Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:59:12 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:43 PM,  wrote:
>
>See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can
>> only
>> act against another object, because that has always been our experience.
>> This
>> may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
>> itself, rather than another object.
>>
>> If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.
>>
>
>Does this require that the vacuum be something other than a frictionless
>superfluid?

Not sure about that (literally). How do you feel about a solid lattice rather
than a superfluid?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can
> remain spatially fixed but I suspect it will have to dilate on temporal
> axis to maintain equal and opposite action across frames.
>

We've seen nominal evidence of thrust that one wants to understand.  Have
we seen nominal evidence of warping?

Eric

RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

In building a Shawyer EM Drive cavity copper is typically used but Shawyer 
notes a higher Q would result with silver. Would a cavity that was made of 
copper sheet then electroplated with silver suffice to give the cavity the Q of 
silver? Is there any potential for improved Q based on the design of the 
internal cavity antennae that emits the microwaves. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

The problem with this is creating the anisotropy in emissions from an induced 
LENR so as to produce a directional thrust.

 

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Russ George  > wrote:

Of course what the EM Drive energy mystery suggests is an experiment where an 
addition inside the EM Drive might be made, a simple small amount of 
crystalline Li2D2 could well provide more available reactant than what the 
ordinary copper which always has some tramp H2 the EM Drive is made of holds. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
 ] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

Eric, my understanding of the Crookes radiometer is that it measures light 
intensity by the rotation of its vane, but the effect is NOT due to photon 
emission recoil, it is due to the effects of the differential heating of the 
minute amount of gas present in the bulb.  In a hard vacuum, this radiometer 
would not work - photon emission recoil would be insufficient to make the vanes 
move.  I had one of these as a teen.

As I recall, the radiated photon recoil is proportional to power in the photons 
emitted, but not wavelength of the photon.  For a given power emitted, it takes 
fewer short wavelength photons but you would get more recoil per photon.  Laser 
emission would seem to be ideal.  But the effect is very small.

 

I wish I had some insight in the case of the Shawyer thrust effect.  I cannot 
say that I really even have an informed opinion - that would require far more 
study than I have done.  It is a marvelous mystery and perhaps someday I will 
participate.  For now, I am trying to stay focused on LENR.

Bob

 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Eric Walker  > wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins  > wrote:

 

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer calculates 
and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude higher than what 
could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if all of the generated 
RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF would provide an 
undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices interesting.

 

My intuition is actually in line with this.  Obviously there is no observable 
thrust with a flashlight, for example.  And a powerful spotlight doesn't budge, 
even though enough power is being fed into it to drive a motor.  Nonetheless I 
was curious what the relationship between energy and radiation pressure is.  
Here is what Wikipedia says for a blackbody emitter:

 



P is pressure, epsilon is emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant 
and T is the temperature.  I wonder what the relationship would be for a 
non-blackbody emitter emitting photons at a specific frequency.  Although 
radiation pressure is a small force, apparently it's nonneglible.  Wikipedia 
says that "had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the spacecraft of 
the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have missed Mars orbit by 
about 15,000 kilometers."  We also see it doing real work in the case of a 
Crookes radiometer:

 



I see that the Shawyer device is operating more or less at the level of 
measurement uncertainty. There are no unequivocal results at this point by 
third parties. Some of the tests even show reverse thrust when positive thrust 
was intended.  Given this level of uncertainty, it would seem that little can 
be ruled out at this point.  Even air convection.  One imagines that much more 
testing is needed.

 

Have you formed an opinion on what might conserve momentum in the case of the 
EM drive, if something like radiation pressure is ruled out?

 

Eric

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Parhomov paper

[Jones Beene]

Robin,

You propose a massive amount of energy per reaction. Under the
circumstances, that level seems too energetic; but it is difficult to rule
out f/H in some capacity.

A three-body reaction would be unlikely based on probability. Fusion seems
unlikely based on lack of high energy radiation, but if helium turns up you
are in business. Sooner or later, someone will look for it. You will be
waiting ;-)

Until then, this looks like a stimulated weak force reaction. The likely
role of the hydrino would be to penetrate the nickel electron cloud of 64Ni
deeply in order to stimulate beta decay in an apparently stable nucleus with
too many neutrons. The energy per reaction would be 500 times less than
fusion, but that is adequate to fit the facts. 

