills' error. Doesn't look like much of an error to me. Atomic hydrogen simply CANNOT be a viable reactant, for reasons too numerous to mention. Then I suggest you be selective, and name just a couple. This makes the rest of Mills' theory look like a house of cards. It might, If you had mentioned some valid ones. But this gain simply cannot be related to the mechanism RM suggests. Your rejection of his theory appears to be based more on your own lack of understanding of it than on any real inherent problems with it. The way that BLP must squirm to include helium as a catalyst means that they do not understand the dynamics of the reaction very well. You appear to be doing most of the squirming. If Helium doesn't work very well as a catalyst, then it's most likely due to a paucity of He+ ions in some experiments due to the high first ionization energy. It is extremely unlikely that Mills' gainful reactions are any different from the Ni-H of Rossi, Focardi, Piantelli and the rest - and since they do not understand it - at even the Mills' level, the field is wide-open on the theory side. Here, I think we mostly agree. After over twenty years of trying to rationalize Mills, and being disappointed in his continuing delays (Remember the hydrino powered Capstone Turbine, which was market ready a decade ago?) He does tend to be a bit over optimistic. the only conclusion that makes sense is that the truth about nickel hydrogen lies somewhere between the two major proponents. Rydberg values are important but not in the way Mills suggests. The reaction is nuclear but not in the way Focardi/Piantelli/etc profess. Mills may have the Rydberg resonance part correct, and Focardi/Rossi/etc may have
[Vo]:New issue of JCMNS
See: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol12.pdf I am adding the individual papers to the LENR-CANR.org database. The first paper in this issue is an important look at history. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Celani paper
Hi all In Reply to Jed: Good that there was so much replication from so many diverse sources. As well as the fact it was accepted on the Journal of Chemistry and Materials Research on the website of the International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE). http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/CMR/article/view/8655 I was a little clumsy trying to fit the full details in the subject on the post trying fit it in to my mail client and hit return thinking it would give me an extra line rather than just send it before I finished. :D http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg87526.html Clearly LENR is becoming more accepted in main stream science. Kind Regards walker On 2 December 2013 19:53, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This has lots of experimental detail. Celani, F., et al., *Improved understanding of self-sustained, sub-micrometric multicomposition surface Constantan wires interacting with H2 at high temperatures: experimental evidence of Anomalous Heat Effects*. Chemistry and Materials Research, 2013. *3*(12). http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFimprovedun.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re:
In reply to James Bowery's message of Sun, 1 Dec 2013 23:50:17 -0600: Hi, [snip] On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 8:06 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: the actual circumstances under which Hydrinos are formed are rare So rare that they have never even been _detected_ before? Moreover, to add confusion there is the energy emitted in going from hydrogen to hydrino conflated with the energy emitted from LENR. Perhaps there is no LENR reaction, only Hydrino formation accounting for most of the excess heat If heat == hydrino production, and we're talking about something on the order of a petawatt in full deployment, doesn't it concern anyone that there might be a _lot_ of hydrinos in the environment? What do they do? This is a valid point, and since they can come in all sizes, should be given due consideration. The largest of them [p = 1-4 roughly] might undergo some chemical reactions, and should be tested for toxicity. However, that said, they tend to combine into chemically inert Hydrino molecules. Inert, because the ionization energy is very high, generally higher than that of the noble gasses. In fact, they would make good candidates for dark matter, as Mills is fond of pointing out. The very small ones would likely rapidly undergo fusion reactions, thus removing them from the scene. It's the intermediate sized one that could potentially be a problem. They would likely undergo fusion