Re: [Vo]:ni and ca

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sat, 3 Aug 2019 19:00:53 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Adding H* to any useful isotope would result in a much better energy 
>gain in  the range of 1..8 MeV at best. Adding H* is neutron like and 
>not always harmless...

I would have thought that adding H* would only be neutron like when addition of
a neutron would result in a more stable nucleus than addition of a proton. IOW,
I think nature prefers to create stable nuclei, when possible.
In the case of H* it can either add both the proton & the electron in an
enhanced electron capture reaction, or just add the proton, and eject the
electron. IOW it has a choice, and I suspect it will usually choose the path
that leads to a stable nucleus.

[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:ni and ca

[Axil Axil]

This description reports  a computer computation of possible variants of
energy-efficient nuclear transformations of two stable nuclides to two
other stable nuclides through weak force mediated transmutation, in which
the laws of conservation of electric, baryon and lepton charges are
fulfilled.

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 5:20 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

> Wait a minute.
>
>
>
> That looks like a Table for predictions based on a theory – not real
> measurements from experiment.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Axil Axil 
>
>
>
> https://youtu.be/jVwAEOxQPH4
>
>
>
> *Update to online LENR reaction prediction system*
>
>
>
> *From: *Jürg Wyttenbach 
>
>
>
> Of course! How else should I be able to give you an estimate??
>
>
>
> Well in the case of Rossi he was able to borrow or invent numbers, while
> claiming they were measured with SEM and then when he has to swear to it in
> a court proceedings – he admits that the fake isotope date did not come
> from real measurements,  but were invented for the purpose of “competitive
> advantage”.
>
>
>
> I have read your paper- “Does the quantization of the proton magnetic
> moment explain LENR?” and I like the premise -  but  do not find data wrt a
>  silver isotope being transmuted from Pd. Could you steer me to the data
> for this kind of transmutation ?
>
>
>
> TIA  Jones
>
>
>
>
>
> I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:ni and ca

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sat, 3 Aug 2019 19:00:53 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>I would roughly estimate that about 10^5 105Pd disappear for 3kW/s. 
 
Is "3kW/s" a typo, and if not, then what do you mean by it?

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Andrew—

Neutrinos interact with matter, are considered to have mass and carry spin 
angular momentum.   In addition they are considered to consist as leptons of 
anti and regular matter which can annihilate into pure EM energy like many 
particle anti-particle pairs.

I consider, as suggested by the Wikipedia link below, neutrinos have a magnetic 
moment, or al least harbor magnetons.   It seems they are much like massless 
photons and travel when not caught up in a nucleon at c. n free space (4-D 
space and time.)  In this regard they are real particles vs virtual quarks.

Their annihilation energy release may be very small considering their small 
rest mass. But nevertheless give this up to atomic electrons as they pass thru 
their electro-magnetic field (or their unique combination of space, time, 
angular momentum and magnetic field dimensions.)

A, C. Jessup”s theory , documented in a book, AN IMPERFECT PICTURE,   addresses 
the concepts associated with some of these dimensions.  Nigel Dyer’s family 
blog includes  pertinent excerpts from this book, which is out of print as far 
as I know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

W. Stubbs’ book on nuclear structure, P. Hatt’s  papers and Jurg Wyttenbach’s 
papers address the nucleon structure which seems to involve neutrinos.  IMHO 
the coupling is at the Planck scale and involves magnetic fields—no electric 
fields  associated with intrinsic charge.

Bob Cook

fm: Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM
To: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

Bob,

You have raised some important points in your answers to Robin. Can you provide 
some references to support them?

In particular, I am interested in the non-photonic transfer of angular momentum 
from the nucleus to a bound electron. I think that it is well accepted that the 
nucleus can transfer energy to bound electrons via the Coulomb field. 
Nevertheless, I think that Schwinger, along with his papers on cold fusion, was 
mocked for suggesting that internal nuclear energy could be shared with the 
potential energy of electrons and thus the lattice. However, as a central 
force, this energy transfer cannot convey ang mom.

