RE: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

[Jones Beene]

Well, we must await further explanation on this very important issue - but it 
is difficult to make a well-coordinated mistake on both ends of two 
measurements (the before and after percentages), such that the mistake is not 
completely out-of-line, and obviously wrong. In this case, there really is no 
other explanation for gain than the one imbalance. But of course, coincidences 
do happen.

 

Plus – here is something which you may not know. A fairly high percentage of 
mined nickel comes from sites where there was a prehistoric meteorite impact – 
like at Sudbury in Canada. Nickel found in ore which comes from a meteor impact 
site can be significantly enriched in 64Ni, since this one isotope is more 
prevalent in iron-nickel asteroids than in the primordial natural nickel of 
earth.

 

The enrichment is not uniform from various nickel mine sites and it is mostly 
in the one heavy isotope. It would possible, in principle, to obtain nickel of 
approximately 5% in 64Ni enrichment from a particular mine inadvertently-  or 
especially if you were aware of the situation and actually sought out the 
supplier based on the isotope enrichment. That could happen by accident or by 
plan.

 

It could also explain why in seemingly good experiments performed elsewhere – 
the results turned up null (like Alan’s or Jack Cole’s or Ahern’s). They did 
not have the enriched nickel. 

 

There is no assurance that the nickel sent by Parkhomov to MFMP in the US was 
the same mine  source used in Sochi. AP could be unaware of all of this … or 
not. Certainly, he has an incentive to retain some proprietary information, and 
in fact, it appeared that on Greenyer’s visit, he was less than forthcoming – 
at least in some of the reports. He may have not want this to come out, in fact 
or he could be unaware but it is doubtful that a double mistake would be so 
carefully crafted.

 

From: 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   

 

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]:photobeta decay

[Stephen Cooke]

I recently came across the concept of photobeta decay.
Photoneutron or Photoproton decay is a well known process which occurs when 
very high MeV photons of sufficient energy and characteristics interact with 
nuclei and can result in the emission of Protons or Neutrons providing the 
associated Q value for emission is reached.
Photobeta decay is a similar process whereby a photon of sufficient energy and 
characteristics interact with and can result in the emission of Beta providing 
the associated Q value for emission is reached. 
Photobeta decay was looked at in the 1960's by P. B Shaw, D.D. Clayton and F.C. 
Michel as a possible process occurring in the Nucleosynthesis process in Red 
Giant stars  and has been used along with the r-process and s-process of 
neutron capture to explain the element abundances of some heavier elements. I 
have not found many literature of photobeta decay in other more recent contexts 
though. Obviously the core of a red Giant is not a normal environment so it 
maybe a bit special there.
These papers are paywalled unfortunately but the second one you see part of it 
in preview
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.140.B1433
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1134%2F1.1788033
I wonder if something similar can occur in more normal environments or in LENR 
active sites etc.
Some elements have quite low Q values for beta decay, these include Ni63 for 
example which has a Q value of 66.977 keV and decays with a long half-life of 
101 years to Cu63 which is stable. Cu63 then has a correspondingly low negative 
Q value of -66.977 keV for Beta + decay or Electron capture. Since all Q values 
for Cu63 are negative it is normally stable.
(note Ni63 is not a natural abundant element of Nickel due to its half life of 
101 years)
It has been reported that we may get broad spectrum X-ray radiation in some 
devices such as seen by MFMP in their GS 5.2 experiment. This spectra is 
bremsstrahlung like in that it has low intensity at high energies and increases 
to much higher intensities at lower energies especially from around 100 keV and 
below.
I wonder what happens to these nuclei with low + and - Q values when they are 
in this kind of broad spectrum environment including X rays at 66.955 keV? 
Could Ni63 be stimulated to beta decay at a faster rate that half-life of 101 
years?Could normally stable Cu63 be stimulated to compensate for the -Q of 
-66.977 keV and undergo Beta + decay or electron capture?
If this strange scenario is possible then we could the Ni63/Cu63 effectively 
cycle thereby generating energetic beta by absorbing gamma or X-rays of 66.977 
keV?
One way to check for this I suppose is to see if any Ni63 was present in the 
ash (perhaps by detecting Beta radiation with a Q value of 66.977 keV). There 
are not many normal possible sources of Ni63: If proton absorption is occurring 
with Ni62 then it would form Cu63 which is normally stable. If Neutron 
absorption occurs then it could also be possible generated from neutron 
absorption in Ni62 but then maybe we would expect other elements or isotopes to 
have consistent signatures of neutron absorption. 
If Ni63 and/or Cu63 can undergo Photobeta decay (a big if admitably) some other 
elements and isotopes with Q values below 100 or so keV could be implicated.
Such as:
Pb210/Bi210 : Qbeta = 63.486 keV (side note: this is a Radon 
Progeny)Pd107/Ag107: Qbeta = 34.078 keV (side note: Ag 107 is stable and has a 
isomer at 93.125 keV) H3/He3: Qbeta = 18.591 keV
There are several more < 100 keV and many more < 500 keV
Interestingly at frequencies below 100 keV they are also close to the K alpha 
and K beta characteristic X-Ray emission frequencies from the inner shell 
electron transitions of some heavier elements such as Tungsten (W)







  

RE: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

[Jones Beene]

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

[H Ucar]

Posting again.
-- Original message--From: H UcarDate: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 22:17To: 
vortex-l@eskimo.com;Cc: Subject:Re: [Vo]:Quantum Spin Liquids and Kagome 
Space-Time Structures Ron Kita
Inordered spins state point out to possibilty of magnetic moment of 
particles have extra degrees of freedom which remain intact despite cooling.

[Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

[Bob Cook]

Parhomov paperJones--

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

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 7:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Parhomov paper

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: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

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

 

 

[Vo]:NASA working on another EM Drive paper

[Jack Cole]

Paul March indicated on the NASA Spaceflight forum that NASA Eagleworks is
getting another EMDrive paper through peer review.



http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/03/nasa-is-in-process-of-getting-another.html

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[David Roberson]

Does anyone recall how the force generated by the EM drive varies with cavity 
Q?  I assume the force does not become infinite as the Q approaches that value. 
 If if does, then that should raise all types of flags.  

For instance, it would imply that much more kinetic energy can be imparted onto 
the vehicle than is converted from the mass depletion.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)



You can get about a 6% improvement in Q of the resonator by plating several 
skin depths of Ag on top of the Cu.  This is frequently done to reduce filter 
loss where the loss is dominated by metal losses.  It is possible to choose 
resonant cavity modes that have higher Q due to less coupling to the magnetic 
field.  Generally the Q goes up with the volume of the cavity and as the 
sqrt(resonant  frequency).  It is also important that the source be 
appropriately impedance matched to the losses of the cavity.  If the unloaded Q 
is Qu, then when the source is matched properly, the measured Q will be Qu/2.  
Cooling the cavity will also increase the Q because the resistivity of the 
metal decreases linearly with Kelvin temperature.



