Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Axil Axil]

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep02607

Cavity Optical Pulse Extraction: ultra-short pulse generation as seeded
Hawking radiation

This article shows how a Dark Mode optical cavity (which is what an SPP
really is) can absorb light and store it, then later release it as Hawking
radiation (heat) at a latter time. The optical cavity acts as a black hole.

I say that all these "Dark Mode" objects share a dualism with the
astronomical black hole which allows them to do unexpected things like
catalyze LENR.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> Hi Axil a couple of quick questions?
>
> Was it confirmed the pulse was only a few seconds? I thought they only
> spotted it in the spectrum at the end of longer session but are not sure
> exactly when and how long it lasted once initiated?
>
> I have been trying to find papers and references on high energy gamma
> absorption by SPP... I suppose your dark mode plasmons could you point me
> to a reference? Also Does it require degenerate matter to form or some
> other method? I know you have circulated a lot of documents and background
> on the broader ideas about SPP but is there is one you recommend that
> specifically on these points?
>
> Thanks Stephen
>
> On 11 mrt. 2016, at 23:16, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> Something must produce those electrons and that something (Alpha. beta}
> produces EMF energy at a well defined gamma level.
>
> Bright mode release of "*photons*" from SPPs when they decay...before an
> SPP BEC becomes active.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>> Axil--
>>
>> Bremsstrahlung radiation is due to inelastic scattering of electrons as
>> they pass through matter.  There are no resonances.  The radiations occurs
>> as a result of an electron changing direction as a result of the electric
>> field it is passing through.  This change in direction (acceleration) saps
>> energy from the kinetic energy of the free electron and distributes that
>> energy as electromagnetic radiation equivalent to the loss of kinetic
>> energy of the electron.   The spectrum is random photons because the
>> distance and charge of particles being encountered by an energetic electron
>> is random.  Thus the forces on the electron, whether due to other lattice
>> electrons or positive charges in the lattice are random in magnitude.
>>
>> Landau distributions of the energy of photons do not apply to free
>> electrons unless they are at relativistic velocities and have an effective
>> mass like a proton, pion, alpha or other heavy particle.
>>
>> What do you consider is the likely mechanism producing the  "Landau
>> distribution" you suggest?  Specifically, what particles are involved in
>> the generation of the spectrum?
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Axil Axil
>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:19 AM
>> To: vortex-l
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note
>>
>> The seconds long MFMP X-ray burst is smooth and demonstrates no
>> resonance energy peaks caused by the interaction of electrons with
>> matter. The MFMP burst is strictly a release of photons in a random
>> energy distribution.
>>
>> A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation
>> plot. It is the release of energy by particles based on a random
>> release process. This is seen when a particle gives up its kinetic
>> energy to a thin film as the particles interact randomly with the
>> matter in the thin film.
>>
>> If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or
>> based on a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution of energy
>> release will be seen.
>>
>> You might see a Landau distribution if there is a random mixing of
>> both low energy photons (infrared) and high energy photons (gamma's
>> from the nucleus);
>>
>> Such mixing is produced by Fano resonance, where an SPPs are being fed
>> by both infrared photon pumping and nuclear based gamma photon
>> absorption.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Electrons may have nothing to do with the x-ray radiation.
>>>
>>> The radiation could be produced by photon based quasiparticles.
>>>
>>> The LENR reaction might start with Surface Plasmon Polaritons
>>> initiated nuclear reactions and then after thermalization, the decay
>>> of those SPPs. When the SPPs decay, they release their energy content
>>> as photons of varng energies,
>>>
>>> After a second or two, a Bose condensate of these SPPs form and the
>>> energy of the photons are released as hawking radiation which is
>>> thermal.
>>>
>>> The radiation seen only lasts for a second.
>>>
>>> In LENR we get either high energy radiation (x-rays) or heat; not
>>> both. This is based on the temperature of the reactor. A cold reactor
>>> produces X-Rays because of weak SPP pumping..
>>>
>>> The SPP absorbs nuclear binding energy and stores it in a whispering
>>> gallery 

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:


> Jobs will be more esoteric, i.e.
>> keeping an "eye" on things, deciding on the direction that development
>> should
>> take etc. In short providing a human perspective.
>>
>
> Assuming the robots find our perspective to be a valuable and useful one.
>

Yup.

Seriously, even now I am inclined to let computers decide things for me. I
pick the default answer. I do not second-guess machines. Because most of
the time I have no strong opinion. For example, I let the GPS navigation
system decide how to get there. I let Microsoft Word format headings and
and the table of contents however it wants to. Seriously, who cares? In the
old days, writers let their secretaries or publisher handle such details. I
think of a computer as conscientious subordinate.

If I were living hundreds of years from now, and I was building a new
house, I would probably select a model and tell the computer to handle
details such as the size of the rooms and choice of plumbing fixtures. I
would glance at the computer's plan and leave most items at the default
setting, without consulting with a human architect. Assuming there are any
human architects.

If I got sick in a future world, I would be inclined to do whatever the
medical doctor computer suggests. Nowadays I generally do what the human
doctor says without a second thought.

Most busy, wealthy people such as captains of industry have long done what
their secretaries, subordinates, cooks and valets suggest without second
guessing them. Their attitude is, "that's what I pay those people to
decide." In the future most people will treat robots the same way. Some may
wonder who is serving who in this arrangement. Some wealthy people in the
19th century and early 20th century "Downton Abbey" settings seemed to be
prisoners of convention. They wasted a lot of time doing disagreeable
things such as dressing in ridiculous outfits for supper, because it was
expected of them. Because that was what wealthy people did.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Bob Cook]

Robin--

You stated:


When it comes to collisions, it makes little
difference whether the nucleus is light or heavy. In short any nucleus is
effectively an "immovable object" as far as an electron is concerned.


Heavy nuclei are better at creating Bremsstrahlung, since they have more 
charge.   Nuclei are effectively so small there are few direct hits by 
electrons.


Bob

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:22 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:46:42 -0800:
Hi Bob,
[snip]

Robin--

I think you are wrong about the nature of Bremsstrahlung.

As I understand, the effect is caused by a charged particle changing its
course--being accelerated--in an electric field.  It is not the mass of the
particle but the charge of the stationary particle.  Large nuclei have
greater positive charge to deflect an energetic electron.  The captured
electrons around a nuclei also pose a integrated electric field much more
diffuse than that associated with a large point charge.   Energetic
electrons are not accelerated as much by the diffuse negative charge
presented by cloud of electrons as a stationary "solid" nucleus does.
Slower electrons interact with other electron charge density and are
deflected to produce Bremsstrahlung.

That being said, an energetic proton will also produce Bremsstrahlung
radiation as it is deflected by other heavy, large, positive nuclei.

Bob


So where do we disagree? ;)
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:48 PM,  wrote:

Jobs will be more esoteric, i.e.
> keeping an "eye" on things, deciding on the direction that development
> should
> take etc. In short providing a human perspective.
>

Assuming the robots find our perspective to be a valuable and useful one.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung, characteristic X-Ray's Rydberg matter and Ions

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

Once the metal atoms are excited into these high energy states,
> particularly if the inner electrons are removed from their inner orbitals I
> suppose further bremsstrahlung interactions of high energy electrons with
> those atoms would no longer produce characteristic X-Ray's? At least until
> the nuclei were no longer energised and able to de-excite back to their
> ground level i.e. during cool down?
>

If there are electrons producing bremsstrahlung photons in the 100's of
keV, as might have been seen in the recent MFMP gamma spectrum, presumably
they would be exciting inner shell transitions as they are stopped.
Nickel's K-shell electrons have binding energies of 8 keV [1], and so even
a full transition will produce characteristic photons that are readily
stopped by the kinds of materials that are being used for the
Lugano/Parkhomov type reactors.

Eric


[1] http://www.chemistry.uoguelph.ca/educmat/atomdata/bindener/grp10num.htm

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:


> They will not require more materials than, say, the turbine,
> >fuel tank, fuel regulator and ignition system in today's gas fired
> >generator. They will not be more expensive.
>
> True, but where today such generators are a "minor" item, CF generators
> will be
> manufactured in their billions ( 7 billion people / 2.7 people per
> household =
> 3.6 billion generators.)
>

Ah, this starts to get involved. I am writing a paper about this very
subject. Yes, the number of generators will be larger because they are
small and inefficient, but the total mass of materials will not be much
larger than today's centralized system. That is, when you account for the
materials used in the distribution network such as wires, transformers,
polls and so on. That is not to suggest the entire infrastructure will
disappear overnight. But it will be reduced in mass gradually as small
generators become more common. I doubt there will be much need for long
distance high voltage power lines, for example.

Because the small generators are likely to be less efficient than today's
central generators, they will take a larger mass of materials such as steel
and copper. But these materials are not expensive or rare, so the overall
cost of materials for 3.6 billion generators will not be much more than
today's "fleet" of large generators and wind turbines.

The small generators will displace other machines, especially space
heaters, because they will be used as co-generators in cold climates. This
is like using an iPhone as a camera, reducing the demand for cameras.

Finally, there are TREMENDOUS savings from the mass production of small
machines. Even when they use more metals and other materials per kilowatt,
the final cost of the cost per kilowatt of capacity is more than a hundred
times lower. In the paper I am writing I include some stats I uploaded
here, comparing two kinds of heat engines:

. . . the advanced, combined cycle aeroderivative gas generator. It costs
$2,095 per kilowatt.

. . . a Chevrolet engine, 195 hp (145 kW), which you can buy for $1,460,
quantity one, with free shipping. That comes to $10 per kilowatt. It is 200
times cheaper than the gas generator.

Granted, you have to add a generator to the latter, but you have to add an
entire distribution infrastructure to the former!

I assume a 145 kW cold fusion heat engine will eventually cost ~1,500, when
the technology matures and millions are manufactured every year. There is
no reason to think it will be more expensive than an internal combustion
engine.

See also:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg106697.html



> >Actually, people do not make iPhones. Robots do.
>
>
> http://www.cnet.com/au/news/low-wages-and-long-hours-still-persist-at-iphone-factory-claims-labor-group/
>
> When did robots start being paid wages?
>

Oh come now. Of course it takes some people to make iPhones, but many fewer
than it took to make landline phones per telephone. The number of people
with telephones in the world has vastly increased.

Also, the Chinese plan to replace millions of workers with robots, soon,
including the workers who make cell phones. See;

"A Chinese company is replacing 90% of its workers with robots"

The South China Morning Post reported today that Shenzhen Evenwin Precision
Technology Co., a manufacturing company that makes cell phone parts and
other electronics, is planning to replace roughly 90 percent of its
1,800-person workforce with machines, leaving roughly 1,600 people out of
work. The company, whose chairman became a billionaire in March, is
planning to spend $322 million on a new factory in Dongguan that will use
“only robots for production,” according to the outlet, with a small human
staff of 200 to keep tabs on the machines.


http://fusion.net/story/130549/a-chinese-company-is-replacing-90-percent-of-its-workers-with-robots/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544201/china-wants-to-replace-millions-of-workers-with-robots/

By some estimates there are more unemployed people in China than there are
people with jobs in the U.S. Modern technology is not generating enough
jobs for the educated population of the world. The whole point of most
modern technology is to eliminate people! That has always been one of the
goals of mass production technology, but now it is even more the focus than
ever, because materials, energy, distribution and other costs have fallen
so much in the last 100 years, human labor is the last remaining major
manufacturing cost left to reduce.


>Overall, the labor, materials and the physical volume of iPhones are much
> >smaller than the machines they replaced, and that would be true even if we
> >did not have robots.


>
True, and a good thing too. That's why our standard of living goes up.
>

Until human labor becomes worthless, the whole basis of economics (both
capitalist and communist) vanish, and the whole edifice comes crashing
down. Then we need to start over with a new 

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:00:40 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
> wrote:
>
>The point is that they will need to be manufactured at all, where today
>> they are
>> not.
>
>
>They what? I have lost track of what you mean. Do you mean cold fusion
>cells? They will integrated into generators, the way a combustion heat
>engine is now. They will not require more materials than, say, the turbine,
>fuel tank, fuel regulator and ignition system in today's gas fired
>generator. They will not be more expensive.

True, but where today such generators are a "minor" item, CF generators will be
manufactured in their billions ( 7 billion people / 2.7 people per household =
3.6 billion generators.)

>
>First gen machines will resemble today's generator, except they will take 1
>L of fuel every 10 years, instead of thousands of liters a week. You build
>that 1 L of fuel into the cell. The overall complexity and component count
>of the machine should be roughly the same as today's generator. The cold
>fusion cell replaces the fuel tank and ignition section.
>
>
>This will create some new jobs to replace a portion of those lost, as
>> happens when any new technology comes along. E.g. we now have people
>> employed
>> making iPhone's that didn't exist 50 years ago.
>>
>
>Actually, people do not make iPhones. Robots do.

http://www.cnet.com/au/news/low-wages-and-long-hours-still-persist-at-iphone-factory-claims-labor-group/

When did robots start being paid wages?

