Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
Erric I agree with your comment. That is the reason we should look at the TPT carefully to see if it was designed to look inside any of the reactors Rossi supplied to monitor conditions. If not, I for one will be skeptical of conclusions regarding scientific conclusions. Bob Cook Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphoneEric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The ironic thing about the Rossi effect ... is that the radiation band which is apparently absent for Rossi is ultraviolet - UV and EUV. X-rays below ~ 10 keV will be stopped by a simple metal casing. EUV will be stopped by much less. I think we don't really know what the UV/EUV signature is for Rossi's device. Eric
Re: [Vo]:John Farrell SCP shuts down a discussion topic on Rossi LENR
I also got it sometime ago. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphoneTerry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I got it shortly after your original post. On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: BTY, I posted this thread back on Thursday. Oct 2. It did not reach my mailbox till Saturday, October 4, two days later. OTOH, I noticed it had been faithfully added to the Vortex-l Archive... in fact, within minutes after I sent it off. Can some Vorts tell me when they received the original post to this subject thread? Did you get it last Thursday, or are you just getting it now, on Saturday. I've noticed a random scattering other delayed vort posts from other participants as well. There seems to be no logical pattern I can discern. I'm curious to know if this is a problem with my mail server or is it a problem with the Eskimo servers. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:majorana-fermions
Post revised and extended... Andrea Rossi October 4th, 2014 at 8:45 PM To the Readers: On *Science* has been published the discovery of the “Majorana Fermion”, so called because it has been hypotised by Ettore Majorana ( fellow student of Enrico Fermi , when they were called “I ragazzi di via Panisperna”). This particle is extremely interesting because it is, at the same time, an elementary particle AND its own antiparticle. The discovery has been made in the Princeton University by the Group of Nadj- Perge. Warm regards, A.R. Is this interest in this discovery a hint that we should watch closely developments in this area of science? I never before noticed that Rossi mentioned foreign publications not related to his JoNP or any interest in a new scientific discovery. When we get down to it, what is a particle anyway? Are these majorana-fermions actually solitons? Could this particle be a topological knot in a EMF vacuum based spin liquid? How would we distinguish the EMF field emanations of a Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) soliton from that of a majorana-fermion? Are magnetic monopoles really majorana-fermions. Could what these researchers have found really be a SPP soliton that just look like a majorana-fermions? Can nickel do just as well as iron in this type of experiment? It seems that majorana-fermions are formed at the tips of superconducting nanowire. Can any one dimensional nanowire based magnetic field emitter produce this particle? All thin nanowire (AKA one dimensional topological conductor) are superconducting. Are Rossi's tubercles superconducting? Could these particles be forming at the tips of Rossi's tubercles? Could majorana-fermions be also formed at the tips of Rydberg hydrogen crystal nanowires forming in the Ni/H reactor or for that matter at the ends of the water crystals that LeClair has seen in his cavatation experiments? Could majorana-fermions or whatever it is be an important factor in LENR where magnetic field emitters are involved? Can we use a scanning-tunneling microscope to look at the tips of Rossi's tubercles and these other magnetic field emitters to do a comparison with the field produced by this new discovery? On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-majorana-fermion-physicists-elusive-particle.html Majorana fermion: Physicists observe elusive particle that is its own antiparticle What is a particle anyway? Are these majorana-fermions actually solitons? Could this particle be a topological knot in a EMF spin liquid? How would we distinguish the EMF field emanations of a SPP soliton from that of a majorana-fermion? Are magnetic monopoles really majorana-fermions. Could what these researchers have found really be a SPP soliton that just look like a majorana-fermions? It seems that majorana-fermions are formed at the tips of superconducting nanowire. All thin nanowire (AKA one dimensional) are superconducting. Could majorana-fermions be formed at the tips of hydrogen crystal nanowires or at the ends of the water crystals that LeClair has seen his cavatation experiments? Could majorana-fermions be an important factor in LENR.