On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Russ George  wrote:


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. 

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Higgins]

I have not analyzed Shawyer's cavity design to understand what resonant
mode is responsible for his thrust, and what other resonant cavity modes
are supported by the cavity.  The microwave oven magnetron can be pulled in
frequency somewhat by a highly coupled resonant mode.  You want to make
sure that the magnetron is exciting the correct mode - the one that
produces the thrust.  The magnetron will have an output waveguide that will
have to be coupled to the resonator through a port in the cavity, but an
orifice may be needed at the entrance to the cavity, and tuning screws
between the magnetron and the cavity to adjust the match to the residue of
the desired cavity mode.  You will need a small microwave probe that can
preferentially detect the field in the desired cavity mode chosen to be at
a field node for the other cavity modes.  You would tune the match and
orifice size to maximize the intensity in the desired thrust-providing
cavity mode.

This optimization will not be a trivial job, but will result in maximum
thrust for a given power.

Other thing to note is that the microwave oven magnetron power supply is
DC, but not constant DC.  Usually microwave oven power supplies are just
half wave rectified AC with the magnetron on for 1/2 cycle, and the driven
half cycle is a half sine of DC.  The frequency of the magnetron will
change with the DC voltage in the half sine if there is not something, like
a coupled cavity mode, to stabilize it.  If Shawyer's cavity has multiple
close-in modes, the magnetron, driven as a half sine voltage sweep could
jump between modes as a function of voltage.  It may be more desirable to
modify the supply to have a lower constant voltage than having a peak half
sine voltage.  That will keep the magnetron from pulling off of the desired
thrust mode.

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> Agreed the largest added Q comes from super-cooling. I had asked about
> silver over copper as it is very simple and inexpensive to electroplate
> silver onto a copper EM Drive. Building a LN2 cooled EM Drive has all
> manner
> of engineering issues. Perhaps the 6% added thrust from silver plated
> copper
> is observable and sufficient to prove the Q effect. The next issue is what
> is the ideal microwave electronics and antennae design, as in what
> brand/model of microwave oven do I buy to cannibalize for parts.
>

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:20:20 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>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

The interactions between photons and spacetime? Just guessing.

Question:-

Why would gravity warp spacetime, but not electric and magnetic fields?
According to Axil and Fran, they warp spacetime big time. (SPPs) ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Woodward Propulsion Patent March 15 2016 isssues

[Ron Kita]

Greetings Vortex-l,
Woodward Patent...Ron Kita, Chiralex

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0=09287840=54FDE1FE9B90%0D%0A=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526co1%3DAND%2526d%3DPTXT%2526s1%3Dthruster%2526OS%3Dthruster%2526RS%3Dthruster

[Vo]:Fw: two short comments, some LENR info

[Bob Cook]

Peter--

what is the antonym of anxious?

relaxed or cool..

Bob Cook

From: Peter Gluck 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:48 AM
To: Arik El Boher ; Bo Hoistadt ; Brian Ahern ; CMNS ; Dagmar Kuhn ; David 
Daggett ; doug marker ; Dr. Braun Tibor ; eCatNews ; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian ; 
Gary ; Haiko Lietz ; jeff aries ; Mark Tsirlin ; Nicolaie N. Vlad ; Peter 
Bjorkbom ; Peter Mobberley ; Pierre Clauzon ; Roberto Germano ; Roy Virgilio ; 
Steve Katinski ; Sunwon Park ; Valerio Ciampoli ; vlad ; VORTEX 
Subject: [Vo]:two short comments, some LENR info

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-17-2016-lenr-two-short-comments.html


what is the antonym of anxious? I feel so.

peter

PS Do not answer,pleaseit was a rhetoric question, I am still a fast 
web-searcher when I am motivated.
-- 

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

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[mixent]

In reply to  Russ George's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:18:21 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>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. 

The conductivity of silver relative to copper is not all that much, so I
wouldn't expect much of a gain anyway. Far more gain should be obtained by
cooling. According to Tesla, cooling with liquid nitrogen gives a 5 fold
improvement.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Bob Cook]

Harry--

If the space ship is between galaxies looking at star will be of no help.  The 
will are be observed as receding from you given the expansion of space.  And 
what’s more, how does an accelerometer work that must contend with an 
increasing space volume as one is trying to accelerate?  If there is a 
measurable gravitational field you would conclude you are it would be getting 
smaller with time, assuming time is not expanding with the space.  Unless your 
EM drive would go faster than the expansion of space you would be lost for 
ever.  We are lucky that space within a galaxy does not expand like space 
between galaxies as we know happens according to the Big Bang theory.  Anybody 
traveling between galaxies should stay away from the boundary that separates 
him from a zone of  expansion of space that is more than his ship can handle.  

Bob Cook

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 3:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

People riding in a Emdrive  spaceship could compare their motion to background 
stars before and after the acceleration to determine how much their speed has 
changed. Or they could use an onboard accelerometer to compute their new 
velocity from the prior period of acceleration.

As you pointed out all the tests todate use an external energy supply so until 
the drive operates with an onboard energy supply I think it is also plausible 
to say it may only work with an external energy supply. The external energy 
supply might create acceleration by *increasing* the mass of the drive instead 
of reducing the mass of the drive. Figuratively speaking the drive would "suck".

On Mar 17, 2016 12:56 PM, "David Roberson"  wrote:

  If nothing is remaining of the ship then it can not have a finite value of 
kinetic energy relative to any observer.  Remember this was an example of 
carrying the process to the extreme.  That technique can point out problems in 
many visual concepts.

  If you apply the same technique to a normal rocket then all of the original 
energy and mass can be accounted for in the exhaust.  Nothing vanishes.

  Dave




  -Original Message-
  From: H LV 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 12:36 pm
  Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

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

[Bob Cook]

Robin's example of the electric car is different than the EM drive since it 
allows the evaluation of the conservation of momentum.  The road increases 
its momentum in the opposite direction the car does.  In the EM case there 
is no apparent conservation of momentum--at least I do not know how to 
calculate it.  Does the entire space time existence change its momentum? 
Maybe Robin could identify how momentum is conserved in the EM drive.


Bob Cook

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

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
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.


An electric car speeding down the road will also eventually exhaust all it's
stored energy, while remaining motionless in it's own rest frame (BTW 
everything

is always motionless in it's own rest frame, that's why it's called "rest"),
nevertheless it has considerable kinetic energy relative to the road. I fail 
to
see the difference between this and the EM drive vehicle. Note that the car 
used
it's energy to change the relationship between it's own frame of reference 
and

that of it's surroundings. So did the EM drive vehicle.