>
>Putting aside that issue, what people made 50 years ago were landline
>phones, tape recorders, cameras, televisions and many other things that
>have now been largely replaced with iPhones. Plus iPhones have reduced the
>need for landlines themselves and central office switching systems. Cell
>phone towers use far less material and they are much cheaper, which is why
>third world countries can afford them.
>
>Overall, the labor, materials and the physical volume of iPhones are much
>smaller than the machines they replaced, and that would be true even if we
>did not have robots.

True, and a good thing too. That's why our standard of living goes up.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung, characteristic X-Ray's Rydberg matter and Ions

[mixent]

In reply to  Stephen Cooke's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:33:51 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>Once the metal atoms are excited into these high energy states, particularly 
>if the inner electrons are removed from their inner orbitals I suppose further 
>bremsstrahlung interactions of high energy electrons with those atoms would no 
>longer produce characteristic X-Ray's? At least until the nuclei were no 
>longer energised and able to de-excite back to their ground level i.e. during 
>cool down?
>
Deactivation is usually quite rapid (tiny fraction of a second). Only
"prohibited" transitions are slow.
That means that most atoms will "deactivate" long before the next excitation
event occurs to the same atom. Nuclear weapon detonation may be an exception. :)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:

The point is that they will need to be manufactured at all, where today
> they are
> not.


They what? I have lost track of what you mean. Do you mean cold fusion
cells? They will integrated into generators, the way a combustion heat
engine is now. They will not require more materials than, say, the turbine,
fuel tank, fuel regulator and ignition system in today's gas fired
generator. They will not be more expensive.

First gen machines will resemble today's generator, except they will take 1
L of fuel every 10 years, instead of thousands of liters a week. You build
that 1 L of fuel into the cell. The overall complexity and component count
of the machine should be roughly the same as today's generator. The cold
fusion cell replaces the fuel tank and ignition section.


This will create some new jobs to replace a portion of those lost, as
> happens when any new technology comes along. E.g. we now have people
> employed
> making iPhone's that didn't exist 50 years ago.
>

Actually, people do not make iPhones. Robots do.

Putting aside that issue, what people made 50 years ago were landline
phones, tape recorders, cameras, televisions and many other things that
have now been largely replaced with iPhones. Plus iPhones have reduced the
need for landlines themselves and central office switching systems. Cell
phone towers use far less material and they are much cheaper, which is why
third world countries can afford them.

Overall, the labor, materials and the physical volume of iPhones are much
smaller than the machines they replaced, and that would be true even if we
did not have robots.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:57:32 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> Most E-Cat reactors will be produced using robots.
>>
>
>Perhaps E-Cat reactors lend themselves to being produced by robots more
>than, say, today's wind turbines do. In that case, E-Cat reactors will
>reduce employment both in the manufacturing stage and also in the fuel
>production stage.
>
>Solar panels lend themselves to robotic manufacturing more than wind
>turbines do, I believe.
>
>However, in twenty years, everything will be manufactured by robots. So in
>that sense, E-Cats will not be any different from wind turbines or internal
>combustion engines. In other words, eventually robots will reduce all labor
>costs for all manufactured items to zero. Food will also require no human
>labor. That is another problem -- or another opportunity, depending on how
>you look at it. We have often discussed this issue.
>
>I think the combination of robots and cold fusion will destroy the value of
>human labor even faster than robots alone will do that.

I think this is definitely true of physical human labour. There will be an even
greater shift toward mental labour, and probably a reduction in the working
week. There will come a time when one "works" for 1 hour a week, and earns
enough in that hour to survive comfortably. Jobs will be more esoteric, i.e.
keeping an "eye" on things, deciding on the direction that development should
take etc. In short providing a human perspective.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Stephen Cooke]

Thanks Mark, 

That makes it clear and sounds like a good analysis. I will certainly stay 
tuned and am looking forward to the re-runs greatly. You are making very good 
and thorough analysis.

Stephen

> On 12 mrt. 2016, at 00:45, Mark Jurich  wrote:
> 
>   Stephen Cooke wrote:
>   “Was it confirmed the pulse was only a few seconds? I thought they only 
> spotted it in the spectrum at the
>end of longer session but are not sure exactly when and how long it lasted 
> once initiated?”
>  
> We (MFMP/myself) believe that there was a few second burst about 3 minutes at 
> the end of Spectrum #7.
> The evidence for this is circumstantial.  We know that the Power Analyzer 
> “hiccupped” for a few seconds
> (3 or 4) then recovered at this time.  We also know that Spectrums #8 had 
> some residual radiation, suggesting
> that the emissions continued for at least 3 or 4 minutes.  We also see 
> something in Spectrum #10,
> later.
>  
> We know that in Spectrum #7, there was a significant rise in “pulse overlap” 
> hence the burst hypothesis.
>  
> Until we replicate, we will not be able to really pin all this down.
>  
> I hope this helps clarify what is currently known. Stay tuned.
>  
> - Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:29:25 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>I am afraid that analysis is incorrect. Manufacturing a cold fusion
>generator will not require more labor or materials than manufacturing
>something like a gas fired conventional electric generator. Manufacturing a
>cold fusion automobile engine will require less material and less labor
>than an internal combustion engine, because you do not need pollution
>controls and you can trade off Carnot efficiency for a simpler design.

The point is that they will need to be manufactured at all, where today they are
not. This will create some new jobs to replace a portion of those lost, as
happens when any new technology comes along. E.g. we now have people employed
making iPhone's that didn't exist 50 years ago.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:46:42 -0800:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
>Robin--
>
>I think you are wrong about the nature of Bremsstrahlung.
>
>As I understand, the effect is caused by a charged particle changing its 
>course--being accelerated--in an electric field.  It is not the mass of the 
>particle but the charge of the stationary particle.  Large nuclei have 
>greater positive charge to deflect an energetic electron.  The captured 
>electrons around a nuclei also pose a integrated electric field much more 
>diffuse than that associated with a large point charge.   Energetic 
>electrons are not accelerated as much by the diffuse negative charge 
>presented by cloud of electrons as a stationary "solid" nucleus does. 
>Slower electrons interact with other electron charge density and are 
>deflected to produce Bremsstrahlung.
>
>That being said, an energetic proton will also produce Bremsstrahlung 
>radiation as it is deflected by other heavy, large, positive nuclei.
>
>Bob

So where do we disagree? ;)
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Jones Beene]

A pulse, as described by Mark is consistent with the accumulation of a 
population of dense hydrogen, up to a threshold level, followed by a high 
energy event (could be nuclear or not).

 

 

From: Mark Jurich 

 

  Stephen Cooke wrote:

  “Was it confirmed the pulse was only a few seconds? I thought they only 
spotted it in the spectrum at the end of longer session but are not sure 
exactly when and how long it lasted once initiated?”

 

We (MFMP/myself) believe that there was a few second burst about 3 minutes at 
the end of Spectrum #7. The evidence for this is circumstantial.  We know that 
the Power Analyzer “hiccupped” for a few seconds (3 or 4) then recovered at 
this time.  We also know that Spectrums #8 had some residual radiation, 
suggesting that the emissions continued for at least 3 or 4 minutes.  We also 
see something in Spectrum #10, later.

 

We know that in Spectrum #7, there was a significant rise in “pulse overlap” 
hence the burst hypothesis.

 

Until we replicate, we will not be able to really pin all this down.

 

I hope this helps clarify what is currently known. Stay tuned.

 

- Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jack Cole]

One of the most interesting things to me about IH is that they don't seem
to have exclusivity with Rossi.  They are free to license technologies from
other companies, and are thus free to be objective in the evaluation and
presentation of these technologies.  Their ship does not sink if Rossi's
does.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:51 PM Frank Acland  wrote:

> It seems so;  Rossi said this today on the JONP:
>
> Andrea Rossi
> March 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM
>
> Sebastian:
> Yes, obviously, as everybody knows, Industrial Heat has the license to
> manufacture the E-Cats in its Territory.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> > Does IH have manufacturing rights to the E-cat? What technology does
> > IH have the rights to? Where does IH get the fuel for the reactors
> > that they build. Can IH produce the fuel? Does Leonardo supply wafers
> > to IH? Is Leonardo the only company that can manufacture the E Cat?
> >
> > Does anybody know the manufacturing deal that exists between IH and
> Leonardo?
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:45 PM,   wrote:
> >> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:11:02 -0500:
> >> Hi,
> >> [snip]
> >>>One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
> >>>IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
> >>>the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
> >>>to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
> >>>must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
> >>>Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
> >>>says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
> >>>with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
> >>>too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.
> >>
> >> I don't see any problem here. IH already has the technology for the 1MW
> plant,
> >> it's up to them whether they decide to sell devices based upon it or
> not.
> >>
> >> In short they could sell 1 MW plants now, and switch to better
> technology as it
> >> becomes available. This is what all technology based companies do.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Robin van Spaandonk
> >>
> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Frank Acland
> Publisher, E-Cat World
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Mark Jurich]

  Stephen Cooke wrote:
  “Was it confirmed the pulse was only a few seconds? I thought they only 
spotted it in the spectrum at the
   end of longer session but are not sure exactly when and how long it lasted 
once initiated?”
We (MFMP/myself) believe that there was a few second burst about 3 minutes at 
the end of Spectrum #7.
The evidence for this is circumstantial.  We know that the Power Analyzer 
“hiccupped” for a few seconds
(3 or 4) then recovered at this time.  We also know that Spectrums #8 had some 
residual radiation, suggesting
that the emissions continued for at least 3 or 4 minutes.  We also see 
something in Spectrum #10,
later.
We know that in Spectrum #7, there was a significant rise in “pulse overlap” 
hence the burst hypothesis.
Until we replicate, we will not be able to really pin all this down.
I hope this helps clarify what is currently known. Stay tuned.
- Mark Jurich 

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, we have a certain amount of resources when it comes to the work force.
Factors like how long work days shall we have, time lag between that the
educational system can produce useful skills and when it could have been
used and many other things will determine how much over capacity
(unemployment) we will have. Regional unbalances because of large gap
between standard of living also has impact.
The resources will eventually be all engaged. There will always be new
things to discover and to develop. At least until the day we all go blaze
and no longer are curious.
I agree with that there is a short term problem.
That problem does not go away if we try to slow down the progress. That
just makes the problem exist for longer - so long that it becomes an
institution in itself.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The QuarkX will produce electricity. Heat production will minimized and be
> a waste product. The QuarkX will be produced in a similar way as a ITEL
> processor chip. Most E-Cat reactors will be produced using robots.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It will take only a few thousand people to implement. Most of them
>>> >will be researchers, who are seldom paid much money. Cold fusion will
>>> wipe
>>> >out an entire sector of the economy. Whether it will add new sectors
>>> >remains to be seen.
>>>
>>> Someone has to work in the factories that build the generators. This is
>>> especially true if the generators are home sized rather than GW plants.
>>>
>>
>> I am afraid that analysis is incorrect. Manufacturing a cold fusion
>> generator will not require more labor or materials than manufacturing
>> something like a gas fired conventional electric generator. Manufacturing a
>> cold fusion automobile engine will require less material and less labor
>> than an internal combustion engine, because you do not need pollution
>> controls and you can trade off Carnot efficiency for a simpler design.
>>
>> Assuming the total demand for generators and motors remains about the
>> same as it is now, the cost and labor of manufacturing these machines will
>> be about the same as it is now. The cost of supplying them with fuel will
>> be zero. It is the fuel production segment of the economy that will vanish.
>>
>> Of course you can say the same thing for wind and solar energy. The fuel
>> cost is zero. However, as it happens, these two technologies require
>> considerably more labor per unit of energy then fossil fuel or nuclear
>> power. The maintenance costs of wind turbines are also higher per
>> megawatt-hour than they are for things like coal and gas turbines. So
>> employment is not reduced.
>>
>> Employment may be somewhat reduced with utility scale solar energy
>> compared to conventional generation or wind.
>>
>> Maintenance costs for cold fusion devices will eventually be lower than
>> they are for any of today's energy sources. Again this is because you can
>> trade off Carnot efficiency for a low maintenance design. There is no use
>> for Carnot efficiency above 5% in a cold fusion device. (5% is roughly the
>> efficiency of automobiles in 1960.) Low efficiency just means you have lots
>> of waste heat going up the chimney. It costs nothing.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:


> Most E-Cat reactors will be produced using robots.
>

Perhaps E-Cat reactors lend themselves to being produced by robots more
than, say, today's wind turbines do. In that case, E-Cat reactors will
reduce employment both in the manufacturing stage and also in the fuel
production stage.