RE: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
Bob, Eric Actually – if you remember from TP1, the Swedes did test the powder with XRF. They did not report any UV signature. They should have if Mills reaction is involved as you seem to be suggesting. Rossi was not pleased- as the Swedes were not supposed to report this test. They would have seen a UV signature, if it was there. If you were unaware of this, it may be a bit disingenuous to now say they saw the signature, but didn’t report it in accordance with Rossi’s instructions - since they did report the natural isotope ratio etc which impugn the Focardi suggestion of fusion. Coincidentally, a similar procedure used by Lehigh to test the Thermacore powder in the early nineties after a successful run. Lehigh was able to see the signature emission line predicted by Mills at 55 eV instead of the cop-out “continuum” which Mills now tries to cover with. A continuum with a cutoff cannot be a signature. It is basically noise. Or in Mills case, it is noise with spin g… …and in that Gernert paper, the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is little doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can vary. The tests did show a signature, but not the exact level. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. These x-ray will “expand” dense hydrogen and return a UV signature in so doing. In this case, the results supports some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds no 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory once suggested (in my edition of CQM) which is reputedly the initial redundancy. Of course, Mills then backtracked to change his theory so that it does not now predict this first Rydberg level, since he knows it is absent. That backtracking is pretty clear evidence the theory is not very useful, even though dense hydrogen (aka “pychno”) is seen at 55 eV, and thus has been proved to exist is a circumstance were megajoules of excess energy was documented (Thermacore). In conclusion, XPS did find a 55 eV signal/ signature, which is close to Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV - but not exact. Mike Carrel who was Mills’ main supporter here, has mentioned that Mills has lately dropped all efforts to find the lower Rydberg signatures in favor of the H(1/4) and greater. What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy (aka: cop out) is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster. In short his theory is partly wrong and partly right. However, there are takeaway messages from the Thermacore work wrt Rossi’s reaction. 1)Dense hydrogen is real and will show up under XPS with a signature 2)Nickel hydride is stable for extended periods with dense hydrogen embedded (the Lehigh testing was done a year later than the first excess heat. 3)The results do not match Mills original theory exactly but come close in parts 4)The Swedes should have seen the 55 eV signature if the Rossi reaction was a Mills-type reaction and they did not report this. 5)It is thus fair to say that the Rossi reaction, despite many similarities - is not exactly a Thermacore type reaction, unless the Swedes are hiding evidence or failed to analyze their own data. 6)Everything may change with the new report – TIP2, but as of now, there is no evidence that Mills theory applies to Rossi. However, there is reason to suspect that dense hydrogen can exist in a number of isomers, one of which is predicted by the Dirac theory- and it correlates to the cosmological signature for “dark matter”. Mills own theory does not predict dark matter, as his value is too low, but close. From: frobertcook Eric - I agree with your comment. That is the reason we should look at the TPT carefully to see if it was designed to look inside any of the reactors Rossi supplied to monitor conditions. If not, I for one will be skeptical of conclusions regarding scientific conclusions. Eric Walker wrote: Jones Beene wrote: The ironic thing about the Rossi effect ... is that the radiation band which is apparently absent for Rossi is ultraviolet - UV and EUV. X-rays below ~ 10 keV will be stopped by a simple metal casing. EUV will be stopped by much less. I think we don't really know what the UV/EUV signature is for Rossi's device.
Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
The UV signature would only be seen when the LENR reaction was active. It the Rossi reactor hydrogen is required as a dielectric envelope since solitons will not form without hydrogen. The Mills reaction must be different chemically...more self contained chemically. On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bob, Eric Actually – if you remember from TP1, the Swedes did test the powder with XRF. They did not report any UV signature. They should have if Mills reaction is involved as you seem to be suggesting. Rossi was not pleased- as the Swedes were not supposed to report this test. They would have seen a UV signature, if it was there. If you were unaware of this, it may be a bit disingenuous to now say they saw the signature, but didn’t report it in accordance with Rossi’s instructions - since they did report the natural isotope ratio etc which impugn the Focardi suggestion of fusion. Coincidentally, a similar procedure used by Lehigh to test the Thermacore powder in the early nineties after a successful run. Lehigh was able to see the signature emission line predicted by Mills at 55 eV instead of the cop-out “continuum” which Mills now tries to cover with. A continuum with a cutoff cannot be a signature. It is basically noise. Or in Mills case, it is noise with spin g… …and in that Gernert paper, the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is little doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can vary. The tests did show a signature, but not the exact level. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. These x-ray will “expand” dense hydrogen and return a UV signature in so doing. In this case, the results supports some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds no 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory once suggested (in my edition of CQM) which is reputedly the initial redundancy. Of course, Mills then backtracked to change his theory so that it does not now predict this first Rydberg level, since he knows it is absent. That backtracking is pretty clear evidence the theory is not very useful, even though dense hydrogen (aka “pychno”) is seen at 55 eV, and thus has been proved to exist is a circumstance were megajoules of excess energy was documented (Thermacore). In conclusion, XPS did find a 55 eV signal/ signature, which is close to Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV - but not exact. Mike Carrel who was Mills’ main supporter here, has mentioned that Mills has lately dropped all efforts to find the lower Rydberg signatures in favor of the H(1/4) and greater. What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy (aka: cop out) is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster. In short his theory is partly wrong and partly right. However, there are takeaway messages from the Thermacore work wrt Rossi’s reaction. 1)Dense hydrogen is real and will show up under XPS with a signature 2)Nickel hydride is stable for extended periods with dense hydrogen embedded (the Lehigh testing was done a year later than the first excess heat. 3)The results do not match Mills original theory exactly but come close in parts 4)The Swedes should have seen the 55 eV signature if the Rossi reaction was a Mills-type reaction and they did not report this. 5)It is thus fair to say that the Rossi reaction, despite many similarities - is not exactly a Thermacore type reaction, unless the Swedes are hiding evidence or failed to analyze their own data. 6)Everything may change with the new report – TIP2, but as of now, there is no evidence that Mills theory applies to Rossi. However, there is reason to suspect that dense hydrogen can exist in a number of isomers, one of which is predicted by the Dirac theory- and it correlates to the cosmological signature for “dark matter”. Mills own theory does not predict dark matter, as his value is too low, but close. *From:* frobertcook Eric - I agree with your comment. That is the reason we should look at the TPT carefully to see if it was designed to look inside any of the reactors Rossi supplied to monitor conditions. If not, I for one will be skeptical of conclusions regarding scientific conclusions. Eric Walker wrote: Jones Beene wrote: The ironic thing about the Rossi effect ... is that the radiation band which is apparently absent for Rossi is ultraviolet - UV and EUV. X-rays below ~ 10 keV will be stopped by a simple
Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
Jones, Why do you believe that the Swedes would have seen a 55 eV signature? Almost all x-ray probes for XRF and EDAX have windows covering the sensor and few windows pass below about 1keV photons. A 55 eV signature would be well below this window. Also, if it were to show, it may only show in EDAX with an excitation of from an electron beam in the SEM. This type of coupling to a fractional H is allowed, but photon coupling is not. So, exciting with high energy x-ray photons as in XRF would not stimulate a 55 eV fluorescence anyway. You would have to construct a system with a window-less sensor and with an EUV filter to measure 55 eV photons - very specialized and hard to do. According to theory, x-ray photons will not expand a fractional or DDL hydrogen. This is the basis of Mills' whole theory. These fractional states are purported to have insufficient angular momentum for photon transaction. Bob Higgins On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bob, Eric Actually – if you remember from TP1, the Swedes did test the powder with XRF. They did not report any UV signature. They should have if Mills reaction is involved as you seem to be suggesting. Rossi was not pleased- as the Swedes were not supposed to report this test. They would have seen a UV signature, if it was there. If you were unaware of this, it may be a bit disingenuous to now say they saw the signature, but didn’t report it in accordance with Rossi’s instructions - since they did report the natural isotope ratio etc which impugn the Focardi suggestion of fusion. Coincidentally, a similar procedure used by Lehigh to test the Thermacore powder in the early nineties after a successful run. Lehigh was able to see the signature emission line predicted by Mills at 55 eV instead of the cop-out “continuum” which Mills now tries to cover with. A continuum with a cutoff cannot be a signature. It is basically noise. Or in Mills case, it is noise with spin g… …and in that Gernert paper, the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is little doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can vary. The tests did show a signature, but not the exact level. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. These x-ray will “expand” dense hydrogen and return a UV signature in so doing. In this case, the results supports some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds no 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory once suggested (in my edition of CQM) which is reputedly the initial redundancy. Of course, Mills then backtracked to change his theory so that it does not now predict this first Rydberg level, since he knows it is absent. That backtracking is pretty clear evidence the theory is not very useful, even though dense hydrogen (aka “pychno”) is seen at 55 eV, and thus has been proved to exist is a circumstance were megajoules of excess energy was documented (Thermacore). In conclusion, XPS did find a 55 eV signal/ signature, which is close to Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV - but not exact. Mike Carrel who was Mills’ main supporter here, has mentioned that Mills has lately dropped all efforts to find the lower Rydberg signatures in favor of the H(1/4) and greater. What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy (aka: cop out) is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster. In short his theory is partly wrong and partly right. However, there are takeaway messages from the Thermacore work wrt Rossi’s reaction. 1)Dense hydrogen is real and will show up under XPS with a signature 2)Nickel hydride is stable for extended periods with dense hydrogen embedded (the Lehigh testing was done a year later than the first excess heat. 3)The results do not match Mills original theory exactly but come close in parts 4)The Swedes should have seen the 55 eV signature if the Rossi reaction was a Mills-type reaction and they did not report this. 5)It is thus fair to say that the Rossi reaction, despite many similarities - is not exactly a Thermacore type reaction, unless the Swedes are hiding evidence or failed to analyze their own data. 6)Everything may change with the new report – TIP2, but as of now, there is no evidence that Mills theory applies to Rossi. However, there is reason to suspect that dense hydrogen can exist in a number of isomers, one of which is predicted by the Dirac theory- and it correlates to the cosmological