Kinetic energy always depends on the frame of reference chosen. When either
vehicle starts out with a full fuel load, the "correct" frame of reference 
is
the initial frame in which the "fuel tank" was full. If we stick to that 
frame
instead of swapping and changing when we feel like it, then the kinetic 
energy

gained, as the fuel is used, becomes apparent.

For the EM drive ship, the "exhaust" is the universe itself. Just think of
spacetime as invisible "train tracks", and it all becomes clear.

(Made beautifully visible in a Dr. Who episode about the Orient Express. 
:) )


Acceleration requires force, and all lines of force have two ends. If one 
end is
attached to the EM drive, then the other end must be attached to something. 
The

only thing that would make sense is the fabric of spacetime itself.
In short IMO, if it works at all, then this is how it would have to work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:can excessive greed do harm to the future of LENR?

[Axil Axil]

IMHO, Rossi partitions his reaction into two major steps, fuel preparation
and on-line operation to avoid the burst radiation problem that MFMP has
seen in their experiment.

The analysis of the Lugano fuel sample presented in the Lugano report shows
that Rossi uses an electrode make of tungsten doped with rare earth
elements. This electrode could be a welding rod doped with rare earths to
increase rod conductivity.

Lanthanated tungsten electrodes (AWS classification EWLa-1.5) contain a
minimum of 97.80 percent tungsten and 1.30 percent to 1.70 percent
lanthanum, or lanthana, and are known as 1.5 percent lanthanated.

The DC arc from the welding rods is used to sinter the 5 micron particles
into a particle size profile as defined in Rossi’s patent: 1 to 100 microns
with increased porosity of the resultant particles.

In addition, the goal of the fuel preparation process is to produce
metalize hydrogen which requires a very high nominal pressure of formation
of 250,000 atmospheres.

The pulsed high amperage DC arc produces a pressure based shock wave that
in turn produces the high pressures required to generate the metalized
hydrogen.

The fuel pre-prep mix must also include lithium in pure form to reduce the
pressure required to produce metalized hydrogen by up to 8 fold.

Therefore, the lithium present in the fuel mix cuts the pressure to form
metalize hydrogen to about 31,250 atmospheres. The shock wave from the DC
arc and the molecular bonds that hold the hydrogen inside the Nano cracks
of the porous nickel are sufficient to compress the hydrogen under high
pressure to compression levels in which the metalized hydrogen hexagonal
lattice will form.

The online process where heat is applied to the metalized hydrogen
activates the hydrogen nanoparticles into the LENR active state.

As per Holmlid and supported by high levels of carbon in the Lagano fuel
mix, Potassium doped graphite might also be present as a metalized hydrogen
catalyst in the pre fuel mix.

Because of the DC arc, the fuel prep process produces radiation in
preference to heat, but an amount of metalized hydrogen nanoparticles is
seeded into the porous nickel fuel particles. When the online process is
activated by the application of high heat, EMF forms on the surface of the
metalized hydrogen which makes this special type of hydrogen LENR active,




On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-18-2016-can-moneytheism-do-harm-to.html
>
> Please take in consideration that I am only ASKING.
>
> Peter
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 
*   
*   Of course, differential analysis of Rossi's Lugano fuel vs. ash is very 
questionable due to the likely situation of the reactor having been pre-loaded 
with some materials.  [This was not a Rossi "deception"; he just didn't bother 
to bring up this fact, nor was he obliged to.]

Not to quibble, Bob - since without your careful analysis of the huge thermal 
measurement errors, it would not be so crystal clear that Lugano is junk. But 
even if there was no obligation to be truthful vis-à-vis a general audience, 
since the report was not published in a reputable journal - one suspects that 
Levi and his crew are rather indignant at being made fools by Rossi. Their 
reputations are soiled and they may never live that fiasco down.

And … as to the extent of any obligation to be honest – don’t forget that this 
report was said to have been filed with USPTO in support of one of Rossi’s 
applications … and possibly used by Rossi as a milestone in his contract with 
his funder. Neither of them would look favorably on the notion that it was not 
a deception, if that is indeed the situation. 

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

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>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.

An electric car speeding down the road will also eventually exhaust all it's
stored energy, while remaining motionless in it's own rest frame (BTW everything
is always motionless in it's own rest frame, that's why it's called "rest"),
nevertheless it has considerable kinetic energy relative to the road. I fail to
see the difference between this and the EM drive vehicle. Note that the car used
it's energy to change the relationship between it's own frame of reference and
that of it's surroundings. So did the EM drive vehicle.

Kinetic energy always depends on the frame of reference chosen. When either
vehicle starts out with a full fuel load, the "correct" frame of reference is
the initial frame in which the "fuel tank" was full. If we stick to that frame
instead of swapping and changing when we feel like it, then the kinetic energy
gained, as the fuel is used, becomes apparent.

For the EM drive ship, the "exhaust" is the universe itself. Just think of
spacetime as invisible "train tracks", and it all becomes clear.

(Made beautifully visible in a Dr. Who episode about the Orient Express. :) )

Acceleration requires force, and all lines of force have two ends. If one end is
attached to the EM drive, then the other end must be attached to something. The
only thing that would make sense is the fabric of spacetime itself.
In short IMO, if it works at all, then this is how it would have to work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[H LV]

People riding in a Emdrive  spaceship could compare their motion to
background stars before and after the acceleration to determine how much
their speed has changed. Or they could use an onboard accelerometer to
compute their new velocity from the prior period of acceleration.

As you pointed out all the tests todate use an external energy supply so
until the drive operates with an onboard energy supply I think it is also
plausible to say it may only work with an external energy supply. The
external energy supply might create acceleration by *increasing* the mass
of the drive instead of reducing the mass of the drive. Figuratively
speaking the drive would "suck".
On Mar 17, 2016 12:56 PM, "David Roberson"  wrote:

> If nothing is remaining of the ship then it can not have a finite value of
> kinetic energy relative to any observer.  Remember this was an example of
> carrying the process to the extreme.  That technique can point out problems
> in many visual concepts.
>
> If you apply the same technique to a normal rocket then all of the
> original energy and mass can be accounted for in the exhaust.  Nothing
> vanishes.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 12:36 pm
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> 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]: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Higgins]

You can get about a 6% improvement in Q of the resonator by plating several
skin depths of Ag on top of the Cu.  This is frequently done to reduce
filter loss where the loss is dominated by metal losses.  It is possible to
choose resonant cavity modes that have higher Q due to less coupling to the
magnetic field.  Generally the Q goes up with the volume of the cavity and
as the sqrt(resonant  frequency).  It is also important that the source be
appropriately impedance matched to the losses of the cavity.  If the
unloaded Q is Qu, then when the source is matched properly, the measured Q
will be Qu/2.  Cooling the cavity will also increase the Q because the
resistivity of the metal decreases linearly with Kelvin temperature.