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

Consider the following reactions:-

Hy2 + 64Ni => 62Ni + 4He + 11.8 MeV
Hy2 + 62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.88 MeV
Hy2 + 60Ni => 58Ni + 4He + 7.91 MeV

The amount of 62Ni may have remained more or less stable because it was both
contributing to the 60Ni, and receiving from the 64 Ni. If this is the
actual reaction mechanism, then it shouldn't make much difference how much
64Ni is present.

RE: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

[Jones Beene]

Yes – I hope Bob will clear this up. The fact that the 64Ni data appear in 
three different places in the slides makes it all the more certain that it 
cannot be some kind of typo. However, the inclusion of this data could be based 
on real results which slipped in on preparation of the presentation, which they 
did not want to broadcast, so they kept quiet about the implications.

 

As for the cost to Parkhomov, getting hold of a few milligrams as a courtesy 
sample - from a Lab which he has no doubt been visiting for 40 years, would not 
be hard.

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

We could ask Parkhomov through Bob Greenyer if the Ni powder he used was 
enriched in 64Ni.  However, as far as we know, and in particular during these 
reported runs, Parkhomov was on a shoestring budget that would have precluded 
buying isotopically enriched Ni.  As far as we know all of his reported 
experiments have been fueled with Ni out of a single reagent jar.  MFMP has 
samples of that Ni powder (including me).  I know that in the US, 96% enriched 
64Ni would probably be about $30k per gram.

MFMP has recently purchased 70mg of 96+% isotopically enriched 62Ni.

 

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Bob, you know the protocol - if the author finds an error of that severity, he 
withdraws the paper. Since they have not done so after a year, isn’t it fair to 
assume that the enrichment in the heavy isotope was deliberate? 

 

In Moscow, there is a famous lab (Kurchatov)  which does most of the nickel 
enrichment for the entire world. 

 

It would not be difficult for Parkhomov to find and use nickel enriched in 
64Ni. 

 

 

From: Bob Cook 

 

Jones--

 

I agree with you about the report of the Ni-64 ratios presented in the report.  
They should be asked to confirm the original Ni-64 ratio.

 

I doubt it is correct, since it would have taken some effort to start with the 
enriched Ni-64, which they would surely have noted as a particularly important 
attribute of the starting fuel.  

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

[Vo]:Cold fusion used to kill bacteria.

[Axil Axil]

Cold fusion used to kill bacteria.


"We showed that all of the bacteria were killed pretty quickly . . . within
5 to 25 seconds. That's a very fast process," said corresponding author
Wei-Chuan Shih, a professor in the electrical and computer engineering
department, University of Houston, Texas.

Scientists create gold nanoparticles in the lab by dissolving gold,
reducing the metal into smaller and smaller disconnected pieces until the
size must be measured in nanometers. One nanometer equals a billionth of a
meter. A human hair is between 50,000 to 100,000 nanometers in diameter.
Once miniaturized, the particles can be crafted into various shapes
including rods, triangles or disks.


Read more at:
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-technique-rapidly-bacteria-tiny-gold.html#jCp

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:29 PM,  wrote:

Wasn't there something quoted here not too long ago about laser possibly
> revealing a warping in the neighborhood of an operating drive?
>

I don't remember it, but if there was such a report, I think it would be
outside of the realm of what is interesting to mainstream investigators and
deep into woo phenomena.  Which doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Parhomov paper

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:03:57 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>A three-body reaction would be unlikely based on probability. Fusion seems
>unlikely based on lack of high energy radiation, but if helium turns up you
>are in business. Sooner or later, someone will look for it. You will be
>waiting ;-)

The reactions here below are two body reactions, not three body. The Hy2 is a
small neutral molecule that may be able to approach the Ni nucleus close enough
for two neutrons to transfer out of the Ni, creating the He nucleus.
(Since the reaction as whole is exothermic, the neutrons "want" to do this.)
Given that the reaction energy is highest for 64Ni, it is the isotope most
likely to react easily.

>
>Until then, this looks like a stimulated weak force reaction. 

Exactly which weak force reaction did you have in mind?

