Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning
2014-03-24 22:15 GMT+01:00 George Holz geh...@optonline.net: misunderstood about the possibility that neutrons may be ignored because of coincidence, we should remind the unavoidable proof by the intern if people survived beside LENR cells, even if there is no working neutron detector, they would be sick, if the branching ratio was usual free space dd fusion.
[Vo]:Cold Fusion Now audio files of MIT meeting
See: http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cflanr-colloquium-at-mit-audio-files/ Regarding Yoshida's presentation of Mizuno's results, I still do not have the slides. It is difficult to follow the lecture without them. I gather they are getting 70 W excess. They are building two new reactors, a 1 kW unit code named Scarlett, and a 10 kW reactor code named Catherine. The method sounds the same to me as the ICCF18 paper and poster: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1465 Yoshida said that Mizuno took several mass spec samples during a test in 2013.I speculated earlier that they may be circulating the gas around and around the way Tom Claytor did in his experiments looking for tritium. Maybe this just meant Muno took samples periodically during the test. You only need a little gas for each sample. You could add a little extra gas if the pressure falls measurably. Mizuno tested hydrogen gas, deuterium gas and water (D2O and H2O). The reactor vessel is hot so the water is in the vapor phase. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Who has the best Stirling Engine?
From: Kevin O'Malley All of them would need to convert heat to electricity. That means a Stirling engine, unless you believe the guys at Deuo Dynamics who have a direct thermoelectric conversion in their LENR diode. Which Stirling Engine is the best? Cyclone Power? They have Dr. Kim Infinia? bankrupt, sold Stirling stuff to qenergy.com Dean Kamen? The Segway inventor went silent on his Stirling patent www.stirlingengine.com/kamen/dean_kamen_patent.html Any others worth looking at? When LENR hits big, stirling cycle engines will have their day in the sun. We had a poster here last year who was an expert on Stirling engines, and who was of the strong opinion that this design was not close to commercialization, even now. Every problem solved seemed to create another one. This was epitomized by the failure of SES and others going back to William Beale. There is a solid thirty year history of not just failure, but dramatic crash-and-burn failure after massive financing. I just finished reading the Beale story. http://www.amazon.com/Next-Great-Thing-Shelton-Mark/dp/0393334031 It is forty years old but could have been written yesterday. Nevertheless - the only think keeping this engine off the market is probably another $2-5 billion in engineering :-)
Re: [Vo]:Who has the best Stirling Engine?
I think a small steam turbine would be a better choice for the first generation cold fusion devices. Such as: http://www.greenturbine.eu/en/product.php Later, perhaps much later, thermoelectric devices will be the best choice. Stirling engine technology never seems to mature. NASA was developing a space plutonium generator with Stirling engines. They went from using thermolectric chips to a Stirling engine with moving parts. It seems retrograde. Wikipedia says the project has been cancelled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Stirling_Radioisotope_Generator The development was cancelled in 2013 after the cost had risen to over 260 million US dollars, 110 million more than originally expected. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
David Roberson wrote: It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a year away with many strings attached. DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a transformational technology signed this afternoon – and it relates to remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed up by public report of less than a year ago.
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Now audio files of MIT meeting
Morning Jed. It just occurred to me that Ruby and Jeremy from Coldfusion Now were capturing images of all the slides with a camera or video recorder. You might contact them and get to the bottom of this faster Steve High On Mar 25, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cflanr-colloquium-at-mit-audio-files/ Regarding Yoshida's presentation of Mizuno's results, I still do not have the slides. It is difficult to follow the lecture without them. I gather they are getting 70 W excess. They are building two new reactors, a 1 kW unit code named Scarlett, and a 10 kW reactor code named Catherine. The method sounds the same to me as the ICCF18 paper and poster: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1465 Yoshida said that Mizuno took several mass spec samples during a test in 2013.I speculated earlier that they may be circulating the gas around and around the way Tom Claytor did in his experiments looking for tritium. Maybe this just meant Muno took samples periodically during the test. You only need a little gas for each sample. You could add a little extra gas if the pressure falls measurably. Mizuno tested hydrogen gas, deuterium gas and water (D2O and H2O). The reactor vessel is hot so the water is in the vapor phase. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hunt for an 'unidentified electron objects'
snip produced via external pumping that keep the quasiparticle excited. Such pumping can create remarkably high effective temperatures in a narrow spectral region of the lowest energy states in a quasiparticle gas, resulting in strikingly unexpected transitional dynamics of Bose–Einstein quasiparticle condensates. /snip Thanks Axil. The product of the particle size and the pumping frequency is 1,094,000 meters per second. The process describes the path of the quantum transition. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-textfield-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22 Frank Znidarsic
RE: [Vo]:Who has the best Stirling Engine?
ORC makes more sense than steam. There are small ORC systems (Organic Rankine cycle) which are available now from several suppliers. This is both a short and long term solution for application to LENR. From: Jed Rothwell I think a small steam turbine would be a better choice for the first generation cold fusion devices. Such as: http://www.greenturbine.eu/en/product.php
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Here is Krivit’s interview but it happened back at the end of 2011, so it may not be relevant to that possibility (that Rossi switched to a jet engine in order to get rapid funding from DARPA) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-For-IARPA.pdf It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a year away with many strings attached. DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a transformational technology signed this afternoon – and it relates to remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed up by public report of less than a year ago.
[Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur. Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead. There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. Good, The magnetic components of the force fields are not conserved. They can increases outwith bound. When they become stronger and act at a longer range than the Coulombic, the Coulombic barrier is bypassed. No cracks or heavy neutrons required. Soft iron increase the magnetic component of the electrical field. I believe that a vibrating Bose condensate acts like a soft iron equivalent for the strong nuclear spin orbit force. I have done a lot of math in an effort to prove this. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
electromagnetic moat Harry On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:39 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur. Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead. There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave
RE: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
From: David Roberson We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur. Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead. There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? In IE, issue 95, there is a provocative article by Chubb and Letts. Magnetic Field Triggering of Excess Power. They are framing a theory - IBST - based on ion band states, which is beyond my pay scale to comprehend. And there is a lot of other interesting stuff in the article as well, but what is curious the what they glossed over. If you look at fig. 9 on page 43, they get this fantastic spike in power by changing the magnetic field orientation wrt cathode with H20. But they make a point that this has no lasting effect (beyond the 20-30 second spike). This is maddening. Why not pulse the field a very low duty so as to maintain the massive 10x gain over time?... and we have to think this obvious tactic was pursued but the result is not given; and it all goes to show how overlooked the entire issue of applied magnetic field has been with almost everyone except Letts and Cravens. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
Thats a common mistake. We cannot reduce the Coulomb barrier. The static force fields are conserved and cannot be reduced in a two body problem. The static force field can, however, be bypassed by a force with longer range. The magnetic component of the strong nuclear force is called the spin orbit force. It is never considered by the hot fusion people. In the solid cold fusion environment the magnetic component can be increased by a factor to 10 to the 39 power. Again I am not speaking of the electromagnetic field, I am speaking of the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. In short The constants of the motion tend toward the electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is vibrated at a dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz-meters. Frank Z The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 11:39 am Subject: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur. Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead. There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave
Fwd: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
-Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 1:00 pm Subject: Fwd: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Nuclear physicists limit themselves to two bodied problems and don't seem to understand collective motions. Electrical engineers work with collective motions all of the time. That's why it takes and Electrical Engineer, like me, to explain things to them. Take an isolated electron. A magnetic field follows its motion. Take two moving together. Yes there are two magnetic fields following the motion but there will be another mutually induced field also following the motion. The induced component becomes signification when designing air core RF transformations. Take an isolated nucleon. A magnetic SPIN ORBIT force follows its motion. Take a gadzillon nucleons moving together in a proton conductor. The long range strong magnetic component of the nuclear force becomes dominant. Get the movement going at 1 million meters per second and the arguments also provide a classical solution for the quantum condition. Simple logic. Frank Z -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 12:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Thats a common mistake. We cannot reduce the Coulomb barrier. The static force fields are conserved and cannot be reduced in a two body problem. The static force field can, however, be bypassed by a force with longer range. The magnetic component of the strong nuclear force is called the spin orbit force. It is never considered by the hot fusion people. In the solid cold fusion environment the magnetic component can be increased by a factor to 10 to the 39 power. Again I am not speaking of the electromagnetic field, I am speaking of the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. In short The constants of the motion tend toward the electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is vibrated at a dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz-meters. Frank Z The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 11:39 am Subject: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur. Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead. There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
- Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Why carry the jet fuel along if you can make sufficient power to keep the air craft in the sky for an indefinite amount of time using LENR? Do you see an advantage to their approach? It is interesting to consider the following -- get LENR going in nickel and ramp the reaction up to a high temperature. Now blow hydrogen and oxygen over it. Perhaps the resulting hydrogen torch will provide some thrust. In addition, some of the hydrogen might go to feed back into the LENR reaction, and perhaps you'll also get thrust from the resulting H2O vapor. Eric
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Eric-- I think that the first step is to marry the reactor to an existing jet engine that could operate without the LENR boost. Once the reliability of the LENR is established then the technology could evolve into a LENR only power source. The redundancy would be desirable from a safety standpoint. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Why carry the jet fuel along if you can make sufficient power to keep the air craft in the sky for an indefinite amount of time using LENR? Do you see an advantage to their approach? It is interesting to consider the following -- get LENR going in nickel and ramp the reaction up to a high temperature. Now blow hydrogen and oxygen over it. Perhaps the resulting hydrogen torch will provide some thrust. In addition, some of the hydrogen might go to feed back into the LENR reaction, and perhaps you'll also get thrust from the resulting H2O vapor. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
I understand that a steady magnetic field can not add energy to a charged particle. It can redirect the velocity vector of that particle but can not directly add energy to it somewhat like the behavior of an electron beam that is bent by a magnetic field so that it moves against a fixed electric field. The initial energy of the electron allows it to move uphill against the electric force. But, if the magnetic field located at the particle is changing in magnitude or direction it generates an electric field that can impart energy. The enormous fields that you mention must begin as small fields that change in time to become large ones and perhaps that is when the additional energy is imparted. I like the thought of a long range effect since that offers an opportunity for coupling among a multitude of individual particles. This coupling could allow for the positive feedback mechanism that reinforces both the field and the LENR activity. Both can then grow until some limiting factor arises. IIRC DGT does suggest that the external magnetic field changes with time as their reaction varies. The question that arises is whether or not that rate of change would be able to generate a sufficient electric component. I find it interesting that nickel has a strong magnetic interaction that may well contribute to the rapid field changes. And, of course, the threshold in LENR occurring around the curie temperature of nickel must has some significance. Dave -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 12:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Thats a common mistake. We cannot reduce the Coulomb barrier. The static force fields are conserved and cannot be reduced in a two body problem. The static force field can, however, be bypassed by a force with longer range. The magnetic component of the strong nuclear force is called the spin orbit force. It is never considered by the hot fusion people. In the solid cold fusion environment the magnetic component can be increased by a factor to 10 to the 39 power. Again I am not speaking of the electromagnetic field, I am speaking of the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. In short The constants of the motion tend toward the electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is vibrated at a dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz-meters. Frank Z The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 11:39 am Subject: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur. Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead. There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Rossi came up with his hot cat design pretty quick. It seems from my recollection that there was never a significant lead up to the announcement. Available bucks could have been the answer. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:50 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Here is Krivit’s interview but it happened back at the end of 2011, so it may not be relevant to that possibility (that Rossi switched to a jet engine in order to get rapid funding from DARPA) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-For-IARPA.pdf It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a year away with many strings attached. DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a transformational technology signed this afternoon – and it relates to remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed up by public report of less than a year ago.
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
Dave-- You're preaching to the choir. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:39 AM Subject: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur. Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead. There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Now audio files of MIT meeting
Ruby's vids are showing up on her youtube channel. Two so far.
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
Dave-- Is your concept of coherence changing? Frank is providing a cause for expanded scope (size) of coherence in my mind. Thanks Frank. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier I understand that a steady magnetic field can not add energy to a charged particle. It can redirect the velocity vector of that particle but can not directly add energy to it somewhat like the behavior of an electron beam that is bent by a magnetic field so that it moves against a fixed electric field. The initial energy of the electron allows it to move uphill against the electric force. But, if the magnetic field located at the particle is changing in magnitude or direction it generates an electric field that can impart energy. The enormous fields that you mention must begin as small fields that change in time to become large ones and perhaps that is when the additional energy is imparted. I like the thought of a long range effect since that offers an opportunity for coupling among a multitude of individual particles. This coupling could allow for the positive feedback mechanism that reinforces both the field and the LENR activity. Both can then grow until some limiting factor arises. IIRC DGT does suggest that the external magnetic field changes with time as their reaction varies. The question that arises is whether or not that rate of change would be able to generate a sufficient electric component. I find it interesting that nickel has a strong magnetic interaction that may well contribute to the rapid field changes. And, of course, the threshold in LENR occurring around the curie temperature of nickel must has some significance. Dave -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 12:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Thats a common mistake. We cannot reduce the Coulomb barrier. The static force fields are conserved and cannot be reduced in a two body problem. The static force field can, however, be bypassed by a force with longer range. The magnetic component of the strong nuclear force is called the spin orbit force. It is never considered by the hot fusion people. In the solid cold fusion environment the magnetic component can be increased by a factor to 10 to the 39 power. Again I am not speaking of the electromagnetic field, I am speaking of the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. In short The constants of the motion tend toward the electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is vibrated at a dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz-meters. Frank Z The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 11:39 am Subject: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur. Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead. There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Good point Bob. BTW – as to further HotCat possibilities – how many remember one of the original drones which goes back 50 years ? … and which design could be notable for this thread since it was a ram-jet configuration. Only a few of the Lockheed D-21 were built. It would fly very high but the fuel consumption was miserable. That is why LENR could change everything. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/D21-070308.jpg The ram-jet configuration would work with a HotCat power source to extend the range considerably. And the platform is ultra cheap and expendable but also nearly impossible to shoot down. Yes – I know that Rossi later said on his blog – that oops, he was really talking about a turbine, not a jet -- but we also know from past experience that AR has a habit of revealing too much at times, and then trying to back-track to cover up. Or else, he is very good about playing his audience. :-) From: Bob Cook Rossi came up with his hot cat design pretty quick. It seems from my recollection that there was never a significant lead up to the announcement. Available bucks could have been the answer. Here is Krivit’s interview but it happened back at the end of 2011, so it may not be relevant to that possibility (that Rossi switched to a jet engine in order to get rapid funding from DARPA) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-For-IARPA.pdf It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a year away with many strings attached. DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a transformational technology signed this afternoon – and it relates to remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed up by public report of less than a year ago.
