Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
Dave-- You noted the following: Plenty of energy can be deposited by alpha radiation into the structure. Keeping that under control without generating gammas is quite a trick. And, what other nuclear ash should we be seeing? If the alphas are formed two at a time at an excited state of high angular momentum spin energy, each with its J vector pointing in the opposite direction in the ambient magnetic field and within the same NAE or super QM system, it would seem to be possible to collapse to a ground state of 0 spin and angular momentum. The reaction would conserveangular momentum on the way to 0 with small quanta transfers to other particles in the super QM system--electrons and protons--with subsequent decay of each via phonon coupling to the lattice. T he excited spin state of each alpha would be such as to match the mass decrement associated with the D,D “fusion” reaction. The thermal spectrum would be such as to provide resonance for the spin phonon coupling. Transitions would occur at an energy quanta associated with one spin quanta. The number of particles taking part in the NAE would be large--2x the J quantum number of an excited a[pha particle. If the temperature was to high the phonon coupling would not be possible. Too cold would not work either. This could be called the Goldilocks spin dance effect. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com When I take a step back I realize that it appears like a miracle for the energy to always come out in small fractions of the total available. I have to ask whether or not this unusual situation may be related to the conditions upon which the reaction occurs. Is anyone aware of an experiment that actually involves fusion of D x D at low temperatures while the radiation is monitored? We do have data describing what is released at very high kinetic energies, but is there a threshold below which our preferred path may be exclusive? I suppose the closest analogy would be muon fusion. If I recall, that pretty much matches what is emitted under hot fusion conditions. Perhaps your point is valid and there is zero chance that D x D fusion is taking place directly. If true, some sneak path is being followed and it is common for alpha radiation to be generated in nuclear reactions. Plenty of energy can be deposited by alpha radiation into the structure. Keeping that under control without generating gammas is quite a trick. And, what other nuclear ash should we be seeing? I hope that Rossi and the future report from the long term experiment will help to answer many of our questions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 2:19 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization From: David Roberson I think Bob is hoping that energy can be taken away in smaller chunks and that is what I would want to see as well….Has anyone identified exactly where the large MeV energy from a D x D fusion is stored? It remains in place for a short duration until released. Perhaps it can be taken in many portions instead of one dangerous gamma. Dave, Once again, the relevant question is not whether energy can be released piecemeal, in many small undetectable portions. We can assume that it can. The relevant question is this: can a new and previously unknown mechanism accomplish this incredible feat 100% of the time, to the complete exclusion of the known mechanism? Clearly – that is most unlikely. The 23 MeV would need to come out in packets of no more than about 6 keV each. Anything above this level would show up on the kind of meters which have been used for many years, and which have already proved that strong radiation above background level is seldom seen. Think about it. That lack of any radiation signature in most experiments of this kind means the large amount of energy (from the formative alpha particle) comes out in at least 4,000 individual packets, none of which can ever be larger than what is detectable. And furthermore, never ever do we see the “known release mechanism” of standard physics. If true, this proposition is moving towards an “intelligent” release of radiation, in which packets must be monitored and rejected if they are too energetic. That kind of control is absurd, of course, but it highlights the larger absurdity of suggesting that this reaction must involve the fusion of deuterons to helium with no gamma signature. There are better alternatives. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
Dave-- I would assume in the hot fusion regime that significant linear momentum must be conserved in addition to the conservation of energy associated with kinetic energy of colliding particles. In cold fusion LENR there is know momentum other than angular momentum to conserve. Gammas and other linear momentum carrying particles are not needed and in fact not possible because of their of their necessary of carrying linear momentum. it is for this basic reason that I do not anticipate the existence of ganmas or any energetic particle to be associated with LENR. If any has a good physical explanation of the mechanism for the distribution of the linear momentum between decay products I would love to see it. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com When I take a step back I realize that it appears like a miracle for the energy to always come out in small fractions of the total available. I have to ask whether or not this unusual situation may be related to the conditions upon which the reaction occurs. Is anyone aware of an experiment that actually involves fusion of D x D at low temperatures while the radiation is monitored? We do have data describing what is released at very high kinetic energies, but is there a threshold below which our preferred path may be exclusive? I suppose the closest analogy would be muon fusion. If I recall, that pretty much matches what is emitted under hot fusion conditions. Perhaps your point is valid and there is zero chance that D x D fusion is taking place directly. If true, some sneak path is being followed and it is common for alpha radiation to be generated in nuclear reactions. Plenty of energy can be deposited by alpha radiation into the structure. Keeping that under control without generating gammas is quite a trick. And, what other nuclear ash should we be seeing? I hope that Rossi and the future report from the long term experiment will help to answer many of our questions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 2:19 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization From: David Roberson I think Bob is hoping that energy can be taken away in smaller chunks and that is what I would want to see as well….Has anyone identified exactly where the large MeV energy from a D x D fusion is stored? It remains in place for a short duration until released. Perhaps it can be taken in many portions instead of one dangerous gamma. Dave, Once again, the relevant question is not whether energy can be released piecemeal, in many small undetectable portions. We can assume that it can. The relevant question is this: can a new and previously unknown mechanism accomplish this incredible feat 100% of the time, to the complete exclusion of the known mechanism? Clearly – that is most unlikely. The 23 MeV would need to come out in packets of no more than about 6 keV each. Anything above this level would show up on the kind of meters which have been used for many years, and which have already proved that strong radiation above background level is seldom seen. Think about it. That lack of any radiation signature in most experiments of this kind means the large amount of energy (from the formative alpha particle) comes out in at least 4,000 individual packets, none of which can ever be larger than what is detectable. And furthermore, never ever do we see the “known release mechanism” of standard physics. If true, this proposition is moving towards an “intelligent” release of radiation, in which packets must be monitored and rejected if they are too energetic. That kind of control is absurd, of course, but it highlights the larger absurdity of suggesting that this reaction must involve the fusion of deuterons to helium with no gamma signature. There are better alternatives. Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5
Further perusing of lenr-canr.org for research papers on light water electrolysis with Nickel, I don't find much to convince me that the electrolytic method involving nickel has been successful. I see a few studies claiming excess heat, but I did not find these convincing because of low levels of excess heat and the probability of alternative explanations. McKubre in 2008 also stated this about efforts at SRI to replicate previous results with nickel. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheimporta.pdf At SRI we have been unsuccessful in a number of attempts at experiment replication. We were not able at any time to reproduce the claims of heat from nickel – light water electrolysis experiments. We were able uncover one source of systematic error in the experimental procedures involving large area nickel – carbonate electrolyte experiments that blunted our interest. This inability should not be taken to mean that the claims are wrong or an effect not real, particularly in light of previous failures to replicate before personal, hands-on guidance was sought. We were not able to replicate the Patterson-CETI experiments [13]. Despite the very able3 hands on support of Dr. Dennis Cravens we were never able to observe an excess heat effect for this experiment in our mass flow calorimeters, although it is now understood that an important experimental element may have been lacking. A similar situation exists in respect of the Stringham [14] ultrasonically induced Pd-D2O excess heat effect using SRI mass-flow calorimeters, although this condition of uncertainty was exacerbated by the complexities of input energy measurement and coupling between the ultrasonic power source and the transducer and experiment. Does anyone know of any very convincing studies involving nickel and electrolysis? I exclude from this Brillouin energy, which we will need to see some confirmation from SRI. Best regards, Jack On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jones, I'm still around. :) I put my electrolysis experimentation on pause after doing something like 200 experiments with nothing to convince me I had found anything. I had some hope for Brillouin Energy, but after all this time at SRI with no results reported, it gives me doubts about whether Godes had what he thought. I decided not to pursue replicating his method until something more is released from him. Anyway, I'm not very hopeful for nickel-based electrolysis being able to produce LENR--at least nothing I have tried has convinced me. There is a lot to convince me that false positives are easy to obtain when you are looking for lower levels of excess heating. It needs to be the last conclusion you come to after considering alternatives and designing experiments to test the alternatives. Time after time, the results of my follow up experiments supported the alternative explanation. I'm hoping the Rossi report comes out positive as the probability of a false positive at his previously-reported power levels would be nearly impossible to obtain. Just to summarize, I tried various materials (Nicrome, constantan, nitinol, thoriated tungsten, cuprothal, all of the above plated with nickel) and various types of triggering (AC, pulsed DC, alternating DC with pulsed AC, high frequency/high current AC alternating with DC, external heating, laser, permanent magnet, different electrolytes). I tried slow loading over several days to a week at low current followed by active runs and attempts to trigger. I tried prepping material in light acid followed by cleaning with acetone. Best regards, Jack On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Special thanks should be accorded to Dennis Cravens for his openness and the great detail of information which he has provided on a most important experiment. He deserves a big award for this work, even if it turns out not to be nuclear fusion, per se - and especially if it does turn out to be LENR. Why hasn't a National Lab replicate this important work? (Rhetorical question and the answer is obvious). For the record - here is more background on LaNi5, which is looking more-and-more like the magic bullet for Ni-H thermal effects when combined with a magnetic field (this combination could be in order to reach a superparamagnetic state of self-resonance). http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j100476a006 I should caution that all of the analysis in this thread wrt to LaNi5 is a personal and minority appraisal, and that Dennis Cravens along with almost everyone else who was involved or saw the experiment, considers it to be a version of the Les Case work, involving the fusion of deuterium. Why not? It is fully derivative of that line of experimental work and so on ... but ... that may not be sufficient. IMHO there are good reasons to suspect that there is no nuclear reaction and the thermal anomaly is related to