>The likely
>role of the hydrino would be to penetrate the nickel electron cloud of 64Ni
>deeply in order to stimulate beta decay in an apparently stable nucleus with
>too many neutrons. The energy per reaction would be 500 times less than
>fusion, but that is adequate to fit the facts. 
>
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>
>Consider the following reactions:-
>
>Hy2 + 64Ni => 62Ni + 4He + 11.8 MeV
>Hy2 + 62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.88 MeV
>Hy2 + 60Ni => 58Ni + 4He + 7.91 MeV
>
>The amount of 62Ni may have remained more or less stable because it was both
>contributing to the 60Ni, and receiving from the 64 Ni. If this is the
>actual reaction mechanism, then it shouldn't make much difference how much
>64Ni is present.
>
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:Parhomov paper

[Jones Beene]

The relevant Sochi data is the chart on slide 13.

 

You can see what happened - the chart is logarithmic and the writer of paper
apparently did not notice that. 

 

Thus - a very substantial change took place - a drop in the ending ratio of
64Ni of almost half, compared to the starting - PLUS a starting ratio which
was 500% greater than natural - gets swept away without apparent notice. 

 

Yet this is where ALL the action was happening.

 

They had to enrich in 64Ni to get these results - no question about it !

 

 

From: Jones Beene 

Interesting paper on his improved replication, with a glaring error:

 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view

Their conclusion is flat-out wrong: "After operation in the reactor, No
significant changes in the isotopic composition of Ni was found. Li 6/ 7 Li
ratio increased."

In fact the Lithium ratio is in the noise, given the mobility of lithium -
BUT a very substantial change in 64Ni can account for all of the excess
heat. 

This is evidence that they enriched in 64Ni and knew it was the key - not
62Ni and no lithium.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:05:31 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
>francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>
>Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can
>> remain spatially fixed but I suspect it will have to dilate on temporal
>> axis to maintain equal and opposite action across frames.
>>
>
>We've seen nominal evidence of thrust that one wants to understand.  Have
>we seen nominal evidence of warping?


Wasn't there something quoted here not too long ago about laser possibly
revealing a warping in the neighborhood of an operating drive?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[David Roberson]

Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually nothing 
at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has zero kinetic 
energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a normal rocket 
that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing mass and energy can 
be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is true regardless of what 
reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas the EM 
Drive ship does not.

If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation 
out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested that nothing is 
performing that function.

Dave
 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the extreme you 
>get a result that doesn't make any sense.  For example, if the spaceship 
>continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration process that requires 
>power and thus energy to be expended for the drive, then eventually there will 
>be no mass left at all.  All of the original mass is lost if this takes place. 
> That does not make sense.

The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy. 

The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
radiation.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion used to kill bacteria.

[Axil Axil]

There is no evidence that the irradiation of gold nano-particles by laser
produces oxygen. Do you has a reference?

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:37 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:49:45 -0400:
> Hi,
>
> I think it's more likely that the gold acts as a catalyst so that light can
> split oxygen atoms from water molecules. Oxygen atoms are very reactive,
> and
> extremely good at killing bacteria.
>
> >Cold fusion used to kill bacteria.
> >
> >
> >"We showed that all of the bacteria were killed pretty quickly . . .
> within
> >5 to 25 seconds. That's a very fast process," said corresponding author
> >Wei-Chuan Shih, a professor in the electrical and computer engineering
> >department, University of Houston, Texas.
> >
> >Scientists create gold nanoparticles in the lab by dissolving gold,
> >reducing the metal into smaller and smaller disconnected pieces until the
> >size must be measured in nanometers. One nanometer equals a billionth of a
> >meter. A human hair is between 50,000 to 100,000 nanometers in diameter.
> >Once miniaturized, the particles can be crafted into various shapes
> >including rods, triangles or disks.
> >
> >
> >Read more at:
> >
> http://phys.org/news/2016-03-technique-rapidly-bacteria-tiny-gold.html#jCp
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Roarty, Francis X]

Which takes something physically present to do the warping…ok if it can remain 
spatially fixed but I suspect it will have to dilate on temporal axis to 
maintain equal and opposite action across frames.

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:43 PM, 
> wrote:

See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can only
act against another object, because that has always been our experience. This
may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
itself, rather than another object.

If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.

Does this require that the vacuum be something other than a frictionless 
superfluid?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Spin Liquids and Kagome Space-Time Structures Ron Kita

[H Ucar]

Inordered spins state point out to possibilty of magnetic moment of particles 
have extra degrees of freedom which remain intact despite cooling.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[H LV]

Relative to its initial state it has gained kinetic energy. If the
Emdrive needs and external source of energy then it may work by
preserving CoE but by violating CoM.