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Now audio files of MIT meeting
Ruby added some photos of Mizuno's slides: http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cflanr-colloquium-at-mit-audio-files/ One of them says -- Summary: Excess Heat Produced excess heat * Using Nickel nano-particles and D2 gas * For over 1 month * Excess Heat = 75 Watt (COP = 1.9) * Excess Energy = 108 MJ
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1593.pdf *Experimental study of the two-body spin-orbit force* This field is on the cutting edge of research. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Frank-- You noted: The magnetic component of the strong nuclear force is called the spin orbit force. It is never considered by the hot fusion people. Why is it ignored? Bob - Original Message - *From:* fznidar...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:37 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Thats a common mistake. We cannot reduce the Coulomb barrier. The static force fields are conserved and cannot be reduced in a two body problem. The static force field can, however, be bypassed by a force with longer range. The magnetic component of the strong nuclear force is called the spin orbit force. It is never considered by the hot fusion people. In the solid cold fusion environment the magnetic component can be increased by a factor to 10 to the 39 power. Again I am not speaking of the electromagnetic field, I am speaking of the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. In short The constants of the motion tend toward the electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is vibrated at a dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz-meters. Frank Z The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 11:39 am Subject: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur. Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead. There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
Bob, I do not understand your question. I still believe that a large magnetic field is interacting with the individual small NAE in a manner that results in positive feedback among them. The actual manner in which this interaction occurs is evading me. As Frank indicated, a steady magnetic field should not be able to directly reduce the Coulomb barrier and hence I am exploring the concept of a time changing one. He appears to have a concept that allows for the generation of an extremely large magnetic field and if that field changes with time, then the generated electric component might be the one I seek. Do you have a concept that effectively results in the reduction of the Coulomb barrier that we normally discuss? It seems that energy can be borrowed from the time changing magnetic field of sufficient magnitude to reduce the net barrier leading to LENR activity. Once the reaction begins, that borrowed energy is replaced with interest. And, I suspect that most of the released energy from the reaction enhances the original field. The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. One interesting feature of this mechanism would be the existence of a threshold effect. Until sufficient coupling among the NEA is established very little energy would be released. That could explain why it is so very difficult to replicate systems. It may not be too difficult to get individual sites to react, but unless enough become involved, the total energy is too small to accurately measure. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave-- Is your concept of coherence changing? Frank is providing a cause for expanded scope (size) of coherence in my mind. Thanks Frank. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier I understand that a steady magnetic field can not add energy to a charged particle. It can redirect the velocity vector of that particle but can not directly add energy to it somewhat like the behavior of an electron beam that is bent by a magnetic field so that it moves against a fixed electric field. The initial energy of the electron allows it to move uphill against the electric force. But, if the magnetic field located at the particle is changing in magnitude or direction it generates an electric field that can impart energy. The enormous fields that you mention must begin as small fields that change in time to become large ones and perhaps that is when the additional energy is imparted. I like the thought of a long range effect since that offers an opportunity for coupling among a multitude of individual particles. This coupling could allow for the positive feedback mechanism that reinforces both the field and the LENR activity. Both can then grow until some limiting factor arises. IIRC DGT does suggest that the external magnetic field changes with time as their reaction varies. The question that arises is whether or not that rate of change would be able to generate a sufficient electric component. I find it interesting that nickel has a strong magnetic interaction that may well contribute to the rapid field changes. And, of course, the threshold in LENR occurring around the curie temperature of nickel must has some significance. Dave -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 12:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Thats a common mistake. We cannot reduce the Coulomb barrier. The static force fields are conserved and cannot be reduced in a two body problem. The static force field can, however, be bypassed by a force with longer range. The magnetic component of the strong nuclear force is called the spin orbit force. It is never considered by the hot fusion people. In the solid cold fusion environment the magnetic component can be increased by a factor to 10 to the 39 power. Again I am not speaking of the electromagnetic field, I am speaking of the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. In short The constants of the motion tend toward the electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is vibrated at a dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz-meters. Frank Z The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave -Original Message-
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
Jones: Jed, Ruby etal.-- Jones, as you point out the left out details are more important than what's presented in a paper. My experience is that this happens often in Science. In nuclear reactor design and operation as regulated by the NRC, leaving out information or knowledge from safety presentations and design considerations is a felony. Not so for current science research. Someone should FOIA the NRL for all reviews, reports, documents, comments (information) regarding the Chubb and Letts theory and experiments. This should include all the agendas for reviews of Chubb/letts work and the reviewer names and dates of the reviews. The logs of all Chubb NRL document titles, dates and classification should also be requested via FOIA. The assignment of document numbers in log books (which are generally unclassified) is an excellent source of information to more fully understand what exists in the NRL files. A law suit may be required to get the Navy to abide by FOIA. However, there is nothing pre-decisional about document log books that should hold up the release process. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:37 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier From: David Roberson We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur. Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead. There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? In IE, issue 95, there is a provocative article by Chubb and Letts. Magnetic Field Triggering of Excess Power. They are framing a theory - IBST - based on ion band states, which is beyond my pay scale to comprehend. And there is a lot of other interesting stuff in the article as well, but what is curious the what they glossed over. If you look at fig. 9 on page 43, they get this fantastic spike in power by changing the magnetic field orientation wrt cathode with H20. But they make a point that this has no lasting effect (beyond the 20-30 second spike). This is maddening. Why not pulse the field a very low duty so as to maintain the massive 10x gain over time?... and we have to think this obvious tactic was pursued but the result is not given; and it all goes to show how overlooked the entire issue of applied magnetic field has been with almost everyone except Letts and Cravens. Jones
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Hi all I think Rossi's reference to Jet engines may be with regard to matters that came up in the NASA seedling presentation, particularly the Brayton Cycle. It took up a big chunk of the NASA report: http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/SeedlingWELLS.pdf I think a cloak of NDAs; as strong and legally frightening as those used by Google on their Barges; is what is preventing us from seeing what Rossi's partner companies are up to. I think Cherokee is just a cut-off for far bigger players, companies like Cherokee are what bigger companies use to keep the SEC off their backs. I think it is that cloud of NDAs that makes NASA and the US Navy only give us hints as to what is going on. We know they let slip the Lockheed Martin connection in the meeting and one paper from a Lockheed Martin researcher got on to the web only to be removed when it came to light. Kind Regards Walker On 25 March 2014 18:00, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Good point Bob. BTW - as to further HotCat possibilities - how many remember one of the original drones which goes back 50 years ? ... and which design could be notable for this thread since it was a ram-jet configuration. Only a few of the Lockheed D-21 were built. It would fly very high but the fuel consumption was miserable. That is why LENR could change everything. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/D21-070308.jpg The ram-jet configuration would work with a HotCat power source to extend the range considerably. And the platform is ultra cheap and expendable but also nearly impossible to shoot down. Yes - I know that Rossi later said on his blog - that oops, he was really talking about a turbine, not a jet -- but we also know from past experience that AR has a habit of revealing too much at times, and then trying to back-track to cover up. Or else, he is very good about playing his audience. J *From:* Bob Cook Rossi came up with his hot cat design pretty quick. It seems from my recollection that there was never a significant lead up to the announcement. Available bucks could have been the answer. Here is Krivit's interview but it happened back at the end of 2011, so it may not be relevant to that possibility (that Rossi switched to a jet engine in order to get rapid funding from DARPA) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-For-IARPA.pdf It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a year away with many strings attached. DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a transformational technology signed this afternoon - and it relates to remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed up by public report of less than a year ago.
