Re: [Vo]:Seeing the Light
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: At temps of 900-1000ºC, the LiH is reported to dissociate. However, high ambient H2 pressure may keep the LiH from dissociating until higher temperatures. I think the high temperature molten LiH + Al in contact with the Ni is a very interesting place to find LENR. One question I'm interested in knowing more about is whether there is an accumulation of charge via static electricity in the case where the fuel becomes molten or part of it vaporizes. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I disagree with the objections to Rossi having handled the charge. In general one has the impression scientists are pretty collegial with one another. They place a lot of trust in one another. One scientist will say to another, I'd like to take a second look at what you've done. Can you help me out, here? But I want the study to be independent of yours, so I'm going to do all of the analysis myself. I just need you to help me out with this, this and this. The two would collaborate in that way, and then the study would be called independent. It would also be considered as such by publications such as *Nature* and *Science*. There would be no eyebrows that would be raised about this claim, because there is a professional ethic that the scientists are assumed to follow, and their reputations are on the line. Sometimes the protocol is cranked up a notch, and you get single- and double-blind studies. The context is not a concern about fraud but a concern about the researchers involved being unduly influenced by what they already know. Occasionally, perhaps, there is a shadow of a concern about fraud, as might have been on some people's minds when the double-blind study was done that Melvin Miles participated in in the early nineties, where they looked at the question of how much helium was evolving from electrolytic PdD systems. In the case of Rossi, the context is different. Rossi is not a member of the research establishment, so different rules are been applied, and concerns of fraud have been voiced on a number of occasions by skeptical scientists. I do not necessarily disagree with this application of a different standard. I only point it out. I do wonder whether Rossi would have been treated the same way if his background had been in research science and he did not have the colorful personality that he has. The standard of extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is a phrase that goes back to Marcello Truzzi. It has been debated here on several different occasions. It has been used by skeptics to justify whatever they want. To that extent, it does not seem like a very useful heuristic. Eric On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Eric, the standard amongst academic colleagues is extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The standard is that replication should be done by uninvolved parties. Neither Rossi nor Levi, et all was uninvolved. Levi and friends had their reputation on the line from the claims from the first report they did.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/ See also: https://docs.google.com/a/node.io/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/edit http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/08/alumina-emissivity-and-the-lugano-e-cat-test-bob-higgins/ It seems Bob Higgins was studying the emissivity question at the same time as the GSVIT folks and came to a similar conclusion. From his paper: I.E. the radiant power is estimated to be approximately 47% lower than the value calculated by the Lugano experimenters for A. Rossi’s reactor. However, the actual power may prove to be higher with proper accounting for the emission of the heater coil in transmission through the alumina below 4 μm. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Since Rossi was in control at the critical points – the fraud issue revolves around his honesty. What you say is true. But in applying this standard, it seems we are going well beyond the kind of protocol that academic scientists would apply to themselves. We are using a standard that one would use with someone who cannot be trusted. We are not using a standard that would be used between academic colleagues in order to maintain scientific independence. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Some recent experimental measurements by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) highlighted a possible error in the Hot-Cat calorimetric measurement; the calorimetric measurement we are referring to is described in the document known as “TPR2” or Lugano Report. . . . Let me see if I can capture the growing consensus concerning the Lugano test: - The Lugano test reported an excess heat of 1.5 MWh over the course of a 32 day run of the HotCat. The excess heat was calculated using the output of an Optiris camera and an emissivity obtained using a single method. This emissivity was fed into the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to obtain a value for the radiated power. - The assumed emissivity was not adequately double-checked, e.g., using a thermocouple, a spot of refractory paint or a table of measured emissivities for various types of alumina. - There is reason to believe that the value that was used for the emissivity in the Lugano report was too low, leading the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to give a radiated power that was significantly higher than was actually seen in the experiment. - A lower radiated power, and, hence, temperature, would be consistent with other observations from the Lugano test, including a lack of failure of different components of the HotCat that might be expected at a temperature of 1400 C, which was reported by the authors. Does this capture the consensus? Does anyone disagree or have reservations about any of these statements? The authors of the Lugano test were largely the same as the ones that put together the initial third-party test for the E-Cat. Does the faulty analysis of the Lugano test cast doubt on the conclusions of the earlier test? What does all of this say about the odd suggestion that the core of the HotCat was so hot and bright that the heating elements cast a shadow? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Investigative journalism rewarded
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Lewan Mats mats.le...@nyteknik.se wrote: The scientific news team at Swedish National Radio, SR, received a honorary mention a few days ago at the Swedish Rewards for investigative journalism, The Golden Spade, for its four part reportage on Swedish researchers' (those who made the Lugano measurements) collaboration with the fraudster Andrea Rossi (and where also I was a main target). There is no good deed that goes unpunished. Eric
Re: [Vo]: Rossi/Parkhomov reaction and the hydrogen anion
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Since the SEM images of the fuel https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2fllFSWpFNVJoUlIxbERhRTE2M2FTY0s3TU9sZ2FsVG5wMGdodlE2ZW1JMVEusp=sharing Thank you, Bob. (And thanks to Ed Storms.) Am I correct in understanding that these images were provided by Ed in connection with the MFMP Bang! experiment? I have not been following the details of the Bang! experiment closely. I gather there is a question that there might have been something anomalous that happened. Am I correct in understanding that this question goes back primarily to the GM counter clicks that were observed? Eric
Re: [Vo]:This is where it all began?
About the big bang theory -- my understanding is that it requires faster than light expansion in the earliest period. A theory that says the rules change at some point in time seems a bit ad hoc to me. About the huge black hole -- what are the chances that it looks like a black hole from our perspective, but from another angle looks like something quite different? Eric
Re: [Vo]:How could we collect ideas and knowledge on engineering of LENR devices?
A wiki is an interesting idea for something like this. A challenge with such a project is that opinionated folks are likely, through the force of personality, to end up irremediably skewing the content towards their own view of what's going on with LENR, and even what LENR supposedly is. I have seen this happen in other cold-fusion wiki projects and in forums. As far as I can tell, there is nothing to be done about it. Nonetheless it would be great if there were a wiki that became a clearinghouse to which people carrying out actual experiments contribute concrete details about their experiments. A very nice addition to such a wiki would be a file store of experimental results -- csv files, data dumps, etc -- which could be analyzed using statistical software. Perhaps common protocols might gradually be sorted out, and the format of the data would become more and more similar across different trials by different experimenters, making it possible to do cross-comparisons. I think such a site would be great even if the only contributors were hobbyists and not big personalities in LENR circles. I do not think LENR will become the subject of regular meetups until it breaks out of obscurity. Eric
[Vo]:what is needed to give rise to visible Cherenkov radiation?
Hi, What is the flux of fast electrons needed to create the kind of visible Cherenkov radiation seen in pool-type fission reactors? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Advanced_Test_Reactor.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Cerenkov_Effect.jpg Is it a relatively small amount of activity that will accomplish what is seen in these images, or is a large amount of activity required? I assume it is possible to characterize the flux that will lead to visible Cherenkov radiation in terms along the lines of 10e9 electrons per cm^2 per second. What is the typical energy of the beta particles observed in these images? My understanding is that the betas go back to the decay of fission intermediate products. Is it in the MeV range, or the keV range, or possibly even lower? Eric
Re: [Vo]:what is needed to give rise to visible Cherenkov radiation?