reactions with a long half life, and since they are very difficult to contain, would likely slowly mix with everything in the environment, potentially turning everything radioactive with a long half life. In order to hang around in the environment, they would need to be Hydrinohydride (i.e. the negative ion of the Hydrino) and bind with another ionic substance, but as soon as they come in contact with water, they would steal a proton from the water molecule and turn into a Hydrino molecule, which is essentially a neutral gas molecule that is less reactive than noble gasses. Note that according to Mills they just form a light weight gas (same as Hydrogen), which rises to the top of the atmosphere where it gets destroyed by solar radiation. I might however also point out that, to just throw these things away, would be a terrible waste, because the energy that you get from each successive shrinkage reaction increases as they get smaller, so that your fuel actually gets more valuable as you use it, until it eventually shrinks to the point where the fusion time becomes short enough and you really get a bang for your buck! ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New issue of JCMNS
A reminder that the journal has its own index here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1495 I added all papers from #12. This index includes only the summary. The index data files include the abstracts. You can search for any field including co-author or abstract here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1095 Or here: http://lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3097515/posts?page=62#62 What is amazing to me is that it’s OBVIOUSly an inductive pursuit right now to figure out LENR, otherwise WE WOULD BE BUYING THEM. But skeptopaths come onto inductive threads like this and act like their post is the end-all, be-all that answers all questions: I’ll believe it when I can buy it. It simply adds ZERO substance to the investigation. It is a form of trolling, because you add in all kinds of snarky comments along the way. Do you log onto other inductive threads the same way? Do you DEMAND to know who’s going to win the 2014 elections? Do you log onto those threads and say, “I’ll deal with this guy when he’s president, until then you all are all just wasting your time.” No. Because such behavior is obvious trolling. And if you DID post such nonsense, everyone would know you are a fool. But here, you act like your foolishness is some kind of virtue. It’s totally ridiculous. You can’t even answer one simple question about an established scientific fact in the number of times this effect has been replicated. You are a FOOL. And you can’t even see it. 62 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3097515/posts?page=62#62 posted on *Mon 02 Dec 2013 07:07:40 PM PST* by Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ekevmo/ http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ekevmo/ On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: I don’t know if these claims are ‘real’, I haven’t seen the device, nor personally ‘tested’ it. ***Raising the bar for cold fusion, lowering it for other things like hot fusion. You haven’t seen nor tested a huge range of scientific findings, but you aren’t engaged in hypercriticism of those developments. By such a standard you should be absolutely apoplectic over AGW When I can buy a $289 Cold-Fusion Water Heater, I'll believe it. (Or various versions of technology). ***Raising the bar for cold fusion, lowering it for other things like hot fusion. Where is our hot-fusion flying car or jet pack? Why is controlled hot-fusion always 50 years away, and has been for the last 50 years?
Re: [Vo]:Re:
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:56 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nlwrote: Now comes the big question. Are there any new nuclear reactions possible which produce for instance 4He without particles or gamma emission? I'm thinking we've made the missing gamma problem harder than it needs to be. My guess -- there's genuine d+d and p+d fusion going on (as well as the occasional transmutation), and when a fusion happens, instead of the usual, slow gamma emission, there's a near-instantaneous transfer of electrostatic energy to the nearby electron cloud in the host metal. If this is what happens, the energy of the short-lived unstable daughter can be expected to be divided between a large number of surrounding electrons, giving rise to a bath of lower-energy photons rather than a single high-energy gamma photon, together with a near motionless stable daughter. Eric
[Vo]:A zoo of vortexes.