Solar panels lend themselves to robotic manufacturing more than wind
turbines do, I believe.

However, in twenty years, everything will be manufactured by robots. So in
that sense, E-Cats will not be any different from wind turbines or internal
combustion engines. In other words, eventually robots will reduce all labor
costs for all manufactured items to zero. Food will also require no human
labor. That is another problem -- or another opportunity, depending on how
you look at it. We have often discussed this issue.

I think the combination of robots and cold fusion will destroy the value of
human labor even faster than robots alone will do that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Frank Acland]

It seems so;  Rossi said this today on the JONP:

Andrea Rossi
March 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM

Sebastian:
Yes, obviously, as everybody knows, Industrial Heat has the license to
manufacture the E-Cats in its Territory.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> Does IH have manufacturing rights to the E-cat? What technology does
> IH have the rights to? Where does IH get the fuel for the reactors
> that they build. Can IH produce the fuel? Does Leonardo supply wafers
> to IH? Is Leonardo the only company that can manufacture the E Cat?
>
> Does anybody know the manufacturing deal that exists between IH and Leonardo?
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:45 PM,   wrote:
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:11:02 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>>One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
>>>IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
>>>the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
>>>to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
>>>must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
>>>Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
>>>says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
>>>with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
>>>too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.
>>
>> I don't see any problem here. IH already has the technology for the 1MW 
>> plant,
>> it's up to them whether they decide to sell devices based upon it or not.
>>
>> In short they could sell 1 MW plants now, and switch to better technology as 
>> it
>> becomes available. This is what all technology based companies do.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>



-- 
Frank Acland
Publisher, E-Cat World

Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Stephen Cooke]

Hi Axil a couple of quick questions?

Was it confirmed the pulse was only a few seconds? I thought they only spotted 
it in the spectrum at the end of longer session but are not sure exactly when 
and how long it lasted once initiated?

I have been trying to find papers and references on high energy gamma 
absorption by SPP... I suppose your dark mode plasmons could you point me to a 
reference? Also Does it require degenerate matter to form or some other method? 
I know you have circulated a lot of documents and background on the broader 
ideas about SPP but is there is one you recommend that specifically on these 
points?

Thanks Stephen

> On 11 mrt. 2016, at 23:16, Axil Axil  wrote:
> 
> Something must produce those electrons and that something (Alpha. beta} 
> produces EMF energy at a well defined gamma level.
> 
> Bright mode release of "photons" from SPPs when they decay...before an SPP 
> BEC becomes active. 
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
>> Axil--
>> 
>> Bremsstrahlung radiation is due to inelastic scattering of electrons as they 
>> pass through matter.  There are no resonances.  The radiations occurs as a 
>> result of an electron changing direction as a result of the electric field 
>> it is passing through.  This change in direction (acceleration) saps energy 
>> from the kinetic energy of the free electron and distributes that energy as 
>> electromagnetic radiation equivalent to the loss of kinetic energy of the 
>> electron.   The spectrum is random photons because the distance and charge 
>> of particles being encountered by an energetic electron is random.  Thus the 
>> forces on the electron, whether due to other lattice electrons or positive 
>> charges in the lattice are random in magnitude.
>> 
>> Landau distributions of the energy of photons do not apply to free electrons 
>> unless they are at relativistic velocities and have an effective mass like a 
>> proton, pion, alpha or other heavy particle.
>> 
>> What do you consider is the likely mechanism producing the  "Landau 
>> distribution" you suggest?  Specifically, what particles are involved in the 
>> generation of the spectrum?
>> 
>> Bob Cook
>> 
>> -Original Message- From: Axil Axil
>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:19 AM
>> To: vortex-l
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note
>> 
>> The seconds long MFMP X-ray burst is smooth and demonstrates no
>> resonance energy peaks caused by the interaction of electrons with
>> matter. The MFMP burst is strictly a release of photons in a random
>> energy distribution.
>> 
>> A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation
>> plot. It is the release of energy by particles based on a random
>> release process. This is seen when a particle gives up its kinetic
>> energy to a thin film as the particles interact randomly with the
>> matter in the thin film.
>> 
>> If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or
>> based on a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution of energy
>> release will be seen.
>> 
>> You might see a Landau distribution if there is a random mixing of
>> both low energy photons (infrared) and high energy photons (gamma's
>> from the nucleus);
>> 
>> Such mixing is produced by Fano resonance, where an SPPs are being fed
>> by both infrared photon pumping and nuclear based gamma photon
>> absorption.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>> Electrons may have nothing to do with the x-ray radiation.
>>> 
>>> The radiation could be produced by photon based quasiparticles.
>>> 
>>> The LENR reaction might start with Surface Plasmon Polaritons
>>> initiated nuclear reactions and then after thermalization, the decay
>>> of those SPPs. When the SPPs decay, they release their energy content
>>> as photons of varng energies,
>>> 
>>> After a second or two, a Bose condensate of these SPPs form and the
>>> energy of the photons are released as hawking radiation which is
>>> thermal.
>>> 
>>> The radiation seen only lasts for a second.
>>> 
>>> In LENR we get either high energy radiation (x-rays) or heat; not
>>> both. This is based on the temperature of the reactor. A cold reactor
>>> produces X-Rays because of weak SPP pumping..
>>> 
>>> The SPP absorbs nuclear binding energy and stores it in a whispering
>>> gallery wave (WGW) in a dark mode. The energy is stored inside the WGW
>>> until the WGW goes to a bright mode when the SPP decays. This
>>> conversion from dark mode to bright mode happens in a random
>>> distribution.
>>> 
>>> When the temperature is raised over a thermal conversion limit, a BEC
>>> is formed where the stored nuclear binding energy is released from the
>>> SPP BEC as hawking radiation which is thermal.
>>> 
>>> 
 On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
 The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons 

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Lennart Thornros]

Response to Jed.
If the COP is less than one, I guess it will be VERY difficult to get
funding for future development.
Us with the limited imagination can hardly come to a decision to invest in
new technology that hold no promises.
Unfortunately, the type of education / experience people have is not a good
base for to judge the level of creativity and risk willingness they have.
The problem is that the willingness to take calculated risk is suppressed
by the fact that decisions about investment in new technology often is
determined by a 'committee'.
That is the basic reason that LENR development is spearheaded by one
entrepreneurial guy. Without his vision - believe - etc. I think we would
have to wait another 25 years for LENR investment.
Universities and the big community of scientist, which are employed there
are ill equipped to take risks. I can elaborate about that but I think we
already been there.  .

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> I think I said that the engineering will happen over many years to come.
>>
> I guess a COP of 0.02 would be like an Otto motor and not [too]
>> attractive.
>>
>
> I would compare it to seeing a charged electric wire deflect a magnet in
> 1820, and from there extrapolating to the telegraph and the electric motor.
>
> (André-Marie Ampère suggested an electromagnetic telegraph in 1821, one
> year after Oersted discovered the effect. Here are some nifty pictures of
> early electric motors, which were as varied as cold fusion devices are
> today: https://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php)
>
>
> Or, you might compare it to Mme. Curie and others seeing radioactivity
> in1895 and extrapolating to nuclear power reactors and bombs. That was not
> such a stretch. HG Wells described nuclear bombs in 1913 in the book "The
> World Set Free." (He got the details completely wrong. He imagined them as
> miniature suns producing continuous heat lasting for a long time rather
> than a single rapid event. However, he did understand the overall energy
> release and destructive power.)
>
>
>
>> It's better be over 1.
>>
>
> Only to people who have little imagination and no knowledge of the history
> of technology.
>
> Unfortunately many people who have little imagination, and many of them
> are in charge of industrial corporations. So in that sense your point is
> well taken. If the people in charge of corporations understood science &
> technology they would have poured billions into cold fusion already.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Bob Cook]

Robin--

I think you are wrong about the nature of Bremsstrahlung.

As I understand, the effect is caused by a charged particle changing its 
course--being accelerated--in an electric field.  It is not the mass of the 
particle but the charge of the stationary particle.  Large nuclei have 
greater positive charge to deflect an energetic electron.  The captured 
electrons around a nuclei also pose a integrated electric field much more 
diffuse than that associated with a large point charge.   Energetic 
electrons are not accelerated as much by the diffuse negative charge 
presented by cloud of electrons as a stationary "solid" nucleus does. 
Slower electrons interact with other electron charge density and are 
deflected to produce Bremsstrahlung.


That being said, an energetic proton will also produce Bremsstrahlung 
radiation as it is deflected by other heavy, large, positive nuclei.


Bob

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 1:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:34:55 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons that 
cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of the can (or 
alumina) and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the loss of 
energy per scattering event is proportional to Z ^2 for the nucleus that is 
doing the scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at Z=26 the intensity of the 
Bremsstrahlung signal would be about a factor of 4 different.  The mean 
length of the path of an electron is a good parameter to know for any given 
substance (basically its density) vs the incident energy of the electron. 
Shielding engineering curves provide this information I believe.   Iron 
being significantly more dense than Al2O3 would be much better at slowing 
electrons and thus producing Bremsstrahlung IMHO.


Shielding is based primarily on the electrons of an atom being ionized.
Bremsstrahlung is created when a fast particle interacts with a nucleus.
Most fast electrons impinging on solid matter will create ionization, i.e. 
they
get stopped by other electrons. AFAIK Only about 1% get through to the 
nucleus
and create Bremsstrahlung. I think that both nuclear charge and number of 
nuclei

per unit volume would be important for Bremsstrahlung production. Mass of a
nucleus not so much, because even a single proton is already about 2000 
times

more massive than an electron. When it comes to collisions, it makes little
difference whether the nucleus is light or heavy. In short any nucleus is
effectively an "immovable object" as far as an electron is concerned.

BTW if MeV level electrons are stopped by Aluminium foil, then the can would
have to be very thin not to stop them.

Has anyone considered the possibility that some (little) bremsstrahlung 
might be

caused by fast protons impacting on heavier nuclei?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Axil Axil]

To the best of my understanding, the x-ray burst happens once at startup of
a reactor run that can last for months.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> A 1-2 second radiation burst in a detector is the 'norm' for capture of a
> cosmic ray in lead!
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:05 PM
> To: vortex-l
> Subject: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note
>
> Axil--
>
> Bremsstrahlung radiation is due to inelastic scattering of electrons as
> they pass through matter.  There are no resonances.  The radiations occurs
> as a result of an electron changing direction as a result of the electric
> field it is passing through.  This change in direction (acceleration) saps
> energy from the kinetic energy of the free electron and distributes that
> energy as electromagnetic radiation equivalent to the loss of kinetic
> energy of the
> electron.   The spectrum is random photons because the distance and charge
> of particles being encountered by an energetic electron is random.  Thus
> the forces on the electron, whether due to other lattice electrons or
> positive charges in the lattice are random in magnitude.
>
> Landau distributions of the energy of photons do not apply to free
> electrons unless they are at relativistic velocities and have an effective
> mass like a proton, pion, alpha or other heavy particle.
>
> What do you consider is the likely mechanism producing the  "Landau
> distribution" you suggest?  Specifically, what particles are involved in
> the generation of the spectrum?
>
> Bob Cook
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:19 AM
> To: vortex-l
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note
>
> The seconds long MFMP X-ray burst is smooth and demonstrates no resonance
> energy peaks caused by the interaction of electrons with matter. The MFMP
> burst is strictly a release of photons in a random energy distribution.
>
> A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation plot. It
> is the release of energy by particles based on a random release process.
> This is seen when a particle gives up its kinetic energy to a thin film as
> the particles interact randomly with the matter in the thin film.
>
> If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or
> based on a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution of energy
> release will be seen.
>
> You might see a Landau distribution if there is a random mixing of both
> low energy photons (infrared) and high energy photons (gamma's from the
> nucleus);
>
> Such mixing is produced by Fano resonance, where an SPPs are being fed by
> both infrared photon pumping and nuclear based gamma photon absorption.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> > Electrons may have nothing to do with the x-ray radiation.
> >
> > The radiation could be produced by photon based quasiparticles.
> >
> > The LENR reaction might start with Surface Plasmon Polaritons
> > initiated nuclear reactions and then after thermalization, the decay
> > of those SPPs. When the SPPs decay, they release their energy content
> > as photons of varng energies,
> >
> > After a second or two, a Bose condensate of these SPPs form and the
> > energy of the photons are released as hawking radiation which is
> > thermal.
> >
> > The radiation seen only lasts for a second.
> >
> > In LENR we get either high energy radiation (x-rays) or heat; not
> > both. This is based on the temperature of the reactor. A cold reactor
> > produces X-Rays because of weak SPP pumping..
> >
> > The SPP absorbs nuclear binding energy and stores it in a whispering
> > gallery wave (WGW) in a dark mode. The energy is stored inside the WGW
> > until the WGW goes to a bright mode when the SPP decays. This
> > conversion from dark mode to bright mode happens in a random
> > distribution.
> >
> > When the temperature is raised over a thermal conversion limit, a BEC
> > is formed where the stored nuclear binding energy is released from the
> > SPP BEC as hawking radiation which is thermal.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Bob Cook 
> > wrote:
> >> The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons
> >> that cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of the can
> >> (or
> >> alumina)
> >> and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the loss of energy
> >> per scattering event is proportional to Z ^2 for the nucleus that is
> >> doing the scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at Z=26 the intensity
> >> of the Bremsstrahlung signal would be about a factor of 4 different.
> >> The mean length of the path of an electron is a good parameter to
> >> know for any given substance (basically its density) vs the incident
> >> energy of the electron.
> >> Shielding engineering curves provide this information I believe.   