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
Axil-- This is a great find--It appears there is not institution involved in this the United States! It must be nonsense if the Hot Fusion folks do not consider itSMILE. Everyone interested in LENR effects should read it. It is not too complicated. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1593.pdf Experimental study of the two-body spin-orbit force This field is on the cutting edge of research. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Frank-- You noted: The magnetic component of the strong nuclear force is called the spin orbit force. It is never considered by the hot fusion people. Why is it ignored? Bob - Original Message - From: fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Thats a common mistake. We cannot reduce the Coulomb barrier. The static force fields are conserved and cannot be reduced in a two body problem. The static force field can, however, be bypassed by a force with longer range. The magnetic component of the strong nuclear force is called the spin orbit force. It is never considered by the hot fusion people. In the solid cold fusion environment the magnetic component can be increased by a factor to 10 to the 39 power. Again I am not speaking of the electromagnetic field, I am speaking of the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. In short The constants of the motion tend toward the electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is vibrated at a dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz-meters. Frank Z The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 11:39 am Subject: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur. Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead. There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
Imagine this. What if the magnetic component of the electromagnetic field was ignored. We would VanderGraphs, Winhurst motors, and fur rupped rods emitting jumping sparks. We would not have employed the very strong magnetic force. No generators, motors, electromagnets, or speakers would exist. The electrified world of today would not be. Electricity would only be a curiosity. A coil with twice the turns has 4 times the magnetic effect. Where does the extra magnetic field come from? It comes from nowhere. The magnetic field is not conserved. It comes and goes as need to conserve momentum of the system when the original static field cannot. This strength of the non-conserved magnetic field made modem life possible. This is so well known that it is not even mentioned. The range of the electrical magnetic field can exceed that of the Coulombic. Superconductors entirely confine the Coulombic field yet a magnetic field extends beyond the bounds of the superconductor. All of the force fields conserve momentum in the same with, with an induced magnetic field. All of the magnetic components are not conserved. It is theoretically possible to dramatically increase them. All of them. No one to date has known how to increase the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. This magnetic component is NOT electromagnetic. Cold fusion has shown the way. Vibrate a proton conductor at a dimensional frequency of one megahertz-meter. The non-conserved spin orbit force increases dramatically. Amazingly the process has gravitomagnetic effects too. We are on the verge of harnessing all of the natural forces. Why is it taking so long? Frank Z -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Frank-- You noted: The magnetic component of the strong nuclear force is called the spin orbit force. It is never considered by the hot fusion people. Why is it ignored? Bob - Original Message - From: fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Thats a common mistake.We cannot reduce the Coulomb barrier. The static force fields are conserved and cannot be reduced in a two body problem. The static force field can, however, be bypassed by a force with longer range. The magnetic component of the strong nuclear force is called the spin orbit force. It is never considered by the hot fusion people. In the solid cold fusion environment the magnetic component can be increased by a factor to 10 to the 39 power. Again I am not speaking of the electromagnetic field, I am speaking of the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. In short The constants of the motion tend toward the electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is vibrated at a dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz-meters. Frank Z The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 11:39 am Subject: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier We hear so much chatter about the Coulomb barrier and how difficult it is to overcome for fusion events to occur.Perhaps we should consider it as an electromagnetic barrier instead.There is plenty of reason to suspect that a magnetic component of force is active along with the electric component. Some in this list believe that spin coupling has a large impact upon the rate of LENR activity and there may well be other magnetic interactions associated with nano particles and their large local magnetic fields. I tend to think that these couplings are a key concept that needs to be understood in detail if an ultimate theory is to be developed. The Coulomb repulsion can be reduced by magnetic attraction according to my thoughts and that would also explain magnetic interactions and low temperature operation of LENR devices. Should we drop the reference to Coulomb barrier and replace it with reference to an Electromagnetic Barrier? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
Dave- The note from Frank: The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. The growing field involves a larger volume and coupling for release of small packets of energy. Is this not a coherent system? The coherency occurs as a characteristic of a bigger and bigger system (more particles) as required to convert the mass change at the NAE to thermal energy. I have indicated that spin coupling among electrons and nuclei may be involved in the distribution of small packets of energy without damage to the NAE structure. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Bob, I do not understand your question. I still believe that a large magnetic field is interacting with the individual small NAE in a manner that results in positive feedback among them. The actual manner in which this interaction occurs is evading me. As Frank indicated, a steady magnetic field should not be able to directly reduce the Coulomb barrier and hence I am exploring the concept of a time changing one. He appears to have a concept that allows for the generation of an extremely large magnetic field and if that field changes with time, then the generated electric component might be the one I seek. Do you have a concept that effectively results in the reduction of the Coulomb barrier that we normally discuss? It seems that energy can be borrowed from the time changing magnetic field of sufficient magnitude to reduce the net barrier leading to LENR activity. Once the reaction begins, that borrowed energy is replaced with interest. And, I suspect that most of the released energy from the reaction enhances the original field. The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. One interesting feature of this mechanism would be the existence of a threshold effect. Until sufficient coupling among the NEA is established very little energy would be released. That could explain why it is so very difficult to replicate systems. It may not be too difficult to get individual sites to react, but unless enough become involved, the total energy is too small to accurately measure. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave-- Is your concept of coherence changing? Frank is providing a cause for expanded scope (size) of coherence in my mind. Thanks Frank. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier I understand that a steady magnetic field can not add energy to a charged particle. It can redirect the velocity vector of that particle but can not directly add energy to it somewhat like the behavior of an electron beam that is bent by a magnetic field so that it moves against a fixed electric field. The initial energy of the electron allows it to move uphill against the electric force. But, if the magnetic field located at the particle is changing in magnitude or direction it generates an electric field that can impart energy. The enormous fields that you mention must begin as small fields that change in time to become large ones and perhaps that is when the additional energy is imparted. I like the thought of a long range effect since that offers an opportunity for coupling among a multitude of individual particles. This coupling could allow for the positive feedback mechanism that reinforces both the field and the LENR activity. Both can then grow until some limiting factor arises. IIRC DGT does suggest that the external magnetic field changes with time as their reaction varies. The question that arises is whether or not that rate of change would be able to generate a sufficient electric component. I find it interesting that nickel has a strong magnetic interaction that may well contribute to the rapid field changes. And, of course, the threshold in LENR occurring around the curie temperature of nickel must has some significance. Dave -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 12:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Thats a common mistake. We cannot reduce the Coulomb barrier. The static force fields are conserved and cannot be reduced in a two body problem. The static force field can, however, be bypassed by a force with longer range. The magnetic component of the strong nuclear force is called the spin orbit force. It is never considered by the hot fusion people. In the solid cold fusion environment the magnetic component can be increased by a factor to
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
From: Ian Walker I think Rossi's reference to Jet engines may be with regard to matters that came up in the NASA seedling presentation, particularly the Brayton Cycle. It took up a big chunk of the NASA report: http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/SeedlingWELLS.pdf Wow. Amazing stuff for anyone who would complain that NASA has lost its cutting edge. aero-porn
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