RE: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
From: Eric Walker David Roberson wrote: Jones makes a good argument that it is unlikely to eliminate all of the gammas and I suspect he is correct. The argument, which says that even if you obtain 99.9 percent efficiency, you would still see a large number of gammas for the levels of power observed, is a good one, for it narrows down the possibilities significantly.… must we then discount years of research stating unequivocally that there has been 4He evolution. If the PdD guys did years of shoddy work, who is there to trust? Eric, This is not a fair characterization from a technical standpoint. We can trust the calorimetry – which is the more important detail by far. In the early days (early nineties) it was not easy to distinguish D2 from 4He except in a handful of Labs with sophisticated equipment and procedure. Both gases are essentially the same mass, 4.002602 vs 4.028204 and the small difference in helium is masked by the massive disproportion in the expected volume of the two following the typical cold fusion experiment, so that helium looks to be at the noise level in every deuterium experiment, regardless of excess heat, even when none is being made. Note: helium is ubiquitous, and is especially problematic in the processing and enrichment of deuterium tanked gas by the supplier. Four nines purity from a gas supplier is not good enough. Was this tested for every experiment? It is a sophisticated undertaking in 2014 to do this measurement accurately from start to finish. Helium is rare but ubiquitous — 5.2 ppm by volume in the atmosphere on average, as it is continuously created within the earth from alpha decay; but in Labs where liquid or tanked helium is used in an enclosed space, which is most Labs, Helium can be found naturally at 50 ppm and up - way up! … and variable from day to day and even hour to hour. No one can afford to do hourly recalibration. In the experiment being analyzed, the expected ratio of helium to “pure” D, assuming it really is pure from the supplier, can actually be less than the Lab ratio ! How do you calibrate away this intrinsic error and be comfortable with the results? A quadrupole mass spectrometer (QMS) is the standard apparatus for gas analysis, however, conventional 4He analysis is not accurate with the normal apparatus, since deuterium would normally be included in an overwhelming disproportion in the sample gas - and enrichment is not possible at a low gas inventory from sampling the electrodes; and again, this is especially true when liquid helium or tanked helium is used in the Lab in question. Is there any large Lab on earth that does not have a high natural helium concentration? In short, a large peak of D2 masks a tiny peak of 4He unless the two are in fairly similar proportions - and there are few ways to change this when the experiment only produces a few million helium atoms (from fusion) which is mixed with a million times more deuterium as the starting gas, which gas itself already has helium contaminants at a rate that is not very different from the production concentration. Personally I have no problem with this issue of a “persistent false positive” for helium, ongoing for twenty years, so long as the calorimetry is accurate, which I am convinced - is accurate. QM tells us there will be some percentage of helium produced, no matter what, and it is the relative proportion which is difficult to assess.
[Vo]:Future Flight: This is not something made up- like Cold Fusion.....
Greetings Vortex-L, From Yahoo Financial on Future Flight: This is not something made up like Cold Fusion or Antigravity: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/from-new-york-to-china-in-two-hours--how-billionaires-are-revolutionizing-flying-132448625.html Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Antigravity...grins
Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5
Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know of any very convincing studies involving nickel and electrolysis? I exclude from this Brillouin energy, which we will need to see some confirmation from SRI. There is not much. Patterson's work was poorly documented. Mills has made many claims but there has been little follow through, and not much convincing proof other than Thermocore: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf In my opinion, the best Ni-CF proof is the ELFORSK study of Rossi's device. That isn't much to go on. I hope their next study is more convincing. I expect it will be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5
I doubt that nickel will work in electrolysis because the water will keep the temperature of the nickel below both the Curie and the Debye temperatures, Palladium is paramagnetic an does not have a curie temperature and therefore able to handle a low temperature reaction range as occurs in electrolysis. In a hot hydrogen gas envelope, the temperature of nickel can be pushed over these two critical temperatures. This higher temperature range will allow both magnetic and phonon processes to operate at optimum capabilities. Both these capabilities are essential in LENR. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know of any very convincing studies involving nickel and electrolysis? I exclude from this Brillouin energy, which we will need to see some confirmation from SRI. There is not much. Patterson's work was poorly documented. Mills has made many claims but there has been little follow through, and not much convincing proof other than Thermocore: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf In my opinion, the best Ni-CF proof is the ELFORSK study of Rossi's device. That isn't much to go on. I hope their next study is more convincing. I expect it will be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
Interesting concept Bob. Are you taking into account that the angular momentum can balance out to zero by a pair of alphas but that the angular energy still remains? At least that is true with classic systems. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 2:32 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization Dave-- You noted the following: Plenty of energy can be deposited by alpha radiation into the structure. Keeping that under control without generating gammas is quite a trick. And, what other nuclear ash should we be seeing? If the alphas are formed two at a time at an excited state of high angular momentum spin energy, each with its J vector pointing in the opposite direction in the ambient magnetic field and within the same NAE or super QM system, it would seem to be possible to collapse to a ground state of 0 spin and angular momentum. The reaction would conserveangular momentum on the way to 0 with small quanta transfers to other particles in the super QM system--electrons and protons--with subsequent decay of each via phonon coupling to the lattice. T he excited spin state of each alpha would be such as to match the mass decrement associated with the D,D “fusion” reaction. The thermal spectrum would be such as to provide resonance for the spin phonon coupling. Transitions would occur at an energy quanta associated with one spin quanta. The number of particles taking part in the NAE would be large--2x the J quantum number of an excited a[pha particle. If the temperature was to high the phonon coupling would not be possible. Too cold would not work either. This could be called the Goldilocks spin dance effect. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com When I take a step back I realize that it appears like a miracle for the energy to always come out in small fractions of the total available. I have to ask whether or not this unusual situation may be related to the conditions upon which the reaction occurs. Is anyone aware of an experiment that actually involves fusion of D x D at low temperatures while the radiation is monitored? We do have data describing what is released at very high kinetic energies, but is there a threshold below which our preferred path may be exclusive? I suppose the closest analogy would be muon fusion. If I recall, that pretty much matches what is emitted under hot fusion conditions. Perhaps your point is valid and there is zero chance that D x D fusion is taking place directly. If true, some sneak path is being followed and it is common for alpha radiation to be generated in nuclear reactions. Plenty of energy can be deposited by alpha radiation into the structure. Keeping that under control without generating gammas is quite a trick. And, what other nuclear ash should we be seeing? I hope that Rossi and the future report from the long term experiment will help to answer many of our questions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 2:19 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization From:David Roberson I think Bob is hoping that energy can be taken away in smallerchunks and that is what I would want to see as well….Hasanyone identified exactly where the large MeV energy from a D x D fusion isstored? It remains in place for a short duration until released. Perhaps it can be taken in many portions instead of one dangerous gamma. Dave, Once again, the relevantquestion is not whether energy can be released piecemeal, in many smallundetectable portions. We can assume that it can. The relevant question is this:can a new and previously unknown mechanism accomplish this incredible feat 100%of the time, to the complete exclusion of the known mechanism? Clearly – that is most unlikely. The 23 MeV would need tocome out in packets of no more than about 6 keV each. Anything above this levelwould show up on the kind of meters which have been used for many years, andwhich have already proved that strong radiation above background level is seldomseen. Think about it. That lackof any radiation signature in most experiments of this kind means the large amountof energy (from the formative alpha particle) comes out in at least 4,000 individualpackets, none of which can ever be larger than what is detectable. And furthermore,never ever do we see the “known release mechanism” of standard physics. If true,this proposition is moving towards an “intelligent” release of radiation, inwhich packets must be monitored and rejected if they are too energetic. That kind of control isabsurd, of course, but it highlights the larger absurdity of suggesting thatthis reaction must involve the fusion of deuterons to
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
One every nice things that DGT has done is to invent a real time reaction analyzer that observes the reaction products as they are being produced by the LENR reaction in real time. It has cost them a $million more or less to develop this piece of test equipment. Analyzing the ash after the fact has many pitfalls. For example, if the Rossi reactor operates continuously for 6 months in a sealed mode, the nanostructures(nickel nanowires) that support the reaction will have suffered little change in terms of transmutation. Where does all the ash go? Most of the ash might be deposited on the walls of the reaction chamber through some sort of vapor disposition. Where you look for the ash I fear will distort the overall picture of the reaction.