Harry

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson  wrote:
> Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually
> nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has
> zero kinetic energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a
> normal rocket that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing
> mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is
> true regardless of what reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys
> CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
>
> If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation
> out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested that nothing
> is performing that function.
>
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mixent 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the extreme
>> you get a result that doesn't make any sense. For example, if the spaceship
>> continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration process that
>> requires power and thus energy to be expended for the drive, then eventually
>> there will be no mass left at all. All of the original mass is lost if this
>> takes place. That does not make sense.
>
> The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy.
>
> The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
> radiation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Vibrator !]

But the PE of the system in question is 1 kg * 1 G * 1 meter, not the full
distance from heaven to hell.

Suppose we had a scale sensitive enough to register a relativistic mass
increase due to PE, and then we roll a dice to decide how mach mass to
drop, or how far...  is the reading on the scale in some kind of
superposition until the dice lands?

And where would the mass increase actually be manifest - in the mass to be
dropped, or the earth, or the net system?  (i don't mind if we'd have to
weigh the whole Sol system - doesn't have to be practically viable, just in
principle)

If i have to input 9.81 J to raise 1 kg by 1 meter, but only half that -
4.9 J - to excavate a 1 meter-deep hole, both systems have equal output PE,
yet unequal input PE..  So what would our hypothetical Schrodinger's
weighing scale have to say about this?

E=MC^2 ascribes relativistic mass to KE - which is why C is mechanically
unattainable - but not "potential", which, as the name implies, can be
conditional and even indeterminate - ie. an unstable system can have a
multitude of possible stable configurations it could collapse into, each
with a unique energy profile.  Because of this, i have difficulty accepting
the oft-mentioned example of a loaded spring posessing such a mass increase
- it would be selective evidence for a generalisation encompassing
indeterminate systems...  surely, either all PE has relativistic mass, or
none does.

However even if i'm mistaken, and a relativistic mass increase CAN be in a
superposition of states, in that case it's not a conserved quantity either,
and free to come and go with the ebb and flow of potential..  just as it
does with KE.  Which is just as well, since if an EM drive really could
reach C, its wet weight would be infinite..

I can think of one permutation that might be an exception - a
nuclear-powered EM drive; supposing perfect efficiency, would the
relativistic mass gained from KE equal the mass deficit of the spent fuel?
Tricky one, that.

Or for a real head-twister, suppose we have a Bessler wheel powering our EM
drive - gravity is equivalent to an acceleration, so acceleration of the
craft in turn powers the Bessler mechanism, in a positive feedback loop.
The harder it accelerates, the more PE it has to accelerate even harder.
Fueled by its own acceleration, it's limited only by how much inertial
force it can withstand... but in principle it has infinite PE, and again,
the corresponding mass increase, as some would have it..


You could knock these out all day - bottom line is that a blanket
assumption that relativistic mass applies to potential, implies all manner
of absurdities and infinities.  Which doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong
of course, but should set alarm bells ringing..


On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:42 AM, H LV  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Vibrator ! 
> wrote:
> > That's conflating relativistic mass with rest mass.  I know the
> conclusion
> > that potential energy raises a system's mass is commonly accepted as an
> > inevitable implication of GR, but it's one frought with pitfalls:
> >
> > For instance, i dig a 1 meter-deep hole next to a 1 kg mass, at 1 G the
> > system now has 9.81 J of PE.  But is there a relativistic mass increase
> (i
> > don't care how small it'd be - multiply the scale if you wish)?
> >
> > What if the mass never falls into the hole?
> >
> > Similarly, a vertical wheel is balanced on a hilltop, with an unequal
> drop
> > on either side, so the system's PE is indeterminate - could relativistic
> > mass also be indeterminate?
> >
>
> The gravitational potential energy has a maximum finite value at an
> infinite distance from the earth.
> The point at infinity ensures that gravitational potential energy does
> not have to be arbitrary.
> As one moves closer to Earth the potential energy decreases relative
> to this maxium value.
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion used to kill bacteria.

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:00:13 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>There is no evidence that the irradiation of gold nano-particles by laser
>produces oxygen. Do you has a reference?

It was just a guess, but check this out:-

people.fas.harvard.edu/~parklab/publications/WaterPhotolysis.pdf

According to the article you quoted, the reason is rapid heating.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

Higgins’s thoughts are the same as mine.  I think it’s an uncorrected mistake.  
 Greenyer should ask Parkhomov to resolve the issue.  