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:49 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I have a different question altogether. How does one distinguish between Cherenkov radiation and light emitted by recombining ion - electron pairs? (Where fast particles are responsible for creating the pairs.) I believe Cherenkov radiation is broadband. I read today that it is distinguishable, nonetheless, from bremsstrahlung. In the case of bremsstrahlung you need noticeable acceleration (e.g., a bending motion or a collision), whereas Cherenkov radiation arises from constructive interference when a charged particle exceeds the phase velocity of light in a medium. So you can distinguish the two in the case of a relativistic heavy ion. In that case the trajectory of the ion will be straight (so no bremsstrahlung) but it will give rise to Cherenkov radiation. My understanding is that Cherenkov radiation is broadband because the fast particle slowly decelerates, leading the frequency at which constructive interference to change over time. Please carefully vet anything I have said here. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Investigation by NC Department of Health into IH/Rossi/Vaughn/etc
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: That document seems a bit odd. There is no address at the top for the (pseudonymous?) Gary Wright. That Gary Wright guy has it out for Rossi. What are the typical legal ramifications under US state/federal law, if any, for filing a complaint under a pseudonym? It was a little bit of a letdown to hear about the manufacturing being in Florida. The details are difficult as ever to pin down on this operation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:vortex mass
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:54 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It would have been a surprise to find that nanovortices did not have mass since they obviously have energy. Mass is a tricky thing. Photons have no rest mass, for example, even though they can carry as much energy as you can put into them. But they do follow the contours of spacetime, almost as if they had mass. (I wonder, here, whether physicists have gotten themselves into another language game with this one.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:vortex mass
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Photons are never at rest as far as I know. One question I have -- is there anything keeping them from being considered at rest within their own frame of reference? Eric
Re: [Vo]:earlier thread on surface vs volume effect in the gamma decay of radioisotopes
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: With the interaction of particles with linear momentum something has to be produced that conserves this momentum and yet is an allowed energy state in the new system. Hi Bob, I have heard elsewhere that a reaction along the lines of - d + d + e → [dd]* + e → 4He + e + Q (~ 23 MeV for the electron) will not conserve angular momentum. Is this true? I think you're alluding to something similar here. Can you elaborate on the problem that you're wanting to solve with spin coupling so that I can better understand the underlying difficulty that is being overcome? Eric
Re: [Vo]:earlier thread on surface vs volume effect in the gamma decay of radioisotopes
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 12:49 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: It must be one of the thousands that I deleted unread, however I wouldn't expect that sort of thing to affect gamma radiation. Maybe. But consider for a moment the decay of a [dd]* compound nucleus, which normally follows one of the two strong-interaction branches, where it breaks up, and very occasionally follows the EM branch, in which a gamma is emitted after a long period of time. Typically, I believe, such decays are measured in ion bombardment experiments or in dusty plasmas and the branching ratios are inferred from results obtained in such contexts. In the ion bombardment experiments, I assume the incoming d+ ion encounters the d atom embedded within the metal, but in a region of little charge density, and you get the usual branching ratios. (Or perhaps experimentalists work backwards from their results, assuming the normal branching ratios.) Suppose for a moment that the electron charge density had an effect on the branching ratios. If the charge density is high, the supposition is that the EM transition is heavily favored for [dd]* decay, but the momentum is shared with one or more electrons, so that you do not get a gamma, but instead one or more energetic electrons. A problem with this thought experiment is that it does not explain why gammas are seen in the decays of radioisotopes with gamma branches; presumably if electron charge density had an effect, you would not see sharp gammas peaks for such radioisotopes but instead energetic electrons and associated continuum radiation. Here a counterargument to the electron charge density hypothesis is that if charge density was a factor, you might expect to see a volume/surface effect. The more surface area, presumably the lower the charge density at the surface, and hence more gamma activity from the radioisotope. The argument is that this kind of volume versus surface effect is not observed, so the hypothesis needs to be revisited. The thought that I had to add to this discussion is that there need not be a surface-volume effect for the charge density hypothesis to remain a possibility. Even if the gamma emitting radioisotope is embedded deep within a solid, I assume the net charge around the nucleons will be positive. By contrast, if a [dd]* compound nucleus were decaying within the dense electron cloud of a metal, it might be straightforward for the surrounding electrons to overwhelm the 2+ charge from the two protons, leading to a net negative charge density, even within the field of the [dd]* nucleus. Eric
[Vo]:earlier thread on surface vs volume effect in the gamma decay of radioisotopes
Hi, Sometime back there was a Vortex thread where we were looking at the question of whether electron charge density might be play a role in gamma decays. A point in question was whether gamma branches in the decays of solid radioisotopes might be affected by electron charge density. A counterexample that was raised was that there would then be a surface affect that is not seen -- for example, if the surface area of a sample was greatly increased, perhaps there would be more gamma activity in certain radionuclides. The suggestion to be explored (and, I think, disproven) was that if the surface area was high, e.g., the sample comes in the form of a fine powder, there would be more gamma activity, and if the surface area is low, there would be less gamma activity. Does anyone recall this thread? I'm having trouble tracking it down. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Gamma-producing fusion branches and solid state matter
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In this way, the additive nature of gravity can transform this most feeble force in nature into a process that is so powerful that it can rip space and time apart to produce black holes of gigantic size. Would you like salad dressing with that? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Gamma-producing fusion branches and solid state matter
this spin selection process. This is the essence and power of the monopole. This is at the taproot of LENR. On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In this way, the additive nature of gravity can transform this most feeble force in nature into a process that is so powerful that it can rip space and time apart to produce black holes of gigantic size. Would you like salad dressing with that? Eric
[Vo]:Quanta magazine article on pilot waves
Those interested in de Broglie's and Bohm's pilot waves as an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, see: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/ As a sociological aside about the culture among physicists, I quote from the article: At this stage, Goldstein and several others noted, researchers risk their careers by questioning quantum orthodoxy [and getting too far into pilot waves]. It seems there are many ways to go wrong with physicists, and not just by showing interest in LENR. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Your glib balanced harangue against Dr Mills, belies your stated support. Your incessant repetition of POC shows an ignorance of the gold standard Dr Mills has already adduced numerous times, indeed, in published peer reviewed journals. Let me edify you in science there is no greater proof positive/negative than the experiment. ... Hi Steven, The retort above is unbalanced enough that the fellow may be a troll on that forum. In that case, he would be having fun at both your and Mills's expense, and not just your expense. Eric
Re: [Vo]:doubling speed every 2 years for decades more, Intel silicon photonics now revolutionizing data centers, Michael Kassner: Rich Murray 2015.01.26