My interest is in the interaction of deep-orbit electrons with the internal 
structure of the nucleus such as charged quarks and possible sub-components. At 
close range, these bodies are no longer providing just central forces. While 
the interaction is not photonic in the normal sense (i.e., via transverse EM 
waves), it can be considered via longitudinal photons. Again, internal 
conversion, would suggest that no ang mom need be transferred in such 
interactions. This does not suggest that such transfer cannot occur, only that 
it is not observed on the normal scale of hbar. (If I am wrong about this, I 
would appreciate correction.)

Compound nuclei have ang mom on this level that can be transferred to the EM 
field to form photons. However, is there any information on ang mom of quarks? 
If so, this could lead to speculation about non-scalar coupling between a 
proton and a deep-orbit electron.

Andrew

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:02 PM 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:


Sent from Mail for Windows 10




Robin—

You raised the following questions and comments:



1) What is this "coherent system", and specifically, in what respect is it

coherent, i.e. which property of the system?

2) How do you propose that the nuclear energy is actually coupled to the phonic

energy?

3) Changes in angular momentum of nuclei are usually paired with emission of a

gamma ray or particle to conserve angular momentum. If you want to avoid this,

then you need to provide an actual physical mechanism by which the angular

momentum is transferred to the lattice, and specifically what it is in the

lattice that it couples to. Furthermore, what is it that makes this method

preferable above the usual methods (e.g. gamma emission)?

ANSWERS:


  1.  A  coherent system is adiabatic system of energy, including local packets 
of energy—electrons positrons and neutrinos---that are coupled by a EM field 
that responds very quickly (less than 10e-30mseconds) to energy additions or 
losses by changing the space relation of the energy packets.  A good example is 
a semi conductor crystal that absorbs an electron packet of energy and very 
quickly changes the allowable energy state of conduction  electrons.  There is 
no apparent delay associated with the allowed energy state across the 
macroscopic rang of the semi conductor.  Systems which harbor phonic energy are 
coherent systems, since the lattice acts as a whole without any time dely.

The energy of the coherent system is constrained by  small quanta of energy and 
angular momentum in accordance with Planck’s theory of quantized energy and 

Re: [Vo]:ni and ca

[mixent]

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:05:31 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>This is according to my older version of his theory which may have changed. 
>Hydrogen ions (bare protons) also  qualify as self-catalytic but they are 
>usually too reactive.

Bare protons can't catalyze anything, because they have no electrons to absorb
the shrinkage energy. However single atoms or H can, at least in combination (2
x 13.6 = 27.2), and possibly even separately, but don't quote me on the latter.
;)
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:ni and ca

[JonesBeene]

Wait a minute.

 That looks like a Table for predictions based on a theory – not real 
measurements from experiment.


From: Axil Axil

https://youtu.be/jVwAEOxQPH4

Update to online LENR reaction prediction system
 
From: Jürg Wyttenbach
 
Of course! How else should I be able to give you an estimate??
 
Well in the case of Rossi he was able to borrow or invent numbers, while 
claiming they were measured with SEM and then when he has to swear to it in a 
court proceedings – he admits that the fake isotope date did not come from real 
measurements,  but were invented for the purpose of “competitive advantage”. 
 
I have read your paper- “Does the quantization of the proton magnetic moment 
explain LENR?” and I like the premise -  but  do not find data wrt a  silver 
isotope being transmuted from Pd. Could you steer me to the data for this kind 
of transmutation ?
 
TIA  Jones
 
 
I 
 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:ni and ca

[Axil Axil]

https://youtu.be/jVwAEOxQPH4

*Update to online LENR reaction prediction system*

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 4:09 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From: *Jürg Wyttenbach 
>
>
>
> Of course! How else should I be able to give you an estimate??
>
>
>
> Well in the case of Rossi he was able to borrow or invent numbers, while
> claiming they were measured with SEM and then when he has to swear to it in
> a court proceedings – he admits that the fake isotope date did not come
> from real measurements,  but were invented for the purpose of “competitive
> advantage”.
>
>
>
> I have read your paper- “Does the quantization of the proton magnetic
> moment explain LENR?” and I like the premise -  but  do not find data wrt a
>  silver isotope being transmuted from Pd. Could you steer me to the data
> for this kind of transmutation ?
>
>
>
> TIA  Jones
>
>
>
>
>
> I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:ni and ca

[JonesBeene]

From: Jürg Wyttenbach

Of course! How else should I be able to give you an estimate??
 