If the data in the graph is correct and there were no Ni-64 enrichment, the 
implication for the decay or transmutation of Ni 64 to something else would be 
a significant observation.  I wonder if Ni-64 is significantly less stable than 
the rest of the Ni isotopes and has a long half life that we do not know about. 
 It may like cold neutrons.  It would transmute to Ni-65 which decays with a 
beta to Cu-65 which is stable.  I do not know about absorption cross sections 
for cold neutrons.  However it seems Ni-64 would like to get an extra neutron 
to become more stable as a odd nucleon isotope. 



Bob Cook

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 9:26 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

We could ask Parkhomov through Bob Greenyer if the Ni powder he used was 
enriched in 64Ni.  However, as far as we know, and in particular during these 
reported runs, Parkhomov was on a shoestring budget that would have precluded 
buying isotopically enriched Ni.  As far as we know all of his reported 
experiments have been fueled with Ni out of a single reagent jar.  MFMP has 
samples of that Ni powder (including me).  I know that in the US, 96% enriched 
64Ni would probably be about $30k per gram.


MFMP has recently purchased 70mg of 96+% isotopically enriched 62Ni.


On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

  Bob, you know the protocol - if the author finds an error of that severity, 
he withdraws the paper. Since they have not done so after a year, isn’t it fair 
to assume that the enrichment in the heavy isotope was deliberate? 



  In Moscow, there is a famous lab (Kurchatov)  which does most of the nickel 
enrichment for the entire world. 



  It would not be difficult for Parkhomov to find and use nickel enriched in 
64Ni. 





  From: Bob Cook 



  Jones--



  I agree with you about the report of the Ni-64 ratios presented in the 
report.  They should be asked to confirm the original Ni-64 ratio.



  I doubt it is correct, since it would have taken some effort to start with 
the enriched Ni-64, which they would surely have noted as a particularly 
important attribute of the starting fuel.  



  Bob Cook

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM,  wrote:

>Does this require that the vacuum be something other than a frictionless
> >superfluid?
>
> Not sure about that (literally). How do you feel about a solid lattice
> rather
> than a superfluid?
>

I feel doubtful, although I have no strong opinion.  The contrarian in me
would be delighted for a viscous spacetime to be discovered, as that would
be suggestive of an ether.  That's different from a solid lattice, although
it might accomplish the same thing.

Eric

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:

If the presence of an object warps spacetime (General Relativity), then
> something must be present to warp?
>

General relativity provides a unified description of gravity and
spacetime.  The EM Drive makes use first and foremost of the
electromagnetic interaction.  What about the EM Drive would be causing the
warping of spacetime?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Parhomov paper

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:15:18 -0700:
Hi,

If we take the table at face value, then most of the missing 64Ni ended up as
58Ni & 60Ni.

Consider the following reactions:-

Hy2 + 64Ni => 62Ni + 4He + 11.8 MeV
Hy2 + 62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.88 MeV
Hy2 + 60Ni => 58Ni + 4He + 7.91 MeV

The amount of 62Ni may have remained more or less stable because it was both
contributing to the 60Ni, and receiving from the 64 Ni.

If this is the actual reaction mechanism, then it shouldn't make much difference
how much 64Ni is present.