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: They will have the power of today's Watson computer, which is to say, they will be able to play Jeopardy or diagnose disease far better than any person. I expect they will also recognize faces and do voice input better than any person. This prediction seems very attainable. I think developments along these lines will happen in the next ten to twenty years. Your smartphone may be able to do these things. (And your smartphone will be a tiny little thing.) A related development -- people are predisposed to anthropomorphizing technology. In the same time period, I suppose there will be robots and computer systems that far surpass Siri in mimicking sentient life. There was a highly entertaining movie that came out recently, Her, that riffed on this idea. All the human data now existing can be stored in about 7 ml of DNA. Note that much of this storage is not in the molecule itself but in how it's arranged -- epigenetics. This is a fascinating area of biology that focuses on which genes are expressed and to what extent they are. It could hold the key to understanding things like cancer, which studies that focus solely on genetics might not uncover. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Why cold fusion will not need any grid
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: When the new technology can do everything the old one does, and more, at a lower cost with other advantages such as speed and convenience, the old technology invariably goes away. To be included in the disadvantages of a new technology are ones relating to existing regulations and to sunk capital costs. The technology exists for me to securely wire money to someone in the US free of charge. But when I actually do so I write a paper check and send it via snail mail, using up one of a handful of stamps I bought sometime back. This is because an interbank wire transfer initiated over the Internet will cost 20 - 35 dollars and will entail filling out a long form that includes my current job title and the recipient's social security number. One might imagine that US bankers would be embarrassed when they travel overseas and see the alternatives that are available to people living in other countries. I think this impression might be mistaken. The type of people who succeed as bankers in the US may be impervious to embarrassment. Eric
Re: [Vo]:the hole truth and nothing but
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Sooner or later, one or several participants is going to hit on the optimum design which combines all of the improvements, but without jeopardizing the high thermal gain. I'm excited. Watching the replications feels a little bit like watching a sporting event. A very slow sporting event. I don't know anything about cricket, but I bet the feeling is like sitting through an entire test cricket match (which can last up to five days). I have read that the test in the name refers to a test of the players' endurance and stamina, but I bet it is also a test of the fans' endurance and stamina. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Message that will not post
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is because manufacturers, people, and society as a whole are not inclined to test many different implementations after a reasonably good one is found. We find something that works and we stick to it. Overall the presentation sounds good. There is a sticking point with this one idea, however -- there's an economic incentive for vendors to set things up so that people are locked into their own technology. If you bought an Apple computer and lose or destroy the power adapter, you will need to purchase an overpriced Apple power adapter. If you bought a Gillette razor blade holder, you will need to buy Gillette razor blades. I suspect something similar could happen with LENR power sources, at least at first. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A strange and screwy claim by Piantelli
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: BTW, formation of 1 molecule of Hydrogen gas from atomic Hydrogen yields 4.519 eV per H2 molecule. By comparing this reaction to the formation of water through the burning (oxidation) of hydrogen, one can get a sense of how much chemical energy is released in this reaction. I suppose this is why palladium gets quite hot as hydrogen (or deuterium) exits it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:two answers from Bazhutov and current LENR news
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: There is tremendous overhead to this method [a centralized one]. It is needed with today's generator technology but it would serve no purpose with cold fusion. I for one will not miss power lines. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Dark wires in glowing reactor ?
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Hydrogen in the DDL is greatly reduced in diameter so that it cannot be contained by the ceramic - and the isomer atoms would diffuse through the alumina (which is a dielectric) as soon as they are formed. These hydrinos sound quite dangerous. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Yep, this is exactly the problem, you have two incomplete models that same the same thing. It's a mystery ... Allow me to point to some additional, beautiful images of excited Rydberg states that one will presumably need to set aside in order to make room for Mills's orbitspheres in one's life: http://photon.physnet.uni-hamburg.de/typo3temp/pics/1d908a9be3.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nk4zG5qt_nY/TtAqBojr3vI/ABg/Vd5nKr7MGNw/s1600/WFs.png http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-urfIZEw5Ykw/T2Xvi98EJ8I/BFc/VWk3UQ67S2o/s1600/17a%2527.persp2.bmp http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n2/images_article/ncomms2466-f4.jpg One is tempted to conclude that the makers of these images are propagating false teachings. In a world of orbitspheres, there are, presumably, no electrons passing through the nucleus, resulting in an increased probability of internal conversion. We will need to set aside our current understanding of internal conversion and adopt one based upon infinitesimally thin electron currents that are miles away from the nucleus, from its own perspective. Perhaps the two descriptions are dual, in the way that George Orwell explained that one can develop the ability to keep in mind two contradictory thoughts: - War is peace. - Freedom is slavery. - Ignorance is strength. Through an act of doublethink, it might be possible to reconcile orbitspheres and electron orbits, as they are currently understood. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:07 AM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: Experimental evidence always trumps theory. I need that on a bumpersticker. I might want one of those. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Did you read my last email? Rathke stated a critique, Mills answered it. Interesting PDF file. It has Mills as the author, and it talks about Mills in the third person. Looks like ghostwriting, but that's immaterial, I suppose. So you are dead wrong, it's the QM folks that are mute. You want to conclude from a rebuttal with Mills's name on it, probably written on his behalf, to a single critic of Mills, establishes that Mills does not stonewall criticism of his theory. Allow me to suggest this isolated counterexample does not prove what you want it to prove. Beyond this, let's agree to disagree about Mills. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Did you look at the address, goes to blacklight power!!! I have no reason to doubt that the rebuttal came from Blacklight Power. My guess is that an employee or fan wrote it up, and Mills signed off on it, or allowed his name to be placed on it. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Perhaps Mills talks about himself in the third person. If you does not trust the rebutal, let me than explain what the problem with rathkes paper is. I admit upfront that I do not have the domain knowledge to form more than an impressionistic opinion of Mills's work. My objections are purely aesthetic. He wants to turn QM inside out, but he does not seem to want to take on the burden of relating his work to existing practice (let's set aside the question of theory for the moment). Existing practice in solid state physics proceeds from the assumption that electron orbitals are three-dimensional and are often not not spherical shells. Non-spherical electron orbits overlap, and the electron density can be modeled as a function of time and location within the solid, and the DFTs tell you something about things like band gaps in semiconductors. Mills postulates an infinitely thin, spherical orbitsphere for the hydrogen atom [1]. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. Do we assume an orbitsphere for hydrogen atoms, and in some cases three-dimensional, non-spherical orbits in more complex atoms? This pedagogical aid suggests that we should assume only orbitspheres [2]. But in the following diagram of a benzene molecule, six p-orbitals are shown and are presumed to affect the chemical behavior of the molecule [3]. Someone should go tell the man or woman who made this diagram that they're living in error. You have proposed that what Mills is saying is dual with what the solid state physicists are saying. The two descriptions do not sound dual; they sound mutually incompatible. This is one problem I have identified, and for which I am proud, given that I do not have the domain knowledge to comment on the specifics of the mathematics that are used. Simple, common sense can go pretty far, it turns out. Eric [1] http://www.millsian.com/images/theory/Orbitsphere-Poster-medium.png [2] http://www.millsian.com/images/theory/Periodic-Table-Poster-medium.png [3] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Benzene_Orbitals.svg/2000px-Benzene_Orbitals.svg.png