RE: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
Bob, The window is fused silica. This is obvious choice and one of very few UV transparent materials. I’m sure you are aware that the old EPROMs used fused quartz windows. This is essentially what Lehigh did for the Thermacore testing. X-rays do indeed expand hydrinos - which is not prohibited by Mills theory AFAIK. Why shouldn’t they not? Can you cite your source on that? Jones Jones, Why do you believe that the Swedes would have seen a 55 eV signature? Almost all x-ray probes for XRF and EDAX have windows covering the sensor and few windows pass below about 1keV photons. A 55 eV signature would be well below this window. Also, if it were to show, it may only show in EDAX with an excitation of from an electron beam in the SEM. This type of coupling to a fractional H is allowed, but photon coupling is not. So, exciting with high energy x-ray photons as in XRF would not stimulate a 55 eV fluorescence anyway. You would have to construct a system with a window-less sensor and with an EUV filter to measure 55 eV photons - very specialized and hard to do. According to theory, x-ray photons will not expand a fractional or DDL hydrogen. This is the basis of Mills' whole theory. These fractional states are purported to have insufficient angular momentum for photon transaction. Bob Higgins On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bob, Eric Actually – if you remember from TP1, the Swedes did test the powder with XRF. They did not report any UV signature. They should have if Mills reaction is involved as you seem to be suggesting. Rossi was not pleased- as the Swedes were not supposed to report this test. They would have seen a UV signature, if it was there. If you were unaware of this, it may be a bit disingenuous to now say they saw the signature, but didn’t report it in accordance with Rossi’s instructions - since they did report the natural isotope ratio etc which impugn the Focardi suggestion of fusion. Coincidentally, a similar procedure used by Lehigh to test the Thermacore powder in the early nineties after a successful run. Lehigh was able to see the signature emission line predicted by Mills at 55 eV instead of the cop-out “continuum” which Mills now tries to cover with. A continuum with a cutoff cannot be a signature. It is basically noise. Or in Mills case, it is noise with spin g… …and in that Gernert paper, the nickel capillary tubing, after the very long successful run, gives up the best evidence ever for the existence of the hydrino – since it was tested by ESCA analysis at Lehigh University. There is little doubt the tests were accurate – it is the interpretation that can vary. The tests did show a signature, but not the exact level. ESCA is now known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and is accomplished by capturing spectra obtained by irradiating a material with a monochromatic beam of relatively soft X-rays. These x-ray will “expand” dense hydrogen and return a UV signature in so doing. In this case, the results supports some of Mills theory but not all of it. The Lehigh University testing in fact finds no 27.2 eV signature, as Mills theory once suggested (in my edition of CQM) which is reputedly the initial redundancy. Of course, Mills then backtracked to change his theory so that it does not now predict this first Rydberg level, since he knows it is absent. That backtracking is pretty clear evidence the theory is not very useful, even though dense hydrogen (aka “pychno”) is seen at 55 eV, and thus has been proved to exist is a circumstance were megajoules of excess energy was documented (Thermacore). In conclusion, XPS did find a 55 eV signal/ signature, which is close to Mills’ theoretical signature for the hydrino, which is supposed to be 54.4 eV - but not exact. Mike Carrel who was Mills’ main supporter here, has mentioned that Mills has lately dropped all efforts to find the lower Rydberg signatures in favor of the H(1/4) and greater. What Mike failed to mention is that the reason for this change in strategy (aka: cop out) is that BLP HAS NEVER BEEN ABEL TO SHOW THE 27.2 SIGNATURE… and if one is mildly skeptical of Mills, this can be viewed as a disaster. In short his theory is partly wrong and partly right. However, there are takeaway messages from the Thermacore work wrt Rossi’s reaction. 1)Dense hydrogen is real and will show up under XPS with a signature 2)Nickel hydride is stable for extended periods with dense hydrogen embedded (the Lehigh testing was done a year later than the first excess heat. 3)The results do not match Mills original theory exactly but come close in parts 4)The Swedes should have seen the 55 eV signature if the Rossi reaction was a Mills-type reaction and they did not report this. 5)It is thus fair to say that the Rossi reaction, despite many similarities - is not
RE: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
The window is fused silica. This is an obvious choice and one of very few UV transparent materials… old EPROMs used fused quartz windows. Hmm… one wonders if a hacked and almost free UV detector could be made using an old EPROM? Perhaps one could write a lot of ordered data on the EPROM, then check the data after a timed exposure to Mills type cell, having placed the encased chip behind a pin-hole. The degree of randomness caused by exposure could serve as a calibration gauge. If nothing else, this could corroborate results obtained with one or more other cheap detectors, such a normal photocell with a high pass filter.
