Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
*That means interactions with other parts of the nucleus are possible, but not with other atoms* I took this to mean that cluster fusion could not happen because of the speed of light. My point, quantum mechanics allows cluster fusion to occur regardless of the speed of light. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 4:45 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 13 Sep 2014 01:29:48 -0400: Hi, [snip] Fusion is a two step process. The first step is the tunneling of the one or more He2 nuclei into the as yet to be realized resultant nucleus. This process may occur as a superposition of many separate nuclear events where multiple nuclei tunnel into the resultant nucleus and yet still be at a distance from that the future resultant nucleus. Many individual protons can be at many different places at the same point in time The instant of fusion is the de-entanglement of the these multiple incoming subordinate nuclei. This is the time of energy transfer of the binding energy over the EMF strong coupling. The time that the EMF strong coupling must remain in place begins when the first nuclei of all the tunneling of the multiple nuclei begins until the transfer of the liberated binding energy marks the de-entanglement(energy transfer) of the reaction via the EMF strong coupling. The point I was trying to make is that the actual nuclear reaction will only liberate energy once it happens. How long it took to get to that point is irrelevant. This energy release will create a disturbance in the field. That disturbance will travel outward at the speed of light. The first things to be affected by it will be local particles within the nucleus, and if the disruptive force is large enough, then one of more of these will be ejected long before the disruptive force has time to reach another atom. IOW superposition is irrelevant. Nature itself proves this al the time. Just look at real reactions that actually do occur. Superposition is how tunneling works. In other words, superposition of all the participating nuclei can buy enough time for the cluster fusion to occur. This superposition can exist for a very long time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition for a video see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E3QT-QU0bw On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:00 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 12 Sep 2014 20:33:47 -0400: Hi, If the reaction energy of 6 MeV is mostly transferred to the lattice (soliton) via EMF strong coupling, the second proton of the He2 pair can drift out of the reaction zone with a energy of just a few KeV. With strong EMF coupling, an expelled particle need not be the primary carrier of the binding energy excess. [snip] Consider distance. An EMF coupling is bound to the speed of light, and if the reaction happens in a time frame on the order of 1E-22 seconds, then the distance over which such an interaction could occur is limited to c*1E-22*sec = 16 fm. That means interactions with other parts of the nucleus are possible, but not with other atoms. This is why most nuclear reactions involve ejection of particles. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion X Prize
I wish this would have happened in time for me to win the FQXI Essay contest. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: *Thinking Big Is The Easy Part: My Weekend Dreaming Up The Next XPrize* http://www.fastcoexist.com/3030775/thinking-big-is-the-easy-part-my-weekend-dreaming-up-the-next- xprize On E-Cat World there is a post about the Forbidden Energy XPrize that was discussed sometime back: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/13/xprize-offers-20-million-for-forbidden-energy/ A video of the pitch to the audience at the Visioneering conference is included. The prize will pay 20 million to the winner if the conditions are met. I find it encouraging that this prize was put together. It suggests to me that there is some receptivity to cold fusion in the larger public beyond the people who follow the usual sites and lists. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
I just wonder whether they took into account that Tungsten at 2000K and 1 Torr likely absorbs Hydrogen. Absorption of Hydrogen into metal lattices is an exothermic mechanism. Nothing mentioned in their report. On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting how similar the description is to the Casimir effect.