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: It is a shame that we don't have a serious heated debate between nobell lauriates and Mills regarding these matters, it would be a great show. In stead there is a speaking nothing. Mills would not say anything. There would be no debate. My take on this is therefore that Mills is right. ?? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote: Two of us measured and discovered the Defkalion trick in the water flow measurement (or do you think it was really Gamberale?); if you like I can send you the proofs privately. Hi Giancarlo, Thank you for the careful analysis of Tadahiko Mizuno's and Jed's calorimetry (I am not in a position to weigh your claims and Jed's responses and take no position). As I was reviewing this thread, I noticed some interesting details that were mentioned. Am I correct in understanding the following? - You and another person were the ones who did the investigation of the flowmeter used in DGT's demo sometime back and concluded that it was malfunctioning, leading to an incorrect report of the amount of steam flowing through the exiting tube and an incorrect derivation of the power that was being produced. Gamberale was relying on your investigation when he went public with his claims about DGT. - You looked at the Lugano report by Levi et al. and concluded there was a hidden wattmeter. Can you say more about this wattmeter and what you believe its effect to be in the conclusions of the Lugano report? Have I gotten any of this wrong? Regards, Eric
Re: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Something else I just thought of: 17O+6Li = 16O + 7Li + 3.107 MeV I would not be surprised if there were other stripping reactions occurring if Ni(7Li,6Ni)Ni was happening. As a side note, with the introduction of a gas phase precursor (oxygen), this is starting to take is in the direction of Papp's noble gas engine. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Sealing the Dog Bone
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: It may be that the hydrogen only acts to help distribute the Li-7 to the Ni isotopes for the Li-7+Ni reactions Jones suggested back in October and Eric has just reviewed. Just a small correction. It was Robin that suggested that what was going on was a chain of 7Li(Ni,Ni)6Li neutron-stripping reactions. This is a suggestion that I'm still partial to. Unless there has been an error in my analysis, I'm inclined to think the percentage of lithium reported in the 2mg sample from the Lugano assay was unrepresentative of the percentage of lithium in the total charge by a factor of 10-20. Admittedly, this is a heavy strike against the proposed involvement of 7Li, all else being equal. Most advances in technology are based on a mixture of trial and error work and application of half-baked theory. They go hand in hand. Nice summary. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Sealing the Dog Bone
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Also keep in mind the physics student, Carl-Oscar Gullstrom, at the Uppsala University and under one of the Lugano authors, has a theory that is similar to Robin's idea. Yes -- I saw that. I note that Gullstrom's writeup is dated several weeks after Robin's post. I do not have an opinion on the specifics in Gullstrom's paper, which I haven't taken a close look at yet, and whose merits I probably wouldn't be in a position to evaluate. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A bombshell of a different type?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:22:13 -0700: Hi, [snip] Li7 + Ni58 = Ni59 + Li6 + 1.75 MeV Li7 + Ni59 = Ni60 + Li6 + 4.14 MeV Li7 + Ni60 = Ni61 + Li6 + 0.57 MeV Li7 + Ni61 = Ni62 + Li6 + 3.34 MeV Li7 + Ni62 = Ni63 + Li6 - 0.41 MeV (Endothermic!) This series stops at Ni62, hence all isotopes of Ni less than 62 are depleted and Ni62 is strongly enriched. The authors of the Lugano report mention a total energy balance of 1.5 MWh excess heat to be accounted for (p. 29). Translating that value, we get 3.3e22 MeV. If the average reaction is 3.5 MeV (just to choose an optimistic number), that means there were 9.4e21 reactions, and presumably 9.4e21 7Li atoms to be consumed in the process. The authors mention that in the sample of the fuel they looked at, there was 1.17 percent lithium (p. 53). If we extrapolate out from the 2 mg sample they obtained to the 1 g of fuel from which it was taken (not necessarily wise), there would have been 0.0117 g * 1 mole / 6.94 g * 6.022e23 / mole = 1.0e21 atoms lithium in the total charge. If we assume that that was 100 percent 7Li to be optimistic, that would mean there were about 1/10th the number of 7Li atoms needed to account for the 1.5 MWh that were produced. Judging from the fact that these calculations go back to the isotope ratios found in a single 2 mg sample of fuel, there's a lot of room for uncertainty. But in this instance we've been optimistic about the average energy per reaction (3.5 MeV), about there being 100 percent lithium, and about all of the 7Li being consumed. The actual heat balance is another variable that can be adjusted to within one's sense of uncertainty. But it would have to be pretty far off for the reaction to consist entirely of 7Li neutron stripping reactions. Have I missed something important? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:40 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I had that weird thought too that the reactor might be generating microwave radiation and heating the water... Would the microwaves make it through the metal pail? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The melting miracle
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am interested in what keeps the Rossi micro powder from sintering/melting at high surface temperatures when the reactor is in operation. We call this weird behavior the melting miracle. This is an interesting question. If the same internal/external temperature gradient was in effect in the Lugano test as seen in the MFMP dogbone calibrations (at the higher temperatures, a delta T of 330 C [1]), we're left with some weird possibilities to sort through: - the temperature calculated for the outside of the Lugano E-Cat was significantly lower than 1400. - the nickel in the volume of the core of the Lugano reactor was not subject to the same amount of heat across the length of the core, and the nickel extracted for the isotope assays was from an area that maintained a temperature below the point of the complete melting point of nickel. - the outside temperature of the Lugano reactor was as reported, and the nickel in the core vaporized and then recrystallized when the temperature was still high towards the end of the test, resulting in a partially sintered appearance, while somehow maintaining an isotope gradient. - other possibilities? I do not know what unsintered nickel looks like, so it is hard for me to get a sense of where along the spectrum the nickel in the images taken from the Lugano assays was. Eric [1] http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DogboneDec30.jpg
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: What puzzles me the most is why such a small amount of nickel is not completely vaporized by an emission of that much heat. Again, this suggests the possibility that the LENR output is low energy photons, which like a microwave oven, could heat the surroundings more than the source. Can you elaborate on the reason why vaporization of the nickel would be problematic? Does this concern go back to theoretical considerations about how a reaction would need to occur? Eric
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: In either of these three cases I would expect the active device to get hotter than had it been subjected to open air cooling. The trend is the same. The device may be hotter than it would be in the case of open-air cooling. But since the water bath does not enclose the inner housing on all sides, I suspect there is a significant heat loss through the top of the inner and outer housing. Although I don't think you were addressing this point, it seems to me that this would lead to an underestimation of the true energy output. http://i.imgur.com/MoEJGv3.png [1] Eric [1] Taken from http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications Parkhomov's publication record seems to be impressive and relevant. He has jointly published articles with researchers at Stanford and Purdue. He has published a number of articles in mainstream journals on astrophysics and radiation detection, which to my mind show that he has mastered the basics of scientific research. His focus on radiation detection supports the radiation measurements in this replication. He is following a method of calorimetry used by Bazhutov, a well-known CF researcher. Parkhomov's publication record suggests that calorimetry is not the focus of his expertise. It is not clear how well or poorly Parkhomov is carrying out the calorimetry, or to what extent he has received assistance from Bazhutov or others. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Huge/Mysterious E-field found in cold gases
In the particular case of LENR (rather than supercooled laughing gas), my suspicion is that the potentials have to do with buildup of electrons in dialectically insulated grains (e.g., grains with insulating impurities interposing between them). Once a potential reaches a certain level, the built-up charge will then discharge like a capacitor firing off. The absolute amount of charge involved in a single event may be minuscule, but on a microscopic scale I'm guessing that the strength of the field that arise before the discharge can often be astronomical. Eric On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This all comes from the uncertainty principle. When electrons are tightly confined, there energy levels go out of sight. Energy and distances are directly related in quantum mechanics. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 7:50 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: [From the article:] A potential of around 14.5 volts appeared spontaneously on the film, which in turn produced an enormous electrical field of more than 100 million volts per metre. This lends credence to my hunch that the E-fields that can arise at the nano- and micro-levels in a metal are enormous. Where there are enormous electric fields, there is acceleration. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Huge/Mysterious E-field found in cold gases