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>

[Vo]:LENR BATTLEFIELDS AND INFO

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-19-2016-lenr-battlefields-and-info.html

Many thanks to Doug Marker and AXIL- a friend on the battlefield is a
friend indeed!

Peter

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

RE: [Vo]:Parhomov paper

[Jones Beene]

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

Re: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

[Frank Znidarsic]

Thank you Eric.  These video's are not wild, they are mine from my video camera.



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 8:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists




On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Russ George  wrote:



How about a simple verbal explanation as opposed to movies… few of us open 
movies posted in the wild on the net, it’s rather like poking at a mangy 
looking sleeping dog one comes across.





Frank is welcome to send a link to a video, and you're free to ignore it.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

[Bob Higgins]

Jones, I think this observation is very interesting.  In fact, what the
Lugano analysis showed was probably even more astonishing.  In Parkhomov's
analysis, he reported the 64Ni going from 4.4% to 2.6%, a decrease to 59%
of original [I checked the Russian original to insure I had not made a
mistake in the translation].  However, in the Lugano report, the 64Ni went
from 1.0% to 0.0%.  This was overshadowed by the apparent migration of the
other Ni isotopes to 62Ni.  Of course, differential analysis of Rossi's
Lugano fuel vs. ash is very questionable due to the likely situation of the
reactor having been pre-loaded with some materials.  [This was not a Rossi
"deception"; he just didn't bother to bring up this fact, nor was he
obliged to.]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Well, we must await further explanation on this very important issue - but
> it is difficult to make a well-coordinated mistake on both ends of two
> measurements (the before and after percentages), such that the mistake is
> not completely out-of-line, and obviously wrong. In this case, there really
> is no other explanation for gain than the one imbalance. But of course,
> coincidences do happen.
>
>
>
> Plus – here is something which you may not know. A fairly high percentage
> of mined nickel comes from sites where there was a prehistoric meteorite
> impact – like at Sudbury in Canada. Nickel found in ore which comes from a
> meteor impact site can be significantly enriched in 64Ni, since this one
> isotope is more prevalent in iron-nickel asteroids than in the primordial
> natural nickel of earth.
>
>
>
> The enrichment is not uniform from various nickel mine sites and it is
> mostly in the one heavy isotope. It would possible, in principle, to obtain
> nickel of approximately 5% in 64Ni enrichment from a particular mine
> inadvertently-  or especially if you were aware of the situation and
> actually sought out the supplier based on the isotope enrichment. That
> could happen by accident or by plan.
>
>
>
> It could also explain why in seemingly good experiments performed
> elsewhere – the results turned up null (like Alan’s or Jack Cole’s or
> Ahern’s). They did not have the enriched nickel.
>
>
>
> There is no assurance that the nickel sent by Parkhomov to MFMP in the US
> was the same mine  source used in Sochi. AP could be unaware of all of this
> … or not. Certainly, he has an incentive to retain some proprietary
> information, and in fact, it appeared that on Greenyer’s visit, he was less
> than forthcoming – at least in some of the reports. He may have not want
> this to come out, in fact or he could be unaware but it is doubtful that a
> double mistake would be so carefully crafted.
>
>
>
> *From:* 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 
>
>
>
> 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 

Re: [Vo]:two short comments, some LENR info

[Bob Cook]

what is the antonym of anxious?

relaxed or cool

From: Peter Gluck 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:48 AM
To: Arik El Boher ; Bo Hoistadt ; Brian Ahern ; CMNS ; Dagmar Kuhn ; David 
Daggett ; doug marker ; Dr. Braun Tibor ; eCatNews ; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian ; 
Gary ; Haiko Lietz ; jeff aries ; Mark Tsirlin ; Nicolaie N. Vlad ; Peter 
Bjorkbom ; Peter Mobberley ; Pierre Clauzon ; Roberto Germano ; Roy Virgilio ; 
Steve Katinski ; Sunwon Park ; Valerio Ciampoli ; vlad ; VORTEX 
Subject: [Vo]:two short comments, some LENR info

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-17-2016-lenr-two-short-comments.html


what is the antonym of anxious? I feel so.

peter

PS Do not answer,pleaseit was a rhetoric question, I am still a fast 
web-searcher when I am motivated.
-- 

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

RE: [Vo]:Woodward Propulsion Patent March 15 2016 isssues

[Jones Beene]

 

Good timing, Ron – you must have been waiting on that one…

 

From: Ron Kita 

Greetings Vortex-l,

Woodward Patent...Ron Kita, Chiralex


http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0 

 
=09287840=54FDE1FE9B90%0D%0A=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526co1%3DAND%2526d%3DPTXT%2526s1%3Dthruster%2526OS%3Dthruster%2526RS%3Dthruster

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

[H LV]

> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Vibrator !  wrote:
>> But the PE of the system in question is 1 kg * 1 G * 1 meter, not the full
>> distance from heaven to hell.
>>
>


I wrote:
> Measure PE relative to the place where the force of gravity is zero
> inside the Earth. That place has an objective existence even if it is
> impossible for a body to fall there in practice.


Well I guess there could be more than one place with zero gravity so
that wouldn't eliminate
the arbitrariness of mass from gravitational PE.

What one could do is to acknowledge is that the conversion of energy
into mass doesn't happen by accident.

Imagine a hill separating two valleys A and B where B is twice as deep
as A. I find a log in valley A and roll it up to the top of the hill
where it could roll either way. It has now acquired mass from being
rolled out of valley A. If a gust of wind causes the log to roll into
valley B it loses the added mass half way down the hill.

Harry

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

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
>

I don't think this conclusion has been established yet.

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.
>

I suggested neutrinos.

Eric

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

[H LV]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Vibrator !  wrote:
> But the PE of the system in question is 1 kg * 1 G * 1 meter, not the full
> distance from heaven to hell.
>

Measure PE relative to the place where the force of gravity is zero
inside the Earth. That place has an objective existence even if it is
impossible for a body to fall there in practice.


> 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.

You are confusing possibility with potentiality. Possibility is
conditional and indeterminate. A seed has the potential to become a
tree, but the condition of the environment may make it impossible for
the seed to realize its potential. I would say as long as the
environment is sufficiently determined then a body can have an
objective PE and extra mass. ( I don't like term relativistic mass
because that implies motion which is not required for a body to have
PE)


> 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..