Well in the case of Rossi he was able to borrow or invent numbers, while 
claiming they were measured with SEM and then when he has to swear to it in a 
court proceedings – he admits that the fake isotope date did not come from real 
measurements,  but were invented for the purpose of “competitive advantage”. 

I have read your paper- “Does the quantization of the proton magnetic moment 
explain LENR?” and I like the premise -  but  do not find data wrt a  silver 
isotope being transmuted from Pd. Could you steer me to the data for this kind 
of transmutation ?

TIA  Jones


I 

Re: [Vo]:ni and ca

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Of course! How else should I be able to give you an estimate??

Jürg

Am 03.08.19 um 19:38 schrieb JonesBeene:


*From: *Jürg Wyttenbach 

  * Due to our measurements the reaction  105Pd + D*-D*-->109Ag is
always running and consumes some Pd.

I would roughly estimate that about 10^5 105Pd disappear for 3kW/s. we 
have about 10^18 there what gives quite a good live time for 3kW.


Jürg – The silver which you predict should be measurable. Have you 
actually  measured it ?




--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

RE: [Vo]:ni and ca

[JonesBeene]

From: Jürg Wyttenbach

➢ Due to our measurements the reaction  105Pd + D*-D*-->109Ag is always running 
and consumes some Pd.
I would roughly estimate that about 105 105Pd disappear for 3kW/s. we have 
about 1018 there what gives quite a good live time for 3kW.

Jürg – The silver which you predict should be measurable. Have you actually  
measured it ?

Re: [Vo]:ni and ca

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Mills made a terrible mistake when he believed his Hydrino model. The 
energy of H*-H* condensation is limited to maximally 2 x 496eV as there 
is only one SO(4) conform orbit available. This is almost 1 time 
less than real fusion (=LENR !! ).
In my view it doesn't make sense to produce free H*-H* as such a 
compounds may very well be dangerous as H*-H* virtually can react with 
all nuclei it attaches too.
Adding H* to any useful isotope would result in a much better energy 
gain in  the range of 1..8 MeV at best. Adding H* is neutron like and 
not always harmless...



Due to our measurements the reaction 105Pd + D*-D*-->109Ag is always 
running and consumes some Pd.
I would roughly estimate that about 10^5 105Pd disappear for 3kW/s. we 
have about 10^18 there what gives quite a good live time for 3kW.


Jürg Wyttenbach

Am 03.08.19 um 16:14 schrieb JonesBeene:


Piantelli does have similar technology based on nickel - and actually 
(historically) he was the first by a few months – that is: the first 
to  report thermal gain results without palladium -  ahead of Mills in 
1989 and only months after P


That did not stop Mills from getting the landmark patent – the one 
that just recently expired - since he (Mills) developed  a formal  and 
coherent theory for “why” certain metals work (based on Rydberg energy 
gaps in the ionization potential) … And at least with the USPTO and 
with investors, there has been no real competition from Piantelli, 
Rossi or anyone else for Mills when it comes to raising capital to 
pursue anomalous thermal gain. And history is written by the winners, 
but in this case Mills may not be the ultimate winner.


Mills has raised well over $100 million and Piantelli almost nothing. 
Investors could be wrong on their bets of course – as they were with 
Rossi,  but essentially most of the money in the entire field of LENR 
has been raised by Mills. This is true even though Mills  does not use 
the LENR designation for his technology. Piantelli’s  company - 
Nichenergy – founded ten years ago, has been a notable flop. No great 
 papers, claims or theories have come from it -  and nothing presently 
on the horizon which even comes close to the recent Mizuno breakthrough.


It could well be that in the end – the stubbornness of both Mills and 
Piantelli - to avoid using palladium, which was  due to P and their 
major IP priority for that metal - was fatal and doomed their efforts 
from the start - despite being ever so close. Apparently, and as 
always these observations are pending replication – but it looks like 
 even  a very thin layer of palladium over a nickel substrate is one 
key to success along with very low internal pressure – even milligrams 
of Pd is enough to see kilowatts of heat if it has been applied as a 
nanostructure.


Absolutely incredible! That this result could happen in the way that 
it appears to have happened,  and it has baffled almost every expert. 
As of now, calcite inclusions may be needed, as well as nano-palladium 
but that should be verified soon.