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Eric Walker my suspicion is that the potentials have to do with buildup of electrons in dialectically insulated grains This is not the first time I have mistyped that. I suppose they might in fact be dialectically insulated metal grains. In this case they should also be dielectrically insulted as well. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The main missing detail is a control run with no “fuel”; and then isotopic mass analysis of the ash. Yes -- the first is pretty much a must-have. The second would definitely be nice. Does anyone have information on the fellow who did the experiment? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Huge/Mysterious E-field found in cold gases
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 7:50 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: [From the article:] A potential of around 14.5 volts appeared spontaneously on the film, which in turn produced an enormous electrical field of more than 100 million volts per metre. This lends credence to my hunch that the E-fields that can arise at the nano- and micro-levels in a metal are enormous. Where there are enormous electric fields, there is acceleration. Eric
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Does the maximum range of the strong nuclear force match the idea of a sonic velocity of the nucleus very well? I believe nuclear phonons are entirely quantum. In this regard I wonder whether there's a sense in which they travel anywhere. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That does not include Social Security, $0.7 T. The plans I have seen eliminate Social Security and also welfare. From a tactical perspective, any plan in the US that eliminates Social Security will be doomed from the start. There is a good chance that the US will be the last country to have a basic income. We do whatever we can to do not do the right thing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:CNN: New ray gun
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Rash/misc/addams.htm Death, ray fiddlesticks! Why, it doesn't even slow them up. I like the Patent Attorney sign on the door. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not see the need for panic during this period. It will not likely require rapid change to our current system to prevent major disruptions to our way of life. This is the face of technological change: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/exposures-detroit-by-air-alex-maclean.html?_r=0 In the long run I think technological change can and will bring about mass prosperity. But I doubt the path there will be a straight one. And at the local level technological change can displace people not prepared for it for a generation or more, as seen in the photos in the article above. Once LENR takes root, I assume that everything that can be automated will be automated and that those countries that do not put provisions in place will witness the kind of thing that happened in Detroit, but on a larger scale. Eric
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I have seen an operating UFO. Can you elaborate on this detail? Eric
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Pair production, which I assume you agree is real, creates mass from empty space. What is the source of this mass, or the equivalent energy? What is the mechanism that makes this happen? In the case of an incoming high-energy photon, the pair is produced as a result of the interaction of the photon with an electromagnetic field. The momentum of the incoming photon is conserved in the momentum of the outgoing electron and positron. Why does not the rest mass of the electron or the positron include the energy associated with the angular momentum that is intrinsic to those particles? I assume it does. Do you have a reference (other than Hotson) that says that the rest mass does not include the energy of the intrinsic angular momentum? Since the spin of the electron and positron is presumably intrinsic, I gather they would not be an electron and a positron without it. Their spin is +/- 1/2, which gives them fermi statistics. If they had a different spin, e.g. integer spin, they would have different characteristics and be other than an electron and a positron. (Note there's also the analogous case of the muon and antimuon, etc.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious problems to offer their input. One thought here -- the reactionless drive that I am aware of being in the recent news is the EmDrive. That one involves the generation of microwaves and their reflection in a cavity. It's not clear whether anyone other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised. But if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply. Eric
Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. If the guy with the spaceship with the EmDrive could bend the laws of physics for a moment and arrange for tracer photons, perhaps he could see microwave photons exiting the cavity of the drive in the opposite direction, accounting for the anomalous thrust. (Perhaps I'm missing your point.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today
I wrote: With the acquisition of the technology by IH, Rossi has had the opportunity to avail himself of competent counsel. At face value it seems he has not done so. Or perhaps this is another play of some kind. Things never seem to get boring. One reason has occurred to me for Rossi's filing an incomplete and inadequate patent application. As David French says in the article, claims in an initial filing can be thought of as placeholders. Rossi's patent attorneys might be making this bet: it is not difficult to put in an application now in order to get an early date of priority. But it's far from guaranteed that an application will be approved, so better not to reveal any trade secrets at this point. If things look different in a year, the application can be amended to fix the deficiencies, filling in the information that was left out. If things do not look better in a year, the application can be abandoned without having released the enabling information (e.g., about the catalyst). A little bit of an indirect strategy, but it kind of makes sense to me. Eric
Re: [Vo]:CERN and NO Higggs Particle Nov 7 2014
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 10:07 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It has been my suspicion all along that these guys jumped to a conclusion much too quickly. I share your skepticism about the discovery of the Higgs boson. But I'm also skeptical about the claim of this team that there is another interpretation. There is always another interpretation. Glancing at the article, I'm guessing they had an alternative proposal that did not gain traction, and now they're hoping to make the case that the announcement was premature. Judging from what I've learned watching LENR, theorists will never agree, and there is nothing one can do to help them agree. Even when there is evidence staring them in the face that there's something else going on. They appear to be very stubborn people. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today
See David French's analysis of Andrea Rossi's new patent application: http://coldfusionnow.org/andrea-rossi-2nd-us-patent-application-published-6-nov-2014-at-uspto/ David French concludes: How can the best mode requirement be met when a catalyst is required and that catalyst is not disclosed? How could this application even have been filed? ... Others can search through this disclosure for ostensibly useful technical information, but as a patent filing this application will encounter great difficulties. With the acquisition of the technology by IH, Rossi has had the opportunity to avail himself of competent counsel. At face value it seems he has not done so. Or perhaps this is another play of some kind. Things never seem to get boring. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Abstract A system is disclosed for converting energy from the electromagnetic quantum vacuum available at any point in the universe to usable energy in the form of heat, electricity, mechanical energy or other forms of power. It seems they were able to travel into the black hole and obtain the quantum data [1]. Eric [1] http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7286
Re: [Vo]: New Rossi lab photo has much information
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: From the other pictures, it is pretty clear that Rossi is using a sheathed k-type thermocouple with the hotCat. Because this thermocouple is not rated to operate at the temperatures that the reactor convection tube was supposedly operating, it appears that Rossi had placed (by design) the thermocouple in a cooler section of the hotCat (the end for example) ... I'm curious what details distinguish a k-type thermocouple visually from a b-type thermocouple, which are identifiable in a photograph. (I note that Wikipedia says that a k-type thermocouple can be used up to 1350 C [1].) Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple#Type_K
Re: [Vo]:Could LENR+ cause WWW III?