No! I did not say this. I am speaking about the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force the spin orbit force. It is NOT electromagnetic, It does not attract metal. It flips nucleons. I only used the electromagnetic force in an analogy to show that the magnetic field conserves momentum in a system where changes in the original force field propagate at light speed. It takes time for the system to settle. During that time the magnetic field conserves the momentum of the system. The magnetic field emerges as needed from nowhere. It goes away once its job is done. The gravitomagnetic, nuclear spin orbit force, and electromagnetic forces all operate in the manor. Frank As Frank indicated, a steady magnetic field should not be able to directly reduce the Coulomb barrier and hence I am exploring the concept of a time changing one. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave- The note from Frank: The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. The growing field involves a larger volume and coupling for release of small packets of energy. Is this not a coherent system? The coherency occurs as a characteristic of a bigger and bigger system (more particles) as required to convert the mass change at the NAE to thermal energy. I have indicated that spin coupling among electrons and nuclei may be involved in the distribution of small packets of energy without damage to the NAE structure. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Bob, I do not understand your question. I still believe that a large magnetic field is interacting with the individual small NAE in a manner that results in positive feedback among them. The actual manner in which this interaction occurs is evading me. As Frank indicated, a steady magnetic field should not be able to directly reduce the Coulomb barrier and hence I am exploring the concept of a time changing one. He appears to have a concept that allows for the generation of an extremely large magnetic field and if that field changes with time, then the generated electric component might be the one I seek. Do you have a concept that effectively results in the reduction of the Coulomb barrier that we normally discuss? It seems that energy can be borrowed from the time changing magnetic field of sufficient magnitude to reduce the net barrier leading to LENR activity. Once the reaction begins, that borrowed energy is replaced with interest. And, I suspect that most of the released energy from the reaction enhances the original field. The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. One interesting feature of this mechanism would be the existence of a threshold effect. Until sufficient coupling among the NEA is established very little energy would be released. That could explain why it is so very difficult to replicate systems. It may not be too difficult to get individual sites to react, but unless enough become involved, the total energy is too small to accurately measure. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave-- Is your concept of coherence changing?Frank is providing a cause for expanded scope (size) of coherence in my mind. Thanks Frank. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier I understand that a steady magnetic field can not add energy to a charged particle. It can redirect the velocity vector of that particle but can not directly add energy to it somewhat like the behavior of an electron beam that is bent by a magnetic field so that it moves against a fixed electric field. The initial energy of the electron allows it to move uphill against the electric force. But, if the magnetic field located at the particle is changing in magnitude or direction it generates an electric field that can impart energy. The enormous fields that you mention must begin as small fields that change in time to become large ones and perhaps that is when the additional energy is imparted. I like the thought of a long range effect since that offers an opportunity for coupling among a multitude of individual particles. This coupling could allow for the positive
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
note that in NASA presentation by Doug Wells, they mostly proposed Brayton cycle turbine (jet) and not Rankine (steam/ORC)... an engineer in turbines sould give his opinion here ... I know some don't like Stirling... 2014-03-25 15:50 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Here is Krivit's interview but it happened back at the end of 2011, so it may not be relevant to that possibility (that Rossi switched to a jet engine in order to get rapid funding from DARPA) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-For-IARPA.pdf It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck. DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a year away with many strings attached. DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings. There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a transformational technology signed this afternoon - and it relates to remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones). This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough, you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed up by public report of less than a year ago.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: aero-porn Maybe a bit naive ... Current airport fueling systems could be removed
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
Bob Now I understand what you mean by a coherent system in this case. I tend to think of coherent systems in a different manner but can accept your definition. We seem to be in agreement that a large guiding magnetic field enables the long range coupling between NAE. I am still seeking how the actual mechanism operates at the initial state and how it grows from that level into the very large field that we suspect. Could it be the changing nature of the field that leads to LENR activity? At least in that situation an electric field is generated that can add energy to charged particles. This is pure speculation seeking evidence. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave- The note from Frank: The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. The growing field involves a larger volume and coupling for release of small packets of energy. Is this not a coherent system? The coherency occurs as a characteristic of a bigger and bigger system (more particles) as required to convert the mass change at the NAE to thermal energy. I have indicated that spin coupling among electrons and nuclei may be involved in the distribution of small packets of energy without damage to the NAE structure. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Bob, I do not understand your question. I still believe that a large magnetic field is interacting with the individual small NAE in a manner that results in positive feedback among them. The actual manner in which this interaction occurs is evading me. As Frank indicated, a steady magnetic field should not be able to directly reduce the Coulomb barrier and hence I am exploring the concept of a time changing one. He appears to have a concept that allows for the generation of an extremely large magnetic field and if that field changes with time, then the generated electric component might be the one I seek. Do you have a concept that effectively results in the reduction of the Coulomb barrier that we normally discuss? It seems that energy can be borrowed from the time changing magnetic field of sufficient magnitude to reduce the net barrier leading to LENR activity. Once the reaction begins, that borrowed energy is replaced with interest. And, I suspect that most of the released energy from the reaction enhances the original field. The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. One interesting feature of this mechanism would be the existence of a threshold effect. Until sufficient coupling among the NEA is established very little energy would be released. That could explain why it is so very difficult to replicate systems. It may not be too difficult to get individual sites to react, but unless enough become involved, the total energy is too small to accurately measure. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave-- Is your concept of coherence changing?Frank is providing a cause for expanded scope (size) of coherence in my mind. Thanks Frank. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier I understand that a steady magnetic field can not add energy to a charged particle. It can redirect the velocity vector of that particle but can not directly add energy to it somewhat like the behavior of an electron beam that is bent by a magnetic field so that it moves against a fixed electric field. The initial energy of the electron allows it to move uphill against the electric force. But, if the magnetic field located at the particle is changing in magnitude or direction it generates an electric field that can impart energy. The enormous fields that you mention must begin as small fields that change in time to become large ones and perhaps that is when the additional energy is imparted. I like the thought of a long range effect since that offers an opportunity for coupling among a multitude of individual particles. This coupling could allow for the positive feedback mechanism that reinforces both the field and the LENR activity. Both can then grow until some limiting factor arises. IIRC DGT does suggest that the external magnetic field changes with
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
In reply to Bob Cook's message of Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:49:12 -0700: Hi Bob, When a fast electron interacts with other electrons it does so through a repulsive force, and imparts energy to them through collisions, knocking them away from their host atoms, and leaving them with some kinetic energy. A positron should also tear electrons away from their host atoms and leave them with excess kinetic energy. The only difference being that the force will be a mixture of attractive (and repulsive?) forces. Attractive at a distance (and repulsive in a head on collision ?). A near miss would be attractive forces and a whip around (conservation of angular momentum). Perhaps a head on collision results in annihilation? AFAIK stands for As Far As I Know. Robin-- The positron leaves the Ni-59 nucleus after an electron capture with about 1 Mev of energy--the disintegration energy is a little more than 1 Mev. However, I have not seen a cross section for the reaction we are talking about. I would agree, if the positron acts like an electron in a population of electrons, that it would slow down, but being a positive charge I not sure how that effects the slowing down. (I think you suggest its positive charge does not change the slowing down process?) The fact that the resulting photons total energy equal 2 x the electron mass probably means there is no excess energy and momentum that needs to be handled in the reaction. I am not sure whether neutrinos in the annihilation reaction have been ruled out by experiment. Probably ruled out only by theory. By the way what does AFAIK stand for? Bob - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process' In reply to Bob Cook's message of Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:19:14 -0700: Hi, [snip] Your description is exactly as I understand it. The random walk is not very long however, since it probably occurs at the first electron it attracts and that is pretty quick after the nucleus gives it up. AFAIK annihilation usually only happens after the positron has slowed down. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