RE: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
Bob This is also a fundamental assertion by Mills, that energy transfer must occur without photons. That is why Mills requires a catalyst with a matched electronic energy transition to the f/H state he is trying to stimulate. Right – but that describes emission “on the way down” which comes from the catalyst, not the hydrogen. We would be talking about a different mechanism on re-expansion – what happens on the way back to the normal ground state? Once the dense hydrogen has reached a plateau of stability, whether it is the single deep DDL or the less dense (137) states of Mills, the same rules for shrinkage would not necessarily apply to inflation, but even if they did, the host could supply the photon as before. And alternatively Mills may not have the complete picture. The Gernert report of Thermacore leaves no doubt that the 55 eV was seen in later testing at Lehigh. The only question is “how”. If Mills theory does not accommodate that happenstance, then “experiment rules” and Mills’ theory is either partly wrong or incomplete. Since the theory predicts the photon from the shrinkage coming from a host catalyst, and the same photon was seen and documented on re-expansion, then either both could be a product of the metal host, or only the former - but the photon is there. We should have no problem ditching Mills theory for Rossi’s results, if that is what best fits the facts. (which are incomplete), You are probably correct that the Swedes would not have seen this photon unless they had planned to look for it in advance – so it could be there in Rossi’s results and not have been reported. Yet, there is no good reason to say that it is certainly there, simply because the Thermacore nickel capillary experiment is so similar to the Rossi experiment. Jones
[Vo]:New Miles interview on Helium-4, Excess Heat, Peer Review
John Maguire has interviewed Dr. Melvin Miles and made it available here: http://coldfusionnow.org/dr-melvin-miles-on-helium-4-excess-heat-new-interview/ Just listening now, Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
Why would you assert any form of non-reciprocity? It is a reciprocal mechanism. In the f/H state, the electron has insufficient angular momentum to exchange energy with a photon. So how is the f/H atom going to absorb a photon to return to normal ground state? It cannot. It must take in energy from evanescent coupling. This could be a closely coupled catalyst that was in an excited state, or it could come from inelastic collision (but the f/H atom, being small, has a small cross-section for collision). So, the normal Mills' re-inflation would be through absorption of a photon by the catalyst causing an excited catalyst electron orbital. This excited catalyst, then being coupled to the f/H atom can supply the energy to the f/H via evanescent means, returning both the catalyst and the f/H to normal ground state. The problem with this is that even without the f/H being present, the catalyst will still absorb and re-emit the input photon or fluoresce in longer wavelengths. What you would really like to see is photons going into the catalyst and no energy coming out at the same or longer wavelength. This is an exceedingly hard test to make with unequivocal results. Bob Higgins On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bob This is also a fundamental assertion by Mills, that energy transfer must occur without photons. That is why Mills requires a catalyst with a matched electronic energy transition to the f/H state he is trying to stimulate. Right – but that describes emission “on the way down” which comes from the catalyst, not the hydrogen. We would be talking about a different mechanism on re-expansion – what happens on the way back to the normal ground state? Once the dense hydrogen has reached a plateau of stability, whether it is the single deep DDL or the less dense (137) states of Mills, the same rules for shrinkage would not necessarily apply to inflation, but even if they did, the host could supply the photon as before. And alternatively Mills may not have the complete picture. The Gernert report of Thermacore leaves no doubt that the 55 eV was seen in later testing at Lehigh. The only question is “how”. If Mills theory does not accommodate that happenstance, then “experiment rules” and Mills’ theory is either partly wrong or incomplete. Since the theory predicts the photon from the shrinkage coming from a host catalyst, and the same photon was seen and documented on re-expansion, then either both could be a product of the metal host, or only the former - but the photon is there. We should have no problem ditching Mills theory for Rossi’s results, if that is what best fits the facts. (which are incomplete), You are probably correct that the Swedes would not have seen this photon unless they had planned to look for it in advance – so it could be there in Rossi’s results and not have been reported. Yet, there is no good reason to say that it is certainly there, simply because the Thermacore nickel capillary experiment is so similar to the Rossi experiment. Jones
RE: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
From: Bob Higgins Why would you assert any form of non-reciprocity? It is a reciprocal mechanism. In the f/H state, the electron has insufficient angular momentum to exchange energy with a photon. So how is the f/H atom going to absorb a photon to return to normal ground state? It cannot. NO ! Bob – you do not get it, yet. The one overriding fact in all of this is clear: experts in spectroscopy stated that 55 eV photons were seen. If this does not fit into Mills theory then the THEORY IS WRONG. The photons were seen. Experiment rules. This may be the very reason that Mills seldom mentions the Thermacore work, since it voids his theory. I cannot say it any more emphatically. The photons were seen. If the theory does not permit this, then the theory is wrong. Jones
Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Actually – if you remember from TP1, the Swedes did test the powder with XRF. ... They did not report any UV signature. They should have if Mills reaction is involved as you seem to be suggesting. Personally, I would not suggest that Mills's reaction is involved in this instance, or in any other instance. I'm all but convinced against it. I only refrain from saying it's nonsense out of an appreciation that I do not have the background, training or understanding of the relevant physics to say something like that. (The you above must be referring to Bob Cook.) The x-rays and UV/EUV I had in mind would have been emitted from the core of the device while in operation. I assume there would have had to have been an open section in the wall of the E-Cat along with a windowless detector in order to detect something in the range of tens of eVs, as Bob Higgins has been describing, or even soft x-rays. Rossi was not pleased- as the Swedes were not supposed to report this test. About the XRF I assume. I'm curious where this detail is documented. I do not recall Mats Lewans mentioning it, but I might have missed it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
Is this in reference to the test where Rossi drove the E-Cat to Sweden and the core casing was cracked? They glued it back together best they could, it came unglued halfway through, and they figured there was no reaction/excess heat as a result, but they checked the ash to be sure. If this is the event being referenced/cited, this is not a legitimate test by any stretch of the imagination (even admitted by Swedes in Mats' book), and any reference to the ash data is moot. Perhaps another event is being discussed however. On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Actually – if you remember from TP1, the Swedes did test the powder with XRF. ... They did not report any UV signature. They should have if Mills reaction is involved as you seem to be suggesting. Personally, I would not suggest that Mills's reaction is involved in this instance, or in any other instance. I'm all but convinced against it. I only refrain from saying it's nonsense out of an appreciation that I do not have the background, training or understanding of the relevant physics to say something like that. (The you above must be referring to Bob Cook.) The x-rays and UV/EUV I had in mind would have been emitted from the core of the device while in operation. I assume there would have had to have been an open section in the wall of the E-Cat along with a windowless detector in order to detect something in the range of tens of eVs, as Bob Higgins has been describing, or even soft x-rays. Rossi was not pleased- as the Swedes were not supposed to report this test. About the XRF I assume. I'm curious where this detail is documented. I do not recall Mats Lewans mentioning it, but I might have missed it. Eric
RE: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
Here is one report that turns up http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/20121204Kullander-Ni-Isotopes-LIG1204121.pdf It is not the one from Kullander that I am looking for but it mentions some of the same details. This is worth study… From: Foks0904 Is this in reference to the test where Rossi drove the E-Cat to Sweden and the core casing was cracked? They glued it back together best they could, it came unglued halfway through, and they figured there was no reaction/excess heat as a result, but they checked the ash to be sure. If this is the event being referenced/cited, this is not a legitimate test by any stretch of the imagination (even admitted by Swedes in Mats' book), and any reference to the ash data is moot. Perhaps another event is being discussed however. Actually – if you remember from TP1, the Swedes did test the powder with XRF. ... They did not report any UV signature. They should have if Mills reaction is involved as you seem to be suggesting. Personally, I would not suggest that Mills's reaction is involved in this instance, or in any other instance. I'm all but convinced against it. I only refrain from saying it's nonsense out of an appreciation that I do not have the background, training or understanding of the relevant physics to say something like that. (The you above must be referring to Bob Cook.) The x-rays and UV/EUV I had in mind would have been emitted from the core of the device while in operation. I assume there would have had to have been an open section in the wall of the E-Cat along with a windowless detector in order to detect something in the range of tens of eVs, as Bob Higgins has been describing, or even soft x-rays. Rossi was not pleased- as the Swedes were not supposed to report this test. About the XRF I assume. I'm curious where this detail is documented. I do not recall Mats Lewans mentioning it, but I might have missed it.
Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
Just because 55 eV photons were seen does not mean that they came from H entering the f/H state or from re-inflation (which is supposed to be endothermic). Since (according to Mills' theory), a catalyst must be involved, these photons would have to be coming from the catalyst or other evanescent energy exchange system. The theory predicts that the 55 eV of energy can be exchanged and says the f/H cannot directly transact a photon. So if 55 eV photons are detected, they could well be coming from the catalyst (speculation: H-clusters may be a catalyst that could share that big photon and subsequently exchange the energy by coupled evanescent means with an f/H). Detected 55 eV photons doesn't invalidate a theory that claims there can be no direct photon absorption or emission from an f/H atom. Other atoms will absorb and emit 55 eV photons or there would be no catalysts for the Mills reaction. The data only says that 55 eV photons were seen, not where exactly they came from. Seeing 55 eV photons coming from a supposed f/H species by itself tends to invalidate Mills and DDL theories. Otherwise you need to invent clusters of H or something to justify the exchange since the theories describing f/H say there can be no direct photon transactions. If the theory is wrong, then there is no basis for f/H states to begin with and you have no story at all for where the 55 eV came from. Bob Higgins On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Higgins Why would you assert any form of non-reciprocity? It is a reciprocal mechanism. In the f/H state, the electron has insufficient angular momentum to exchange energy with a photon. So how is the f/H atom going to absorb a photon to return to normal ground state? It cannot. NO ! Bob – you do not get it, yet. The one overriding fact in all of this is clear: experts in spectroscopy stated that 55 eV photons were seen. If this does not fit into Mills theory then the THEORY IS WRONG. The photons were seen. Experiment rules. This may be the very reason that Mills seldom mentions the Thermacore work, since it voids his theory. I cannot say it any more emphatically. The photons were seen. If the theory does not permit this, then the theory is wrong. Jones
Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 5 Oct 2014 08:37:57 -0700: Hi, [snip] These x-ray will expand dense hydrogen and return a UV signature in so doing. Note that the expansion would be in the form of ionization (where the ionized electron would absorb any extra energy from the x-ray as kinetic energy), so any emission seen would be from recombination of the electron and the proton to the normal ground state. Hence no signature specific to Hydrinos would be expected. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
Bob, Well – once again, we can agree to disagree. For me, the most obvious explanation for the spectroscopy of the Thermacore sample, after megajoules of energy gain was shed… is that the nickel sample, as it was received by the University, retained substantial f/H embedded in the nickel. This is the same species which had originally supplied the thermal gain over many months. However, there could be many levels of redundancy in this sample – only one of which was emitting UV at 55 eV and that level is indeed exothermic on inflation. To be explained. A monochromatic beam of soft x-rays was used; and they were indeed looking for this photon spectrum possibly between 25-100 eV, so they probably had a windowless detector. At any rate, they reported the signature line at 55 eV and no other. This indicates exotherm. Mills must have freaked out! My interpretation of this is that the soft x-rays caused the f/H to reinflate, and this caused the same value photon to be released on inflation which Mills had predicted would happen on shrinkage, but he is/was wrong. The catalyst could supply the photon, or the f/H, but in any event, the reinflation was exothermic, not endothermic as Mills would have us believe. This is only part of the story. Alternatively, it is possible that there was also some nickel-hydride available in the sample, and the hydrogen was in the Bohr ground state, such that the x-ray irradiation cause that normal hydrogen to shrink and give up the photon. However, if that was the case, then any sample of nickel-hydride should do the same, whether or not it had already given up energy or not. We can therefore eliminate this. Therefore, it seems most likely that the prior history of the sample should be the determining factor, but as I am typing this, there seems to be another possibility… That would be that this particular level (1/3) is indeed endothermic on shrinkage and exothermic on expansion, BUT since there was net gain before over many months at Thermacore, there was also a population of further shrinkage f/H (1/4, 1/5, and so on) in this sample - which was responsible for the net gain over the run, even with endotherm at the first two drops. IOW the f/H reaction is endothermic at the first two drops (1/2 and 1/3 level) but subsequent levels make up for that with strong exotherm. In later testing, when the (1/3) level is what is seen, it is indeed exothermic. Perhaps the (1/2) level never happens at all, as there is not a single reference to it having ever been documented. Then – we have adequately explained the results, if we assume that this x-ray beam will not reinflate the embedded f/H lower than 1/3, which is the (1/4, 1/5, and so on). From: Bob Higgins Just because 55 eV photons were seen does not mean that they came from H entering the f/H state or from re-inflation (which is supposed to be endothermic). Since (according to Mills' theory), a catalyst must be involved, these photons would have to be coming from the catalyst or other evanescent energy exchange system. The theory predicts that the 55 eV of energy can be exchanged and says the f/H cannot directly transact a photon. So if 55 eV photons are detected, they could well be coming from the catalyst (speculation: H-clusters may be a catalyst that could share that big photon and subsequently exchange the energy by coupled evanescent means with an f/H). Detected 55 eV photons doesn't invalidate a theory that claims there can be no direct photon absorption or emission from an f/H atom. Other atoms will absorb and emit 55 eV photons or there would be no catalysts for the Mills reaction. The data only says that 55 eV photons were seen, not where exactly they came from. Seeing 55 eV photons coming from a supposed f/H species by itself tends to invalidate Mills and DDL theories. Otherwise you need to invent clusters of H or something to justify the exchange since the theories describing f/H say there can be no direct photon transactions. If the theory is wrong, then there is no basis for f/H states to begin with and you have no story at all for where the 55 eV came from. Bob Higgins On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Higgins Why would you assert any form of non-reciprocity? It is a reciprocal mechanism. In the f/H state, the electron has insufficient angular momentum to exchange energy with a photon. So how is the f/H atom going to absorb a photon to return to normal ground state? It cannot. NO ! Bob – you do not get it, yet. The one overriding fact in all of this is clear: experts in spectroscopy stated that 55 eV photons were seen. If this does not fit into Mills theory then the THEORY IS WRONG. The photons were seen. Experiment rules. This may be the very reason that Mills seldom mentions the Thermacore work, since it voids his
Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 5 Oct 2014 08:37:57 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
The Lehigh University testing in fact finds no 27.2 eV signature, as Mills
theory once suggested (in my edition of CQM)
Please quote chapter and verse. I am not aware of this ever having been
predicted. What he says is that 27.2 eV is absorbed by an m=1 catalyst, and the
difference between that and the total energy change is radiated as UV during
shrinkage.
i.e. H[n=1] + Catalyst (m=1) = H[n=1/2] + (Catalyst + 27.2 eV) + 13.6 eV (UV or
kinetic energy)
The total change in energy is 54.4 eV - 13.6 = 40.8 eV.