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: We imagine sometimes that Oil is the source of all our problems. But LENR+ could be a geopolitical nightmare as it completely upends the fragile balance of things. I assume that once LENR starts making its way into industry and everyday life on a significant scale, there will be all kinds of unanticipated consequences. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Only the shadow hypothesis requires the ceramic to be visually transparent -- the other two just could depend on thermal conductivity. The shadow hypothesis has always seemed like a stretch to me. It sounds speculative. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It's not difficult to sell furnace heating elements which provide 4.6 watts of output for one watt of input. As an entry point into industry, it is a little obscure, and one that the accountants paying the electricity bill will be first to notice. But if accountants can be the advocates of LENR, this is a good thing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Deconstructing Rossi
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Robert Greenyer has a different take on Rossi's initial product: a dogbone heater element for furnaces. Nice homework on Greenyer's part. He makes an interesting case that IH is going to try to make use of LENR in an application that is not at the forefront of many people's minds but to which it would be well-suited. The name Industrial Heat kind of suggests this direction as well. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: If any of LENR energy were produced by radiation or particles not stopped by the reactor vessel, such energy would escape detection by the Lugano instruments. Neutrinos and low frequency RF could be such radiation. However, with exception of potentially Axil Axil and myself, this community seems to believe that undetected radiation is not present. The E-Cat container material will be transparent on the high and low ends of the EMF spectrum. On the high end, there are energetic x-rays and gammas. On the low end, there are radio waves and possibly microwaves. Assuming David Bianchini is not horrible at measuring ionizing radiation in the higher range, we can rule out energetic x-rays and gammas more than a certain fraction above background. That leaves only the low end of the EMF spectrum as a possible channel out for energy. Energetic photons provide an obvious means by which lots of energy might be allowed to escape from the E-Cat, thereby leading to an understated COP if they were not accounted for (which they were, we are given to understand). Low-energy photons, such as radio waves, by contrast, do not provide an obvious channel through which to transmit lots of energy. If the energetic photons correspond to a high bandwidth connection, I assume the low energy photons are analogous to trying to push lots of water through a surface with very small holes in it -- my guess is that there's not much bandwidth in this channel. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: How would you explain that particular ash morphology, considering the shape of the nickel fuel grain clusters? I suspect that the further we get away from everyday physics, the harder it will be to understand LENR. That's one of the reasons I'm betting on simple, prosaic electric arcing at a microscopic level between electrically insulated metal grains (or perhaps metal vapor in higher temperature systems). The arcing would be responsible for accelerating partially ionized species such as 7Li into the substrate wall. If a large enough number of such species were drawn into a narrow area, not unlike in a dense plasma focus, I think a small but substantial portion of them could be knocked into the larger lattice sites enough to achieve occasional neutron stripping. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Basically what happens is that as the temperature changes the peak of the blackbody spectrum moves through different parts of the emissivity/wavelength curve. Are you assuming a standard Boltzmann curve that just shifts its peak according to emittance? Is it possible that the frequency and heat-dependant combination of emittance, transmissivity and reflection make it so that there is a distribution other than a Boltzmann distribution for the alumina shell? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Temperature Testing of an IH-like Alumina Reactor
I wrote: Energetic photons provide an obvious means by which lots of energy might be allowed to escape from the E-Cat, thereby leading to an understated COP ... I suppose there are neutrinos as well. But they're very lightweight and so do not carry away much momentum, and they bring with them a requirement for the weak force to deal with and explain. Eric
Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: No matter how intense and short the burst of energy is, as long as the calorimeter walls prevent it from escaping, and it produces enough joules of heat to be detected, it will be detected. This is a great advantage of an approach that integrates the power over time. It is what makes IR cameras seem fiddly to me, although they may be standard tools in relevant fields. Eric
Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:53 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Since we are assuming a symmetrical AC waveform, this is a pretty good example of that with numerous harmonics that also get into the act. Is this a safe assumption? Eric
Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:10 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Let me know if you are still confused since it is important that we set the records straight and dispose of skeptical ideas. Unfortunately I don't know enough about electronics yet to have an opinion on Michael McKubre's assumptions about the electrical source he was using, about the skeptics' complaints about those assumptions, or about your rebuttal of the skeptics' complaints. Perhaps one day. Until then, I must divide this factor out of consideration pending general consensus amongst the EE's here (it seems like such a consensus might be coming together). In these circumstances, it would be better if I stood out of the fray than attempt to rebut any complaints about McKubre's assumptions about power sources. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born?
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Robert Ellefson vortex-h...@e2ke.com wrote: Occam's Razor is a tool used by enfeebled minds to construct paper houses out of tree bark shavings. Real thinkers use chain saws and portable lumber mills to build their houses. Bayes' theorem and plain old intuition aren't that bad, either. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Ni Self-Enrichment
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: So maybe the hotcat wasn't running OUT of fuel at 32 days : it had completed the Ni isotope conversion (to a greater degree than Rossi expected), and was then running at peak efficiency? This could explain the improvement in efficiency over the first half, when the input power could be reduced. This makes sense in part, as there is probably nothing particularly special about nickel-7Li neutron stripping reactions. In the case of deuterium, neutron stripping is exothermic for the large majority of known isotopes. I suspect something similar happens with 7Li, but for fewer isotopes. So when the nickel is exhausted through enrichment, other reactions would be favored. The part that I have less of a sense of is what would set of reactions would kick in at the point of using up the nickel and why they might have been hindered prior to that. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Color Temperature
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:49 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: A lack of caftsmanship is not necessarily antithetical to greatness. e.g. The first transistor was crudely assembled. http://cnx.org/resources/9120e4bccd37da6ab1c4ff90e8c498cc/firsttransistor.gif They definitely weren't trying very hard to make that one look nice. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Color Temperature
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: From rossi: The coils of the reactor are made with a proptietary alloy, and the inconel is only a doped component of it. And The nature and composition of the coils are of paramount importance in our IP and for obvious reasons I will not give any more information And stupidity, Alumina becomes White heat only when it melts at 2070°C and compare it to the glass is an elementary mistake Assuming these statements are true, they expose the limits of our overclever, hairsplitting inductive reasoning. I'm guessing there is an explanation for everything that seems off in the Lugano test that would make sense of things once it was known. Drawing any firm conclusions at this point would be foolish. This is not to say that the report could not have been more forthcoming or better prepared concerning critical details. With what we currently know, ultimately one must take the details on faith, which is precisely what skeptics will not want to do. Perhaps this is by design: those who are willing to assume the best will learn a little tidbit here and there, and those whose temperaments dispose them to look for hidden wires, laser beams and magic tricks will be preoccupied with those things instead. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Color Temperature