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[Axil Axil]

The QuarkX will produce electricity. Heat production will minimized and be
a waste product. The QuarkX will be produced in a similar way as a ITEL
processor chip. Most E-Cat reactors will be produced using robots.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  wrote:
>
>
>> It will take only a few thousand people to implement. Most of them
>> >will be researchers, who are seldom paid much money. Cold fusion will
>> wipe
>> >out an entire sector of the economy. Whether it will add new sectors
>> >remains to be seen.
>>
>> Someone has to work in the factories that build the generators. This is
>> especially true if the generators are home sized rather than GW plants.
>>
>
> I am afraid that analysis is incorrect. Manufacturing a cold fusion
> generator will not require more labor or materials than manufacturing
> something like a gas fired conventional electric generator. Manufacturing a
> cold fusion automobile engine will require less material and less labor
> than an internal combustion engine, because you do not need pollution
> controls and you can trade off Carnot efficiency for a simpler design.
>
> Assuming the total demand for generators and motors remains about the same
> as it is now, the cost and labor of manufacturing these machines will be
> about the same as it is now. The cost of supplying them with fuel will be
> zero. It is the fuel production segment of the economy that will vanish.
>
> Of course you can say the same thing for wind and solar energy. The fuel
> cost is zero. However, as it happens, these two technologies require
> considerably more labor per unit of energy then fossil fuel or nuclear
> power. The maintenance costs of wind turbines are also higher per
> megawatt-hour than they are for things like coal and gas turbines. So
> employment is not reduced.
>
> Employment may be somewhat reduced with utility scale solar energy
> compared to conventional generation or wind.
>
> Maintenance costs for cold fusion devices will eventually be lower than
> they are for any of today's energy sources. Again this is because you can
> trade off Carnot efficiency for a low maintenance design. There is no use
> for Carnot efficiency above 5% in a cold fusion device. (5% is roughly the
> efficiency of automobiles in 1960.) Low efficiency just means you have lots
> of waste heat going up the chimney. It costs nothing.
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Russ George]

A 1-2 second radiation burst in a detector is the 'norm' for capture of a 
cosmic ray in lead! 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:05 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

Axil--

Bremsstrahlung radiation is due to inelastic scattering of electrons as they 
pass through matter.  There are no resonances.  The radiations occurs as a 
result of an electron changing direction as a result of the electric field it 
is passing through.  This change in direction (acceleration) saps energy from 
the kinetic energy of the free electron and distributes that energy as 
electromagnetic radiation equivalent to the loss of kinetic energy of the 
electron.   The spectrum is random photons because the distance and charge 
of particles being encountered by an energetic electron is random.  Thus the 
forces on the electron, whether due to other lattice electrons or positive 
charges in the lattice are random in magnitude.

Landau distributions of the energy of photons do not apply to free electrons 
unless they are at relativistic velocities and have an effective mass like a 
proton, pion, alpha or other heavy particle.

What do you consider is the likely mechanism producing the  "Landau 
distribution" you suggest?  Specifically, what particles are involved in the 
generation of the spectrum?

Bob Cook

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:19 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

The seconds long MFMP X-ray burst is smooth and demonstrates no resonance 
energy peaks caused by the interaction of electrons with matter. The MFMP burst 
is strictly a release of photons in a random energy distribution.

A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation plot. It is 
the release of energy by particles based on a random release process. This is 
seen when a particle gives up its kinetic energy to a thin film as the 
particles interact randomly with the matter in the thin film.

If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or based on 
a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution of energy release will be 
seen.

You might see a Landau distribution if there is a random mixing of both low 
energy photons (infrared) and high energy photons (gamma's from the nucleus);

Such mixing is produced by Fano resonance, where an SPPs are being fed by both 
infrared photon pumping and nuclear based gamma photon absorption.



On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> Electrons may have nothing to do with the x-ray radiation.
>
> The radiation could be produced by photon based quasiparticles.
>
> The LENR reaction might start with Surface Plasmon Polaritons 
> initiated nuclear reactions and then after thermalization, the decay 
> of those SPPs. When the SPPs decay, they release their energy content 
> as photons of varng energies,
>
> After a second or two, a Bose condensate of these SPPs form and the 
> energy of the photons are released as hawking radiation which is 
> thermal.
>
> The radiation seen only lasts for a second.
>
> In LENR we get either high energy radiation (x-rays) or heat; not 
> both. This is based on the temperature of the reactor. A cold reactor 
> produces X-Rays because of weak SPP pumping..
>
> The SPP absorbs nuclear binding energy and stores it in a whispering 
> gallery wave (WGW) in a dark mode. The energy is stored inside the WGW 
> until the WGW goes to a bright mode when the SPP decays. This 
> conversion from dark mode to bright mode happens in a random 
> distribution.
>
> When the temperature is raised over a thermal conversion limit, a BEC 
> is formed where the stored nuclear binding energy is released from the 
> SPP BEC as hawking radiation which is thermal.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Bob Cook 
> wrote:
>> The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons 
>> that cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of the can 
>> (or
>> alumina)
>> and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the loss of energy 
>> per scattering event is proportional to Z ^2 for the nucleus that is 
>> doing the scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at Z=26 the intensity 
>> of the Bremsstrahlung signal would be about a factor of 4 different.  
>> The mean length of the path of an electron is a good parameter to 
>> know for any given substance (basically its density) vs the incident 
>> energy of the electron.
>> Shielding engineering curves provide this information I believe.   Iron
>> being significantly more dense than Al2O3 would be much better at 
>> slowing electrons and thus producing Bremsstrahlung IMHO.
>>
>> At high electron energies the change of direction of the electron 
>> going through SS can would be less than for a low energy electron.  
>> For slow electrons scattering can significantly change the 

Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung, characteristic X-Ray's Rydberg matter and Ions

[Stephen Cooke]

Sorry a couple of time I said nuclei but I meant atoms. This is about electron 
atom interactions not nucleus excitations.

Sent from my iPad

> On 11 mrt. 2016, at 23:33, Stephen Cooke  wrote:
> 
> I'm wondering if there is an explanation for clean Bremsstrahlung emissions 
> with out characteristic X-Rays apart from Axil's interesting explanation 
> (which maybe the correct one) of broad spectrum emissions from SPP. 
> 
> First some well known background about Bremsstrahlung that I'm sure you are 
> all familiar with:
> 
> If we do have Bremsstrahlung radiation due to high energy electrons this will 
> radiate photons with a broad range of frequencies with a range starting and 
> rising very quickly to a peak intensity at frequencies near the plasma 
> frequency in the material then decreasing to zero intensity at frequencies 
> corresponding to the energy of the kinetic energy Q value of the electrons. 
> 
> The plasma frequency in metals is typically in the UV region maybe 5 to 20 eV.
> 
> The Q value depends on the energy of the source electrons or beta and can 
> vary a lot in energy depending on the source energy they can be a 10s keV but 
> can also be even be at very high energies corresponding to very hard X-rays 
> at gamma frequencies say to 1.5 MeV or more for example, especially if due to 
> a nuclear source such as beta decay.
> 
> The highest emission intensity however will typically be between the plasma 
> frequency and a few tens or hundreds keV.
> 
> Thermal distribution and relativistic effects on the electron energies can 
> also have a small effect on the on the photon emission profile.
> 
> Normally interactions of Bremsstrahlung electrons with atoms can lead to 
> characteristic X-Ray emission at a few 10s keV from excitation inner electron 
> transitions in the atom after Auger electrons are released. These are usually 
> visible as distinct peaks on top of the broad Bremsstrahlung emission 
> spectrum.
> 
> Given this background I have a few questions:
> 
> The Fermi Energy in metals is also a few eV typically 2 to 10 eV.
> 
> What would be the impact of the bremsstrahlung radiation photon emission at 
> energies  above the Fermi energy for the metals? Wouldn't these metals start 
> to become ionised and the electrons start to move independently of the 
> nuclei? (Perhaps this behaviour is what we expect tied to the plasma 
> frequency and bulk or surface plasmons production).
> 
> With such a broad range of frequencies in the Bremsstrahlung could the atoms 
> become more heavily ionised? Increasing slightly the electron density and 
> strength of interaction of fast electrons with the ions? Thereby enhancing 
> the Bremsstrahlung.
> 
> Would the high intensity but Low energy Bremsstrahlung photons (UV to low 
> energy X- Ray) excite the high energy electron energy transitions in the 
> nuclei? Or perhaps even knock out inner shell electrons. I think I read 
> somewhere this has be observed astronomically.
> 
> Could such excited atoms can achieve Rydberg state too? And ultimately for 
> Rydberg matter?
> 
> Once the metal atoms are excited into these high energy states, particularly 
> if the inner electrons are removed from their inner orbitals I suppose 
> further bremsstrahlung interactions of high energy electrons with those atoms 
> would no longer produce characteristic X-Ray's? At least until the nuclei 
> were no longer energised and able to de-excite back to their ground level 
> i.e. during cool down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad

[Vo]:Bremsstrahlung, characteristic X-Ray's Rydberg matter and Ions

[Stephen Cooke]

I'm wondering if there is an explanation for clean Bremsstrahlung emissions 
with out characteristic X-Rays apart from Axil's interesting explanation (which 
maybe the correct one) of broad spectrum emissions from SPP. 

First some well known background about Bremsstrahlung that I'm sure you are all 
familiar with:

If we do have Bremsstrahlung radiation due to high energy electrons this will 
radiate photons with a broad range of frequencies with a range starting and 
rising very quickly to a peak intensity at frequencies near the plasma 
frequency in the material then decreasing to zero intensity at frequencies 
corresponding to the energy of the kinetic energy Q value of the electrons. 

The plasma frequency in metals is typically in the UV region maybe 5 to 20 eV.

The Q value depends on the energy of the source electrons or beta and can vary 
a lot in energy depending on the source energy they can be a 10s keV but can 
also be even be at very high energies corresponding to very hard X-rays at 
gamma frequencies say to 1.5 MeV or more for example, especially if due to a 
nuclear source such as beta decay.

The highest emission intensity however will typically be between the plasma 
frequency and a few tens or hundreds keV.

Thermal distribution and relativistic effects on the electron energies can also 
have a small effect on the on the photon emission profile.

Normally interactions of Bremsstrahlung electrons with atoms can lead to 
characteristic X-Ray emission at a few 10s keV from excitation inner electron 
transitions in the atom after Auger electrons are released. These are usually 
visible as distinct peaks on top of the broad Bremsstrahlung emission spectrum.

Given this background I have a few questions:

The Fermi Energy in metals is also a few eV typically 2 to 10 eV.

What would be the impact of the bremsstrahlung radiation photon emission at 
energies  above the Fermi energy for the metals? Wouldn't these metals start to 
become ionised and the electrons start to move independently of the nuclei? 
(Perhaps this behaviour is what we expect tied to the plasma frequency and bulk 
or surface plasmons production).

With such a broad range of frequencies in the Bremsstrahlung could the atoms 
become more heavily ionised? Increasing slightly the electron density and 
strength of interaction of fast electrons with the ions? Thereby enhancing the 
Bremsstrahlung.

Would the high intensity but Low energy Bremsstrahlung photons (UV to low 
energy X- Ray) excite the high energy electron energy transitions in the 
nuclei? Or perhaps even knock out inner shell electrons. I think I read 
somewhere this has be observed astronomically.

Could such excited atoms can achieve Rydberg state too? And ultimately for 
Rydberg matter?

Once the metal atoms are excited into these high energy states, particularly if 
the inner electrons are removed from their inner orbitals I suppose further 
bremsstrahlung interactions of high energy electrons with those atoms would no 
longer produce characteristic X-Ray's? At least until the nuclei were no longer 
energised and able to de-excite back to their ground level i.e. during cool 
down?