The main thing is that this is a fabulous time to be following the 
field after 30 years of controversy. Not that there isn’t going to be 
plenty of controversy remaining, be all the issues are now brought 
into clear focus based on the Mizuno breakthrough.


The jury is still out on several key issues but we have to say this 
much – Hat’s off to Mizuno !


You da man, bro.

*From: *Axil Axil  wrote:

From the piantelli patent, just about any transition metal will
support the LENR reaction.

-

If one subscribes to a Millsean approach, palladium is
somewhat unique In the Periodic Table in that it is relatively
non-reactive with oxygen or other oxidants while having an
ionization potential which is near the first Rydberg level at
27.2 eV. Nickel alone has no such “entry level” Rydberg value …

The four other metal substitutes for Pd at the first Rydberg
level are Mo, Zn, Cu and Cs – and all of them plus bare
protons have assorted chemical reactivity problems meeting
requirements for catalyzing the first drop in orbital
according to Mills.

This is according to my older version of his theory which may
have changed. Hydrogen ions (bare protons) also  qualify as
self-catalytic but they are usually too reactive.

Any of these metals would be interesting as a catalyst
substitute for expensive palladium – but all are relatively
reactive in ways which could quench the effect. The best
realistic catalytic fit is molybdenum and as an inexpensive
di-sulfide it would be interesting to try. It is commonly
available as a lubricant and relatively unreactive.

*From: *Nicholas Cafarelli 

Recent posts make me wonder if the Palladium is required.

Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Bob,

You have raised some important points in your answers to Robin. Can you
provide some references to support them?

In particular, I am interested in the non-photonic transfer of angular
momentum from the nucleus to a bound electron. I think that it is well
accepted that the nucleus can transfer energy to bound electrons via the
Coulomb field. Nevertheless, I think that Schwinger, along with his papers
on cold fusion, was mocked for suggesting that internal nuclear energy
could be shared with the potential energy of electrons and thus the
lattice. However, as a central force, this energy transfer cannot convey
ang mom.

My interest is in the interaction of deep-orbit electrons with the internal
structure of the nucleus such as charged quarks and possible
sub-components. At close range, these bodies are no longer providing just
central forces. While the interaction is not photonic in the normal sense
(i.e., via transverse EM waves), it *can* be considered via longitudinal
photons. Again, internal conversion, would suggest that no ang mom need be
transferred in such interactions. This does not suggest that such transfer
cannot occur, only that it is not observed on the normal scale of hbar. (If
I am wrong about this, I would appreciate correction.)

Compound nuclei have ang mom on this level that can be transferred to the
EM field to form photons. However, is there any information on ang mom of
quarks? If so, this could lead to speculation about non-scalar coupling
between a proton and a deep-orbit electron.

Andrew

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:02 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robin—
>
>
>
> You raised the following questions and comments:
>
>
>
> 1) What is this "coherent system", and specifically, in what respect is it
>
> coherent, i.e. which property of the system?
>
> 2) How do you propose that the nuclear energy is actually coupled to the 
> phonic
>
> energy?
>
> 3) Changes in angular momentum of nuclei are usually paired with emission of a
>
> gamma ray or particle to conserve angular momentum. If you want to avoid this,
>
> then you need to provide an actual physical mechanism by which the angular
>
> momentum is transferred to the lattice, and specifically what it is in the
>
> lattice that it couples to. Furthermore, what is it that makes this method
>
> preferable above the usual methods (e.g. gamma emission)?
>
>
>
> ANSWERS:
>
>
>
>1. A  coherent system is adiabatic system of energy, including local
>packets of energy—electrons positrons and neutrinos---that are coupled by a
>EM field that responds very quickly (less than 10e-30mseconds) to energy
>additions or losses by changing the space relation of the energy packets.
>A good example is a semi conductor crystal that absorbs an electron packet
>of energy and very quickly changes the allowable energy state of conduction
> electrons.  There is no apparent delay associated with the allowed energy
>state across the macroscopic rang of the semi conductor.  Systems which
>harbor phonic energy are coherent systems, since the lattice acts as a
>whole without any time dely.
>
>
>
> The energy of the coherent system is constrained by  small quanta of
> energy and angular momentum in accordance with Planck’s theory of quantized
> energy and quantized angular momentum.  In addition the coherent system
> will adjust the relative positions of energy packets to increase their
> relative motions (kinetic energies) and reduce their total potential energy
> increasing entropy per the second law of thermodynamics..
>
>
>
>1. As noted above the coherent system is coupled by EM
>fields—primarily magnetic fields that connect electron orbital angular
>momentum with nuclear angular momentum, including energy packet intrinsic
>spin  angular momentum which  reflects the magnetic moment associated with
>those packets of energy.
>
>
>
>1. There is no gamma emission within the coherent system—only
>instanteous changes of  angular momentum  and/or energy between between
>locations within the coherent system.  (Later in time adjacent coherent
>systems may conduct heat between them selves via radiant EM coupling or
>other coupling involving phonic energy changes of the original coherent
>system.  Too much phonic energy will destroy the lattice of the system in
>question.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:ni and ca