I wrote: With what we currently know, ultimately one must take the details on faith, which is precisely what skeptics will not want to do. Obviously this is not the mode of science. The report provided little to follow upon via scientific investigation. It was more like a piece of long-form journalism, with important details left out, as is often done in journalism. To a certain extent one is forced to take it or leave it. There is little in the way of a satisfying answer to the question of how this report is different from the periodic tests conducted in connection with BLP. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ni61 is non reactive as stated by DGT and confirmed by Mizuno as presented in Cook's !CCF-18 presentation I interpret the depletion analysis differently than presented in Cook's presentation (e.g., slide 52 [1]). If 61Ni sits in the middle of a chain of neutron captures, it will be a kind of hump that must be crossed, where any that is taken away (e.g., by transition to 62Ni) is given back by transitions from lower isotopes. I.e., it participates quite a bit, rather than very little, contrary to what Norman Cook seems to be saying. There is also this nice quote (slide 37): The raw data suggest that Ni-58 and Ni-60 were consumed, while neutrons were added to Ni-61, Ni-62 and Ni-64, but “depletion analysis” indicates otherwise… If Norman Cook has misinterpreted the data, as I think he might have, then Mizuno's results would appear to fit quite nicely with Rossi's recent results. (Almost too nicely.) Eric [1] https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36817/SimulationNuclearTransmutationPresentation.pdf?sequence=2
Re: [Vo]:Color Temperature
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: The temperature of a Pāhoehoe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Lava#P.C4.81hoehoe lava flow can be estimated by observing its color. The result agrees well with measured temperatures of lava flows at about 1,000 to 1,200 °C (1,830 to 2,190 °F). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pahoehoe_toe.jpg I assume the temperature should be estimated from the light patches in the lava flow, since the darker patches are areas of the surface that are starting to harden. The lighter portions match the color in the image Jed has been pointing to, making an estimate of 1000 to 1200 C seem reasonable [1]. The challenge with lava is that it is essentially a blackbody, as can be seen by the areas of the lava flow that have already cooled down. People are debating elsewhere in this thread whether the same heuristic for deriving temperature from color can be applied to something that isn't a blackbody (e.g., glass, or an alumina cylinder). I wonder if there is someone who can speak from professional experience on this question. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Color Temperature
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I disagree Dave. If you were to count the many hundreds if not thousands of hours which have been wasted arguing over the thermometry, multiplied by the hourly rate of the arguers, the actual cost to do excellent water flow calorimetry would have been a small fraction of that – probably less than 10%. I kind of agree. I wish they had carried out calorimetry that would not have been open to fiddly questions. And beyond that, I wish there had been multiple, careful calibration runs, instead of something that wasn't really a calibration run. The authors hint that they know they're brushing aside an important detail by giving explanations for the low-temperature of the dummy run: So, there was some fear of fracturing the ceramic body, due to the lower temperature of the thermal generators with respect to the loaded reactor. For these reasons, power to the dummy reactor was held at below 500 W, in order to avoid any possible damage to the apparatus. They seem to have known in advance that this decision would be a point of controversy. It is true that they had only one E-Cat, so if they broke it, they might have been in a bind. That constraint on a good test would ultimately go back to Rossi and IH. I don't know what considerations apply to measuring the power output of a body that is as hot as the E-Cat (presumably in the 900-1500 C range). It may be that professionals use approaches similar to the one used in the Lugano test, with IR cameras and so on. We are hampered by a lack of direct professional expertise on this question. We have heard numerous complaints from smart people who have no direct expertise in this stuff. By contrast, there was the suggestion sometime back by someone who does have expertise that the approach of the Lugano test was basically sound, and they did go to the manufacturers and calibrate their equipment. If the calorimetry they did was basically sound, the problem is largely with us. Still, we only have the information that we have, and we can only draw upon the knowledge we already have. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Color Temperature
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Furthermore, if large amounts of electrons are being produced as a reaction byproduct ... How is conservation of charge maintained in this context? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
I wrote: In another sense, it would be no more overunity than a fission reactor, since the energy would be coming from the conversion of mass via nuclear reactions. The obvious objection to the above is that the release of energy always involves a mass deficit. The idea was that cold fusion doesn't need to involve a violation of CoE, and so a cold fusion device would not really be an overunity device. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
I wrote: Unfortunately I don't have any other details and don't know of a particular experiment to refer to. Here is the quote from a textbook I recently finished reading: ... It was late last night, and the paragraph I found and quoted pertained to deuterium, not 4He, which you were asking about, Bob. I recall reading that 4He does not have an excited state either, but I will have to see if I can find where I saw that (it might also have been a mistaken impression). Eric
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Once the Li is a thin alloy film on the Ni particle surfaces which are catalyzed to produce a LENR reaction, the Li may then be a participant in the LENR in condensed matter form as opposed to being a participant in vapor phase form. I think you've hit upon an important question that has come up recently -- is a condensed matter phase needed in some form to get LENR to work? If not, there will have been a lot of theorizing over the years for naught. My working assumption now is that there is no such need, and LENR will work in pure gas phase systems as well, although I do think that an explanation should also account for LENR working in a solid state system. Eric
Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please!
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: (And I can't resist noting that Levi et al should have done this). Yes. Even if you you're worried about running the E-Cat without fuel at high temperatures, a resistance heater running at the same power should be fine. That would have provided a better basis for calibration than running the same E-Cat to be tested at a much lower temperature. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: So either the temperature measurement is wrong, or we have another miracle, that seems to take place within the entire interior of the hotcat. I think part of our difficulty is that one hesitates to take the report at face value for several reasons. If we do not take the report at face value, the large number of degrees of freedom open the way for untethered speculation, possibly for years, given the proclivities of the people watching this field. That would be inconvenient for anyone trying to figure out what's going on, and convenient for anyone trying to keep it a secret. Among the reasons one doesn't want to take the report at face value are that there might be error in the heat calibration and power calculations. The isotopic analyses are a little amazing, and, as far as I can tell, do not give indications of a gradient effect in the 6Li and 62Ni species. And details pertaining to the Inconel cables and, as you now bring up, possibly the type K thermocouple, seem to be inconsistent with the reported temperature. I agree with what you said a few days ago, that the findings of the report are inconclusive. In one outcome, the authors could be spot-on, and this would imply some amazing things. In another outcome, there could be some critical inaccuracies as to the materials that were used that go back to a lack of fact-checking. In another outcome, there could be intentional misdirection on Rossi's and IH's part to conceal what is really going on, but LENR is still happening. And in another outcome, there might not be anything going on at all, as Pomp, Yugo and others would have it. Many of the details and objections that have been surfaced during the past few days were easy to spot and could have been resolved weeks prior to the first day of the testing if the authors had consulted a wide enough group. This leads me to one of two conclusions: - The authors did not do their homework and put together a test that would necessarily lead to inconclusive results and that could be questioned along a number of lines. - The authors did their homework but were hobbled by constraints placed by Rossi and IH that prevented them from conducting a more rigorous test. If the first is true, there might not be all that much that we can expect from this set of authors. If the second is true, I kind of wonder whether the report should have been released. I worry that the lack of clarity on many of the details could sidetrack discussion for a while as we pursue dead ends. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be due to poor experimental measurement or technique. Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. Eric
Re: [Vo]: Gettering in the Lugano IH reactor