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
Bob, A careful choice of your reference frame can help resolve many of the linear momentum issues. I like to choose one that is located at a point where the net linear momentum of the particles is zero before the reaction. Under that condition it is relatively easy to follow the reactions since the final momentum must also remain zero and avoids nasty math errors. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 3:50 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization Dave-- I would assume in the hot fusion regime that significant linear momentum must be conserved in addition to the conservation of energy associated with kinetic energy of colliding particles. In cold fusion LENR there is know momentum other than angular momentum to conserve. Gammas and other linear momentum carrying particles are not needed and in fact not possible because of their of their necessary of carrying linear momentum. it is for this basic reason that I do not anticipate the existence of ganmas or any energetic particle to be associated with LENR. If any has a good physical explanation of the mechanism for the distribution of the linear momentum between decay products I would love to see it. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com When I take a step back I realize that it appears like a miracle for the energy to always come out in small fractions of the total available. I have to ask whether or not this unusual situation may be related to the conditions upon which the reaction occurs. Is anyone aware of an experiment that actually involves fusion of D x D at low temperatures while the radiation is monitored? We do have data describing what is released at very high kinetic energies, but is there a threshold below which our preferred path may be exclusive? I suppose the closest analogy would be muon fusion. If I recall, that pretty much matches what is emitted under hot fusion conditions. Perhaps your point is valid and there is zero chance that D x D fusion is taking place directly. If true, some sneak path is being followed and it is common for alpha radiation to be generated in nuclear reactions. Plenty of energy can be deposited by alpha radiation into the structure. Keeping that under control without generating gammas is quite a trick. And, what other nuclear ash should we be seeing? I hope that Rossi and the future report from the long term experiment will help to answer many of our questions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 2:19 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization From:David Roberson I think Bob is hoping that energy can be taken away in smallerchunks and that is what I would want to see as well….Hasanyone identified exactly where the large MeV energy from a D x D fusion isstored? It remains in place for a short duration until released. Perhaps it can be taken in many portions instead of one dangerous gamma. Dave, Once again, the relevantquestion is not whether energy can be released piecemeal, in many smallundetectable portions. We can assume that it can. The relevant question is this:can a new and previously unknown mechanism accomplish this incredible feat 100%of the time, to the complete exclusion of the known mechanism? Clearly – that is most unlikely. The 23 MeV would need tocome out in packets of no more than about 6 keV each. Anything above this levelwould show up on the kind of meters which have been used for many years, andwhich have already proved that strong radiation above background level is seldomseen. Think about it. That lackof any radiation signature in most experiments of this kind means the large amountof energy (from the formative alpha particle) comes out in at least 4,000 individualpackets, none of which can ever be larger than what is detectable. And furthermore,never ever do we see the “known release mechanism” of standard physics. If true,this proposition is moving towards an “intelligent” release of radiation, inwhich packets must be monitored and rejected if they are too energetic. That kind of control isabsurd, of course, but it highlights the larger absurdity of suggesting thatthis reaction must involve the fusion of deuterons to helium with no gammasignature. There are better alternatives. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
One characteristic of photo-fusion is that no change in angular momentum occurs. The EMF carries no angular momentum into the reaction. If the nucleus goes into the reaction with zero spin, it will come out of the reaction with zero spin. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, A careful choice of your reference frame can help resolve many of the linear momentum issues. I like to choose one that is located at a point where the net linear momentum of the particles is zero before the reaction. Under that condition it is relatively easy to follow the reactions since the final momentum must also remain zero and avoids nasty math errors. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 3:50 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization Dave-- I would assume in the hot fusion regime that significant linear momentum must be conserved in addition to the conservation of energy associated with kinetic energy of colliding particles. In cold fusion LENR there is know momentum other than angular momentum to conserve. Gammas and other linear momentum carrying particles are not needed and in fact not possible because of their of their necessary of carrying linear momentum. it is for this basic reason that I do not anticipate the existence of ganmas or any energetic particle to be associated with LENR. If any has a good physical explanation of the mechanism for the distribution of the linear momentum between decay products I would love to see it. Bob Sent from Windows Mail *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *Sent:* Friday, July 11, 2014 11:31 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com When I take a step back I realize that it appears like a miracle for the energy to always come out in small fractions of the total available. I have to ask whether or not this unusual situation may be related to the conditions upon which the reaction occurs. Is anyone aware of an experiment that actually involves fusion of D x D at low temperatures while the radiation is monitored? We do have data describing what is released at very high kinetic energies, but is there a threshold below which our preferred path may be exclusive? I suppose the closest analogy would be muon fusion. If I recall, that pretty much matches what is emitted under hot fusion conditions. Perhaps your point is valid and there is zero chance that D x D fusion is taking place directly. If true, some sneak path is being followed and it is common for alpha radiation to be generated in nuclear reactions. Plenty of energy can be deposited by alpha radiation into the structure. Keeping that under control without generating gammas is quite a trick. And, what other nuclear ash should we be seeing? I hope that Rossi and the future report from the long term experiment will help to answer many of our questions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 2:19 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization *From:* David Roberson I think Bob is hoping that energy can be taken away in smaller chunks and that is what I would want to see as well….Has anyone identified exactly where the large MeV energy from a D x D fusion is stored? It remains in place for a short duration until released. Perhaps it can be taken in many portions instead of one dangerous gamma. Dave, Once again, the relevant question is not whether energy can be released piecemeal, in many small undetectable portions. We can assume that it can. The relevant question is this: can a new and previously unknown mechanism accomplish this incredible feat 100% of the time, to the complete exclusion of the known mechanism? Clearly – that is most unlikely. The 23 MeV would need to come out in packets of no more than about 6 keV each. Anything above this level would show up on the kind of meters which have been used for many years, and which have already proved that strong radiation above background level is seldom seen. Think about it. That lack of any radiation signature in most experiments of this kind means the large amount of energy (from the formative alpha particle) comes out in at least 4,000 individual packets, none of which can ever be larger than what is detectable. And furthermore, never ever do we see the “known release mechanism” of standard physics. If true, this proposition is moving towards an “intelligent” release of radiation, in which packets must be monitored and rejected if they are too energetic. That kind of control is absurd, of course, but it highlights the larger absurdity of suggesting that this reaction must involve the fusion of deuterons to helium with no gamma signature. There are better alternatives. Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5
Axil and Jed, I agree with you both. Maybe it would work with plasma electrolysis with very high power levels to get the temperature of the nickel up high enough. Otherwise, nickel maybe somewhat of a dead end with electrolysis. But maybe electrolysis is not much worth studying in general at this point as a much more convincing demonstration can come from gas loaded cells. Best regards, Jack On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I doubt that nickel will work in electrolysis because the water will keep the temperature of the nickel below both the Curie and the Debye temperatures, Palladium is paramagnetic an does not have a curie temperature and therefore able to handle a low temperature reaction range as occurs in electrolysis. In a hot hydrogen gas envelope, the temperature of nickel can be pushed over these two critical temperatures. This higher temperature range will allow both magnetic and phonon processes to operate at optimum capabilities. Both these capabilities are essential in LENR. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know of any very convincing studies involving nickel and electrolysis? I exclude from this Brillouin energy, which we will need to see some confirmation from SRI. There is not much. Patterson's work was poorly documented. Mills has made many claims but there has been little follow through, and not much convincing proof other than Thermocore: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf In my opinion, the best Ni-CF proof is the ELFORSK study of Rossi's device. That isn't much to go on. I hope their next study is more convincing. I expect it will be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
Dave-- Your analysis of my comment is close. I would add that the alphas are short-lived virtual particles that have a lifetime to short to measure, and that their high spin energy is dealt out in small quanta during their virtual lifetime to real particles and nuclei that are also aligned and anti-aligned with the local magnetic field and accept one or more quanta of spin energy (spin) as the virtual alphas become real alphas. This all happens in a supra QM system like that suggested by Axil. As discussed several months ago, I believe the coupled QM system is larger than normal in the hot fusion context and different, unknown or unappreciated ,quantum effects and coupling is occurring, made possible by the nano system engineering and magnetic controls on the Pd-H(D) lattice. I consider the grains of Pd-H(D) form large QM coupled systems. The spectrum of phonic (vibrations) energy levels in the crystal structure make the spin transfers possible. Too hot the coupling does not occur, too cold is also a negative condition. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 9:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Interestingconcept Bob. Are you taking into account that the angular momentum can balance out to zero by a pair of alphas but that the angular energy still remains? At least that is true with classic systems. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 2:32 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization Dave-- You noted the following: Plenty of energy can be deposited by alpha radiation into the structure. Keeping that under control without generating gammas is quite a trick. And, what other nuclear ash should we be seeing? If the alphas are formed two at a time at an excited state of high angular momentum spin energy, each with its J vector pointing in the opposite direction in the ambient magnetic field and within the same NAE or super QM system, it would seem to be possible to collapse to a ground state of 0 spin and angular momentum. The reaction would conserveangular momentum on the way to 0 with small quanta transfers to other particles in the super QM system--electrons and protons--with subsequent decay of each via phonon coupling to the lattice. T he excited spin state of each alpha would be such as to match the mass decrement associated with the D,D “fusion” reaction. The thermal spectrum would be such as to provide resonance for the spin phonon coupling. Transitions would occur at an energy quanta associated with one spin quanta. The number of particles taking part in the NAE would be large--2x the J quantum number of an excited a[pha particle. If the temperature was to high the phonon coupling would not be possible. Too cold would not work either. This could be called the Goldilocks spin dance effect. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com When I take a step back I realize that it appears like a miracle for the energy to always come out in small fractions of the total available. I have to ask whether or not this unusual situation may be related to the conditions upon which the reaction occurs. Is anyone aware of an experiment that actually involves fusion of D x D at low temperatures while the radiation is monitored? We do have data describing what is released at very high kinetic energies, but is there a threshold below which our preferred path may be exclusive? I suppose the closest analogy would be muon fusion. If I recall, that pretty much matches what is emitted under hot fusion conditions. Perhaps your point is valid and there is zero chance that D x D fusion is taking place directly. If true, some sneak path is being followed and it is common for alpha radiation to be generated in nuclear reactions. Plenty of energy can be deposited by alpha radiation into the structure. Keeping that under control without generating gammas is quite a trick. And, what other nuclear ash should we be seeing? I hope that Rossi and the future report from the long term experiment will help to answer many of our questions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 2:19 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization From: David Roberson I think Bob is hoping that energy can be taken away in smaller chunks and that is what I would want to see as well….Has anyone identified exactly where the large MeV energy from a D x D fusion is stored? It remains in place for a short duration until released. Perhaps it can be taken in many portions instead of one dangerous gamma. Dave, Once again, the relevant question is