Re: [Vo]:predictive analysis of the coming Rossi- independent Report
You take seriously the Gamberale and dismiss the demo. Backflow- at minimal flow values can cause some errors . OK how great t these errors can be at normal flow values? OK, look to the important things: 1- the spark plugs begin to work thr reaction is reiggered, in short time out put jumps from 2kW to 7 or 5kw, fast and natural- how can you fake this with to valves and one flowmeter- see how consistently the values of heat are evoluting? 2- test of July 23, Mats blows the current deep degassing ia incomplere and the values of heat ar 40% lower than the previous day. Can we fake it? 3- if you do not understand the role and importance f deep degassinh, and after a H test, without proper standardized degassing yiou will obtain a false positive and you will say jubilating- with Argon the system also works! Peter On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Yes, you are correct Jed. Although, it is still a silly attitude as the ability to reach the goal is diminished - 25 years and counting. The other side of it is that it is my experience that patents are worth very little if you do not have deep pockets to defend it with. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Then envy and greed makes for salty and sometimes downright insulting comments. I think it is a pity. As a group we could accomplish a lot. Share and you will receive. That is what patents are for. With a patent you share and yet your greed is satisfied. You can have your cake and eat it too. That is why the inability to get patents is causing secrecy. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion X Prize
All I see is self-indulgent hype and pampered rich people (not that there’s anything wrong with that when they are giving away something). Where are the entry rules ? Why could Dennis Craven’s not enter and possibly win it with a new version of the NI-Week demo? From: Kevin O'Malley I wish this would have happened in time for me to win the FQXI Essay contest. Eric Walker wrote: Thinking Big Is The Easy Part: My Weekend Dreaming Up The Next XPrize http://www.fastcoexist.com/3030775/thinking-big-is-the-easy-part-my-weekend-dreaming-up-the-next-xprize On E-Cat World there is a post about the Forbidden Energy XPrize that was discussed sometime back: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/13/xprize-offers-20-million-for-forbidden-energy/ A video of the pitch to the audience at the Visioneering conference is included. The prize will pay 20 million to the winner if the conditions are met. I find it encouraging that this prize was put together. It suggests to me that there is some receptivity to cold fusion in the larger public beyond the people who follow the usual sites and lists. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion X Prize
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Why could Dennis Craven’s not enter and possibly win it with a new version of the NI-Week demo? That would be sweet! He sure would deserve to win. I loved that demo. I even get the impression that I am more impressed by it than Cravens himself. That makes me a little nervous. Maybe he knows something ba-a-a-d about it that I don't know? With most other demos I have been less impressed than the person doing the demo. (I did not see the demo in person. I am going by the write-up in Infinite Energy, which was impressive in its own right, as a paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDcoldfusiona.pdf) - Jed
[Vo]:about a book
Dear Friends, I keep my promises- this is the 7th LENR miniature written this end-of-vacation week. It is about a book you will be able to read most probably in July next year: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/09/why-i-must-write-book-about-uehmdi.html Please overwhelm me with advises. Thank you Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
If equilibrium conditions were met shouldn't the contribution of heat from adsorption vanish? Harry On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: I just wonder whether they took into account that Tungsten at 2000K and 1 Torr likely absorbs Hydrogen. Absorption of Hydrogen into metal lattices is an exothermic mechanism. Nothing mentioned in their report. On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting how similar the description is to the Casimir effect.
RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion X Prize
From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: Why could Dennis Craven’s not enter and possibly win it with a new version of the NI-Week demo? * That would be sweet! He sure would deserve to win. * I loved that demo. I even get the impression that I am more impressed by it than Cravens himself. That makes me a little nervous. Maybe he knows something ba-a-a-d about it that I don't know? With most other demos I have been less impressed than the person doing the demo. I can see your point, but my impression is not that he is unimpressed, but that he realizes the similarity to Arata, which also was understated – and the similarity to Les Case and the Arata replications, and moreover - that he has also improved it, possibly substantially - and finally… (but most importantly)… that he is not the same kind of self-promoter as are many inventors in LENR. As to the range of improvements, I am going by Bob Higgins’ visit, where it appears that one reported improvement was going from D2 to a mix of D2 and H2. That detail could be important for understanding the basis for the thermal gain. It make the mechanism more likely to be “non-fusion” (i.e. the fusion cross-section for D+D exceeds D+H). Quite possibly, there are additional improvements besides the gas mix. And finally – it is likely that Dennis is way ahead of us all on this, and that he has been waiting calmly for the X Prize to become formalized, and has an even better demo to present than the one in Austin! He is in a very good position to reap the rewards, and I hope he wins it, but we can only hope that they have not made the “Rules” for the X-prize so onerous that it is difficult for LENR to qualify. Obviously, if they made the requirement to be a minimum of say - 100 watts – then that could eliminate this type of demo. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