Sent from my iPad

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:


> It will take only a few thousand people to implement. Most of them
> >will be researchers, who are seldom paid much money. Cold fusion will wipe
> >out an entire sector of the economy. Whether it will add new sectors
> >remains to be seen.
>
> Someone has to work in the factories that build the generators. This is
> especially true if the generators are home sized rather than GW plants.
>

I am afraid that analysis is incorrect. Manufacturing a cold fusion
generator will not require more labor or materials than manufacturing
something like a gas fired conventional electric generator. Manufacturing a
cold fusion automobile engine will require less material and less labor
than an internal combustion engine, because you do not need pollution
controls and you can trade off Carnot efficiency for a simpler design.

Assuming the total demand for generators and motors remains about the same
as it is now, the cost and labor of manufacturing these machines will be
about the same as it is now. The cost of supplying them with fuel will be
zero. It is the fuel production segment of the economy that will vanish.

Of course you can say the same thing for wind and solar energy. The fuel
cost is zero. However, as it happens, these two technologies require
considerably more labor per unit of energy then fossil fuel or nuclear
power. The maintenance costs of wind turbines are also higher per
megawatt-hour than they are for things like coal and gas turbines. So
employment is not reduced.

Employment may be somewhat reduced with utility scale solar energy compared
to conventional generation or wind.

Maintenance costs for cold fusion devices will eventually be lower than
they are for any of today's energy sources. Again this is because you can
trade off Carnot efficiency for a low maintenance design. There is no use
for Carnot efficiency above 5% in a cold fusion device. (5% is roughly the
efficiency of automobiles in 1960.) Low efficiency just means you have lots
of waste heat going up the chimney. It costs nothing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Axil Axil]

Something must produce those electrons and that something (Alpha. beta}
produces EMF energy at a well defined gamma level.

Bright mode release of "*photons*" from SPPs when they decay...before an
SPP BEC becomes active.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Axil--
>
> Bremsstrahlung radiation is due to inelastic scattering of electrons as
> they pass through matter.  There are no resonances.  The radiations occurs
> as a result of an electron changing direction as a result of the electric
> field it is passing through.  This change in direction (acceleration) saps
> energy from the kinetic energy of the free electron and distributes that
> energy as electromagnetic radiation equivalent to the loss of kinetic
> energy of the electron.   The spectrum is random photons because the
> distance and charge of particles being encountered by an energetic electron
> is random.  Thus the forces on the electron, whether due to other lattice
> electrons or positive charges in the lattice are random in magnitude.
>
> Landau distributions of the energy of photons do not apply to free
> electrons unless they are at relativistic velocities and have an effective
> mass like a proton, pion, alpha or other heavy particle.
>
> What do you consider is the likely mechanism producing the  "Landau
> distribution" you suggest?  Specifically, what particles are involved in
> the generation of the spectrum?
>
> Bob Cook
>
> -Original Message- From: Axil Axil
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:19 AM
> To: vortex-l
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note
>
> The seconds long MFMP X-ray burst is smooth and demonstrates no
> resonance energy peaks caused by the interaction of electrons with
> matter. The MFMP burst is strictly a release of photons in a random
> energy distribution.
>
> A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation
> plot. It is the release of energy by particles based on a random
> release process. This is seen when a particle gives up its kinetic
> energy to a thin film as the particles interact randomly with the
> matter in the thin film.
>
> If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or
> based on a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution of energy
> release will be seen.
>
> You might see a Landau distribution if there is a random mixing of
> both low energy photons (infrared) and high energy photons (gamma's
> from the nucleus);
>
> Such mixing is produced by Fano resonance, where an SPPs are being fed
> by both infrared photon pumping and nuclear based gamma photon
> absorption.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Electrons may have nothing to do with the x-ray radiation.
>>
>> The radiation could be produced by photon based quasiparticles.
>>
>> The LENR reaction might start with Surface Plasmon Polaritons
>> initiated nuclear reactions and then after thermalization, the decay
>> of those SPPs. When the SPPs decay, they release their energy content
>> as photons of varng energies,
>>
>> After a second or two, a Bose condensate of these SPPs form and the
>> energy of the photons are released as hawking radiation which is
>> thermal.
>>
>> The radiation seen only lasts for a second.
>>
>> In LENR we get either high energy radiation (x-rays) or heat; not
>> both. This is based on the temperature of the reactor. A cold reactor
>> produces X-Rays because of weak SPP pumping..
>>
>> The SPP absorbs nuclear binding energy and stores it in a whispering
>> gallery wave (WGW) in a dark mode. The energy is stored inside the WGW
>> until the WGW goes to a bright mode when the SPP decays. This
>> conversion from dark mode to bright mode happens in a random
>> distribution.
>>
>> When the temperature is raised over a thermal conversion limit, a BEC
>> is formed where the stored nuclear binding energy is released from the
>> SPP BEC as hawking radiation which is thermal.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Bob Cook 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons
>>> that
>>> cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of the can (or
>>> alumina)
>>> and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the loss of energy per
>>> scattering event is proportional to Z ^2 for the nucleus that is doing
>>> the
>>> scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at Z=26 the intensity of the
>>> Bremsstrahlung signal would be about a factor of 4 different.  The mean
>>> length of the path of an electron is a good parameter to know for any
>>> given
>>> substance (basically its density) vs the incident energy of the electron.
>>> Shielding engineering curves provide this information I believe.   Iron
>>> being significantly more dense than Al2O3 would be much better at slowing
>>> electrons and thus producing Bremsstrahlung IMHO.
>>>
>>> At high electron energies the change of direction of the electron 

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

Bremsstrahlung radiation is due to inelastic scattering of electrons as they 
pass through matter.  There are no resonances.  The radiations occurs as a 
result of an electron changing direction as a result of the electric field 
it is passing through.  This change in direction (acceleration) saps energy 
from the kinetic energy of the free electron and distributes that energy as 
electromagnetic radiation equivalent to the loss of kinetic energy of the 
electron.   The spectrum is random photons because the distance and charge 
of particles being encountered by an energetic electron is random.  Thus the 
forces on the electron, whether due to other lattice electrons or positive 
charges in the lattice are random in magnitude.


Landau distributions of the energy of photons do not apply to free electrons 
unless they are at relativistic velocities and have an effective mass like a 
proton, pion, alpha or other heavy particle.


What do you consider is the likely mechanism producing the  "Landau 
distribution" you suggest?  Specifically, what particles are involved in the 
generation of the spectrum?


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: Axil Axil

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:19 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

The seconds long MFMP X-ray burst is smooth and demonstrates no
resonance energy peaks caused by the interaction of electrons with
matter. The MFMP burst is strictly a release of photons in a random
energy distribution.

A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation
plot. It is the release of energy by particles based on a random
release process. This is seen when a particle gives up its kinetic
energy to a thin film as the particles interact randomly with the
matter in the thin film.

If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or
based on a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution of energy
release will be seen.

You might see a Landau distribution if there is a random mixing of
both low energy photons (infrared) and high energy photons (gamma's
from the nucleus);

Such mixing is produced by Fano resonance, where an SPPs are being fed
by both infrared photon pumping and nuclear based gamma photon
absorption.



On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Electrons may have nothing to do with the x-ray radiation.

The radiation could be produced by photon based quasiparticles.

The LENR reaction might start with Surface Plasmon Polaritons
initiated nuclear reactions and then after thermalization, the decay
of those SPPs. When the SPPs decay, they release their energy content
as photons of varng energies,

After a second or two, a Bose condensate of these SPPs form and the
energy of the photons are released as hawking radiation which is
thermal.

The radiation seen only lasts for a second.

In LENR we get either high energy radiation (x-rays) or heat; not
both. This is based on the temperature of the reactor. A cold reactor
produces X-Rays because of weak SPP pumping..

The SPP absorbs nuclear binding energy and stores it in a whispering
gallery wave (WGW) in a dark mode. The energy is stored inside the WGW
until the WGW goes to a bright mode when the SPP decays. This
conversion from dark mode to bright mode happens in a random
distribution.

When the temperature is raised over a thermal conversion limit, a BEC
is formed where the stored nuclear binding energy is released from the
SPP BEC as hawking radiation which is thermal.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Bob Cook  
wrote:
The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons 
that
cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of the can (or 
alumina)

and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the loss of energy per
scattering event is proportional to Z ^2 for the nucleus that is doing 
the

scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at Z=26 the intensity of the
Bremsstrahlung signal would be about a factor of 4 different.  The mean
length of the path of an electron is a good parameter to know for any 
given

substance (basically its density) vs the incident energy of the electron.
Shielding engineering curves provide this information I believe.   Iron
being significantly more dense than Al2O3 would be much better at slowing
electrons and thus producing Bremsstrahlung IMHO.

At high electron energies the change of direction of the electron going
through SS can would be less than for a low energy electron.  For slow
electrons scattering can significantly change the direction of an 
incident

electron such that all Bremsstrahlung would be emitted from the material
that stopped the electron.

I think with a SS can present in the system vs no can and only Alumina
stopping the electrons, one would expect to see a more intense signal at
high energy  compared to the spectrum from the Alumina reactor chamber. 
The
absorption of the EM Bremsstrahlung by the respective 

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:23:08 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>From our point of view, the problem with this is that cold fusion will not
>be labor-intensive. On the contrary, it will wipe out all jobs related to
>energy. It will take only a few thousand people to implement. Most of them
>will be researchers, who are seldom paid much money. Cold fusion will wipe
>out an entire sector of the economy. Whether it will add new sectors
>remains to be seen.

Someone has to work in the factories that build the generators. This is
especially true if the generators are home sized rather than GW plants.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Axil Axil]

Sebastian
March 11, 2016 at 1:46 PM
Dear Andrea,

You said that Leonardo Corp will not be the only one manufacturing E-Cats.

Does that mean that one of your licensees will be manufacturing them?

Regards

Andrea Rossi
March 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM
Sebastian:
Yes, obviously, as everybody knows, Industrial Heat has the license to
manufacture the E-Cats in its Territory.
Warm Regards,
A.R.




Why is Rossi building a QuarkX plant that will produce so many wafers
that reverse engineering is useless?

Can IH build QuarkX wafers also?

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:59 PM,   wrote:
> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:51:52 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>Does IH have manufacturing rights to the E-cat? What technology does
>>IH have the rights to? Where does IH get the fuel for the reactors
>>that they build. Can IH produce the fuel? Does Leonardo supply wafers
>>to IH? Is Leonardo the only company that can manufacture the E Cat?
>>
>>Does anybody know the manufacturing deal that exists between IH and Leonardo?
>
> I thought I recalled a statement from Rossi that the technology had been sold 
> to
> IH?
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:51:52 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Does IH have manufacturing rights to the E-cat? What technology does
>IH have the rights to? Where does IH get the fuel for the reactors
>that they build. Can IH produce the fuel? Does Leonardo supply wafers
>to IH? Is Leonardo the only company that can manufacture the E Cat?
>
>Does anybody know the manufacturing deal that exists between IH and Leonardo?

I thought I recalled a statement from Rossi that the technology had been sold to
IH?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Axil Axil]

Does IH have manufacturing rights to the E-cat? What technology does
IH have the rights to? Where does IH get the fuel for the reactors
that they build. Can IH produce the fuel? Does Leonardo supply wafers
to IH? Is Leonardo the only company that can manufacture the E Cat?

Does anybody know the manufacturing deal that exists between IH and Leonardo?

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:45 PM,   wrote:
> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:11:02 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
>>IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
>>the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
>>to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
>>must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
>>Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
>>says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
>>with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
>>too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.
>
> I don't see any problem here. IH already has the technology for the 1MW plant,
> it's up to them whether they decide to sell devices based upon it or not.
>
> In short they could sell 1 MW plants now, and switch to better technology as 
> it
> becomes available. This is what all technology based companies do.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

I think I said that the engineering will happen over many years to come.
>
I guess a COP of 0.02 would be like an Otto motor and not [too] attractive.
>

I would compare it to seeing a charged electric wire deflect a magnet in
1820, and from there extrapolating to the telegraph and the electric motor.

(André-Marie Ampère suggested an electromagnetic telegraph in 1821, one
year after Oersted discovered the effect. Here are some nifty pictures of
early electric motors, which were as varied as cold fusion devices are
today: https://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php)


Or, you might compare it to Mme. Curie and others seeing radioactivity
in1895 and extrapolating to nuclear power reactors and bombs. That was not
such a stretch. HG Wells described nuclear bombs in 1913 in the book "The
World Set Free." (He got the details completely wrong. He imagined them as
miniature suns producing continuous heat lasting for a long time rather
than a single rapid event. However, he did understand the overall energy
release and destructive power.)



> It's better be over 1.
>

Only to people who have little imagination and no knowledge of the history
of technology.