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
Dave-- I understand the frame of reference idea. However what is the mechanism that controls the fractionation of linear momentum among the particles. In angular momentum the intrinsic quantum controlled parameter of spin exists. The is no intrinsic quantity of linear momentum that is balanced in the kinetic energy of the particles. I have assumed that some unexplained couple between mass and gravity must control linear momentum on a continuous scale, scale rather than in quanta as angular momentum is controlled. This is the question I raise relative to the decay of radioactive entities. How is the momentum of the emitted particle(s) and the residual sometimes large particle determined within the small confines of the original decaying particle? I have often speculated it is mediated by the addition of a entity with significant momentum that results in a hot- like nuclear reaction with transfer of some momentum to the various fission fragments.The addition of magnetic fields allows the interaction of the incoming entity to interact more often, possibly by changing the 3-D structure with its interaction probability to a 2-D situation with higher probability of interaction. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 9:22 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, A careful choice of your reference frame can help resolve many of the linear momentum issues. I like to choose one that is located at a point where the net linear momentum of the particles is zero before the reaction. Under that condition it is relatively easy to follow the reactions since the final momentum must also remain zero and avoids nasty math errors. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 3:50 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization Dave-- I would assume in the hot fusion regime that significant linear momentum must be conserved in addition to the conservation of energy associated with kinetic energy of colliding particles. In cold fusion LENR there is know momentum other than angular momentum to conserve. Gammas and other linear momentum carrying particles are not needed and in fact not possible because of their of their necessary of carrying linear momentum. it is for this basic reason that I do not anticipate the existence of ganmas or any energetic particle to be associated with LENR. If any has a good physical explanation of the mechanism for the distribution of the linear momentum between decay products I would love to see it. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com When I take a step back I realize that it appears like a miracle for the energy to always come out in small fractions of the total available. I have to ask whether or not this unusual situation may be related to the conditions upon which the reaction occurs. Is anyone aware of an experiment that actually involves fusion of D x D at low temperatures while the radiation is monitored? We do have data describing what is released at very high kinetic energies, but is there a threshold below which our preferred path may be exclusive? I suppose the closest analogy would be muon fusion. If I recall, that pretty much matches what is emitted under hot fusion conditions. Perhaps your point is valid and there is zero chance that D x D fusion is taking place directly. If true, some sneak path is being followed and it is common for alpha radiation to be generated in nuclear reactions. Plenty of energy can be deposited by alpha radiation into the structure. Keeping that under control without generating gammas is quite a trick. And, what other nuclear ash should we be seeing? I hope that Rossi and the future report from the long term experiment will help to answer many of our questions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 2:19 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization From: David Roberson I think Bob is hoping that energy can be taken away in smaller chunks and that is what I would want to see as well….Has anyone identified exactly where the large MeV energy from a D x D fusion is stored? It remains in place for a short duration until released. Perhaps it can be taken in many portions instead of one dangerous gamma. Dave, Once again, the relevant question is not whether energy can be released piecemeal, in many small undetectable portions. We can assume that it can. The relevant question is this: can a new and previously unknown mechanism accomplish this incredible feat 100% of the time, to the complete exclusion of the known mechanism? Clearly – that is most unlikely. The 23
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
Axil-- That is an interesting observation regarding photo-fusion. EMF photons would carry spin to the reaction I would say. How is it there is no spin associated with the incoming photon? unless there are two oppositely polarized photons arriving at the same time. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Axil Axil Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 9:26 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com One characteristic of photo-fusion is that no change in angular momentum occurs. The EMF carries no angular momentum into the reaction. If the nucleus goes into the reaction with zero spin, it will come out of the reaction with zero spin. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, A careful choice of your reference frame can help resolve many of the linear momentum issues. I like to choose one that is located at a point where the net linear momentum of the particles is zero before the reaction. Under that condition it is relatively easy to follow the reactions since the final momentum must also remain zero and avoids nasty math errors. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 3:50 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization Dave-- I would assume in the hot fusion regime that significant linear momentum must be conserved in addition to the conservation of energy associated with kinetic energy of colliding particles. In cold fusion LENR there is know momentum other than angular momentum to conserve. Gammas and other linear momentum carrying particles are not needed and in fact not possible because of their of their necessary of carrying linear momentum. it is for this basic reason that I do not anticipate the existence of ganmas or any energetic particle to be associated with LENR. If any has a good physical explanation of the mechanism for the distribution of the linear momentum between decay products I would love to see it. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com When I take a step back I realize that it appears like a miracle for the energy to always come out in small fractions of the total available. I have to ask whether or not this unusual situation may be related to the conditions upon which the reaction occurs. Is anyone aware of an experiment that actually involves fusion of D x D at low temperatures while the radiation is monitored? We do have data describing what is released at very high kinetic energies, but is there a threshold below which our preferred path may be exclusive? I suppose the closest analogy would be muon fusion. If I recall, that pretty much matches what is emitted under hot fusion conditions. Perhaps your point is valid and there is zero chance that D x D fusion is taking place directly. If true, some sneak path is being followed and it is common for alpha radiation to be generated in nuclear reactions. Plenty of energy can be deposited by alpha radiation into the structure. Keeping that under control without generating gammas is quite a trick. And, what other nuclear ash should we be seeing? I hope that Rossi and the future report from the long term experiment will help to answer many of our questions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 2:19 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization From: David Roberson I think Bob is hoping that energy can be taken away in smaller chunks and that is what I would want to see as well….Has anyone identified exactly where the large MeV energy from a D x D fusion is stored? It remains in place for a short duration until released. Perhaps it can be taken in many portions instead of one dangerous gamma. Dave, Once again, the relevant question is not whether energy can be released piecemeal, in many small undetectable portions. We can assume that it can. The relevant question is this: can a new and previously unknown mechanism accomplish this incredible feat 100% of the time, to the complete exclusion of the known mechanism? Clearly – that is most unlikely. The 23 MeV would need to come out in packets of no more than about 6 keV each. Anything above this level would show up on the kind of meters which have been used for many years, and which have already proved that strong radiation above background level is seldom seen. Think about it. That lack of any radiation signature in most experiments of this kind means the large amount of energy (from the formative alpha particle) comes out in at least 4,000 individual packets, none of which can ever be larger than what is detectable. And furthermore, never ever do we see the “known release mechanism” of standard physics. If
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
Jones-- Two mass spectrometers vs one is what you need to calibrate. One should look at the ambient environment and one sniff the reactor. This simple control of the experiment. If you can afford one mass spec you can afford two, if not for control as a backup. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 7:22 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Eric Walker David Roberson wrote: Jones makes a good argument that it is unlikely to eliminate all of the gammas and I suspect he is correct. The argument, which says that even if you obtain 99.9 percent efficiency, you would still see a large number of gammas for the levels of power observed, is a good one, for it narrows down the possibilities significantly.… mustwe then discount years of research stating unequivocally that there has been 4He evolution. If the PdD guys did years of shoddy work, who is there to trust? Eric, This is not a fair characterization from a technical standpoint. We can trust the calorimetry – which is the more important detail by far. In the early days (early nineties) it was not easy to distinguish D2 from 4He except in a handful of Labs with sophisticated equipment and procedure. Both gases are essentially the same mass, 4.002602 vs 4.028204 and the small difference in helium is masked by the massive disproportion in the expected volume of the two following the typical cold fusion experiment, so that helium looks to be at the noise level in every deuterium experiment, regardless of excess heat, even when none is being made. Note: helium is ubiquitous, and is especially problematic in the processing and enrichment of deuterium tanked gas by the supplier. Four nines purity from a gas supplier is not good enough. Was this tested for every experiment? It is a sophisticated undertaking in 2014 to do this measurement accurately from start to finish. Helium is rare but ubiquitous — 5.2 ppm by volume in the atmosphere on average, as it is continuously created within the earth from alpha decay; but in Labs where liquid or tanked helium is used in an enclosed space, which is most Labs, Helium can be found naturally at 50 ppm and up - way up! … and variable from day to day and even hour to hour. No one can afford to do hourly recalibration. In the experiment being analyzed, the expected ratio of helium to “pure” D, assuming it really is pure from the supplier, can actually be less than the Lab ratio ! How do you calibrate away this intrinsic error and be comfortable with the results? A quadrupole mass spectrometer (QMS) is the standard apparatus for gas analysis, however, conventional 4He analysis is not accurate with the normal apparatus, since deuterium would normally be included in an overwhelming disproportion in the sample gas - and enrichment is not possible at a low gas inventory from sampling the electrodes; and again, this is especially true when liquid helium or tanked helium is used in the Lab in question. Is there any large Lab on earth that does not have a high natural helium concentration? In short, a large peak of D2 masks a tiny peak of 4He unless the two are in fairly similar proportions - and there are few ways to change this when the experiment only produces a few million helium atoms (from fusion) which is mixed with a million times more deuterium as the starting gas, which gas itself already has helium contaminants at a rate that is not very different from the production concentration. Personally I have no problem with this issue of a “persistent false positive” for helium, ongoing for twenty years, so long as the calorimetry is accurate, which I am convinced - is accurate. QM tells us there will be some percentage of helium produced, no matter what, and it is the relative proportion which is difficult to assess.
[Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted
CU-Boulder instrument onboard Hubble reveals the universe is ‘missing’ light http://tinyurl.com/qzs4rjo July 9, 2014 • Something is amiss in the universe. There appears to be an enormous deficit of ultraviolet light in the cosmic budget. Observations made by the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, a $70 million instrument designed by the University of Colorado Boulder and installed on the Hubble Space Telescope, have revealed that the universe is “missing” a large amount of light. “It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs,” said the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Juna Kollmeier, lead author of a new study on the missing light published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. “Where is all that light coming from? It’s missing from our census.” The research team—which includes Benjamin Oppenheimer and Charles Danforth of CU-Boulder’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy—analyzed the tendrils of hydrogen that bridge the vast reaches of empty space between galaxies. When hydrogen atoms are struck by highly energetic ultraviolet light, they are transformed from electrically neutral atoms to charged ions. The astronomers were surprised when they found far more hydrogen ions than could be explained with the known ultraviolet light in the universe, which comes primarily from quasars. The difference is a stunning 400 percent. Strangely, this mismatch only appears in the nearby, relatively well-studied cosmos. When telescopes focus on galaxies billions of light years away—which shows astronomers what was happening when the universe was young—everything seems to add up. The fact that the accounting of light needed to ionize hydrogen works in the early universe but falls apart locally has scientists puzzled. The mismatch emerged from comparing supercomputer simulations of intergalactic gas to the most recent analysis of observations from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. “The simulations fit the data beautifully in the early universe, and they fit the local data beautifully if we’re allowed to assume that this extra light is really there,” said CU-Boulder’s Oppenheimer. “It’s possible the simulations do not reflect reality, which by itself would be a surprise, because intergalactic hydrogen is the component of the universe that we think we understand the best.” The type of light that is energetic enough to turn neutral hydrogen into hydrogen ions is called “ionizing photons” and is known to come from only two sources in the universe: quasars, which are powered by hot gas falling onto supermassive black holes over a million times the mass of the sun, and the hottest young stars. Observations indicate that the ionizing photons from young stars are almost always absorbed by gas in their host galaxy, so they never escape to affect intergalactic hydrogen. But the number of known quasars is far lower than needed to produce the amount of light necessary to create the quantity of hydrogen ions measured by the research team. “If we count up the known sources of ultraviolet ionizing photons, we come up five times too short,” Oppenheimer said. “We are missing 80 percent of the ionizing photons, and the question is where are they coming from? The most fascinating possibility is that an exotic new source, not quasars or galaxies, is responsible for the missing photons.” For example, the mysterious dark matter, which holds galaxies together but has never been seen directly, could itself decay and ultimately be responsible for this extra light. “The great thing about a 400 percent discrepancy is that you know something is really wrong,” said co-author David Weinberg of Ohio State University. “We still don't know for sure what it is, but at least one thing we thought we knew about the present day universe isn’t true.” Other co-authors on the study are Francesco Haardt of the Università dell’Insubria, Romeel Davé of the University of the Western Cape, Mark Fardal of University of Massachusetts Amherst, Piero Madau of the University of California, Santa Cruz, Amanda Ford of the University of Arizona, Molly Peeples of the Space Telescope Science Institute, and Joseph McEwen of Ohio State University. The study was funded in part by NASA, the National Science Foundation and the Ahmanson Foundation.
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
Bob, You ask an excellent question and I would also like to understand the answer. We assume that linear momentum does not have quantum values so that it can exist in smooth continuous states. Has this been proven? Perhaps someone can analyze the HUP and show how it is so. Also, your question leaves me wondering why the angular spin must be quantized instead of continuous. If I recall, some of the quantized states are a result of explaining the incremental energy levels that electrons find themselves exhibiting while orbiting nuclei. Perhaps this determination is based upon measurements instead of forced by firm laws of physics. This may be an example of empirical leading theoretical. After all, in classical macro systems the total angular momentum can be constructed by breaking the mass into tiny increments and summing their linear momentums. The differential elements on opposite sides of the material balance out in magnitude but are not operating along the same geometric lines. Each tiny component appears to have continuous values of linear momentum instead of quantized states. I suppose that spin might not translate into the same phenomena as true macro angular momentum. Perhaps someone can help with this issue. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 3:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization Dave-- I understand the frame of reference idea. However what is the mechanism that controls the fractionation of linear momentum among the particles. In angular momentum the intrinsic quantum controlled parameter of spin exists. The is no intrinsic quantity of linear momentum that is balanced in the kinetic energy of the particles. I have assumed that some unexplained couple between mass and gravity must control linear momentum on a continuous scale, scale rather than in quanta as angular momentum is controlled. This is the question I raise relative to the decay of radioactive entities. How is the momentum of the emitted particle(s) and the residual sometimes large particle determined within the small confines of the original decaying particle? I have often speculated it is mediated by the addition of a entity with significant momentum that results in a hot- like nuclear reaction with transfer of some momentum to the various fission fragments.The addition of magnetic fields allows the interaction of the incoming entity to interact more often, possibly by changing the 3-D structure with its interaction probability to a 2-D situation with higher probability of interaction. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 9:22 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, A careful choice of your reference frame can help resolve many of the linear momentum issues. I like to choose one that is located at a point where the net linear momentum of the particles is zero before the reaction. Under that condition it is relatively easy to follow the reactions since the final momentum must also remain zero and avoids nasty math errors. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 3:50 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization Dave-- I would assume in the hot fusion regime that significant linear momentum must be conserved in addition to the conservation of energy associated with kinetic energy of colliding particles. In cold fusion LENR there is know momentum other than angular momentum to conserve. Gammas and other linear momentum carrying particles are not needed and in fact not possible because of their of their necessary of carrying linear momentum. it is for this basic reason that I do not anticipate the existence of ganmas or any energetic particle to be associated with LENR. If any has a good physical explanation of the mechanism for the distribution of the linear momentum between decay products I would love to see it. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com When I take a step back I realize that it appears like a miracle for the energy to always come out in small fractions of the total available. I have to ask whether or not this unusual situation may be related to the conditions upon which the reaction occurs. Is anyone aware of an experiment that actually involves fusion of D x D at low temperatures while the radiation is monitored? We do have data describing what is released at very high kinetic energies, but is there a threshold below which our preferred path may be exclusive? I suppose the closest analogy would be muon fusion. If I recall, that pretty much matches what is emitted under hot fusion conditions. Perhaps your point is valid and there is zero chance
Re: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted
This is the type of discovery that tends to lead to new knowledge. Every model is subject to being proven wrong in the future and this one may be heading in that direction. New and more powerful instruments generally reveal fascinating marvels that no one expects. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 7:03 pm Subject: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted CU-Boulder instrument onboard Hubble reveals the universe is ‘missing’ light http://tinyurl.com/qzs4rj
[Vo]:MIT Paper by
Hi all I came across this: http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/71632 ;) Kind Regards walker
Re: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted
Regarding the title: 400 percent less light in universe than predicted This article and the title are not well written. The title should read that there are missing light *sources* not XUV light. That is, the is more light produced than there are light sources. [Snip] “It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs,” [EndSnip] There are less 40-watt light bulbs than would be expected for the amount of XUV light produced. These bulbs are light sources. There is too much light than the light sources can produce. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: CU-Boulder instrument onboard Hubble reveals the universe is ‘missing’ light http://tinyurl.com/qzs4rjo July 9, 2014 • Something is amiss in the universe. There appears to be an enormous deficit of ultraviolet light in the cosmic budget. Observations made by the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, a $70 million instrument designed by the University of Colorado Boulder and installed on the Hubble Space Telescope, have revealed that the universe is “missing” a large amount of light. “It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs,” said the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Juna Kollmeier, lead author of a new study on the missing light published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. “Where is all that light coming from? It’s missing from our census.” The research team—which includes Benjamin Oppenheimer and Charles Danforth of CU-Boulder’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy—analyzed the tendrils of hydrogen that bridge the vast reaches of empty space between galaxies. When hydrogen atoms are struck by highly energetic ultraviolet light, they are transformed from electrically neutral atoms to charged ions. The astronomers were surprised when they found far more hydrogen ions than could be explained with the known ultraviolet light in the universe, which comes primarily from quasars. The difference is a stunning 400 percent. Strangely, this mismatch only appears in the nearby, relatively well-studied cosmos. When telescopes focus on galaxies billions of light years away—which shows astronomers what was happening when the universe was young—everything seems to add up. The fact that the accounting of light needed to ionize hydrogen works in the early universe but falls apart locally has scientists puzzled. The mismatch emerged from comparing supercomputer simulations of intergalactic gas to the most recent analysis of observations from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. “The simulations fit the data beautifully in the early universe, and they fit the local data beautifully if we’re allowed to assume that this extra light is really there,” said CU-Boulder’s Oppenheimer. “It’s possible the simulations do not reflect reality, which by itself would be a surprise, because intergalactic hydrogen is the component of the universe that we think we understand the best.” The type of light that is energetic enough to turn neutral hydrogen into hydrogen ions is called “ionizing photons” and is known to come from only two sources in the universe: quasars, which are powered by hot gas falling onto supermassive black holes over a million times the mass of the sun, and the hottest young stars. Observations indicate that the ionizing photons from young stars are almost always absorbed by gas in their host galaxy, so they never escape to affect intergalactic hydrogen. But the number of known quasars is far lower than needed to produce the amount of light necessary to create the quantity of hydrogen ions measured by the research team. “If we count up the known sources of ultraviolet ionizing photons, we come up five times too short,” Oppenheimer said. “We are missing 80 percent of the ionizing photons, and the question is where are they coming from? The most fascinating possibility is that an exotic new source, not quasars or galaxies, is responsible for the missing photons.” For example, the mysterious dark matter, which holds galaxies together but has never been seen directly, could itself decay and ultimately be responsible for this extra light. “The great thing about a 400 percent discrepancy is that you know something is really wrong,” said co-author David Weinberg of Ohio State University. “We still don't know for sure what it is, but at least one thing we thought we knew about the present day universe isn’t true.” Other co-authors on the study are Francesco Haardt of the Università dell’Insubria, Romeel Davé of the University of the Western Cape, Mark Fardal of University of Massachusetts Amherst, Piero Madau of the University of California, Santa Cruz, Amanda Ford of the University of Arizona, Molly Peeples of the Space Telescope Science Institute, and Joseph McEwen of Ohio State University. The study was funded in part by NASA, the National