If epicatalysis systems exist which can produce a higher temperature from just ambient temperature without any additional input power then COP in terms of heat output is infinity which is meaningless. By analogy applying the COP measure to a naturally occurring waterfall gives infinity...except with epicatalysis the water is falling up instead of down. harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I do not have a problem with low apparent COP at this early stage. BTW – we should step back and relook at the Cravens NI-Week demo in the context of Epicatalysis, and as an example of something similar but more robust than Sheehan. Cravens was getting much higher COP, at modest temps. There is no apparent reason to drop all the way back to ambient. The gain could be due to hydrogen bond asymmetry only – meaning that there is an asymmetry in hydrogen catalysis using some metal combinations which is actually gainful. That would be in the sense of allowing the chemical bond to be split with slightly less energy than it gives up on re-bonding. This could define Craven’s system as well, no? *From:* H Veeder The COP measure by itself is inadequate for evaluating the productivity of such systems. Carnot efficiency (which will exceed 100%) should be included in the measure somehow. harry
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion X Prize
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: With most other demos I have been less impressed than the person doing the demo. I can see your point, but my impression is not that he is unimpressed, but that he realizes the similarity to Arata, which also was understated . . . Arata's demonstration calorimetry was bad. Awful, really. As Ed and I pointed out: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf Arata was upset with us. Upset to say the least. He has quite a temper. – and the similarity to Les Case and the Arata replications . . . Do you mean Cravens' replications? I do not recall that he replicated Arata. McKubre did. Are you saying his demo was too similar to their experiments to stand on it own merits? I disagree, if that is what you mean. It was different enough. , and moreover - that he has also improved it, possibly substantially If it is improved, that is all the more reason to do the demo again, and to enter the contest. - and finally… (but most importantly)… that he is not the same kind of self-promoter as are many inventors in LENR. Well, when you do a demo, you are promoting yourself. So you do the best you can, and you stand by the results. He honestly does not think the demo is as impressive as I do. That is a matter of opinion. I guess it could be modesty, but we have specific technical reasons on both sides. It is a mild disagreement. Obviously, if they made the requirement to be a minimum of say - 100 watts – then that could eliminate this type of demo. Yup. It would resemble the demonstration the British astronomers set for chronometers. See the book Longitude for details. Around 1780 the astronomers launched the biggest, most expensive science project in history to compile lunar tables for navigation. Along came Harrison with a chronometer suitable for use on a ship, version 1, 2 and 3. The government set up a reward for a working chronometer, similar to the X-prize, but it put the astronomers in charge. They were determined to prevent the use of a rival technology, since they had this make-work Tokamak-like project underway. All three of Harrison's devices were tested in transatlantic voyages, in tests dictated by the astronomers. All three passed with flying colors. They were easier to use than lunar tables. So the astronomers kept moving the goal posts and making the tests harder and harder. Finally, Harrison and the others gave up. By that time they were selling directly to ship captains, so the contest was moot. The lunar table project continued until 1911, as I recall. (With the lunar method, you use the moon as a clock to know the time at the prime meridian. With a chronometer, you leave the chronometer set to Greenwich time. You would adjust the chronometer when you reached a port at a known location. The local astronomer would fire off a cannon or ring a bell at midday for the navigators aboard ships in port.) - Jed
[Vo]:NY Times: Sun and Wind Alter Global Landscape, Leaving Utilities Behind
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/science/earth/sun-and-wind-alter-german-landscape-leaving-utilities-behind.html Some quotes: HELIGOLAND, Germany — Of all the developed nations, few have pushed harder than Germany to find a solution to global warming. And towering symbols of that drive are appearing in the middle of the North Sea. They are wind turbines, standing as far as 60 miles from the mainland, stretching as high as 60-story buildings and costing up to $30 million apiece. . . . Germans will soon be getting 30 percent of their power from renewable energy sources. Many smaller countries are beating that, but Germany is by far the largest industrial power to reach that level in the modern era. It is more than twice the percentage in the United States. . . . Electric utility executives all over the world are watching nervously as technologies they once dismissed as irrelevant begin to threaten their long-established business plans. Fights are erupting across the United States over the future rules for renewable power. Many poor countries, once intent on building coal-fired power plants to bring electricity to their people, are discussing whether they might leapfrog the fossil age and build clean grids from the outset. A reckoning is at hand, and nowhere is that clearer than in Germany. Even as the country sets records nearly every month for renewable power production, the changes have devastated its utility companies, whose profits from power generation have collapsed. . . .