54.4 eV is the total energy that would be released if a free proton and free
electron could be combined into an n=1/2 Hydrino. The 13.6 eV is the energy that
has already been released to the environment when H in the ground state formed.
So the change in total energy when going from the ground state to n=1/2 is 54.4
- 13.6 = 40.8 eV. Of this 40.8 eV, 27.2 eV goes to the catalyst, and 13.6 eV is
left over, which may appear either as UV or as kinetic energy.
Since the catalyst absorbed 27.2 eV, it must eventually release this back into
the environment in order to return to it's own original condition, so the total
energy eventually released to the environment is 27.2 eV + 13.6 eV = 40.8 eV, as
expected.
(Note that the 27.2 eV released by the excited catalyst may not be in the form
of a 27.2 eV UV photon. It just depends on which catalyst is used, and how it
returns to its normal state.)
All of this is for an m=1 catalyst. IIRC Mills most recent work involves the H2O
molecule as an m=3 catalyst for which the equation looks like this:-
H[n=1] + H2O (m=3) = H[n=1/4] + {broken up water molecule that has absorbed
81.6 eV in total} + UV/kinetic (217.7 eV - 13.6 eV - 81.6 eV = 122.5 eV)
The total energy released, once the water has been reconstituted while releasing
81.6 eV, is 122.5 eV + 81.6 eV = 204.1 eV.
which is reputedly the initial redundancy. Of course, Mills then backtracked
to change his theory so that it does not now predict this first Rydberg level,
since he knows it is absent. That backtracking is pretty clear evidence the
theory is not very useful, even though dense hydrogen (aka pychno) is seen
at 55 eV, and thus has been proved to exist is a circumstance were megajoules
of excess energy was documented (Thermacore).
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
Of note: If the Rossi effect – (big “if”) does depend for success upon a versions of f/H - which is largely a product of Mills theory, but with a few notable difference, then the “secret sauce” can be identified, and it is kind of an eye-opener. It is a specialty nickel powder, which has been manufactured, in advance to have a threshold population of the required endothermic levels of f/H – (1/2 and 1/3 or 27.2 eV and 54.4 eV). This suggestion assumes that the first two redundant ground states are endothermic, not exothermic, and that net gain comes later. To manufacture this nickel in advance, the supplier, Gerli Metalli or Milano… http://www.gerlimetalli.it/inglese/ihome.htm … would most likely electrolyze the powder in an hydrated salt (potassium) bath, possible for weeks at a time at low voltage - to load the nickel with f/H, but only in the first two redundant levels. This could be done by controlling the loading parameters carefully to actually avoid thermal gain. Thus, when this loaded powder is received by the customer, it is already a nickel hydride and already loaded with redundant levels, so that there is no delay. You heard it first on vortex… Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF the Rossi effect
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Since the catalyst absorbed 27.2 eV, it must eventually release this back into the environment in order to return to its own original condition... (Note that the 27.2 eV released by the excited catalyst may not be in the form of a 27.2 eV UV photon. It just depends on which catalyst is used, and how it returns to its normal state.) What catalyst would that be, Robin? ... isn't this large amount of verbiage, precisely the rationalization which Mills has concocted to cover up the fact that the 27.2 eV photon is NEVER seen? After all, it is the one fundamental unit and most important physical value in his entire house-of-cards, and yet it has never been documented in an experiment, no matter what catalyst has been used. I find that most problematic. Tell you what, I will dig through my ancient tome of Mills' early theory to present his original theory, as soon as anyone shows the world any decent evidence of the missing 27.2 eV photon line in a real experiment. BTW - a most likely reason that this photon is missing and AWOL is that the fist drop in ground state redundancy is endothermic. It is hard to doubt the existence of dense hydrogen, given all of the various results over the years - and yet equally hard to accept Mills explanation for its formation. Jones
[Vo]:another Law breaker?
Every week it seems, there is a new assault around the edges of the 2nd Generalization of Thermodynamics... http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2014/09/good-bye-second-law-of-therm odynamics.html attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Off Topic: Flu Season
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:00 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There are two rays of hope here: 1) That the high rate of infection in Africa will allow evolution toward greater ambulatory transmission of the virus. This sounds nonsensical at first but you need to understand evolutionary medicine and optimal virulence. There is a good chance the virus will have, among its _many_ mutations, a less virulent strain that allows its victim to remain ambulatory longer and thereby spread it faster than a strain that incapacitates its victim. This creates an evolutionary direction toward a longer period of contagion but lowers its virulence. There is, of course, a huge human cost to this evolution. 2) The Japanese have had, since September 2, a 30 minute Ebola test that they have been ready to mass produce -- unfortunately while the US twiddles its thumbs waiting for an event such as the one that just occurred in Dallas to wake up the slumbering fools. More pessimistically: The Ebola Epidemiology They Won't Talk About http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-ebola-epidemiology-they-wont-talk.html