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: By the time the IH reactor is operating above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any kind left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. Is it possible that the micro-scale features in the Ni might reappear upon recrystallization? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: appendix 3 measured abundance in ash sample 6Li - 92.1% 7Li - 7.9% 62Ni - 98.7% This is TOF-SIMS, secondary ion mass spectroscopy. It is a surface analysis. Heavy ions are accelerated towards the target and cause atoms from the surface to spall away as ions, whose masses are then measured by looking at their displacement under a magnetic field of known strength. appendix 4 measured abundance in ash sample 6Li - 57.5% 7Li - 42.5% 62Ni - 99.3% These are the results of ICP-MS, a technique I'm not familiar with. Apparently they take the entire sample and dissolve it. In that case I take it that the technique would give a percentage that combines the bulk and surface amounts, and so is in a sense an approximation for the bulk amount. Can you fake such a distribution by simply purchasing enriched samples? You make an interesting point, here. In the two samples analyzed, it would seem there is indeed a gradient effect for 6Li and 6Li. There does not appear to be much of a gradient effect for 62Ni, which is high in both cases; if anything, there is a reverse gradient, but I suspect the error bars are rather large for this kind of analysis. One challenge with a line reasoning about gradients of isotopes in the present instance is that we're dealing with a sample size of n=2 or thereabouts. In this light I would like to know more about the isotope analysis before drawing conclusions from it, which makes it inconclusive for me. I would also like to think that the measurements of heat and the reporting of the materials that were used and the matter of nickel with tubercules on it and so on were the data from a normal run of the E-Cat and that we're just having a hard time using lateral thinking to make the pieces fit together. So I don't have a strong opinion yet on the matter of misdirection, but I do have a hard time taking all of the details of the report at face value at this point. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A quadruple oscillating electric field may also help to excite the D's to shed their excess mass relative to the developing 4He particle. This sounds a little bit wishful to me. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No matter how strongly you believe in the phenomenon of LENR, and I’m firmly in that camp – bad actors should be weeded out. Rossi is a bad actor here ... This is the same conclusion that Krivit has come to, and that Pomp and Mary Yugo and many others have come to. All on the basis of the most circumstantial of evidence. My theory -- these folks are not comfortable with ambiguity and gaps in one's knowledge. There is a burning desire to fill in the gaps, even when the information necessary to do so is incomplete or unavailable. The temptation to take short cuts to get to some kind of certainty must be so overwhelming to these people that they do not realize they're doing it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Aviation Week and the Lockheed Fusion Reactor
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2834452/data-center/ lockheed-martins-cfr-a-hot-fusion-breakthrough-for-power-generation.html It seems to me that a major weakness of the new Lockheed Martin skunkworks reactor design is the fact that the superconducting magnets used to set up a magnetic confinement field are situated within the plasma being fused. The superconducting magnets will need to be at cryogenic temperatures. The metal toroids housing the magnets will be exposed to corrosion by the plasma and will serve as a heat sink, reducing the temperature of the plasma. Perhaps I've missed an important detail? Eric
Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: I've been thinking of tungsten for a while now. Do they make an alloy with tungsten that operates at high temps in an oxygen atmosphere. I ask because, although the tungsten that is embedded in the reactor would be protected from oxygen by the aluminum oxide coating, you have to connect it to power somewhere outside the reactor that would be exposed to air and the wire, if pure tungsten, would decompose rapidly. In the case of some metals, oxygen will react with the surface of the metal thereby forming a protective layer against further corrosion. I take it this would not be possible with tungsten or another refractory? Does this imply that heating elements operating above ~ 1400 C must be used in a low-oxygen environment? I note that kanthal super, referred to by Bob Higgins elsewhere, appears to be used in some cases under a normal atmosphere: http://www.kanthal.com/scaled/11551/headtest-width960height320.jpg http://www.keithcompany.com/images/gallery/2-zone%20super%20kanthal%20heating%20elements.jpg Eric
Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
I wrote: I note that kanthal super, referred to by Bob Higgins elsewhere, appears to be used in some cases under a normal atmosphere: ... It now occurs to me why the alumina tubes might have been used in the Lugano test: http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/141011_lugano_fig12a.jpg The three alumina tubes on either side of the E-Cat, within which run the three cables delivering the 3-phase power, might be protecting not the cables but the surroundings, for the the cables themselves might not be Inconel at that point; they might be kanthal super or something similar, e.g., heating elements. Note that kanthal super looks like it is somewhat ductile in some of its forms: http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/60026153072/Kanthal_Super_Heating_Elements_Kanthal_Wire_for.jpg http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/1968666257_1/resistance_wire_kanthal_super_heating_elements_for.jpg_220x220.jpg The word brittle does not come readily to mind when I look at these images. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Do you know if the experiments looked at excited spin energy states that may be possible at higher spin quanta? Unfortunately I don't have any other details and don't know of a particular experiment to refer to. Here is the quote from a textbook I recently finished reading: For nuclear physicists, the deuteron should be what the hydrogen atom is for atomic physicists. Just as the measured Balmer series of electromagnetic transitions between the excited states of hydrogen led to an understanding of the structure of hydrogen, so should the electromagnetic transitions between the excited states of the deuteron lead to an understanding of its structure. Unfortunately, there are *no excited states* of the deuteron—it is such a weakly bound system that the only excited states are unbound systems consisting of a free proton and neutron. [1] Eric [1] Kenneth S. Krane, *Introductory Nuclear Physics*, pp. 80-81; author's emphasis.
Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the controversy.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:00 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: If no fusion occurred it should be a 100% efficient conversion to heat, so now with the energy of fusion, shouldn't it be overunity as a heater? Well obviously yes unless energy is vanishing. In a sense, a cold fusion device would be an overunity device, since people's expectations are that nothing should be happening after any putative chemical fuel runs out. In another sense, it would be no more overunity than a fission reactor, since the energy would be coming from the conversion of mass via nuclear reactions. (Assuming nuclear reactions are happening -- this assumption is not shared by everyone here.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. The earth does kind of have the composition of a large, spherical E-Cat. And there is a magnetic field that exists due in part to the rotation of the molten core. I would not be surprised if there is something LENR-driven in the internal heat that is observed. The explanation I have heard for the heat, that it goes back to uranium, seems a little wishful. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
I wrote: The following is a bit speculative, but perhaps someone can correct any misstatements I make -- if there is a magnetic field being created by the cables coiling around the tube [1], I believe the field would point along the axis of the tube, creating a theta pinch, even if only momentarily. It now occurs to me that such a field will itself create quite a bit of acceleration of the metal particles in the tube. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature hot-cat Lugano demo
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Highly doubtful. Above curie temperture of Nickel so no ferromagnetism, and powder too microscopic hot resistivity too high I assume, then, that magnetic domains and the curie temperature are not relevant. I'm thinking more along the lines of metal vapor and partially ionized nickel and iron atoms and particles, which will carry some amount of electric charge. , and AC frequency, current and number of windings too low for strong magnetic fields or significant eddy currents to form and give push via lenzs law. Again, it would seem, then, that eddy currents in the target would be relevant at the sizes we're talking about. You and others here will know about the AC frequency and number of windings, which are something I can't comment on. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Gibbsite
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: However if it [hydrogen] only acts as a catalyst for neutron transfer reactions, then nowhere near that amount would be needed. My current theory is that the hydrogen plays no role in this particular instance. Perhaps elsewhere, deep in the IH labs, they are experimenting with lithium hydride with some fraction of deuterium in it, which would play a role. From the standpoint of industrial design, it would be convenient to use the same type of fuel and reactor design in both cases, so, according to this line of thinking, lithium hydride is used in this case even though the hydrogen is not involved. Eric
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It would be a miracle to find that the temperature exactly matched what is expected according to the Stephan-Boltzman equation. I get that the preconditions for the Stephan-Boltzman equation were not met, technically, since the device is not a blackbody (e.g., painted with black refractory coating) and that there is an error term that is being raised to the fourth power. My questions are: what are the implications? Would the Stephan-Boltzman equation provide a lower bound for the true power, or an upper bound, or something else? How far off would the Stephan-Boltzman equation be in practice? I get the sense that it would be a minor error term and that professionals in this field would not be too hesitant to use the equation in a context such as the Lugano test. I'm starting to wonder whether the emissivity problem is primarily an academic one. Eric