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Wow. Can’t keep the two threads separated… $20 million to the winner ? Nice incentive. It might be fun to merge this thread into the X-Prize thread, with the aim of framing a system which would look a little like Sheehan’s and a little like Cravens’, with Arata and Ahern thrown in for good measure. We can call it the vorteX entry. Unlike any of the above devices, we would strive to supersize it from the beginning – with the expectation that a minimum size will become part of the Rules. If we are talking about a gain of a watt per 10 grams – this means that kilogram levels of two active metals are needed. (guessing that there will be a minimum level requirement of at least 100 watts). Sheehan chose tungsten and rhenium. Re sits just to the left of palladium in the Periodic Table. The Arata-type of powder (supported by zirconia) could be a significant improvement for one or both of the two competing surfaces, due to surface chemistry - but is there an intrinsic advantage to W and Re? Did Sheehan try other hydrogen active elements? He says this is open source, so perhaps this is known. If one is going to start with a system which uses perhaps several kg of active competing metals, then one would prefer far lower cost than rhenium, which is among the most expensive of metals- approximately $5000 per kg. This assumes that Re is not specifically required. Tungsten is affordable, and actually scavengable (light bulb filaments). I have a mental image of a stack of filter plates imbedded with nanopowder – alternating layers of the competing metals and with only one torr of hydrogen which recirculates to give up the excess heat, looking somewhat like this. http://img.directindustry.com/images_di/photo-g/fuel-cell-stacks-119739-5501391.jpg From: H Veeder If epicatalysis systems exist which can produce a higher temperature from just ambient temperature without any additional input power then COP in terms of heat output is infinity which is meaningless. By analogy applying the COP measure to a naturally occurring waterfall gives infinity...except with epicatalysis the water is falling up instead of down. JB – we should step back and relook at the Cravens NI-Week demo in the context of Epicatalysis, and as an example of something similar but more robust than Sheehan. Cravens was getting much higher COP, at modest temps. There is no apparent reason to drop all the way back to ambient…. The gain could be due to hydrogen bond asymmetry only – meaning that there is an asymmetry in hydrogen catalysis using some metal combinations which is actually gainful. That would be in the sense of allowing the chemical bond to be split with slightly less energy than it gives up on re-bonding. This could define Craven’s system as well, no?
Re: [Vo]:NY Times: Sun and Wind Alter Global Landscape, Leaving Utilities Behind
In our fusion legislation, endorsed by Bussard, there was provision, Sec. 903.a.6 to support fusion researchers for 5 years at their current levels of compensation, with no obligation on their part. If the stakes are high enough you can easily afford that kind of disruption of rent seekers. On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/science/earth/sun-and-wind-alter-german-landscape-leaving-utilities-behind.html Some quotes: HELIGOLAND, Germany — Of all the developed nations, few have pushed harder than Germany to find a solution to global warming. And towering symbols of that drive are appearing in the middle of the North Sea. They are wind turbines, standing as far as 60 miles from the mainland, stretching as high as 60-story buildings and costing up to $30 million apiece. . . . Germans will soon be getting 30 percent of their power from renewable energy sources. Many smaller countries are beating that, but Germany is by far the largest industrial power to reach that level in the modern era. It is more than twice the percentage in the United States. . . . Electric utility executives all over the world are watching nervously as technologies they once dismissed as irrelevant begin to threaten their long-established business plans. Fights are erupting across the United States over the future rules for renewable power. Many poor countries, once intent on building coal-fired power plants to bring electricity to their people, are discussing whether they might leapfrog the fossil age and build clean grids from the outset. A reckoning is at hand, and nowhere is that clearer than in Germany. Even as the country sets records nearly every month for renewable power production, the changes have devastated its utility companies, whose profits from power generation have collapsed. . . .
Re: [Vo]:NY Times: Sun and Wind Alter Global Landscape, Leaving Utilities Behind
http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter/legislation4.jpg On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 1:00 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: In our fusion legislation, endorsed by Bussard, there was provision, Sec. 903.a.6 to support fusion researchers for 5 years at their current levels of compensation, with no obligation on their part. If the stakes are high enough you can easily afford that kind of disruption of rent seekers. On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/science/earth/sun-and-wind-alter-german-landscape-leaving-utilities-behind.html Some quotes: HELIGOLAND, Germany — Of all the developed nations, few have pushed harder than Germany to find a solution to global warming. And towering symbols of that drive are appearing in the middle of the North Sea. They are wind turbines, standing as far as 60 miles from the mainland, stretching as high as 60-story buildings and costing up to $30 million apiece. . . . Germans will soon be getting 30 percent of their power from renewable energy sources. Many smaller countries are beating that, but Germany is by far the largest industrial power to reach that level in the modern era. It is more than twice the percentage in the United States. . . . Electric utility executives all over the world are watching nervously as technologies they once dismissed as irrelevant begin to threaten their long-established business plans. Fights are erupting across the United States over the future rules for renewable power. Many poor countries, once intent on building coal-fired power plants to bring electricity to their people, are discussing whether they might leapfrog the fossil age and build clean grids from the outset. A reckoning is at hand, and nowhere is that clearer than in Germany. Even as the country sets records nearly every month for renewable power production, the changes have devastated its utility companies, whose profits from power generation have collapsed. . . .