Re: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted
Another clue in the ubiquitous intergalactic soliton based LENR process that occurs through intergalactic space as dark matter has now appeared. There is 400% more extreme ultraviolet (XUV) light in intergalactic space than can be accounted for from other energetic XUV light sources like black holes and young hot stars. Space is filled with hydrogen covered dust that produce XUV as well as to serve as a source of dark matter which provides gravity that keeps galaxies from flying apart. Intergalactic dust clouds support the LENR active soliton based XUV factories that upshift heat photons into the XUV spectrum range. Some quotes from the investigator: Either our accounting of the light from galaxies and quasars is very far off, or there's some other major source of ionizing photons that we've never recognized, Kollmeier said. We are calling this missing light the photon underproduction crisis. The most exciting possibility is that the missing photons are coming from some exotic new source, not galaxies or quasars at all, isn’t ironic that this new exotic source of XUV photons is one of their most hated and ridiculed pseudoscience concepts: the LENR process. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This is the type of discovery that tends to lead to new knowledge. Every model is subject to being proven wrong in the future and this one may be heading in that direction. New and more powerful instruments generally reveal fascinating marvels that no one expects. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 7:03 pm Subject: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted CU-Boulder instrument onboard Hubble reveals the universe is ‘missing’ light http://tinyurl.com/qzs4rj http://tinyurl.com/qzs4rjo
Re: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted
Good point Axil. it might take some time for these guys to accept that possibility. We will have plenty of mud to sling one day soon! Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 7:23 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted Another clue in the ubiquitous intergalactic soliton based LENR process that occurs through intergalactic space as dark matter has now appeared. There is 400% more extreme ultraviolet (XUV) light in intergalactic space than can be accounted for from other energetic XUV light sources like black holes and young hot stars. Space is filled with hydrogen covered dust that produce XUV as well as to serve as a source of dark matter which provides gravity that keeps galaxies from flying apart. Intergalactic dust clouds support the LENR active soliton based XUV factories that upshift heat photons into the XUV spectrum range. Some quotes from the investigator: Either our accounting of the light from galaxies and quasars is very far off, or there's some other major source of ionizing photons that we've never recognized, Kollmeier said. We are calling this missing light the photon underproduction crisis. The most exciting possibility is that the missing photons are coming from some exotic new source, not galaxies or quasars at all, isn’t ironic that this new exotic source of XUV photons is one of their most hated and ridiculed pseudoscience concepts: the LENR process. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This is the type of discovery that tends to lead to new knowledge. Every model is subject to being proven wrong in the future and this one may be heading in that direction. New and more powerful instruments generally reveal fascinating marvels that no one expects. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 7:03 pm Subject: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted CU-Boulder instrument onboard Hubble reveals the universe is ‘missing’ light http://tinyurl.com/qzs4rj
[Vo]:The SPADEX experiment, preamble
This proposed experiment is based on a minority viewpoint, in the interpretation of Dennis Craven's NI-Week demonstration, which after due consideration of the past 24 years of LENR, stands out to me as the most important experiment since 1989. Your assessment may vary, but the pluses of it are: that it is simple, understated, essentially unpowered, solid state, robust, long-running, well-constructed, and the error possibilities are greatly reduced. IOW it is elegant to the extreme. The highest compliment that can be leveled at any breakthrough experiment in LENR is elegance. However, I cannot really label the underlying M.O for this thermal gain as the Cravens effect since he is on record as favoring a nuclear explanation, so for now my version is being called the SPADEX effect for superparamagnetic deuterium exchange... to be explained in following postings. To backup a bit, the H/D exchange reaction is similar to a form of phase-change, and is a preferential reordering of a loaded metal matrix, where the two hydrogen isotopes play musical chairs at a rather phenomenal rate. The H/D exchange reaction can be described in the usual one-way form as chemical and conservative; or in this interpretation as a sequential thermal anomaly which is continuously being reset via nanomagnetism and the zero point field. The H/D exchange reaction is surprisingly energetic but is chemical - non-nuclear. So the first question is how can magnetism change the preferential ordering of a metal matrix where D has already replaced H for net chemical gain? This would be necessary if the energetic effect is to be made sequential and cumulative over time- and not a one-way affair. The second question is where does the reset energy come from. When we look at the spin, magnetic moment and NMR properties of the two isotopes, H D - there is an enormous difference. Magnetic moment alone is triple for protons over deuterons and NMR frequency variation is even more lopsided. In short, the magnetic variation is so extreme between the two isotopes that the small preference for deuterium in the chemical exchange reaction is easily modulated (to the extent the near-field oscillates), which dynamic effect is felt more by protons than by deuterons. It can be noted that the B-field of samarium-cobalt can be .4 T at one micron, but at 10 nm spacing - the effect on protons could be significantly higher (if inverse square holds as expected). A magnetic Casimir force will provide that free oscillation in the context of a balance between superparamagnetism and superferromagnetism. In short, this may be the key to understanding the H/D exchange reaction as a sequential route to thermal gain in the Cravens NI-Week experiment. An actual self-powered experiment will be presented in the next post on this subject - which is open-source to the extent that anyone can order the parts and try it, thanks more to Dennis than to me. Only a self-powered experiment means anything these days, yet few design for it from the start, and AFAIK, it has not yet been achieved. Estimate of the out-of-picket cost is about one-large, as they say in Vegas or Joisey... and it is a crap-shot, but isn't all of life? Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
particles are waves. In order to place a particle in a confining volume, its wave form must fit into that volume in an integral number of complete wave cycles. In order for a wave to be viable, it must always complete its cycle. This wave nature of particles is the basis of quantum mechanics. With hydrinos, other electrons change the waveform of the orbiting electron through many body interactions and the orbit of that hydrino electron changes to be compatible with the change of that electron's waveform. A magnetic field can change the waveform of a particle and the associated change in its orbit and associated photon emissions is defined as the Zeeman effect. Many thing can effect the waveform of the electron and there are loads of effects including the fractional quantum Hall effect when the electron is confined in two dimensions. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, You ask an excellent question and I would also like to understand the answer. We assume that linear momentum does not have quantum values so that it can exist in smooth continuous states. Has this been proven? Perhaps someone can analyze the HUP and show how it is so. Also, your question leaves me wondering why the angular spin must be quantized instead of continuous. If I recall, some of the quantized states are a result of explaining the incremental energy levels that electrons find themselves exhibiting while orbiting nuclei. Perhaps this determination is based upon measurements instead of forced by firm laws of physics. This may be an example of empirical leading theoretical. After all, in classical macro systems the total angular momentum can be constructed by breaking the mass into tiny increments and summing their linear momentums. The differential elements on opposite sides of the material balance out in magnitude but are not operating along the same geometric lines. Each tiny component appears to have continuous values of linear momentum instead of quantized states. I suppose that spin might not translate into the same phenomena as true macro angular momentum. Perhaps someone can help with this issue. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 3:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization Dave-- I understand the frame of reference idea. However what is the mechanism that controls the fractionation of linear momentum among the particles. In angular momentum the intrinsic quantum controlled parameter of spin exists. The is no intrinsic quantity of linear momentum that is balanced in the kinetic energy of the particles. I have assumed that some unexplained couple between mass and gravity must control linear momentum on a continuous scale, scale rather than in quanta as angular momentum is controlled. This is the question I raise relative to the decay of radioactive entities. How is the momentum of the emitted particle(s) and the residual sometimes large particle determined within the small confines of the original decaying particle? I have often speculated it is mediated by the addition of a entity with significant momentum that results in a hot- like nuclear reaction with transfer of some momentum to the various fission fragments.The addition of magnetic fields allows the interaction of the incoming entity to interact more often, possibly by changing the 3-D structure with its interaction probability to a 2-D situation with higher probability of interaction. Bob Sent from Windows Mail *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *Sent:* Saturday, July 12, 2014 9:22 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, A careful choice of your reference frame can help resolve many of the linear momentum issues. I like to choose one that is located at a point where the net linear momentum of the particles is zero before the reaction. Under that condition it is relatively easy to follow the reactions since the final momentum must also remain zero and avoids nasty math errors. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 12, 2014 3:50 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization Dave-- I would assume in the hot fusion regime that significant linear momentum must be conserved in addition to the conservation of energy associated with kinetic energy of colliding particles. In cold fusion LENR there is know momentum other than angular momentum to conserve. Gammas and other linear momentum carrying particles are not needed and in fact not possible because of their of their necessary of carrying linear momentum. it is for this basic reason that I do not anticipate the existence of ganmas or any energetic particle to be associated with LENR. If any has a good physical explanation of the mechanism