Pasmonic system’s that are described by the laws of quantum mechanics and the continuity of the wave function dictate that circulating flows assume quantized values called vortices. The surprising revelation of this recently publish referenced research is that vortexes form outside of the plasmonic excitation points. In a Nanoplasmonic system the excitation points are topological discontinuities formed by extreme curvatures of nanoparticles surfaces: For example, at the tips of nanowires. A dense vortex lattice is formed in a polariton system. http://www.np.phy.cam.ac.uk/uploads/2012/natcomm12-condvortices.pdf *Geometrically locked vortex lattices in semiconductor quantum fluids*
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Perhaps this thread has deeper meanings then anyone realizes. I have been dealing with certain observations for a while and digesting them. Putting them in a format for observation. Trying to understand things that seem to have little or no meaning. Then later they seem to have greater meaning. An inductive pursuit? Yes indeed. Words can have two meanings. I will make more comments later. Just to appear totally insane let us suppose God is the source of vibrations. We put up certain instruments to detect these vibrations. But our instruments give us different answers. Which is the correct answer and why does that happen? I shouldn't be posting about this right now so I will retire until I can make my case. HDN Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ On Monday, December 2, 2013 10:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3097515/posts?page=62#62 What is amazing to me is that it’s OBVIOUSly an inductive pursuit right now to figure out LENR, otherwise WE WOULD BE BUYING THEM. But skeptopaths come onto inductive threads like this and act like their post is the end-all, be-all that answers all questions: I’ll believe it when I can buy it. It simply adds ZERO substance to the investigation. It is a form of trolling, because you add in all kinds of snarky comments along the way. Do you log onto other inductive threads the same way? Do you DEMAND to know who’s going to win the 2014 elections? Do you log onto those threads and say, “I’ll deal with this guy when he’s president, until then you all are all just wasting your time.” No. Because such behavior is obvious trolling. And if you DID post such nonsense, everyone would know you are a fool. But here, you act like your foolishness is some kind of virtue. It’s totally ridiculous. You can’t even answer one simple question about an established scientific fact in the number of times this effect has been replicated. You are a FOOL. And you can’t even see it. 62 posted on Mon 02 Dec 2013 07:07:40 PM PST by Kevmo On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I don’t know if these claims are ‘real’, I haven’t seen the device, nor personally ‘tested’ it. ***Raising the bar for cold fusion, lowering it for other things like hot fusion. You haven’t seen nor tested a huge range of scientific findings, but you aren’t engaged in hypercriticism of those developments. By such a standard you should be absolutely apoplectic over AGW When I can buy a $289 Cold-Fusion Water Heater, I'll believe it. (Or various versions of technology). ***Raising the bar for cold fusion, lowering it for other things like hot fusion. Where is our hot-fusion flying car or jet pack? Why is controlled hot-fusion always 50 years away, and has been for the last 50 years?
Re: [Vo]:Re:
Sometimes I have similar feelings Eric. The evidence seems to suggest that He4 can form and release its massive energy in a milder manner than is typical. I suppose that we should be trying to understand why the normal fusion paths lead to the emission of a proton or neutron generally with the gamma as the rare case. The behavior seen under hot fusion conditions is perhaps the strange one since He4 has such strong binding energy when compared against the two other main combinations. You appear to harbor the feeling that coupling to nearby fields might be the key reason for the vast difference and I likewise wonder. Hot fusion conditions are such that there are no nearby nuclei available to originate the coupling fields and there are certainly no heavy metallic ones to help. Some of the recent reports tend to suggest that very strong magnetic fields might get into the act, especially according to the recent demonstration by DGT. The strengths of these large external fields begs the question as to just how strong the components of the fields are at the atomic size range. Maybe they come into play at the extremes and allow the relatively large energy to be released into a much larger region than expected. What would be a better suppression technique than to eliminate the generation of the normally energetic gammas in the first place. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 11:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:56 PM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nl wrote: Now comes the big question. Are there any new nuclear reactions possible which produce for instance 4He without particles or gamma emission? I'm thinking we've made the missing gamma problem harder than it needs to be. My guess -- there's genuine d+d and p+d fusion going on (as well as the occasional transmutation), and when a fusion happens, instead of the usual, slow gamma emission, there's a near-instantaneous transfer of electrostatic energy to the nearby electron cloud in the host metal. If this is what happens, the energy of the short-lived unstable daughter can be expected to be divided between a large number of surrounding electrons, giving rise to a bath of lower-energy photons rather than a single high-energy gamma photon, together with a near motionless stable daughter. Eric