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
This is a theory paper that is available on their website which isn't linked to on MFMP website : Epicatalysis: Nonequilibrium Heterogeneous Catalysis in the Long Mean Free Path Regime http://jointheparadigm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/EpicatalPRE.pdf quote It is curious that epicatalysis was not identi ed long ago, given that heterogeneous catalysis has been studied and used extensively for more than a century. There might be several reasons for this. First, most chemists and physicists are trained to think in terms of thermodynamic equilibrium, so it is foreign to suppose that closed, isothermal blackbody cavities could harbor nonequilibrium stationary states. Furthermore, thermodynamic arguments are usually framed in the thermodynamic limit, that is, to treat systems as spatially in nite, in the longtime limit, free of boundary e ects. These assumptions fail here. Epicatalysis depends on strong gas-surface interactions (Criterion 1) as well as on nite system size and an inert gas phase (Criterion 2), thereby confounding common thermodynamic expectations. Finally, in practice most commercial catalysis is carried out in large vessels at high pressures such that the 1 criterion for epicatalysis is not satis ed. The Haber-Bosch process, for instance, is typically conducted at 150-400 atmospheres in vessels meters in size, thus operates at 10 9 (Fig. 3). As a result, epicatalysis was unlikely to have been discovered accidentally via industrial catalysts. There are, of course, commercial devices that seem to rely inadvertently on epicatalysis (e.g., hydrogen atom sources27). These, however, are niche markets whose research funding is usually inadequate for careful study of underlying physical chemistry so, again, it was unlikely to have been d iscovered. Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In the earlier Sheehan paper abstract, I was struck by the fact that this would be possible to achieve perpetual motion, if one could find an almost perfect mirror reflector of IR (gold works well to 1.5 microns). Does anyone have the full paper? Funny thing – they mention a Crookes radiometer with alternating blades of Rh and W – but was the spinner inside a mirrored sphere with a partial vacuum of hydrogen gas? The Rh would heat the W by conduction at the axis, and the vanes would spin because of the differential emission. The loss is manageable with a good reflector, and hydrogen bond asymmetry provides the gain - but since they did not mention it – apparently they did not get that far. Perpetual motion would be the result, but did they actually see it? *From:* David Roberson This result seems reasonable since a hot black body can emit IR radiation from its surface. This process is in effect changing internal thermal heat energy into radiation energy which can be harnessed to perform work. I have long pondered this apparent loophole. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Suppose epicatalysis can cycle between hydrogen and shrunken hydrogen instead of just between H2 and H. Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: YES! Thanks for posting this, Harry. Epicatalysis is a good name for a more general phenomenon which can replace the idea that LENR must involve fusion. This does not mean that there cannot be some forms of LENR which do involve fusion, but it opens the door for another branch of LENR which definitely does not. This alt/alt form of energy (alternative to an alternative) which we have called “suprachemical” at one point in time, may include Ni-H, and may even involve mass-to-energy conversions which are non-fusion (via spin coupling). However, there are no gammas in this form, and thus no need to invent a flimsy rationalization for why there are none. Epicatalysis is far easier to defend theoretically, despite CoE objections, and probably is limited in COP - but my prediction is that this will likely be the predominant vehicle for funding RD in the near future and “cold fusion” will fade from view at about the same rate. There are simply too many experiments which show COP near or slightly less than 2, with no indicia of fusion, for this to be a coincidence. *From:* H Veeder The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat. http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/ Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
From: H Veeder Suppose epicatalysis can cycle between hydrogen and shrunken hydrogen instead of just between H2 and H. That would be the logical progression to Mills’ view, especially if UV was present - except RM sez there is no shuttling, just a one-way, but strongly bonded shrunken state. If there is to be net gain from any kind of chemical asymmetry, it seems likely that a shuttling to f/H and then back again, rather than or in addition to atomic and molecular asymmetry, is likely – since the physical evidence for f/H is slim. In terms of the long mean free-path, many of Mills earlier experiments were run at vacuum. For Sheehan - the free path is not really all that long - about a micron and about 10^17 atoms/cc. Mills often uses a stronger vacuum which is less populated. Definitely, Sheehan should look for UV emission.