Unfortunately many people who have little imagination, and many of them are
in charge of industrial corporations. So in that sense your point is well
taken. If the people in charge of corporations understood science &
technology they would have poured billions into cold fusion already.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:11:02 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
>IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
>the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
>to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
>must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
>Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
>says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
>with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
>too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.

I don't see any problem here. IH already has the technology for the 1MW plant,
it's up to them whether they decide to sell devices based upon it or not.

In short they could sell 1 MW plants now, and switch to better technology as it
becomes available. This is what all technology based companies do.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:What was not said can be as important as what was said

[Axil Axil]

I don't think it is accurate to state that Mills is promoting a
financial scam on top of a real energy anomaly of the kind Thermacore
showed in 1993. It is just maximizing investment to explore unknown
and esoteric subjects in science.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:17 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
> Jones wrote:  "The statement completely contradicts Lewan's assertion of
> Industrial Heat's
> involvement in the test."
> Krivit must be going blind as he wrote; "The statement mentions nothing
> about any test, let alone the test Lewan said Industrial Heat had been
> conducting during the past year."
>
> Also
> "As many of us have been saying from the start - in regard to Rossi, it is
> easily possible to build a financial scam on top of a real energy anomaly of
> the kind Thermacore showed in 1993 and the only surprise is that the
> perpetrator of the quasi-scam did not do a better job with showing the real
> anomaly."
>
> I'm surprised you didn't mention Krivit's link.   "Rossi Promoter Arrested
> on Child Sex-Abuse Charges" while you were at it.
>

Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Axil Axil]

Why does the burst last for just a second even when excess heat is
produced after the radiation burst?

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:25 PM,   wrote:
> In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:34:55 -0800:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons that 
>>cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of the can (or alumina) 
>>and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the loss of energy per 
>>scattering event is proportional to Z ^2 for the nucleus that is doing the 
>>scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at Z=26 the intensity of the 
>>Bremsstrahlung signal would be about a factor of 4 different.  The mean 
>>length of the path of an electron is a good parameter to know for any given 
>>substance (basically its density) vs the incident energy of the electron.  
>>Shielding engineering curves provide this information I believe.   Iron being 
>>significantly more dense than Al2O3 would be much better at slowing electrons 
>>and thus producing Bremsstrahlung IMHO.
>
> Shielding is based primarily on the electrons of an atom being ionized.
> Bremsstrahlung is created when a fast particle interacts with a nucleus.
> Most fast electrons impinging on solid matter will create ionization, i.e. 
> they
> get stopped by other electrons. AFAIK Only about 1% get through to the nucleus
> and create Bremsstrahlung. I think that both nuclear charge and number of 
> nuclei
> per unit volume would be important for Bremsstrahlung production. Mass of a
> nucleus not so much, because even a single proton is already about 2000 times
> more massive than an electron. When it comes to collisions, it makes little
> difference whether the nucleus is light or heavy. In short any nucleus is
> effectively an "immovable object" as far as an electron is concerned.
>
> BTW if MeV level electrons are stopped by Aluminium foil, then the can would
> have to be very thin not to stop them.
>
> Has anyone considered the possibility that some (little) bremsstrahlung might 
> be
> caused by fast protons impacting on heavier nuclei?
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

[Vo]:LENR theory

[Axil Axil]

Frank Acland
March 11, 2016 at 2:26 PM

Dear Andrea,

1. A big day! You say “I think I grasped in full the theory” — has it
changed very much from you paper with Norman Cook?

2. Also, do you expect that your licensee IH will manufacture E-Cats in China?

Many thanks!

Frak

Andrea Rossi
March 11, 2016 at 3:18 PM

Frank Acland:
I have made an important theoretical discover this very morning
working with the E-Cat quarkX an I must talk with Prof. Cook.
About China: that issue is up to IH.
Warm Regards
A.R.

The Cook theory doesn't seem to be holding water in the light of
Rossi's new discoveries.

I wonder if this new insight explains where all those electrons are
coming from pouring out of the QuarkX.

Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:34:55 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons that 
>cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of the can (or alumina) 
>and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the loss of energy per 
>scattering event is proportional to Z ^2 for the nucleus that is doing the 
>scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at Z=26 the intensity of the 
>Bremsstrahlung signal would be about a factor of 4 different.  The mean length 
>of the path of an electron is a good parameter to know for any given substance 
>(basically its density) vs the incident energy of the electron.  Shielding 
>engineering curves provide this information I believe.   Iron being 
>significantly more dense than Al2O3 would be much better at slowing electrons 
>and thus producing Bremsstrahlung IMHO. 

Shielding is based primarily on the electrons of an atom being ionized.
Bremsstrahlung is created when a fast particle interacts with a nucleus.
Most fast electrons impinging on solid matter will create ionization, i.e. they
get stopped by other electrons. AFAIK Only about 1% get through to the nucleus
and create Bremsstrahlung. I think that both nuclear charge and number of nuclei
per unit volume would be important for Bremsstrahlung production. Mass of a
nucleus not so much, because even a single proton is already about 2000 times
more massive than an electron. When it comes to collisions, it makes little
difference whether the nucleus is light or heavy. In short any nucleus is
effectively an "immovable object" as far as an electron is concerned.

BTW if MeV level electrons are stopped by Aluminium foil, then the can would
have to be very thin not to stop them.

Has anyone considered the possibility that some (little) bremsstrahlung might be
caused by fast protons impacting on heavier nuclei?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:What was not said can be as important as what was said

[a.ashfield]

Jones wrote:  "The statement completely contradicts Lewan's assertion of 
Industrial Heat's

involvement in the test."
Krivit must be going blind as he wrote; "The statement mentions nothing 
about any test, let alone the test Lewan said Industrial Heat had been 
conducting during the past year."


Also
"As many of us have been saying from the start - in regard to Rossi, it 
is easily possible to build a financial scam on top of a real energy 
anomaly of the kind Thermacore showed in 1993 and the only surprise is 
that the perpetrator of the quasi-scam did not do a better job with 
showing the real

anomaly."

I'm surprised you didn't mention Krivit's link.   "Rossi Promoter 
Arrested on Child Sex-Abuse Charges" while you were at it.

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello Jed,
I think I said that the engineering will happen over many years to come.
I guess a COP of 0.02 would be like an Otto motor and not to attractive.
It's better be over 1.
I think well above so the inconsistencies which will be determined by
'scientists' with a better measuring technology can be of no significance.
The result will be deemed over COP =1 irregardless.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> It is possible that the outcome, of Rossi's year long test, has less COP
>> than what for example Peter Gluck has heard.
>> If the IH statement is too calm down the expectations then so be it.
>> I would say that as long as the test shows a COP better than 2, there
>> will be further investment and a lot of engineering to get to the goal of a
>> new energy source.
>>
>
> If the results are certain, then it makes no difference whether the COP is
> 2 or 0.02. It would be insane to abandon this research just because the COP
> happens to be low in some cases. We know that the effect often occurs with
> no input power, with a COP of infinity. If that can happen once, after we
> learn to control the effect, it can happen every time.
>
> The COP is a canard. It is of no importance at this stage in the research.
> Worrying about the COP now is like fretting about the need for retractable
> landing gear on airplanes in 1904, six months after the first flight at
> Kitty Hawk. There are a thousand issues more important than this, and when
> the other issues are solved -- especially control -- we will have any COP
> we want.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Robert Dorr]

I think they are just doing a cover your ass statement to their 
investors, knowing that Rossi is about to release his results and 
they want to make sure that their investors know that the information 
is not coming from official IH sources just in case there is a 
problem a bit further down the road with the interpretation of the 
Rossi results. Simple fiduciary resposibility.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR

At 09:11 AM 3/11/2016, you wrote:

One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
>> technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?
>
>
> I wouldn't know about other technology. Based on the Lugano 
report, I do not

> think Rossi's technology is viable. I have not seen more recent reports
> about it.
>
> The first Levi study seeming promising, but the Lugano report showed no
> excess heat, as far as I can tell. Granted, it was poorly done, so it is
> hard to judge.
>
> "Viable" is a slippery word. Many cold fusion experiments are 
promising, but

> none (other than Rossi) are claimed to be remotely close to a practical or
> viable source of energy. They can be compared to nuclear fission in 1939.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

It is possible that the outcome, of Rossi's year long test, has less COP
> than what for example Peter Gluck has heard.
> If the IH statement is too calm down the expectations then so be it.
> I would say that as long as the test shows a COP better than 2, there will
> be further investment and a lot of engineering to get to the goal of a new
> energy source.
>

If the results are certain, then it makes no difference whether the COP is
2 or 0.02. It would be insane to abandon this research just because the COP
happens to be low in some cases. We know that the effect often occurs with
no input power, with a COP of infinity. If that can happen once, after we
learn to control the effect, it can happen every time.

The COP is a canard. It is of no importance at this stage in the research.
Worrying about the COP now is like fretting about the need for retractable
landing gear on airplanes in 1904, six months after the first flight at
Kitty Hawk. There are a thousand issues more important than this, and when
the other issues are solved -- especially control -- we will have any COP
we want.

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Mark Jurich]

Hi Bob:

Back when Alan used a Nickel Capsule/Container (it’s now SS), I used SRIM/TRIM 
and assuming the possibility of 6 MeV Protons 
emanating from the core, I demonstrated that all the protons wouldn’t be 
stopped in the capsule.  If it was slightly thicker, they 
would.

This is not to say that the Piantelli picture is what is happening, just that 
if such energetic particles of this type were around, 
some would still escape the capsule.  At the time, I was concerned that if the 
reaction was a two-step process where Li was 
involved, and somehow if the Li was escaping the confines of the capsule (for 
example, coating the Alumina walls), then the capsule 
might stop/inhibit the secondary reaction...

I would encourage people to try SRIM/TRIM or GEANT4 and start playing with them 
if you’re interested in modeling this type of stuff 
(they’re free).  There are Wikipedia Pages for both.

- Mark Jurich

From: Bob Cook
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons that 
cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of 
the can (or alumina) and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the 
loss of energy per scattering event is proportional to Z 
^2 for the nucleus that is doing the scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at 
Z=26 the intensity of the Bremsstrahlung signal would 
be about a factor of 4 different.  The mean length of the path of an electron 
is a good parameter to know for any given substance 
(basically its density) vs the incident energy of the electron.  Shielding 
engineering curves provide this information I believe. 
Iron being significantly more dense than Al2O3 would be much better at slowing 
electrons and thus producing Bremsstrahlung IMHO.

At high electron energies the change of direction of the electron going through 
SS can would be less than for a low energy electron. 
For slow electrons scattering can significantly change the direction of an 
incident electron such that all Bremsstrahlung would be 
emitted from the material that stopped the electron.

I think with a SS can present in the system vs no can and only Alumina stopping 
the electrons, one would expect to see a more 
intense signal at high energy  compared to the spectrum from the Alumina 
reactor chamber.  The absorption of the EM Bremsstrahlung 
by the respective media would also have to be considered.  Neither Alumina nor 
SS may transmit some of the Bremsstrahlung spectrum 
very well.  Thus the effective shielding of the EM radiation considering a 
distributed source would have to be evaluated for the 
resulting high energy EM and the signal intensity corrected accordingly.  The 
cut off at the high energy spectrum will be a useful 
value to know to understand the maximum energy of the electron source.  This 
may provide information about the reaction producing 
the electrons.   The change of the intensity of the Bremsstrahlung signal as a 
function of the magnetic field would also provide 
information as to whether or not the lattice orientation of the nano fuel was 
important.   One might expect that the electrons being 
produced by the respective LENR reaction would produced in some preferred 
direction.

Bob Cook
From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 6:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

I don't know if other Vorts thought of this already... but I had a minor 
epiphany regarding the radiation that MFMP measured in 
GS5.2.  We identified this radiation tentatively as bremsstrahlung.  This has 
certain implications.  Bremsstrahlung requires that 
the high speed electrons impact on a high atomic mass element so as to be 
accelerated/decelerated quickly to produce the radiation. 
It could be that the stainless steel can that contained the fuel was an 
important component in seeing the bremsstrahlung.  Without 
the can, there would still be the Ni for the electrons to hit, but the Ni is 
covered with light atomic mass Li.  If the electrons 
were to strike alumina (no fuel can present), I don't think there would be 
nearly as much bremsstrahlung because alumina is 
comprised of light elements.

Thus, the stainless steel can for the fuel may be an important component for 
seeing the bremsstrahlung.


Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Axil Axil]

The seconds long MFMP X-ray burst is smooth and demonstrates no
resonance energy peaks caused by the interaction of electrons with
matter. The MFMP burst is strictly a release of photons in a random
energy distribution.

A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation
plot. It is the release of energy by particles based on a random
release process. This is seen when a particle gives up its kinetic
energy to a thin film as the particles interact randomly with the
matter in the thin film.

If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or
based on a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution of energy
release will be seen.