Re: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding the title: 400 percent less light in universe than predicted This article and the title are not well written. The title should read that there are missing light *sources* not XUV light. That is, the is more light produced than there are light sources. [Snip] “It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs,” [EndSnip] There are less 40-watt light bulbs than would be expected for the amount of XUV light produced. These bulbs are light sources. There is too much light than the light sources can produce. Oh, my mistake, so the subject header should say 400 percent more light in universe than predicted Harry On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: CU-Boulder instrument onboard Hubble reveals the universe is ‘missing’ light http://tinyurl.com/qzs4rjo July 9, 2014 • Something is amiss in the universe. There appears to be an enormous deficit of ultraviolet light in the cosmic budget. Observations made by the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, a $70 million instrument designed by the University of Colorado Boulder and installed on the Hubble Space Telescope, have revealed that the universe is “missing” a large amount of light. “It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs,” said the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Juna Kollmeier, lead author of a new study on the missing light published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. “Where is all that light coming from? It’s missing from our census.” The research team—which includes Benjamin Oppenheimer and Charles Danforth of CU-Boulder’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy—analyzed the tendrils of hydrogen that bridge the vast reaches of empty space between galaxies. When hydrogen atoms are struck by highly energetic ultraviolet light, they are transformed from electrically neutral atoms to charged ions. The astronomers were surprised when they found far more hydrogen ions than could be explained with the known ultraviolet light in the universe, which comes primarily from quasars. The difference is a stunning 400 percent. Strangely, this mismatch only appears in the nearby, relatively well-studied cosmos. When telescopes focus on galaxies billions of light years away—which shows astronomers what was happening when the universe was young—everything seems to add up. The fact that the accounting of light needed to ionize hydrogen works in the early universe but falls apart locally has scientists puzzled. The mismatch emerged from comparing supercomputer simulations of intergalactic gas to the most recent analysis of observations from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. “The simulations fit the data beautifully in the early universe, and they fit the local data beautifully if we’re allowed to assume that this extra light is really there,” said CU-Boulder’s Oppenheimer. “It’s possible the simulations do not reflect reality, which by itself would be a surprise, because intergalactic hydrogen is the component of the universe that we think we understand the best.” The type of light that is energetic enough to turn neutral hydrogen into hydrogen ions is called “ionizing photons” and is known to come from only two sources in the universe: quasars, which are powered by hot gas falling onto supermassive black holes over a million times the mass of the sun, and the hottest young stars. Observations indicate that the ionizing photons from young stars are almost always absorbed by gas in their host galaxy, so they never escape to affect intergalactic hydrogen. But the number of known quasars is far lower than needed to produce the amount of light necessary to create the quantity of hydrogen ions measured by the research team. “If we count up the known sources of ultraviolet ionizing photons, we come up five times too short,” Oppenheimer said. “We are missing 80 percent of the ionizing photons, and the question is where are they coming from? The most fascinating possibility is that an exotic new source, not quasars or galaxies, is responsible for the missing photons.” For example, the mysterious dark matter, which holds galaxies together but has never been seen directly, could itself decay and ultimately be responsible for this extra light. “The great thing about a 400 percent discrepancy is that you know something is really wrong,” said co-author David Weinberg of Ohio State University. “We still don't know for sure what it is, but at least one thing we thought we knew about the present day universe isn’t true.” Other co-authors on the study are Francesco Haardt of the Università dell’Insubria, Romeel Davé of the University of the Western Cape, Mark Fardal of University of Massachusetts Amherst, Piero Madau of the University of California, Santa Cruz,
Re: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted
Rest easy Harry The article itself is confused. Whoever wrote the article had its premise backward. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 10:27 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding the title: 400 percent less light in universe than predicted This article and the title are not well written. The title should read that there are missing light *sources* not XUV light. That is, the is more light produced than there are light sources. [Snip] “It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs,” [EndSnip] There are less 40-watt light bulbs than would be expected for the amount of XUV light produced. These bulbs are light sources. There is too much light than the light sources can produce. Oh, my mistake, so the subject header should say 400 percent more light in universe than predicted Harry On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: CU-Boulder instrument onboard Hubble reveals the universe is ‘missing’ light http://tinyurl.com/qzs4rjo July 9, 2014 • Something is amiss in the universe. There appears to be an enormous deficit of ultraviolet light in the cosmic budget. Observations made by the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, a $70 million instrument designed by the University of Colorado Boulder and installed on the Hubble Space Telescope, have revealed that the universe is “missing” a large amount of light. “It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs,” said the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Juna Kollmeier, lead author of a new study on the missing light published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. “Where is all that light coming from? It’s missing from our census.” The research team—which includes Benjamin Oppenheimer and Charles Danforth of CU-Boulder’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy—analyzed the tendrils of hydrogen that bridge the vast reaches of empty space between galaxies. When hydrogen atoms are struck by highly energetic ultraviolet light, they are transformed from electrically neutral atoms to charged ions. The astronomers were surprised when they found far more hydrogen ions than could be explained with the known ultraviolet light in the universe, which comes primarily from quasars. The difference is a stunning 400 percent. Strangely, this mismatch only appears in the nearby, relatively well-studied cosmos. When telescopes focus on galaxies billions of light years away—which shows astronomers what was happening when the universe was young—everything seems to add up. The fact that the accounting of light needed to ionize hydrogen works in the early universe but falls apart locally has scientists puzzled. The mismatch emerged from comparing supercomputer simulations of intergalactic gas to the most recent analysis of observations from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. “The simulations fit the data beautifully in the early universe, and they fit the local data beautifully if we’re allowed to assume that this extra light is really there,” said CU-Boulder’s Oppenheimer. “It’s possible the simulations do not reflect reality, which by itself would be a surprise, because intergalactic hydrogen is the component of the universe that we think we understand the best.” The type of light that is energetic enough to turn neutral hydrogen into hydrogen ions is called “ionizing photons” and is known to come from only two sources in the universe: quasars, which are powered by hot gas falling onto supermassive black holes over a million times the mass of the sun, and the hottest young stars. Observations indicate that the ionizing photons from young stars are almost always absorbed by gas in their host galaxy, so they never escape to affect intergalactic hydrogen. But the number of known quasars is far lower than needed to produce the amount of light necessary to create the quantity of hydrogen ions measured by the research team. “If we count up the known sources of ultraviolet ionizing photons, we come up five times too short,” Oppenheimer said. “We are missing 80 percent of the ionizing photons, and the question is where are they coming from? The most fascinating possibility is that an exotic new source, not quasars or galaxies, is responsible for the missing photons.” For example, the mysterious dark matter, which holds galaxies together but has never been seen directly, could itself decay and ultimately be responsible for this extra light. “The great thing about a 400 percent discrepancy is that you know something is really wrong,” said co-author David Weinberg of Ohio State University. “We still don't know for sure what it is, but at least one thing we thought we knew about the present day universe isn’t true.” Other co-authors on the study are Francesco Haardt of the
Re: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 12 Jul 2014 19:21:07 -0400: Hi, They're obviously seeing XUV from Hydrino production in free space. ;) (If the dark matter is Hydrinos's as Mills claims, then disproportionation reactions should produce XUV.) On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: CU-Boulder instrument onboard Hubble reveals the universe is missing light http://tinyurl.com/qzs4rjo July 9, 2014 Something is amiss in the universe. There appears to be an enormous deficit of ultraviolet light in the cosmic budget. Observations made by the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, a $70 million instrument designed by the University of Colorado Boulder and installed on the Hubble Space Telescope, have revealed that the universe is missing a large amount of light. Its as if youre in a big, brightly lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs, said the Carnegie Institution for Sciences Juna Kollmeier, lead author of a new study on the missing light published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. Where is all that light coming from? Its missing from our census. The research teamwhich includes Benjamin Oppenheimer and Charles Danforth of CU-Boulders Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomyanalyzed the tendrils of hydrogen that bridge the vast reaches of empty space between galaxies. When hydrogen atoms are struck by highly energetic ultraviolet light, they are transformed from electrically neutral atoms to charged ions. The astronomers were surprised when they found far more hydrogen ions than could be explained with the known ultraviolet light in the universe, which comes primarily from quasars. The difference is a stunning 400 percent. Strangely, this mismatch only appears in the nearby, relatively well-studied cosmos. When telescopes focus on galaxies billions of light years awaywhich shows astronomers what was happening when the universe was youngeverything seems to add up. The fact that the accounting of light needed to ionize hydrogen works in the early universe but falls apart locally has scientists puzzled. The mismatch emerged from comparing supercomputer simulations of intergalactic gas to the most recent analysis of observations from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. The simulations fit the data beautifully in the early