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Actually, my use of the term 'equilibrium' is probably technically incorrect in this situation since they say the systems they study are non-equilibrium stationary systems. What I mean is that if enough time passed then any heat associated with absorption would spread throughout the system and not be capable of maintaining a temperature difference. More recently they claim to be able to do it now at room temperature and produce a bigger temperature difference: http://jointheparadigm.com/epicatalysis-at-room-temperature-preliminary-results/ However their recently observed temperature difference of 0.1C is still small when compared to so called cold fusion systems. Harry On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:33 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If equilibrium conditions were met shouldn't the contribution of heat from adsorption vanish? Harry On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: I just wonder whether they took into account that Tungsten at 2000K and 1 Torr likely absorbs Hydrogen. Absorption of Hydrogen into metal lattices is an exothermic mechanism. Nothing mentioned in their report. On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting how similar the description is to the Casimir effect.
Re: [Vo]:transmitted radiation for potential reactions in an NiH system
I've had a chance to revisit the earlier model of photon transmission from the E-Cat through various media and incorporate some new features. Now decay half-lives and detector efficiency are factored in. Here is what I'm seeing for 1cm of nickel: Photons from a total of 7e+14 transitions per second, escaping through 1cm of Nickel: transitionchannel escaping_photons 6150ADb_detected_photons 0 58Ni(d,p)59Ni bremsstrahlung 7.64e-258 2.96e-260 1 58Ni(d,p)59Ni β-β+ annihilation 3.91e+01 1.52e-01 2 61Ni(d,p)62Ni bremsstrahlung 2.65e-110 1.03e-112 3 64Ni(d,p)65Ni bremsstrahlung 0.00e+00 0.00e+00 4 58Ni(p,ɣ)59Cu gamma 9.37e+10 3.64e+08 5 60Ni(p,ɣ)61Cu β-β+ annihilation 4.30e+06 1.67e+04 6 60Ni(p,ɣ)61Cu gamma 5.63e+10 2.19e+08 7 61Ni(p,α)58Co β- deexcitation gamma 9.16e+09 3.56e+07 8 61Ni(p,α)58Co β-β+ annihilation 1.08e+04 4.21e+01 9 61Ni(p,ɣ)62Cu gamma 3.97e+09 1.54e+07 10 62Ni(p,ɣ)63Cu gamma 3.03e+10 1.18e+08 11 64Ni(p,ɣ)65Cu gamma 4.35e+09 1.69e+07 12 d(p,ɣ)3He gamma 2.39e+07 9.27e+04 What is interesting for this particular model (photon transmission through 1cm of nickel) is that reaction channels (0)-(3), which are the deuteron capture reactions, are either not detected or barely detected (keep in mind there was a layer of lead shielding the E-Cat at one point). The model is crude and is probably doing some things very wrong. But as a back-of-the-envelope calculation, I tentatively conclude the following: - Nickel deuteron capture reactions can potentially go undetected, even when 10^14 events are occurring (on the order of the number of 10 MeV fusion reactions that would be needed to account for 700 W excess power). - A model that attempts to stop gammas in flight somehow is in for difficulties (as we already knew), for they will readily pass through almost any metal wall or shielding that we've heard about in connection with the E-Cat. Something is making the gammas go away. This may or may not mean that channels 4-12 are being suppressed; if they are not being suppressed, an explanation for the near-100 percent efficient fractionation of the energy will be needed. - Reaction channel (1) will be a headache to deal with if it is occurring. (This arises from a beta+ decay with a long half life.) The escaping_photons column provides the number of photons that pass through 1cm of nickel in 1 second. The 6150ADb_detected_photons are the number of photons that are picked up by a ~ 10cm diameter 6150AD-b scintillation detector held 20cm away from the reactor, as described in the Penon report [1, 2]. The code that was used to generate this and other models is available here: https://github.com/emwalker/lenrmc Other tables are here [3]. Bob (Higgins), I haven't yet incorporated the 2N reactions, but it would be nice to incorporate them somehow. Eric [1] http://pesn.com/2012/09/09/9602178_Rossi_Reports_Third-Party_Test_Results_from_Hot_Cat/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf [2] http://www.automess.de/Download/Prospekt_ADb_E.pdf [3] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzKtdce19-wyYUFNaS1vZktyYVU/edit?usp=sharing