You might see a Landau distribution if there is a random mixing of
both low energy photons (infrared) and high energy photons (gamma's
from the nucleus);

Such mixing is produced by Fano resonance, where an SPPs are being fed
by both infrared photon pumping and nuclear based gamma photon
absorption.



On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> Electrons may have nothing to do with the x-ray radiation.
>
> The radiation could be produced by photon based quasiparticles.
>
> The LENR reaction might start with Surface Plasmon Polaritons
> initiated nuclear reactions and then after thermalization, the decay
> of those SPPs. When the SPPs decay, they release their energy content
> as photons of varng energies,
>
> After a second or two, a Bose condensate of these SPPs form and the
> energy of the photons are released as hawking radiation which is
> thermal.
>
> The radiation seen only lasts for a second.
>
> In LENR we get either high energy radiation (x-rays) or heat; not
> both. This is based on the temperature of the reactor. A cold reactor
> produces X-Rays because of weak SPP pumping..
>
> The SPP absorbs nuclear binding energy and stores it in a whispering
> gallery wave (WGW) in a dark mode. The energy is stored inside the WGW
> until the WGW goes to a bright mode when the SPP decays. This
> conversion from dark mode to bright mode happens in a random
> distribution.
>
> When the temperature is raised over a thermal conversion limit, a BEC
> is formed where the stored nuclear binding energy is released from the
> SPP BEC as hawking radiation which is thermal.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
>> The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons that
>> cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of the can (or alumina)
>> and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the loss of energy per
>> scattering event is proportional to Z ^2 for the nucleus that is doing the
>> scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at Z=26 the intensity of the
>> Bremsstrahlung signal would be about a factor of 4 different.  The mean
>> length of the path of an electron is a good parameter to know for any given
>> substance (basically its density) vs the incident energy of the electron.
>> Shielding engineering curves provide this information I believe.   Iron
>> being significantly more dense than Al2O3 would be much better at slowing
>> electrons and thus producing Bremsstrahlung IMHO.
>>
>> At high electron energies the change of direction of the electron going
>> through SS can would be less than for a low energy electron.  For slow
>> electrons scattering can significantly change the direction of an incident
>> electron such that all Bremsstrahlung would be emitted from the material
>> that stopped the electron.
>>
>> I think with a SS can present in the system vs no can and only Alumina
>> stopping the electrons, one would expect to see a more intense signal at
>> high energy  compared to the spectrum from the Alumina reactor chamber.  The
>> absorption of the EM Bremsstrahlung by the respective media would also have
>> to be considered.  Neither Alumina nor SS may transmit some of the
>> Bremsstrahlung spectrum very well.  Thus the effective shielding of the EM
>> radiation considering a distributed source would have to be evaluated for
>> the resulting high energy EM and the signal intensity corrected accordingly.
>> The cut off at the high energy spectrum will be a useful value to know to
>> understand the maximum energy of the electron source.  This may provide
>> information about the reaction producing the electrons.   The change of the
>> intensity of the Bremsstrahlung signal as a function of the magnetic field
>> would also provide information as to whether or not the lattice orientation
>> of the nano fuel was important.   One might expect that the electrons being
>> produced by the respective LENR reaction would produced in some preferred
>> direction.
>>
>> Bob Cook
>> From: Bob Higgins
>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 6:09 AM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note
>>
>> I don't know if other Vorts thought of this already... but I had a minor
>> epiphany regarding the radiation that MFMP measured in 

Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Axil Axil]

Electrons may have nothing to do with the x-ray radiation.

The radiation could be produced by photon based quasiparticles.

The LENR reaction might start with Surface Plasmon Polaritons
initiated nuclear reactions and then after thermalization, the decay
of those SPPs. When the SPPs decay, they release their energy content
as photons of varng energies,

After a second or two, a Bose condensate of these SPPs form and the
energy of the photons are released as hawking radiation which is
thermal.

The radiation seen only lasts for a second.

In LENR we get either high energy radiation (x-rays) or heat; not
both. This is based on the temperature of the reactor. A cold reactor
produces X-Rays because of weak SPP pumping..

The SPP absorbs nuclear binding energy and stores it in a whispering
gallery wave (WGW) in a dark mode. The energy is stored inside the WGW
until the WGW goes to a bright mode when the SPP decays. This
conversion from dark mode to bright mode happens in a random
distribution.

When the temperature is raised over a thermal conversion limit, a BEC
is formed where the stored nuclear binding energy is released from the
SPP BEC as hawking radiation which is thermal.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
> The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons that
> cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of the can (or alumina)
> and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the loss of energy per
> scattering event is proportional to Z ^2 for the nucleus that is doing the
> scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at Z=26 the intensity of the
> Bremsstrahlung signal would be about a factor of 4 different.  The mean
> length of the path of an electron is a good parameter to know for any given
> substance (basically its density) vs the incident energy of the electron.
> Shielding engineering curves provide this information I believe.   Iron
> being significantly more dense than Al2O3 would be much better at slowing
> electrons and thus producing Bremsstrahlung IMHO.
>
> At high electron energies the change of direction of the electron going
> through SS can would be less than for a low energy electron.  For slow
> electrons scattering can significantly change the direction of an incident
> electron such that all Bremsstrahlung would be emitted from the material
> that stopped the electron.
>
> I think with a SS can present in the system vs no can and only Alumina
> stopping the electrons, one would expect to see a more intense signal at
> high energy  compared to the spectrum from the Alumina reactor chamber.  The
> absorption of the EM Bremsstrahlung by the respective media would also have
> to be considered.  Neither Alumina nor SS may transmit some of the
> Bremsstrahlung spectrum very well.  Thus the effective shielding of the EM
> radiation considering a distributed source would have to be evaluated for
> the resulting high energy EM and the signal intensity corrected accordingly.
> The cut off at the high energy spectrum will be a useful value to know to
> understand the maximum energy of the electron source.  This may provide
> information about the reaction producing the electrons.   The change of the
> intensity of the Bremsstrahlung signal as a function of the magnetic field
> would also provide information as to whether or not the lattice orientation
> of the nano fuel was important.   One might expect that the electrons being
> produced by the respective LENR reaction would produced in some preferred
> direction.
>
> Bob Cook
> From: Bob Higgins
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 6:09 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note
>
> I don't know if other Vorts thought of this already... but I had a minor
> epiphany regarding the radiation that MFMP measured in GS5.2.  We identified
> this radiation tentatively as bremsstrahlung.  This has certain
> implications.  Bremsstrahlung requires that the high speed electrons impact
> on a high atomic mass element so as to be accelerated/decelerated quickly to
> produce the radiation.  It could be that the stainless steel can that
> contained the fuel was an important component in seeing the bremsstrahlung.
> Without the can, there would still be the Ni for the electrons to hit, but
> the Ni is covered with light atomic mass Li.  If the electrons were to
> strike alumina (no fuel can present), I don't think there would be nearly as
> much bremsstrahlung because alumina is comprised of light elements.
>
> Thus, the stainless steel can for the fuel may be an important component for
> seeing the bremsstrahlung.
>
> Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Lennart Thornros]

It is possible that the outcome, of Rossi's year long test, has less COP
than what for example Peter Gluck has heard.
If the IH statement is too calm down the expectations then so be it.
I would say that as long as the test shows a COP better than 2, there will
be further investment and a lot of engineering to get to the goal of a new
energy source.
I am rather confident that will happen.
As a comparison I will suggest that some of you as old as I am should look
upon how the transistor (semiconductor industry) evolved.
I went to engineering school in early 60-is. A very wide spread skepticism
just began to give away in favor for the transistor versus the vacuum tube.
Many still believed that vacuum tubes would prevail in certain areas. Yes,
evene large corporations misjudged the situation and therefore do not exist
today or at least are much less important.
So ten years after the invention most of the engineering was still in the
future. Actually the engineering phase is still ongoing. That is 65 years
after Shockley.
I guess there will be development in LENR the same way.
I understand that after 37 years of promises there is not a lot of
patience. The important thing just now is that there is enough  progress to
keep engineering keep on the progress.
Let me say that if Peter Gluck's information is correct, then we will have
an enormous pressure on all players in this field to quickly bring LENR to
the market. The IH statement would then serve to slow down the demands, as
they need to establish the resources before they can provide the desired /
demanded market introduction.

The late news that China invested 121 million dollar make me believe that
IH are making sure they can provide what the market wants. The Chinese did
not invest without having something positive to pin it on.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
>> Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
>> technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?
>>
>
> I wouldn't know about other technology. Based on the Lugano report, I do
> not think Rossi's technology is viable. I have not seen more recent reports
> about it.
>
> The first Levi study seeming promising, but the Lugano report showed no
> excess heat, as far as I can tell. Granted, it was poorly done, so it is
> hard to judge.
>
> "Viable" is a slippery word. Many cold fusion experiments are promising,
> but none (other than Rossi) are claimed to be remotely close to a practical
> or viable source of energy. They can be compared to nuclear fission in 1939.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Bob Cook]

The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons that 
cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of the can (or alumina) 
and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the loss of energy per 
scattering event is proportional to Z ^2 for the nucleus that is doing the 
scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at Z=26 the intensity of the 
Bremsstrahlung signal would be about a factor of 4 different.  The mean length 
of the path of an electron is a good parameter to know for any given substance 
(basically its density) vs the incident energy of the electron.  Shielding 
engineering curves provide this information I believe.   Iron being 
significantly more dense than Al2O3 would be much better at slowing electrons 
and thus producing Bremsstrahlung IMHO. 

At high electron energies the change of direction of the electron going through 
SS can would be less than for a low energy electron.  For slow electrons 
scattering can significantly change the direction of an incident electron such 
that all Bremsstrahlung would be emitted from the material that stopped the 
electron. 

I think with a SS can present in the system vs no can and only Alumina stopping 
the electrons, one would expect to see a more intense signal at high energy  
compared to the spectrum from the Alumina reactor chamber.  The absorption of 
the EM Bremsstrahlung by the respective media would also have to be considered. 
 Neither Alumina nor SS may transmit some of the Bremsstrahlung spectrum very 
well.  Thus the effective shielding of the EM radiation considering a 
distributed source would have to be evaluated for the resulting high energy EM 
and the signal intensity corrected accordingly.  The cut off at the high energy 
spectrum will be a useful value to know to understand the maximum energy of the 
electron source.  This may provide information about the reaction producing the 
electrons.   The change of the intensity of the Bremsstrahlung signal as a 
function of the magnetic field would also provide information as to whether or 
not the lattice orientation of the nano fuel was important.   One might expect 
that the electrons being produced by the respective LENR reaction would 
produced in some preferred direction.  

Bob Cook
From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 6:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

I don't know if other Vorts thought of this already... but I had a minor 
epiphany regarding the radiation that MFMP measured in GS5.2.  We identified 
this radiation tentatively as bremsstrahlung.  This has certain implications.  
Bremsstrahlung requires that the high speed electrons impact on a high atomic 
mass element so as to be accelerated/decelerated quickly to produce the 
radiation.  It could be that the stainless steel can that contained the fuel 
was an important component in seeing the bremsstrahlung.  Without the can, 
there would still be the Ni for the electrons to hit, but the Ni is covered 
with light atomic mass Li.  If the electrons were to strike alumina (no fuel 
can present), I don't think there would be nearly as much bremsstrahlung 
because alumina is comprised of light elements.  

Thus, the stainless steel can for the fuel may be an important component for 
seeing the bremsstrahlung.


Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Axil Axil]

Hydrofusion wrote:


New Investments
Tom Darden, CEO of Industrial Heat, signed a cooperation agreement
with a newly created strategic financial center in Beijing. The
“Technology Ministry of Science and Innovation Park” will participate
in technology transfer with 20 companies from the U.S. This sparked
fear that the E-Cat technology recently patented in the U.S. would
somehow become the sole property of the Chinese government. However,
these ideas were assuaged, and China invested the equivalent of $121
million USD in LENR technology.