Bob, et.al.: AFAIK = As Far As I Know -mark On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Bob Cook wrote: By the way what does AFAIK stand for? Bob
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
Dave-- In the paramagnet materials like Ni and Pd an external magnetic field induces a much larger B field in the material. It is also aligned in one direction. An oscillating external magnetic field would change the B field in some way, increasing and decreasing it or reversing its direction. This B field would also add or subtract to any local NAE magnetic fields thereby influencing the coupling in the NAE system and potentially adding energy to the local system, enough to induce a change in mass and a reduction of the potential energy of the system. I know it is possible to excite nuclei with a magnetic moment using changing magnetic fields in resonance with the spin orbital resonances of the nuclei. Magnetic and electric quadrupole moments of the nuclei are also sensitive to absorbing energy and creating an excited nucleus. The magnitude of the B field can change the resonant frequency and the energy quanta that are absorbed and re-emitted by the nucleus. This phenomena is the basis for nuclear magnetic resonance imaging machines MRI's. Mizuno's quadrupole apparatus reported by Jed from the MIT conference may have been utilized to manipulate the B fields as suggested above. Maybe someone could answer this question? Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Bob Now I understand what you mean by a coherent system in this case. I tend to think of coherent systems in a different manner but can accept your definition. We seem to be in agreement that a large guiding magnetic field enables the long range coupling between NAE. I am still seeking how the actual mechanism operates at the initial state and how it grows from that level into the very large field that we suspect. Could it be the changing nature of the field that leads to LENR activity? At least in that situation an electric field is generated that can add energy to charged particles. This is pure speculation seeking evidence. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave- The note from Frank: The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. The growing field involves a larger volume and coupling for release of small packets of energy. Is this not a coherent system? The coherency occurs as a characteristic of a bigger and bigger system (more particles) as required to convert the mass change at the NAE to thermal energy. I have indicated that spin coupling among electrons and nuclei may be involved in the distribution of small packets of energy without damage to the NAE structure. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Bob, I do not understand your question. I still believe that a large magnetic field is interacting with the individual small NAE in a manner that results in positive feedback among them. The actual manner in which this interaction occurs is evading me. As Frank indicated, a steady magnetic field should not be able to directly reduce the Coulomb barrier and hence I am exploring the concept of a time changing one. He appears to have a concept that allows for the generation of an extremely large magnetic field and if that field changes with time, then the generated electric component might be the one I seek. Do you have a concept that effectively results in the reduction of the Coulomb barrier that we normally discuss? It seems that energy can be borrowed from the time changing magnetic field of sufficient magnitude to reduce the net barrier leading to LENR activity. Once the reaction begins, that borrowed energy is replaced with interest. And, I suspect that most of the released energy from the reaction enhances the original field. The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. One interesting feature of this mechanism would be the existence of a threshold effect. Until sufficient coupling among the NEA is established very little energy would be released. That could explain why it is so very difficult to replicate systems. It may not be too difficult to get individual sites to react, but unless enough become involved, the total energy is too small to accurately measure. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave-- Is your concept of coherence changing? Frank is providing a cause for expanded scope (size) of coherence in my mind. Thanks Frank. Bob
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
I should have guessed. Thanks Mark and Robin. You can tell I am an old timer. Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-Zeropoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process' Bob, et.al.: AFAIK = As Far As I Know -mark On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Bob Cook wrote: By the way what does AFAIK stand for? Bob
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
The hot fusion people know that the spin orbit force is there. They consider it to be like the electromagnetic moment of the electron. Not of much use as its range is too short. They to not consider that the nuclear spin orbit force is not conserved and it can increase in range and strength under certain conditions. They do not consider that it can be expelled from a condensate. These are big omissions and the reason that they cannot understand cold fusion. They are working with the wrong force. Frank Z -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 3:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier No! I did not say this. I am speaking about the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force the spin orbit force. It is NOT electromagnetic, It does not attract metal. It flips nucleons. I only used the electromagnetic force in an analogy to show that the magnetic field conserves momentum in a system where changes in the original force field propagate at light speed. It takes time for the system to settle. During that time the magnetic field conserves the momentum of the system. The magnetic field emerges as needed from nowhere. It goes away once its job is done. The gravitomagnetic, nuclear spin orbit force, and electromagnetic forces all operate in the manor. Frank As Frank indicated, a steady magnetic field should not be able to directly reduce the Coulomb barrier and hence I am exploring the concept of a time changing one. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave- The note from Frank: The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. The growing field involves a larger volume and coupling for release of small packets of energy. Is this not a coherent system? The coherency occurs as a characteristic of a bigger and bigger system (more particles) as required to convert the mass change at the NAE to thermal energy. I have indicated that spin coupling among electrons and nuclei may be involved in the distribution of small packets of energy without damage to the NAE structure. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Bob, I do not understand your question. I still believe that a large magnetic field is interacting with the individual small NAE in a manner that results in positive feedback among them. The actual manner in which this interaction occurs is evading me. As Frank indicated, a steady magnetic field should not be able to directly reduce the Coulomb barrier and hence I am exploring the concept of a time changing one. He appears to have a concept that allows for the generation of an extremely large magnetic field and if that field changes with time, then the generated electric component might be the one I seek. Do you have a concept that effectively results in the reduction of the Coulomb barrier that we normally discuss? It seems that energy can be borrowed from the time changing magnetic field of sufficient magnitude to reduce the net barrier leading to LENR activity. Once the reaction begins, that borrowed energy is replaced with interest. And, I suspect that most of the released energy from the reaction enhances the original field. The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. One interesting feature of this mechanism would be the existence of a threshold effect. Until sufficient coupling among the NEA is established very little energy would be released. That could explain why it is so very difficult to replicate systems. It may not be too difficult to get individual sites to react, but unless enough become involved, the total energy is too small to accurately measure. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave-- Is your concept of coherence changing?Frank is providing a cause for expanded scope (size) of coherence in my mind. Thanks Frank. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier I understand that a steady magnetic field can not add energy to a charged particle. It can redirect the velocity vector of that particle but can not directly add energy to it somewhat like the behavior of an electron beam that is bent by a
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