Harry

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

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

If its neutrinos, then they would seem to have some mass that is magnified
> by their high velocity and special relativity.
>

I don't think it is necessary that the neutrinos be relativistic, although
surely they will be. I do not know that a relativistic increase in mass
will have any bearing on recoil.  What is important in the present context
is momentum.  The momentum of the neutrino and the momentum of the recoil
nucleus will be equal and opposite, dividing up several MeV in the case of
electron capture.  The neutrino will travel much faster, of course.  But
the momenta are equal (by Newton's third law).

If neutrino travels at the speed of  light, like many believe. they should
> have no rest  mass.
>

Perhaps.  Wikipedia says the first generation of neutrinos has ~ 0.3 eV
mass.  I believe the suggestion that they have mass goes back to the
observation of neutrino oscillation.  Note that although 0.3 eV does not
sound like much in the way of mass, it's a lot more than zero, which is
what photons have, assuming the current understanding is correct.

Eric, do you have any information regarding the momentum of neutrinos that
> collide with targets and are stopped?
>

The neutrino wouldn't collide or stop in this case.  It would be emitted
during the electron capture, causing the daughter nucleus to recoil, and it
would pass right through the apparatus, leading an apparent violation of
conservation of momentum.  We are trying to account for a thrust that is on
the order of 100 uN.  I do not have a clear understanding at this point of
whether the implied intensity of MeV neutrino emission would be improbably
high to explain this amount of thrust, or whether a plausible reaction rate
could be obtained.

The neutrino emission would also need to be directed.  This might be a
simple consequence of having an anisotropic pattern of RF stimulation
within the cavity.

Presumably the cavity material is what would undergo electron capture.
Copper cannot do this, although aluminum, which has been used in the past,
can [1].  In the case of copper, perhaps there would be an impurity or
alloyed element that would be involved.

Eric


[1] https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive

RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Agreed the largest added Q comes from super-cooling. I had asked about
silver over copper as it is very simple and inexpensive to electroplate
silver onto a copper EM Drive. Building a LN2 cooled EM Drive has all manner
of engineering issues. Perhaps the 6% added thrust from silver plated copper
is observable and sufficient to prove the Q effect. The next issue is what
is the ideal microwave electronics and antennae design, as in what
brand/model of microwave oven do I buy to cannibalize for parts. 

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  Russ George's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:18:21 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>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. 

The conductivity of silver relative to copper is not all that much, so I
wouldn't expect much of a gain anyway. Far more gain should be obtained by
cooling. According to Tesla, cooling with liquid nitrogen gives a 5 fold
improvement.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

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.
>

Thank you for the clarification. The fact that there is a vacuum tripped me
up, and I jumped to conclusions.

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.
>

The following thought occurred to me this morning: if neutrinos were the
ballast, they could exit the Shawyer drive without the interference that
photons would encounter.  Since neutrinos have mass, and since reactions in
which they arise are generally energetic, it seems likely that neutrino
recoil will be bigger than photon recoil in a system like this.

Of the two sources of neutrinos that readily come to mind, electron capture
and beta decay, there will be different characteristics if one or the other
predominates.  If electron capture is the primary source, the neutrinos
will be monoenergetic, and there will be little in the way of a rise in
temperature of the source material, as there is no accompanying beta
electron.  If beta decay is the primary source, the neutrinos will carry
away on average 2/3 of the Q value of whatever reaction produces them, and
there will be a significant rise in temperature of the surrounding material
as a result of the stopping of energetic beta electrons.

I am curious about what kind of reaction rates would be needed to produce
the thrusts seen in the EM Drive experiments.  One figure among several to
work with is 91.2 uN at 17 W power (one of NASA's results) [1].  To model
this, one wants a function that takes as input the average energy carried
away per reaction (going back to a specific set of Q values) and the
anisotropy of the neutrino flux, from 1 (anisotropic) to 0 (isotropic).

If the required reaction rates were below 1e15 per second, say, it seems
like this idea would be within the realm of possibility.  Whether the
neutrino source was electron capture or beta decay, the combination of
thrust and heat would make the drive appear as an overunity device to an
observer with no knowledge of the internal mechanism.  It seems, then, that
LENR is possibly in play in this instance.

Eric


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster#EmDrive

RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Yes that is a problem, but apparently the EM Drives have just that anisotrophy. 
If the EM drive and cold fusion share mysterious enhanced energy output over 
input and the EM drive provides the directional element then my dilithium 
deuteride makes sense as an EM drive test over the poorly performing simple 
copper;) naturally a far superior result would be expected with a silver EMCF 
Drive!

 

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

 

 

 

[Vo]:Volcanoes on Pluto

[Axil Axil]

Where could the heat be coming from inside Pluto?

"Among the more puzzling features are the two tall mounds with central
depressions that look like volcanoes," says Ross Beyer, Senior Scientist at
the SETI Institute. "Wright Mons is about 2 miles tall and 90 miles wide,
and Piccard Mons is even larger, about 3.5 miles tall and 140 miles across.
They could be ice volcanoes, but this will take more analysis to establish."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-03-pluto-reveals-secrets.html#jCp

[Vo]:Parhomov paper

[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: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Here’s a rather recent academic paper on EM Drives 
http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/emdrive.pdf

 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

Does anyone recall how the force generated by the EM drive varies with cavity 
Q?  I assume the force does not become infinite as the Q approaches that value. 
 If if does, then that should raise all types of flags.  

For instance, it would imply that much more kinetic energy can be imparted onto 
the vehicle than is converted from the mass depletion.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins  >
To: vortex-l  >
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

You can get about a 6% improvement in Q of the resonator by plating several 
skin depths of Ag on top of the Cu.  This is frequently done to reduce filter 
loss where the loss is dominated by metal losses.  It is possible to choose 
resonant cavity modes that have higher Q due to less coupling to the magnetic 
field.  Generally the Q goes up with the volume of the cavity and as the 
sqrt(resonant  frequency).  It is also important that the source be 
appropriately impedance matched to the losses of the cavity.  If the unloaded Q 
is Qu, then when the source is matched properly, the measured Q will be Qu/2.  
Cooling the cavity will also increase the Q because the resistivity of the 
metal decreases linearly with Kelvin temperature.

 

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Russ George  > wrote:

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. 

 

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

[Bob Cook]

So the vacuum's momentum changes in the opposite direction of the increased 
momentum of the ship.  The issue is COM in my mind, not an absolute increase 
in momentum.  That suggests  momentum is not conserved.


bob Cook

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

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 5:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:00:38 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

Robin's example of the electric car is different than the EM drive since it
allows the evaluation of the conservation of momentum.  The road increases
its momentum in the opposite direction the car does.  In the EM case there
is no apparent conservation of momentum--at least I do not know how to
calculate it.  Does the entire space time existence change its momentum?
Maybe Robin could identify how momentum is conserved in the EM drive.