universe, and they fit the local data beautifully if were allowed to assume that this extra light is really there, said CU-Boulders Oppenheimer. Its possible the simulations do not reflect reality, which by itself would be a surprise, because intergalactic hydrogen is the component of the universe that we think we understand the best. The type of light that is energetic enough to turn neutral hydrogen into hydrogen ions is called ionizing photons and is known to come from only two sources in the universe: quasars, which are powered by hot gas falling onto supermassive black holes over a million times the mass of the sun, and the hottest young stars. Observations indicate that the ionizing photons from young stars are almost always absorbed by gas in their host galaxy, so they never escape to affect intergalactic hydrogen. But the number of known quasars is far lower than needed to produce the amount of light necessary to create the quantity of hydrogen ions measured by the research team. If we count up the known sources of ultraviolet ionizing photons, we come up five times too short, Oppenheimer said. We are missing 80 percent of the ionizing photons, and the question is where are they coming from? The most fascinating possibility is that an exotic new source, not quasars or galaxies, is responsible for the missing photons. For example, the mysterious dark matter, which holds galaxies together but has never been seen directly, could itself decay and ultimately be responsible for this extra light. The great thing about a 400 percent discrepancy is that you know something is really wrong, said co-author David Weinberg of Ohio State University. We still don't know for sure what it is, but at least one thing we thought we knew about the present day universe isnt true. Other co-authors on the study are Francesco Haardt of the Università dellInsubria, Romeel Davé of the University of the Western Cape, Mark Fardal of University of Massachusetts Amherst, Piero Madau of the University of California, Santa Cruz, Amanda Ford of the University of Arizona, Molly Peeples of the Space Telescope Science Institute, and Joseph McEwen of Ohio State University. The study was funded in part by NASA, the National Science Foundation and the Ahmanson Foundation. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted
And is it more light, or more ionization that can be understood by the apparent light and light sources? On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rest easy Harry The article itself is confused. Whoever wrote the article had its premise backward. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 10:27 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding the title: 400 percent less light in universe than predicted This article and the title are not well written. The title should read that there are missing light *sources* not XUV light. That is, the is more light produced than there are light sources. [Snip] “It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs,” [EndSnip] There are less 40-watt light bulbs than would be expected for the amount of XUV light produced. These bulbs are light sources. There is too much light than the light sources can produce. Oh, my mistake, so the subject header should say 400 percent more light in universe than predicted Harry On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: CU-Boulder instrument onboard Hubble reveals the universe is ‘missing’ light http://tinyurl.com/qzs4rjo July 9, 2014 • Something is amiss in the universe. There appears to be an enormous deficit of ultraviolet light in the cosmic budget. Observations made by the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, a $70 million instrument designed by the University of Colorado Boulder and installed on the Hubble Space Telescope, have revealed that the universe is “missing” a large amount of light. “It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs,” said the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Juna Kollmeier, lead author of a new study on the missing light published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. “Where is all that light coming from? It’s missing from our census.” The research team—which includes Benjamin Oppenheimer and Charles Danforth of CU-Boulder’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy—analyzed the tendrils of hydrogen that bridge the vast reaches of empty space between galaxies. When hydrogen atoms are struck by highly energetic ultraviolet light, they are transformed from electrically neutral atoms to charged ions. The astronomers were surprised when they found far more hydrogen ions than could be explained with the known ultraviolet light in the universe, which comes primarily from quasars. The difference is a stunning 400 percent. Strangely, this mismatch only appears in the nearby, relatively well-studied cosmos. When telescopes focus on galaxies billions of light years away—which shows astronomers what was happening when the universe was young—everything seems to add up. The fact that the accounting of light needed to ionize hydrogen works in the early universe but falls apart locally has scientists puzzled. The mismatch emerged from comparing supercomputer simulations of intergalactic gas to the most recent analysis of observations from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. “The simulations fit the data beautifully in the early universe, and they fit the local data beautifully if we’re allowed to assume that this extra light is really there,” said CU-Boulder’s Oppenheimer. “It’s possible the simulations do not reflect reality, which by itself would be a surprise, because intergalactic hydrogen is the component of the universe that we think we understand the best.” The type of light that is energetic enough to turn neutral hydrogen into hydrogen ions is called “ionizing photons” and is known to come from only two sources in the universe: quasars, which are powered by hot gas falling onto supermassive black holes over a million times the mass of the sun, and the hottest young stars. Observations indicate that the ionizing photons from young stars are almost always absorbed by gas in their host galaxy, so they never escape to affect intergalactic hydrogen. But the number of known quasars is far lower than needed to produce the amount of light necessary to create the quantity of hydrogen ions measured by the research team. “If we count up the known sources of ultraviolet ionizing photons, we come up five times too short,” Oppenheimer said. “We are missing 80 percent of the ionizing photons, and the question is where are they coming from? The most fascinating possibility is that an exotic new source, not quasars or galaxies, is responsible for the missing photons.” For example, the mysterious dark matter, which holds galaxies together but has never been seen directly, could itself decay and ultimately be responsible for this extra light. “The great thing about a 400 percent discrepancy is that you know something is really wrong,” said co-author David Weinberg of Ohio State University. “We still
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 10 Jul 2014 01:21:52 -0400: Hi, [snip] 2) Is there any hydride of another metal present (e.g. Lanthanum)? Yes Do we know how much H2 was stored in the Hydride? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:400 percent less light in universe than predicted
What Mills has not done is show how hydrinos can form a galaxy sized soliton that is produced by a Bose Einstein condensate (BEC) hundreds or thousands of light years across. This dark matter behavior has been observed in the collision of galaxies. This BEC cannot be one of those wimpy low temperature near zero kelvin BECs since the dark matter mechanism must be energetic enough to also produce XUV; 400% more than expected. So dark matter must be polaritons http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.3827.pdf BEC dark matter can explain collisions of galaxy clusters snip we have reinterpreted cold dark matter as a Bose-Einstein condensate. So, the ultra-light bosons forming the condensate share the same quantum wave function, so disturbance patterns are formed on astronomic scales in the form of large-scale waves. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-reinterpreting-dark.html#jCp End snip Why invent a new particle when polaritons can fit all the requirements of dark matter. One thing that this idea will imply is that light gains mass when it becomes entangled with electrons. Light and electrons could be entangled on a cosmological large scale to form a polariton BEC soliton much as they do in LENR. Polaritons are supposed to be almost massless forming bosons, but are they? The charge of the polaritons could be delocalized to make polariton dark matter non interacting. In NiH reactor will be a great test bed to explore the polariton BEC in understanding dark matter cosmology more deeply. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:29 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 12 Jul 2014 19:21:07 -0400: Hi, They're obviously seeing XUV from Hydrino production in free space. ;) (If the dark matter is Hydrinos's as Mills claims, then disproportionation reactions should produce XUV.) On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: CU-Boulder instrument onboard Hubble reveals the universe is ‘missing’ light http://tinyurl.com/qzs4rjo July 9, 2014 • Something is amiss in the universe. There appears to be an enormous deficit of ultraviolet light in the cosmic budget. Observations made by the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, a $70 million instrument designed by the University of Colorado Boulder and installed on the Hubble Space Telescope, have revealed that the universe is “missing” a large amount of light. “It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs,” said the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Juna Kollmeier, lead author of a new study on the missing light published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. “Where is all that light coming from? It’s missing from our census.” The research team—which includes Benjamin Oppenheimer and Charles Danforth of CU-Boulder’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy—analyzed the tendrils of hydrogen that bridge the vast reaches of empty space between galaxies. When hydrogen atoms are struck by highly energetic ultraviolet light, they are transformed from electrically neutral atoms to charged ions. The astronomers were surprised when they found far more hydrogen ions than could be explained with the known ultraviolet light in the universe, which comes primarily from quasars. The difference is a stunning 400 percent. Strangely, this mismatch only appears in the nearby, relatively well-studied cosmos. When telescopes focus on galaxies billions of light years away—which shows astronomers what was happening when the universe was young—everything seems to add up. The fact that the accounting of light needed to ionize hydrogen works in the early universe but falls apart locally has scientists puzzled. The mismatch emerged from comparing supercomputer simulations of intergalactic gas to the most recent analysis of observations from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. “The simulations fit the data beautifully in the early universe, and they fit the local data beautifully if we’re allowed to assume that this extra light is really there,” said CU-Boulder’s Oppenheimer. “It’s possible the simulations do not reflect reality, which by itself would be a surprise, because intergalactic hydrogen is the component of the universe that we think we understand the best.” The type of light that is energetic enough to turn neutral hydrogen into hydrogen ions is called “ionizing photons” and is known to come from only two sources in the universe: quasars, which are powered by hot gas falling onto supermassive black holes over a million times the mass of the sun, and the hottest young stars. Observations indicate that the ionizing photons from young stars are almost always absorbed by gas in their host galaxy, so they never escape to affect intergalactic hydrogen. But the number of known quasars is far lower than needed to produce the amount of light necessary to
Re: [Vo]:hydrinos can't do it.
We don't know what the hydride is. The amount does not matter or the hydrogen density. The important characteristic of the hydride is the desorption/absorption behavior vis-à-*vis* the required temperature/pressure profile. On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 10 Jul 2014 01:21:52 -0400: Hi, [snip] 2) Is there any hydride of another metal present (e.g. Lanthanum)? Yes Do we know how much H2 was stored in the Hydride? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