This area of coulomb screening begs the question about how and why screening happens. I say that the magnetic field affects the vacuum, what happens to the vacuum depends on how strong the magnetic field is. At its maximum intensity, an intense magnetic field will break the vacuum down and subatomic particles will be formed out of the vacuum breakdown. As you know, pions (*P **mesons )*keep the nucleus together by converting protons and neutrons in a cycle through a color change process. If a magnetic field produces pions out of the vacuum, the color processes mediated by the strong force in the nucleus will be disrupted. Here is a reference that explains how mesons formation out of the vacuum happens. *The **P **and **A **mesons in strong abelian magnetic field in SU(2) lattice gauge theory.* http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob Now I understand what you mean by a coherent system in this case. I tend to think of coherent systems in a different manner but can accept your definition. We seem to be in agreement that a large guiding magnetic field enables the long range coupling between NAE. I am still seeking how the actual mechanism operates at the initial state and how it grows from that level into the very large field that we suspect. Could it be the changing nature of the field that leads to LENR activity? At least in that situation an electric field is generated that can add energy to charged particles. This is pure speculation seeking evidence. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave- The note from Frank: The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. The growing field involves a larger volume and coupling for release of small packets of energy. Is this not a coherent system? The coherency occurs as a characteristic of a bigger and bigger system (more particles) as required to convert the mass change at the NAE to thermal energy. I have indicated that spin coupling among electrons and nuclei may be involved in the distribution of small packets of energy without damage to the NAE structure. Bob - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:22 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Bob, I do not understand your question. I still believe that a large magnetic field is interacting with the individual small NAE in a manner that results in positive feedback among them. The actual manner in which this interaction occurs is evading me. As Frank indicated, a steady magnetic field should not be able to directly reduce the Coulomb barrier and hence I am exploring the concept of a time changing one. He appears to have a concept that allows for the generation of an extremely large magnetic field and if that field changes with time, then the generated electric component might be the one I seek. Do you have a concept that effectively results in the reduction of the Coulomb barrier that we normally discuss? It seems that energy can be borrowed from the time changing magnetic field of sufficient magnitude to reduce the net barrier leading to LENR activity. Once the reaction begins, that borrowed energy is replaced with interest. And, I suspect that most of the released energy from the reaction enhances the original field. The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. One interesting feature of this mechanism would be the existence of a threshold effect. Until sufficient coupling among the NEA is established very little energy would be released. That could explain why it is so very difficult to replicate systems. It may not be too difficult to get individual sites to react, but unless enough become involved, the total energy is too small to accurately measure. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave-- Is your concept of coherence changing? Frank is providing a cause for expanded scope (size) of coherence in my mind. Thanks Frank. Bob - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:28 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier I understand that a steady magnetic field can not add energy to a charged particle. It can redirect the velocity vector of that particle but can not directly add energy to it somewhat like the behavior of an electron beam that is bent by a magnetic field so that it moves against a fixed electric field. The initial energy of the electron allows it to move
RE: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning
Alain Sepeda wrote: about the possibility that neutrons may be ignored because of coincidence, we should remind the unavoidable proof by the intern -if people survived beside LENR cells, even if there is no working neutron detector, they would be sick, if the branching ratio was usual free space dd fusion. I was referring to the large difference in measured neutron counts between different labs using different measurement instruments. The neutron counts in all cases remains in a safe range. If all the heat output were associated with neutron generating reactions it would indeed be deadly. Fortunately this is cold fusion and the total neutron output remains a very small side reaction. -- One other point of interest. Tom Claytor's talk on Recent tritium production from electrically pulsed wires and foils showed the highest outputs when he used NiFe foils made for magnetic shielding applications. I think he mentioned Co-Netic material. Not sure what else is in the alloy. George Holz Varitronics Systems geo...@varisys.com
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
Hello Robin, I am not good at magnetic forces and spin effect it is way above my paygrade. However, when reading your latest comment I saw your link and followed it. http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html I think this is a concept worthy as a starting point. I have no idea about where you are in this project but it would amaze me if you have been able to get funding with that approach. That is not because it is anything wrong with the synopsis. However, you lack all sorts of incentive to invest. 1. You need to quantify the possibilities and the obstacles. 2. You need time frames and 'waypoints' when you evaluate next step. 3. You need to show you have leadership / management involved that will measure with the $$ eyes of an investor. 'For the good of mankind' or for a possible Nobel prize is not an incentive for an investor. In addition you need to compare your idea and how it will come to fruition better, faster, cheaper etc. than the competition. The team must include all functions. A few years ago I had an operations manager who said that he was the the only person of any importance in the company as our revenue was directly proportional to his performance. At the first glance it is easy to agree with his findings. However, in a good organization that is true about all functions. The effort of the person sending out the invoices is also 100% proportional to the revenue.:) . . . Notice that I am positive to your thinking but if you want result you need to include the whole picture. I do think that you could organize this company very loosely and at low cost and then funding will come. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:25 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Bob Cook's message of Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:49:12 -0700: Hi Bob, When a fast electron interacts with other electrons it does so through a repulsive force, and imparts energy to them through collisions, knocking them away from their host atoms, and leaving them with some kinetic energy. A positron should also tear electrons away from their host atoms and leave them with excess kinetic energy. The only difference being that the force will be a mixture of attractive (and repulsive?) forces. Attractive at a distance (and repulsive in a head on collision ?). A near miss would be attractive forces and a whip around (conservation of angular momentum). Perhaps a head on collision results in annihilation? AFAIK stands for As Far As I Know. Robin-- The positron leaves the Ni-59 nucleus after an electron capture with about 1 Mev of energy--the disintegration energy is a little more than 1 Mev. However, I have not seen a cross section for the reaction we are talking about. I would agree, if the positron acts like an electron in a population of electrons, that it would slow down, but being a positive charge I not sure how that effects the slowing down. (I think you suggest its positive charge does not change the slowing down process?) The fact that the resulting photons total energy equal 2 x the electron mass probably means there is no excess energy and momentum that needs to be handled in the reaction. I am not sure whether neutrinos in the annihilation reaction have been ruled out by experiment. Probably ruled out only by theory. By the way what does AFAIK stand for? Bob - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process' In reply to Bob Cook's message of Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:19:14 -0700: Hi, [snip] Your description is exactly as I understand it. The random walk is not very long however, since it probably occurs at the first electron it attracts and that is pretty quick after the nucleus gives it up. AFAIK annihilation usually only happens after the positron has slowed down. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning
-Original Message- From: George Holz One other point of interest. Tom Claytor's talk on Recent tritium production from electrically pulsed wires and foils showed the highest outputs when he used NiFe foils made for magnetic shielding applications. I think he mentioned Co-Netic material. Not sure what else is in the alloy. George, This is good information to try to analyze further, even if the explanation probably played no part whatsoever in this alloy choice for Claytor. Co-Netic AA, is a Mu metal which as best I can tell since the specs do not turn up easily, seems to be nickel(80%)-iron(15%)-molybdenum(5%) with permeability of 30,000 or more. It is high nickel, but notably for those who have not written of Randell Mills, there is the Moly content (which as the +2 ion is the very best, in the sense of lowest IP catalytic fit of all catalysts), plus it has four other deeper Rydberg levels for a total of 5 making it the most catalytic of all transition metals (according to my Mills CQM table 5.3). In Mills past experiments, having many catalysts working together seems to be highly preferable to having only a few - and nickel and iron both have multiple Rydberg levels. All in all, from a Mills perspective, Co-Netic AA would provide 9 unique Rydberg multiples ! Claytor probably saw a correlation between tritium production and magnetic permeability - and chose this alloy for that reason, since not many practitioners follow both LENR and Mills for guidance - but the moly content could be what makes this alloy superior. If only Mills could show something more impressive than a modified seam welder, he might get a bit more respect in LENR... Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
The barrier is still there. Its like a rabbit trying to get over you garden fence. The barrier stops it. You just step over it because the length of your step exceeds that of the barrier. Over you go, no thump. The ONLY way the Coulomb barrier can be crossed without emitting radiation,the thump, is where we have a force with a longer range than the Coulombic. The expelled spin orbit force does the trick. Sent from my iPad
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier
Frank-- I am somewhat confused by this comment: I am speaking about the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force the spin orbit force. It is NOT electromagnetic, It does not attract metal. It flips nucleons. I only used the electromagnetic force in an analogy to show that the magnetic field conserves momentum in a system where changes in the original force field propagate at light speed. It takes time for the system to settle. How do you perceive that the coupling occurs between a magnetic field and a nucleus during operation of nuclear magnetic resonant machines used for medical imaging? Bob - Original Message - From: fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier The hot fusion people know that the spin orbit force is there. They consider it to be like the electromagnetic moment of the electron. Not of much use as its range is too short. They to not consider that the nuclear spin orbit force is not conserved and it can increase in range and strength under certain conditions. They do not consider that it can be expelled from a condensate. These are big omissions and the reason that they cannot understand cold fusion. They are working with the wrong force. Frank Z -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 3:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier No! I did not say this. I am speaking about the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force the spin orbit force. It is NOT electromagnetic, It does not attract metal. It flips nucleons. I only used the electromagnetic force in an analogy to show that the magnetic field conserves momentum in a system where changes in the original force field propagate at light speed. It takes time for the system to settle. During that time the magnetic field conserves the momentum of the system. The magnetic field emerges as needed from nowhere. It goes away once its job is done. The gravitomagnetic, nuclear spin orbit force, and electromagnetic forces all operate in the manor. Frank As Frank indicated, a steady magnetic field should not be able to directly reduce the Coulomb barrier and hence I am exploring the concept of a time changing one. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Dave- The note from Frank: The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. The growing field involves a larger volume and coupling for release of small packets of energy. Is this not a coherent system? The coherency occurs as a characteristic of a bigger and bigger system (more particles) as required to convert the mass change at the NAE to thermal energy. I have indicated that spin coupling among electrons and nuclei may be involved in the distribution of small packets of energy without damage to the NAE structure. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic Barrier Bob, I do not understand your question. I still believe that a large magnetic field is interacting with the individual small NAE in a manner that results in positive feedback among them. The actual manner in which this interaction occurs is evading me. As Frank indicated, a steady magnetic field should not be able to directly reduce the Coulomb barrier and hence I am exploring the concept of a time changing one. He appears to have a concept that allows for the generation of an extremely large magnetic field and if that field changes with time, then the generated electric component might be the one I seek. Do you have a concept that effectively results in the reduction of the Coulomb barrier that we normally discuss? It seems that energy can be borrowed from the time changing magnetic field of sufficient magnitude to reduce the net barrier leading to LENR activity. Once the reaction begins, that borrowed energy is replaced with interest. And, I suspect that most of the released energy from the reaction enhances the original field. The net effect is a growing field and energy release that work together. One interesting feature of this mechanism would be the existence of a threshold effect. Until sufficient coupling among the NEA is established very little energy would be released. That could explain why it is so very difficult to replicate systems. It may not be too difficult to get individual sites to react, but unless enough become involved, the total energy is too small to accurately measure. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook
[Vo]:Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners lunatic charlatans
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/wikipedia-founder-calls-alt-medicine-practitioners-lunatic-charlatans/ Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners lunatic charlatansWales to activists who want new rules for Wikipedia: No, you have to be kidding me. Ars contacted Sanger about the use of his name in this argument, and he offered a more nuanced take on the petitioners' request: Wikipedia's neutrality policy, at least as I originally articulated it, requires that CAM's practitioners be given an opportunity to explain their views. At the same time, the policy also requires that *more* space be given to mainstream views that are *critical* of CAM, precisely because such critical views are held by most medical health professionals. ... I am as big a defender of rationality, science, and objective reality as you are likely to find. But I also think a public resource like Wikipedia should be fully committed to intellectual tolerance and the free exchange of ideas. That, together with an interest in providing a way to resolve disputes, is just what drove me to advocate for and articulate the Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I have confidence that if CAM's advocates are given an opportunity to air their views fully and sympathetically--not to say they should be allowed to make Wikipedia *assert* their views--and skeptics are also given free rein to report their explanation of why they think CAM is a load of crap, then a rational reader will be given the tools he or she needs to take a reasonable position about the matter. Putting all ideas on the table--but giving more space to the mainstream views and putting less emphasis on the alternative views--might be problematic in practice. Requiring that Wikipedia sources be based on third-party, published, and often peer-reviewed work is an easy way to at least make a passing effort at disseminating high-quality information. But how would space be doled out to advocates of alternative theories, who are just as certain about the rightness of their ideas as any scientist, if that guideline became more flexible? Would they be allowed to present their views in a set number of paragraphs? Or as a percentage of the number of words written about mainstream theories? Such a setup might be a slippery slope to what's been termed false balance, a subject on which Ars has written at length beforehttp://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/false-balance-fox-news-demands-a-recount-on-us-warmest-year/. In that scenario, views that have been ignored for a reason are given undeserved light to create the illusion of an even playing field.
[Vo]:The prospects for LENR deployment
There seems to be a confluence of events that provide LENR with an unprecedented opportunity to gain wide acceptance and deployment. Just as war simulated the initial development of nuclear energy, a new commercial and cold war between Russia and the West will stimulate the rapid deployment of the NiH reactor. In the upcoming few years, LENR will be used by western governments as an economic weapon to weaken the Russian economy and reduce the foreign and domestic prerogatives of Putin. This is an ideal opportunity for the first release of the NiH reactor in Europe as a replacement for Russian natural gas, the primary economic weapon to undermine power projection of both the Russian and Iranian governments. LENR will take the energy weapon out of the hands of those who most want to use it. We can expect a fast tracking of the deployment of the NiH reactor in Eastern Europe where Russia has economic leverage through supply of natural gas to these former soviet states. What will Russia and Iran do to counter this attack on their projection of power, their national ambitions, their standard of living, and their international prestige?
Re: [Vo]:The prospects for LENR deployment
I hope they do not resort to covert activity to prevent the deployment. This should not be initiated unless LENR devices begin to show up in large numbers. I suspect that the window will be relatively small and may not have any serious impact. After all, how much more effective can those guys be than the international physics establishment? The oil companies and other current energy suppliers may become more important adversaries in the long run. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 25, 2014 11:18 pm Subject: [Vo]:The prospects for LENR deployment There seems to bea confluence of events that provide LENR with an unprecedented opportunity togain wide acceptance and deployment. Just as war simulated the initialdevelopment of nuclear energy, a new commercial and cold war between Russia andthe West will stimulate the rapid deployment of the NiH reactor. In the upcomingfew years, LENR will be used by western governments as an economic weapon to weakenthe Russian economy and reduce the foreign and domestic prerogatives of Putin. This is an ideal opportunityfor the first release of the NiH reactor in Europe as a replacement for Russiannatural gas, the primary economic weapon to undermine power projection of both theRussian and Iranian governments. LENR will take the energy weapon out of the hands of those who most want to use it. We can expect afast tracking of the deployment of the NiH reactor in Eastern Europe whereRussia has economic leverage through supply of natural gas to these formersoviet states. What will Russiaand Iran do to counter this attack on their projection of power, their nationalambitions, their standard of living, and their international prestige?
[Vo]:zoomable infrared color mosaic image of our entire galaxy, scanning all directions, 20,000 MPx data showing half the stars, viewable on Net: Rich Murray 2014.03.25
zoomable infrared color mosaic image of our entire galaxy, scanning all directions, 20,000 MPx data showing half the stars, viewable on Net: Rich Murray 2014.03.25 http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-zoomable-360-degree-view-of-our-galaxy?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletterutm_campaign=a316cd1938-UA-946742-1utm_medium=emailutm_term=0_6de721fb33-a316cd1938-282 A zoomable 360-degree view of our galaxyhttp://kurzweilai.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=aad1a7eea269839c7d10845e8id=71bc3b5b01e=65bed29277 March 25, 2014 [image: Milky-Way---featured]http://kurzweilai.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=aad1a7eea269839c7d10845e8id=32b8ba5c72e=65bed29277 NASA's new zoomable, 360-degree mosaic, presented Thursday at the TED 2014 Conference in Vancouver, allows for exploring the Milky Way interactively. The panorama of our galaxy is constructed from more than 2 million infrared snapshots taken over the past 10 years by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. The 20-gigapixel mosaic uses Microsoft's WorldWide Telescope visualization platform. ... more...http://kurzweilai.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=aad1a7eea269839c7d10845e8id=59ea7c1c72e=65bed29277 http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/glimpse360 http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/video-audio/1444 download video