Bob Cook


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.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Higgins]

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

[Bob Cook]

If its neutrinos, then they would seem to have some mass that is magnified by 
their high velocity and special relativity.  If neutrino travels at the speed 
of  light, like many believe. they should have no rest  mass.  Eric, do you 
have any information regarding the momentum of neutrinos that collide with 
targets and are stopped?

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 3:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Roberson  wrote:


  A normal rocket obeys CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.


I don't think this conclusion has been established yet.

  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.


I suggested neutrinos.

Eric

[Vo]:can excessive greed do harm to the future of LENR?

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-18-2016-can-moneytheism-do-harm-to.html

Please take in consideration that I am only ASKING.

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

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

[Roarty, Francis X]

Russ, backfilling the cavity with any reactant would kill the standing wave 
formation –if we want to hybridize the EM drive with LENR reactors we might 
need to go the other way and instead  attempt to downsize the shawyer 
geometries and stack them via self assembly into a bulk powder or skeletal 
catalyst, maybe this was the missing concept DiFiore needed 
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109091  - I don’t think they utilized gas 
loading which IMHO would provide far more mass pushing against a relativistic 
vector to unbalance the spatial axis of reaction in our frame – my vote is that 
suppression of vacuum density allows for linkage between frames unlike the 
nature of near C relativistic effects. Suppression effects like Casimir are 
very near field and predominately “induced” without regard to gas velocity but 
allowing normal equal and opposite reactions to become unbalanced thru dilation 
and contraction..trading decay rate for spatial vector / pushing in the 
direction of time axis from the perspective of our macro isotropy.
Fran

From: Russ George [mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:30 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

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:

[Image removed by sender.]
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:

[Image removed by sender.]
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: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[mixent]

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

[David Roberson]

It is true that the car will eventually come to a rest in its reference frame 
once its fuel is exhausted.  But, observers in other frames will notice that it 
has kinetic energy and momentum gained during the acceleration period.  They 
can all determine that the car mass and energy plus the energy that it imparted 
to other objects during its motion adds up to the beginning amount of mass and 
energy.  This is clearly a different situation than that expected for an EM 
drive vehicle.

You should note that the car we are discussing is not capable of accelerating 
unless it is using a road or some electromagnetic force that is not terminated 
within the car itself.  That other object acts as the reaction matter that 
replaces the exhausted fuel of the rocket concept.  An EM drive operating in 
deep space does not have any tangible object to generate a force against.

If someone can show that the EM drive interacts with the earth's gravitational 
field in a manner that generates a force then perhaps that might make sense.   
Of course, then the earth would act as the reaction mass.  So far I do not 
recall that being seriously discussed.

I suppose that an EM drive that generates gravitational waves and radiates them 
out the rear would offer a possibility.  The recent detection of these waves 
from the black hole combination radiated an enormous amount of energy and thus 
mass into space.   The radiation converted PE of the pair into radiation that 
is difficult to detect.  But, at least the magnitude of the missing mass is 
accounted for in the energy of the radiation.

I remain skeptical that EM drives are a reality but it does little damage to 
speculate upon some possible modes of operation.  If they eventually are proven 
real then my bets are that some form of measurable reaction mass equivalent is 
involved.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 4:26 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>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.

An electric car speeding down the road will also eventually exhaust all it's
stored energy, while remaining motionless in it's own rest frame (BTW everything
is always motionless in it's own rest frame, that's why it's called "rest"),
nevertheless it has considerable kinetic energy relative to the road. I fail to
see the difference between this and the EM drive vehicle. Note that the car used
it's energy to change the relationship between it's own frame of reference and
that of it's surroundings. So did the EM drive vehicle.

Kinetic energy always depends on the frame of reference chosen. When either
vehicle starts out with a full fuel load, the "correct" frame of reference is
the initial frame in which the "fuel tank" was full. If we stick to that frame
instead of swapping and changing when we feel like it, then the kinetic energy
gained, as the fuel is used, becomes apparent.

For the EM drive ship, the "exhaust" is the universe itself. Just think of
spacetime as invisible "train tracks", and it all becomes clear.

(Made beautifully visible in a Dr. Who episode about the Orient Express. :) )

Acceleration requires force, and all lines of force have two ends. If one end is
attached to the EM drive, then the other end must be attached to something. The
only thing that would make sense is the fabric of spacetime itself.
In short IMO, if it works at all, then this is how it would have to work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:New paper with LENR implications

[Jones Beene]

Quantum interference with microspheres.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.01553 

"Really cold cold-fusion" is not exactly new. This paper made me wonder
about the dividing line between quantum and classical, which is generally
somewhere in "nano-land" or just beyond. Quantum dots are generally the
upper limit, and they can up to around 150,000 atoms within the quantum dot
volume, which is a diameter of ~ 50 atoms. This corresponds to the Casimir
geometry of less than 20 nm. Everything large was once considered "macro".

It is considered big news when Quantum properties are seen to move up to
macro dimensions; and a "microsphere" is considered relatively large, in
terms of QM. At least it is much larger than a quantum dot. Typically the
microsphere range is a million times more massive than a large molecule and
10,000 times above quantum-dot geometry. This is the low end of the range of
nickel particles used in LENR. But this is a range where the material can be
obtained commercially without cadmium content. There are sellers of
so-called quantum dots but they are using a very loose definition.

Quantum interference is a challenging principle of quantum theory - but it
can partially explain some features of LENR, including the difficulty to
achieve "on demand" operation, the need to control operating parameters
within a narrow 'sweet spot' and the advantage of a magnetic field. We would
not expect to see Quantum interference properties show up in a particle of
one micron or above. Essentially, the Quantum interference concept proposes
that waves-particles - can be in more than one place at the same time
(through superposition) and that an individual wave-particle can interact
with itself. It is hard to imagine this happening with macro-sized
particles, even at cryogenic temps.

This paper seems to indicate that - at least when cooled sufficiently,
micro-sized particles could operate as quantum dots. This is possibly not
terribly surprising, but it does raise the possibility - once again - that
the best way to implement LENR could end up being in a non-thermal role.
Using cryogenics and media for experimentation which can be bought
commercially, we would also probably need to see superconductivity as a
property of the gainful material.

Turns out. and it may be no accident . that palladium deuteride is
superconductive. Of course, if we are to utilize or even conceptualize a
derivative concept of "really cold cold-fusion" then we must find a way to
convert gain directly into electricity, or at least into photons which are
non-interacting (translucent matrix) while maintaining the cryogenic state.
Real fusion seems to be incompatible with cryogenics, but that applies to
those who are thinking with the proverbial box.