There could be a huge pressure behind the release of the E Cat
technology that Rossi is now bucking. Tom Darden, CEO of Industrial
Heat now must also hold off the Chinese for another year. Tom Darden
might be saying to Rossi, "If we can not get your technology, there
are other LENR developers that can need our needs. Rossi tells Darden,
I know you have your problems, deal with them and leave me alone.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
> IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
> the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
> to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
> must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
> Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
> says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
> with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
> too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
>>> technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't know about other technology. Based on the Lugano report, I do not
>> think Rossi's technology is viable. I have not seen more recent reports
>> about it.
>>
>> The first Levi study seeming promising, but the Lugano report showed no
>> excess heat, as far as I can tell. Granted, it was poorly done, so it is
>> hard to judge.
>>
>> "Viable" is a slippery word. Many cold fusion experiments are promising, but
>> none (other than Rossi) are claimed to be remotely close to a practical or
>> viable source of energy. They can be compared to nuclear fission in 1939.
>>
>> - Jed
>>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Axil Axil]

One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
>> technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?
>
>
> I wouldn't know about other technology. Based on the Lugano report, I do not
> think Rossi's technology is viable. I have not seen more recent reports
> about it.
>
> The first Levi study seeming promising, but the Lugano report showed no
> excess heat, as far as I can tell. Granted, it was poorly done, so it is
> hard to judge.
>
> "Viable" is a slippery word. Many cold fusion experiments are promising, but
> none (other than Rossi) are claimed to be remotely close to a practical or
> viable source of energy. They can be compared to nuclear fission in 1939.
>
> - Jed
>

[Vo]:What was not said can be as important as what was said

[Jones Beene]

Is Andrea Rossi the genius inventor that his dedicated followers believe, or
is he a charlatan crackpot - on the verge of exposure? In my opinion it is
neither, but first - what does his sponsor have to say? The following is a
synopsis of a number of posts which have appeared this morning.

New Energy Times reports on sending a copy of Mats Lewan's blog post to
Industrial Heat, asking for comment about its corporate involvement in the
test. Today, NET reports that a statement from IH carefully dodges the exact
question asked, but explains the company's broader objectives with LENRs. 

The reply, pretty much the same as the previous one from IH - cautiously and
wisely mentions nothing about Rossi, Leonardo Technologies, the March
report, the obscure customer, or the so-called megawatt reactor. Instead, it
relegates Rossi to one of many unnamed technologies being funded - and of no
particular importance over any other. 

This is a smart move, with an attorney's fingerprints all over it - since IH
has their own investors in an extended portfolio of many projects - of which
AR is only one-of-many. IH will be held to a higher standard (legally) than
the one which Rossi's adorers hold Rossi to. And it is even possible that IH
already have a better technology than whatever Rossi claims to have. 

That's right, IH may have leapfrogged Rossi already, or are on the verge of
it - and will move-on in the LENR field, with or without him. Obviously,
Rossi borrowed from Mills, Piantelli, Thermacore etc . and nothing keeps IH
from taking Rossi's contribution is a different course than what AR wants to
pursue. 

"Who's zoomin' who?" . is the sentiment that comes to mind.

Yet - the Industrial Heat statement talks about "embracing failure" and
"premature proclamations" and condemned situations in which "results are
promoted and claims are made without rigorous verification and precise
measurement." That is the part that could apply mainly or exclusively to
Rossi and the upcoming report. Apparently IH is saying this without saying
anything: "we do not have a clue what is in this report, and we cannot stand
behind it until we have thoroughly vetted it." This does not mean it is
failed test, only that it is not properly vetted?

The statement completely contradicts Lewan's assertion of Industrial Heat's
involvement in the test. In fact, there is no indication that they knew more
than the pundits. "Any claims made about technologies in our portfolio
should only be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by
reputable third parties who have verified our results in repeated
experiments." 

The implication here is that they have NOT VERIFIED the results of the
so-called year-long test - which after all, could be a complete fraud since
no one not under Rossi's thumb has actually seen the unit or knows if there
is a customer. It could be happening in Italy or it could be 100% bogus. At
best it is a juvenile ploy by Rossi to keep funding without actually showing
results.

As many of us have been saying from the start - in regard to Rossi, it is
easily possible to build a financial scam on top of a real energy anomaly of
the kind Thermacore showed in 1993 and the only surprise is that the
perpetrator of the quasi-scam did not do a better job with showing the real
anomaly.

[Vo]:Re: Larsen LENR theory of slow neutron production --

[Bob Cook]

Larsen’s recent publication—identified in the link below—provides an 
interesting model for the production of slow neutrons from protons and 
electrons and similar reactions with deuterium. 

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-electroweak-nuclear-catalysis-and-chemical-catalysis-are-deeply-interrelated-via-extremely-high-local-electric-fields-march-8-2016

It makes the point about the action within entangled Q-M systems (coherent 
systems) and the importance of local electric fields. 

I would add that the importance of local magnetic fields in directionally 
orienting the various magnetic entities is also important.  

It seems to add to the theory of LENR reactions in Ni, Pd  and other metals and 
particularly at  surfaces (defects) where aromatic carbon molecules may reside. 
 

Larsen does not seem to address Mill’s theory about hydrino formation, however. 
 This surprised me! 

Bob Cook 

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
> technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?
>

I wouldn't know about other technology. Based on the Lugano report, I do
not think Rossi's technology is viable. I have not seen more recent reports
about it.

The first Levi study seeming promising, but the Lugano report showed no
excess heat, as far as I can tell. Granted, it was poorly done, so it is
hard to judge.

"Viable" is a slippery word. Many cold fusion experiments are promising,
but none (other than Rossi) are claimed to be remotely close to a practical
or viable source of energy. They can be compared to nuclear fission in 1939.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Harry

If there is no "excess heat" but still something useful like the conversion of 
heat into electricity or light,  Industrial Heat will have to undergo a name 
change... 

Maybe Industrial Light and Magic?   ;-)


LOL ... maybe it's all been a carefully planned part of next sequel - the 
backstory of Luke Skywalker's light sabre ? 

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Peter Gluck]

Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?

We will see itoday if IH will reject Krivit's idea that they are divorcing
from Rossi
Rossi has rejected it clearly.

Peter

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Too unclear and this has allowed Krivit to publish his variant of the
>> story- IH- Rossi divorce.
>>
>
> I agree the statement as a whole is somewhat unclear, but this part is
> easy to understand. It says that if Rossi publishes a report independent of
> Industrial Heat, not "endorsed" by them, that report should not be "relied
> upon." It will be unreliable, meaning you should not believe it.
>
> I do not know if I would call that a divorce, but it would be a major
> falling out. A separation, if you will, one step before a divorce.
>
> But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Let us see whether Rossi publishes
> a report. If he does, let us see whether Industrial Heat endorses the
> report.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[H LV]

If there is no "excess heat" but still something useful like the
conversion of heat into electricity or light,  Industrial Heat will
have to undergo a name change.
Maybe Industrial Light and Magic? ;-)

Harry

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:
> Too unclear and this has allowed Krivit to publish his variant of the story-
> IH- Rossi divorce.
>
> Peter
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>
>> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>>
>>> Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for
>>> a negative report on Rossi's one year test?
>>
>>
>> It does sound that way.
>>
>> The statement is oblique, but clearly it is intended to reduce excitement
>> and dial back people's expectations.
>>
>> I think the statement also clearly says: "if you do not hear something
>> from us, don't believe it." It says that here:
>>
>> "That’s why any claims made about technologies in our portfolio should
>> only be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat . . ."
>>
>>
>> In other words, Rossi does not speak for Industrial Heat. I.H. does not
>> affirm Rossi's statements on his blog. It probably also means that if Rossi
>> issues a report which has not been cleared by I.H. and published by them,
>> they do not affirm it. Meaning endorse it.
>>
>> The statement is unclear but I think that part is clear.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Too unclear and this has allowed Krivit to publish his variant of the
> story- IH- Rossi divorce.
>

I agree the statement as a whole is somewhat unclear, but this part is easy
to understand. It says that if Rossi publishes a report independent of
Industrial Heat, not "endorsed" by them, that report should not be "relied
upon." It will be unreliable, meaning you should not believe it.

I do not know if I would call that a divorce, but it would be a major
falling out. A separation, if you will, one step before a divorce.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Let us see whether Rossi publishes a
report. If he does, let us see whether Industrial Heat endorses the report.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Peter Gluck]

Too unclear and this has allowed Krivit to publish his variant of the
story- IH- Rossi divorce.

Peter

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>
> Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for
>> a negative report on Rossi's one year test?
>>
>
> It does sound that way.
>
> The statement is oblique, but clearly it is intended to reduce excitement
> and dial back people's expectations.
>
> I think the statement also clearly says: "if you do not hear something
> from us, don't believe it." It says that here:
>
> "That’s why any claims made about technologies in our portfolio should
> only be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat . . ."
>
>
> In other words, Rossi does not speak for Industrial Heat. I.H. does not
> affirm Rossi's statements on his blog. It probably also means that if Rossi
> issues a report which has not been cleared by I.H. and published by them,
> they do not affirm it. Meaning endorse it.
>
> The statement is unclear but I think that part is clear.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:

Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for
> a negative report on Rossi's one year test?
>

It does sound that way.

The statement is oblique, but clearly it is intended to reduce excitement
and dial back people's expectations.

I think the statement also clearly says: "if you do not hear something from
us, don't believe it." It says that here:

"That’s why any claims made about technologies in our portfolio should only
be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat . . ."


In other words, Rossi does not speak for Industrial Heat. I.H. does not
affirm Rossi's statements on his blog. It probably also means that if Rossi
issues a report which has not been cleared by I.H. and published by them,
they do not affirm it. Meaning endorse it.

The statement is unclear but I think that part is clear.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

There is simply too little nickel. If looking for bremsstrahlung, and in the 
absence of gamma - a possible source of high speed electrons would be muon 
decay. 

 

At least this would be true in a situation like the glow-tube, where dense 
hydrogen would be expected to form.

 

If the counts are higher inside the lead cave, compared to outside (bare), it 
is very likely that the source is muonic from the reactor, not cosmic - and the 
target is lead.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

I don't know if other Vorts thought of this already... but I had a minor 
epiphany regarding the radiation that MFMP measured in GS5.2.  We identified 
this radiation tentatively as bremsstrahlung.  This has certain implications.  
Bremsstrahlung requires that the high speed electrons impact on a high atomic 
mass element so as to be accelerated/decelerated quickly to produce the 
radiation.  It could be that the stainless steel can that contained the fuel 
was an important component in seeing the bremsstrahlung.  Without the can, 
there would still be the Ni for the electrons to hit, but the Ni is covered 
with light atomic mass Li.  If the electrons were to strike alumina (no fuel 
can present), I don't think there would be nearly as much bremsstrahlung 
because alumina is comprised of light elements.  

 

Thus, the stainless steel can for the fuel may be an important component for 
seeing the bremsstrahlung.

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]: Radon not a likely explanation for GS5.2

[Eric Walker]

Bob,

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

I can re-load the data and check more closely that the 77 keV and 1.13 keV
> peaks were scaled to their correct locations, but I think they look
> approximately correct.
>

I don't think it's necessary.  I had a little bit of a hard time orienting
myself to the graph showing the overlay, but once I figured out where
things were, I was able to see what was going on.  It's clear that there's
much less structure in the MFMP spectrum than what is seen in the spectrum
of radon daughters.

Eric

[Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Bob Higgins]

I don't know if other Vorts thought of this already... but I had a minor
epiphany regarding the radiation that MFMP measured in GS5.2.  We
identified this radiation tentatively as bremsstrahlung.  This has certain
implications.  Bremsstrahlung requires that the high speed electrons impact
on a high atomic mass element so as to be accelerated/decelerated quickly
to produce the radiation.  It could be that the stainless steel can that
contained the fuel was an important component in seeing the
bremsstrahlung.  Without the can, there would still be the Ni for the
electrons to hit, but the Ni is covered with light atomic mass Li.  If the
electrons were to strike alumina (no fuel can present), I don't think there
would be nearly as much bremsstrahlung because alumina is comprised of
light elements.

Thus, the stainless steel can for the fuel may be an important component
for seeing the bremsstrahlung.

Bob Higgins

[Vo]:Industrial Heat's statement not clear, Steve Krivi says it is about IH-Rossi divorce

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-11-2016-in-lenr-too-lack-of-clarity.html


I have decided to publish this before the parts answer and explain- and we
will follow the developments
Interesting times. ERV please hurry!


Peter


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]: Radon not a likely explanation for GS5.2

[Bob Higgins]

Eric,

I know the 610 keV peak is right where it should be.  The scaling was done
as a single multiplicative scale based on the 2.2 MeV peak in the source
graph (I.E. 2-point scaling was not done).  Once it was scaled, since the
610 keV peak was in the correct place, I presumed the others had been
scaled to their correct locations as well.  I can re-load the data and
check more closely that the 77 keV and 1.13 keV peaks were scaled to their
correct locations, but I think they look approximately correct.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> Would it be possible to add some labels to the overlaid graph so that the
>> correspondence between the two is made clearer, and one can see which peak
>> in one graph corresponds to a peak in the other?
>>
>
> Upon a closer look it's not too difficult to tell which peaks correspond
> to which in both graphs.  Reading from right to left, I think we have peaks
> at 1.39 MeV, 1.13 MeV, 0.77 MeV and 0.61 MeV.  The alignment of the peaks
> with the new x-axis is not exact, so there's some difference, but I think
> the general correspondence is apparent.
>
> Eric
>
>