[JonesBeene]

Piantelli does have similar technology based on nickel - and actually 
(historically) he was the first by a few months – that is: the first to  report 
thermal gain results without palladium -  ahead of Mills in 1989 and only 
months after P

That did not stop Mills from getting the landmark patent – the one that just 
recently expired - since he (Mills) developed  a formal  and coherent theory 
for “why” certain metals work (based on Rydberg energy gaps in the ionization 
potential) … And at least with the USPTO and with investors, there has been no 
real competition from Piantelli, Rossi or anyone else for Mills when it comes 
to raising capital to pursue anomalous thermal gain. And history is written by 
the winners, but in this case Mills may not be the ultimate winner.

Mills has raised well over $100 million and Piantelli almost nothing. Investors 
could be wrong on their bets of course – as they were with Rossi,  but 
essentially most of the money in the entire field of LENR has been raised by 
Mills. This is true even though Mills  does not use the LENR designation for 
his technology. Piantelli’s  company - Nichenergy – founded ten years ago, has 
been a notable flop. No great  papers, claims or theories have come from it -  
and nothing presently on the horizon which even comes close to the recent 
Mizuno breakthrough.

It could well be that in the end – the stubbornness of both Mills and Piantelli 
- to avoid using palladium, which was  due to P and their major IP priority 
for that metal - was fatal and doomed their efforts from the start - despite 
being ever so close. Apparently, and as always these observations are pending 
replication – but it looks like  even  a very thin layer of palladium over a 
nickel substrate is one key to success along with very low internal pressure – 
even milligrams of Pd is enough to see kilowatts of heat if it has been applied 
as a nanostructure. 

Absolutely incredible! That this result could happen in the way that it appears 
to have happened,  and it has baffled almost every expert. As of now, calcite 
inclusions may be needed, as well as nano-palladium but that should be verified 
soon. 

 The main thing is that this is a fabulous time to be following the field after 
30 years of controversy. Not that there isn’t going to be plenty of controversy 
remaining, be all the issues are now brought into clear focus based on the 
Mizuno breakthrough.

The jury is still out on several key issues but we have to say this much – 
Hat’s off to Mizuno ! 

 You da man, bro.


From: Axil Axil wrote:
>From the piantelli patent, just about any transition metal will support the 
>LENR reaction.

-
If one subscribes to a Millsean approach, palladium is somewhat unique In the 
Periodic Table in that it is relatively non-reactive with oxygen or other 
oxidants while having an ionization potential which is near the first Rydberg 
level at 27.2 eV. Nickel alone has no such “entry level” Rydberg value … 
The four other metal substitutes for Pd at the first Rydberg level are Mo, Zn, 
Cu and Cs – and all of them plus bare protons have assorted chemical reactivity 
problems meeting requirements for catalyzing the first drop in orbital 
according to Mills. 
This is according to my older version of his theory which may have changed. 
Hydrogen ions (bare protons) also  qualify as self-catalytic but they are 
usually too reactive. 
Any of these metals would be interesting as a catalyst substitute for expensive 
palladium – but all are relatively reactive in ways which could quench the 
effect. The best realistic catalytic fit is molybdenum and as an inexpensive 
di-sulfide it would be interesting to try. It is commonly available as a 
lubricant and relatively unreactive.   
From: Nicholas Cafarelli
Recent posts make me wonder if the Palladium is required.
What would happen if the Nickel mesh were only burnished with a Nickel rod 
after the tap water treatment? 
Is this an example of simplication?  Simplification through elimination.