Direct conversion of gainful energy using cryogenic reactants - "really cold
cold-fusion"  may not be as difficult to achieve, as it seems at first
glance. There is not new. It has been considered before, but the new twist
is the realization that the particle size must be reduced. but probably not
all the way to the quantum dot level.

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

[mixent]

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: [Vo]:New paper with LENR implications

[Bob Cook]

New paper with LENR implicationsIt would seem that if the grain size of any Ni 
or Pd lattice were small enough, it would qualify as a coherent system like a 
quantum dot Jones describes. However, the macro metal lattice  would restrict 
the orientation of each grain in an ambient magnetic field, thus providing a 
variety of energy states resulting from the local B fields that would occur in 
the macro lattice.  This may explain why the COP of solid metal compared to 
nano metal lattices in small particles is so different—the selection of 
appropriate resonant conditions (and possible LENR) in a large number of 
coherent systems (grains or  single crystals) is not possible given their 
random orientation.  

With this potential effect in mind it may be possible to align grains in a 
preferred orientation during heat treatment of the macro metal lattice to 
freeze in the preferred orientation.  The selection of energy states and 
resonant conditions associated with a LENR reaction would be much easier to 
achieve in a large number of coherent systems.  The production of nano 
particles would be replaced by the production of oriented grains in a macro 
solid.  

On another subject Jones brought up regarding sizes of various know items, 
macro molecules like DNA molecules in biological systems can be quite 
large—much more than 150,000 atoms.  I have always thought of those molecules 
as loosely coupled coherent systems, much like the quantum dots Jones 
describes.  

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 8:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:New paper with LENR implications

Quantum interference with microspheres.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.01553 

“Really cold cold-fusion” is not exactly new. This paper made me wonder about 
the dividing line between quantum and classical, which is generally somewhere 
in “nano-land” or just beyond. Quantum dots are generally the upper limit, and 
they can up to around 150,000 atoms within the quantum dot volume, which is a 
diameter of ~ 50 atoms. This corresponds to the Casimir geometry of less than 
20 nm. Everything large was once considered “macro”.


It is considered big news when Quantum properties are seen to move up to macro 
dimensions; and a “microsphere” is considered relatively large, in terms of QM. 
At least it is much larger than a quantum dot. Typically the microsphere range 
is a million times more massive than a large molecule and 10,000 times above 
quantum-dot geometry. This is the low end of the range of nickel particles used 
in LENR. But this is a range where the material can be obtained commercially 
without cadmium content. There are sellers of so-called quantum dots but they 
are using a very loose definition.

Quantum interference is a challenging principle of quantum theory - but it can 
partially explain some features of LENR, including the difficulty to achieve 
“on demand” operation, the need to control operating parameters within a narrow 
‘sweet spot’ and the advantage of a magnetic field. We would not expect to see 
Quantum interference properties show up in a particle of one micron or above. 
Essentially, the Quantum interference concept proposes that waves-particles - 
can be in more than one place at the same time (through superposition) and that 
an individual wave-particle can interact with itself. It is hard to imagine 
this happening with macro-sized particles, even at cryogenic temps.

This paper seems to indicate that - at least when cooled sufficiently, 
micro-sized particles could operate as quantum dots. This is possibly not 
terribly surprising, but it does raise the possibility – once again – that the 
best way to implement LENR could end up being in a non-thermal role. Using 
cryogenics and media for experimentation which can be bought commercially, we 
would also probably need to see superconductivity as a property of the gainful 
material.


Turns out… and it may be no accident … that palladium deuteride is 
superconductive. Of course, if we are to utilize or even conceptualize a 
derivative concept of “really cold cold-fusion” then we must find a way to 
convert gain directly into electricity, or at least into photons which are 
non-interacting (translucent matrix) while maintaining the cryogenic state. 
Real fusion seems to be incompatible with cryogenics, but that applies to those 
who are thinking with the proverbial box.

Direct conversion of gainful energy using cryogenic reactants - “really cold 
cold-fusion”  may not be as difficult to achieve, as it seems at first glance. 
There is not new. It has been considered before, but the new twist is the 
realization that the particle size must be reduced… but probably not all the 
way to the quantum dot level.

[Vo]:subscribe

[a.ashfield]

Re: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

[Bob Higgins]

My final analysis of the Lugano report was not that the experiment was
junk.  I estimated that there was excess heat, just not as much as the
Lugano team estimated by flawed thermal analysis.  Actually the thermal
analysis was far more flawed than simply the error in the values and use of
the emissivity of the alumina.  The thermal analysis was mis-formulated and
not enough data was gathered to arrive at a corrected estimate.  The real
problem was more like that of an incandescent light bulb.  Yes, the
envelope has a temperature from which both radiation and convection may be
calculated.  However a large part of the energy of the light bulb is
transmitted through the glass envelope.  It is that portion of emitted
energy that was transmitted through the alumina from about 0.4-2 microns
wavelength that is completely missing from the analysis and probably cannot
be estimated from the published data.

Calculations based solely on the revised envelope temperature, which
conclude there was no excess heat due to much lower envelope temperature,
are as flawed as the Lugano thermal analysis.  At these temperatures,
radiation is by far the dominant portion of the power flow and the
transmitted portion is vital to an accurate estimate of output heat.

So we may never know what the real COP was for the hotCat.  If IH were to
contract me to measure it, I would use the calorimeter design I am
presently working toward to measure it.  But building such a calorimeter is
not small undertaking.  Properly funded, it could be built in 1-2 months,
but it may take another 2 months of test runs to produce an accurate
thermal model for it (that is the hardest part).

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Ø
>
> Ø   Of course, differential analysis of Rossi's Lugano fuel vs. ash
> is very questionable due to the likely situation of the reactor having been
> pre-loaded with some materials.  [This was not a Rossi "deception"; he just
> didn't bother to bring up this fact, nor was he obliged to.]
>
> Not to quibble, Bob - since without your careful analysis of the huge
> thermal measurement errors, it would not be so crystal clear that Lugano
> is junk. But even if there was no obligation to be truthful vis-à-vis a
> general audience, since the report was not published in a reputable
> journal - one suspects that Levi and his crew are rather indignant at
> being made fools by Rossi. Their reputations are soiled and they may
> never live that fiasco down.
>
> And … as to the extent of any obligation to be honest – don’t forget that
> this report was said to have been filed with USPTO in support of one of
> Rossi’s applications … and possibly used by Rossi as a milestone in his
> contract with his funder. Neither of them would look favorably on the
> notion that it was not a deception, if that is indeed the situation.
>
>

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

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:15:16 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>You should note that the car we are discussing is not capable of accelerating 
>unless it is using a road or some electromagnetic force that is not terminated 
>within the car itself.  That other object acts as the reaction matter that 
>replaces the exhausted fuel of the rocket concept. 

Precisely.