>It is distasteful to imagine that a waste of 6 years in understanding Ni-H
>could have resulted from the Lugano fraud. But that is how it is shaping up.
>Back in 2010, before the Lugano fiasco, there was a lot of speculation about
>Rossi's purported secret- and the speculation was rampant that he was
>enriching the nickel in an active isotope. He said as much, many times but
>he claimed it was 62Ni - apparently because Focardi believed it was (due to
>the proton fusion-to-copper hypothesis).
>
>Fast forward to Parkhomov, and the Sochi slides which are vastly at odds
>with Lugano, except for excess heat. If in the analysis of the two
>experiments, one now proceeds with this premise: Parkhomov is accurate and
>Lugano is fraudulent. the result is that theoretical understanding can now
>be clarified and it is different from Rossi. If we start with that premise
>of Parkhomov's accuracy, then it turns out we knew the answer to the secret
>sauce back in 2010. It is 64Ni - the heaviest stable isotope of nickel. It
>is not 62Ni as Rossi/Focardi once suggested, and not lithium - which is the
>currently favored hypothesis.
>
>The scientific rationale for this can be encapsulated in one observation.
>Nickel 64 is the pinnacle of all stable isotopes which are "neutron heavy,"
>and in fact this the most neutron heavy isotope of all metals in the
>periodic table (compared to the most stable isotope of that atom). 
>
>64Ni is a singularity in that regard. The "extra" 6 neutrons make the nickel
>64 nucleus over 10% heavier than the majority isotope (58Ni) and therefore
>subject to weak-force reactions in the presence of a mobile positive charge
>carrier (protons). This turns out to be a larger percentage of excess
>neutrons (by a.m.u. ratio) than is found in Uranium or any heavy metal,
>compared to the majority isotope. 64Ni could easily be the previously
>unrecognized fuel for all of the claims of LENR in nickel-hydrogen, going
>back to the Thermacore/Mills/Piantelli experiments in the early nineties -
>since its beta signature would presumably be mild (as evidenced by the known
>63Ni signature).
>
>Ni-64 is heavier than Ni-63 which is an unstable beta emitter with a short
>half-life. One can surmise in general that beta decay is nature's way of
>rectifying "neutron heaviness" without emitting neutrons. A tightly bound
>nucleus like nickel 64 does not emit neutrons but could be "stimulated" into
>beta decay by proton intrusion into the inner electron shell. "Stimulated
>beta decay" has been the subject of recent and old threads here on vortex
>going back to the early days of LENR.
>
>The beta decay energy level is low compared to fusion reactions, but it
>means that nickel, on a per pound basis, has several tens of thousands of
>times more energy per atom than is found in hydrogen combustion - yet
>becomes depleted over a short time. Thus, the need to enrich.
>
>Jones
>
>
>-
>The relevant Sochi data is the chart on slide 13. You can see what happened
>- the chart is logarithmic and the writer of paper apparently did not notice
>that. Thus - a very substantial change took place - a drop in the ending
>ratio of 64Ni of almost half, compared to the starting PLUS a starting ratio
>which was 500% greater than natural - gets swept away without apparent
>notice. 
>
>Yet this is where ALL the action was happening. They had to enrich in 64Ni
>to get these results - no question about it !
>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

[Bob Cook]

I still consider that the transition to a more stable isotope is via an 
anharmonic coupling that responds to local hydrogen loading in the Ni 
lattice, magnetic fields and spin coupling to a zillion electron in the nano 
particle, and thermal motion in preferred direction associated with the 
local magnetic fields.


The LENR energy is released relatively slowly as a proton overlaps a Ni 
nucleus and loses kinetic energy to potential energy of the new Ni isotope 
and some kinetic energy to the vibration of the lattice nucleons induced by 
excited electronic spin states.  All the other possibilities seem to suggest 
energetic particles and necessary high energy EM radiation or at least some 
EM that would be seen.  Electron capture or beta emission occur, as 
warranted, to reach the more stable nuclear configuration.


THE ENERGY DISTRIBUTION from the LENR MUST BE IN SMALL INCREMENTS TO BE 
CONSISTENT WITH THE SAFE, LOW RADIATION RESULTS OF THE LENR.


The idea that the high energy gammas would be shielded by the apparatus 
seems like a miracle to me.


Therefore, I agree with Jones that Robins alternative is too energetic.  And 
I guess I have not really accepted any of the f/H ideas yet.


Bob Cook





-Original Message- 
From: Jones Beene

Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 6:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Parhomov paper

Robin,

You propose a massive amount of energy per reaction. Under the
circumstances, that level seems too energetic; but it is difficult to rule
out f/H in some capacity.

A three-body reaction would be unlikely based on probability. Fusion seems
unlikely based on lack of high energy radiation, but if helium turns up you
are in business. Sooner or later, someone will look for it. You will be
waiting ;-)

Until then, this looks like a stimulated weak force reaction. The likely
role of the hydrino would be to penetrate the nickel electron cloud of 64Ni
deeply in order to stimulate beta decay in an apparently stable nucleus with
too many neutrons. The energy per reaction would be 500 times less than
fusion, but that is adequate to fit the facts.

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

Consider the following reactions:-

Hy2 + 64Ni => 62Ni + 4He + 11.8 MeV
Hy2 + 62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.88 MeV
Hy2 + 60Ni => 58Ni + 4He + 7.91 MeV

The amount of 62Ni may have remained more or less stable because it was both
contributing to the 60Ni, and receiving from the 64 Ni. If this is the
actual reaction mechanism, then it shouldn't make much difference how much
64Ni is present.