> An EM drive operating in deep space does not have any tangible object to 
> generate a force against.

Not that we have as yet experienced. However this may the first example (black
swan) of a drive that can actually interact with the vacuum itself . If it works
at all, then that's what I would bet on.
That's why I would like to see a much higher Q factor tried. Varying the Q
factor should provide corresponding results, if the inventor is correct.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:two short comments, some LENR info

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-17-2016-lenr-two-short-comments.html

what is the antonym of anxious? I feel so.

peter

PS Do not answer,pleaseit was a rhetoric question, I am still a fast
web-searcher when I am motivated.
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

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

[Eric Walker]

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]:Re: Declaration from Eindhoven University of Technology related to M. Yildiz magnet motor

[mixent]

In reply to  John Berry's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:20:48 +1300:
Hi,
[snip]
>Including the energy contained in electric, gravitational and magnetic
>potential energy?

Yes. (Might as well fall off the end of my limb. ;)
A flow of spacetime from one object to another could result in a force between
them.

>
>Including chemical and nuclear energy?

ditto.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Roarty, Francis X's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:23:12 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>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.

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

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:the other "investors" in LENR

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-16-2016the-other-investors-in-lenr.html

Perhaps they had no money to invest but have invested HOPE and that is LIFE
too

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

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

[Vibrator !]

>Your example is similar to what happens when an electron is located at an
elevated energy level.  Do you believe that the atom does not have
additional mass when compared to one that is in the lowest energy state?
The energy that is going to be radiated must come from somewhere and I
believe it shows up as a mass increase of the atomic system.

And when the battery is recharged by the use of regenerative braking, mass
is returned that is equal to the mass lost in driving the motor.  What is
the source of chemical energy if not due to stored potential energy of
electrons? E=M*c*c appears to apply in every case that I have seen. <



Momentum's conserved so energy rises with orbital radius,and a
corresponding mass increase is expected - the actual form of this
particular "PE" is KE.

But PE could depend on something as abstract as an entropy change.
"Potential" = conditional, not yet manifest.

The difference between nuclear and chemical PE would be the distinction
between relativistic and rest mass - and the very fact they're contextual
underlines my point; a chemical reaction doesn't have nuclear PE and vice
versa. PE is subjective, context-dependent.


>Here that same arguement applies as before.  Except that several
electron lower energy states exist instead of just one.<

...and so when a system's PE is indeterminate, any corresponding
relativistic mass increase must be in a superposition until it collapses
into a definite state..!?  A given reaction might unleash 2 or 3 ev, but
prior to an outcome we'd have to assign a mass range rather than a definite
weight?  This is what i have trouble with..

If i slide my beer across the table, it could land on the floor, or my
lap.  Its PE depends on which part of the desk i knock it off, so does that
PE's corresponding relativistic mass fluctuate as i move it around?







On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:28 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Vibrator ! 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 10:32 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
> ...
> >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)?<
>
> Your example is similar to what happens when an electron is located at an
> elevated energy level.  Do you believe that the atom does not have
> additional mass when compared to one that is in the lowest energy state?
> The energy that is going to be radiated must come from somewhere and I
> believe it shows up as a mass increase of the atomic system.
>
> >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?<
>
> Here that same arguement applies as before.  Except that several
> electron lower energy states exist instead of just one.
>
> >But assuming our EM craft was battery powered, and that relativistic mass
> does apply to chemical PE, it is still the chemical PE that has been
> converted to work (acceleration of the craft, relative to its point of
> origin), not its relativistic mass energy equivalency, which itself is
> incidental, aside from a minute reduction in the craft's net inertia.<
>
> And when the battery is recharged by the use of regenerative braking, mass
> is returned that is equal to the mass lost in driving the motor.  What is
> the source of chemical energy if not due to stored potential energy of
> electrons? E=M*c*c appears to apply in every case that I have seen.
>
> >A nuclear power plant would match your description though - the gain in
> net KE (vehicle plus ejecta, where applicable) would be equal to the mass
> deficit.<...
>
> I consider nuclear energy as being analogous to electron orbital energy.
> The force keeping the nucleus together performs the same function and in
> that case everyone seems to accept that this store of potential
> energy results in a nuclear mass decrease as fission takes place.  Nothing
> but a tradeoff between potential energy and other forms.  How is that
> process completely different from PE stored by electrons in orbit?
> Dave
>

[Vo]:ITER is big

[Axil Axil]

When it’s finally built, ITER will be the world’s biggest experimental
tokamak nuclear fusion reactor—and probably our best chance to date for
making nuclear fusion work. But engineers are currently toiling with
building the damn thing and its magnets are proving to be a challenge.

A toroidal fusion reactor like the the smaller Experimental Advanced
Superconducting Tokamak, ITER’s design uses a donut-shaped reactor in which
incredibly hot plasma resides. Careful control of intense magnetic fields
allows the plasma to be contained in a tight ring running through the
center of the donut’s circular cross section—which means that the walls of
the structure are never directly exposed to the high temperatures of the
plasma. By high, we mean really high: Temperatures of the plasma are
expected to reach 150 million degrees. So the magnets better be pretty good.

Indeed, Engineering & Technology reports that the magnets are indeed huge.
The one that’s currently being built is 45 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 3
feet deep. They’ll also weigh between 250,000 and 500,000 pounds—which is
about the same as a Boeing 747 airplane. The final device will actually use
a staggering 18 of the things.

http://gizmodo.com/our-best-shot-at-nuclear-fusion-needs-magnets-weighing-1765662769

Our Best Shot at Nuclear Fusion Needs Magnets That Weigh as Much as a
Boeing 747


They’re made by winding superconducting cable—125 miles of which has been
made especially for the project—around slabs of stainless steel plate,
several of which are then stacked together. Pipes are also inserted during
assembly, to allow engineers to pump liquid helium through, so that the
cables can operate properly during operation.

The whole task involves 26 companies and 600 employees, with construction
being carried out in the 3-acre assembly plant pictured above. Phew. Let’s
hope it all works!

Re: [Vo]:Parhomov paper

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Fusion seems unlikely based on lack of high energy radiation, but if helium
> turns up you
> [Robin] are in business. Sooner or later, someone will look for it. You
> will be
> waiting ;-)
>

There's also the possibility of induced alpha decay from another source
which is present, which could also potentially explain any helium that
might be found in the future.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Parhomov paper

[Axil Axil]

You will not find any rhyme or reason to predict or understand LENR nuclear
reactions. It is a random process that is centered on nuclear disruption
and subsequent subatomic particle production,

If we fire a shotgun into a glass window, we cannot predict or understand
how the glass will break. Every shot is different...it is completely
unpredictable. Face it, a quantum process is unpredictable.

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> 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.
>