Re: [Vo]:List integrity
On Dec 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: These are positions that require integrity and some level of skill, but mostly the former. My two cents worth: The integrity required is the self control to not respond to trolls. I suggest that the blame for ridiculously long OT troll induced threads lies not as much with the initiator as with those who respond to the troll. If there is banning to be done the respondents should be banned also. Who is the bigger fool, a troll, or someone who argues with the troll? It is clearly an option to automatically trash emails from pesky people, or, if you are afraid you'll miss something to simply read you want, but - to respond to a troll shows an obvious lack of integrity, a lack of an appropriate level concern for what you are doing to other members of the list. One of the greatest things about this list, and the internet in general, is the freedom of speech. List moderation should only be used in extreme circumstances. A little self control by list members is often enough to discourage trolls. I think Bill Beaty's laissez faire attitude with regard to moderation is a good and even necessary approach for this list, which encourages free discussion of science anomalies. If a roll tries to bully, control what you post, the best response is to simply go ahead and post what you want, and ignore any responses from the troll or bully. If numerous members of the list object, then that is another matter. If you feel action is warranted by an ISP, such as Microsoft, Google, etc. then a few simple googles will show you sites to directly report abuse to ISPs. Also, I feel compelled to note the content of vortex has gone down hill since a bunch of fake email names have showed up. This is a weak shield for a coward to hide behind, but still it encourages behavior unbecoming a scientific list. There are many services that will provide reverse lookup information for email addresses, so it is ultimately an ineffective ruse. Sometimes merely googleing an email address will yield the identity. For example, google (jth...@hotmail.com) quickly yields: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi? ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=000124 http://tinyurl.com/cre6cfd which may or may not correctly identify Jojo Jaro as Joseph Hao in Atlanta. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To visit this topic, use this URL: http://www.voiceie.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000124 Posted by Joseph Hao (Member # 3289) on June 14, 2004, 02:42 PM: Any folks out there studying for CCIE Voice Lab in Atlanta? [snip] Joseph CCIE #9273 jth...@hotmail.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In any case it seems to me the response to a troll should be to not respond, the response to frauds the opposite, to expose every flaw, and warn off victims. To bullies the response should be to do what you want and ignore the bully. The response to truly disruptive and egregious or unlawful behavior should be to use the tools provided by ISPs. The response to bad behavior under fake identities is perhaps to expose the identity - which has worked well here in the past to eliminate nonsense from a guy from down under if I recall. 8^) That's my 2 cents worth, from a member of the list for over 15 years. Resuming lurk mode. Best Regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Forbes Survey on E-Cat
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/08/the-e-cat-real-or- surreal/ 1160 respondents 44.4% yes - will perform as claimed 41.9% no - will not perform as claimed 13.7% Don't know Shocking to me that 86.3% think they know the answer, when there is no scientific basis to know the truth. Also surprising is the almost 50/50 split on yes/no. Perhaps all this points out is an obvious non-random survey bias, that it is mostly the true believers, in either direction, that care enough to respond. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Enormous current densities in nanowires
On Jan 9, 2012, at 1:39 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Ref[1] points out that certain nanowires can carry enormous current densities (~ 10^11[A/cm^2]) which vaporize macro-sized wires. In metals, this equates to ballistic electron speeds of ~ 100 km/sec - approximately the same as (0-Amp) random thermal electron velocity - far greater than a diffusive electron current drift velocity ~ 1 mm/sec - far less than relativistic speeds. When the wire diameter approaches 1 nm, nearly ballistic electon speeds are possible over lengths of several microns. In some nanowire and e-m field distributions, electrons attain inductive (not kinetic!) energies 1 MeV. Collisions with protons or nuclei can overcome the potential barrier (0.78 MeV) allowing neutron formation. Unless large (AC or DC) current flows are induced, conduction electrons will not acquire significant inductive energy - i.e., they will not acquire large effective mass - a term commonly misunderstood as relativistic mass. Here effective mass is a not a scalar, but a vector quantity measuring electron coupling to the inductive energy of the total current. It is large in direction of large current flow, while small normal to it. This my attempt at a semi-classical check on Widom-Larsen theory. It looks quite reasonable to me, but I could be mistaken. I would appreciate corrections or criticisms. Thanks, Lou Pagnucco [1] Stability of Metal Nanowires at Ultrahigh Current Densities http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0411058 You should keep in mind that in nanowires, even (laser induced) thermal pulses move at 2x10^6 m/s, the conduction band electron speed. I am sorry that I do not have the appropriate time to give to this right now. This looks like a very worthwhile and interesting discussion. I do have some differences of opinion with WL theory, as noted on pages 9 and 15 of this article: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf Following are some comments on the validity of WL theory: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html and the Larsen Widom Patent: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42900.html Too bad I have misspelled Widom as Windom consistently for a long time! The WL theory strikes me as out of touch with reality, i.e. with the likelyhood of things like neutron activation. I have heard they might be coming around to a theory more like mine, i.e. where neutrons do not actually form pre-fusion. I haven't read anything of theirs like that though. The following article might also be of interest. www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Alexandrovheavyelect.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Enormous current densities in nanowires
On Jan 9, 2012, at 8:11 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Following are some comments on the validity of WL theory: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html Lots of good questions, but my example is not ambitious enough to answer them. I just wanted to see whether classical electrons could surmount a 780 KeV barrier. As far as missing gammas and neutrons, all I can suggest is that the magnetic field encircling the ultra-high current nanowire is gigantic - I am not able to do a QED analysis. You must not have read the post. There are no questions, only assertions. I did not find any question marks. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Celani to announce a possible marker of anomalous heat production in LENR
The effect on conductivity of increasing loading of hydrogen in Pd, and its relation to temperature, i.e. the effects of electron fugacity, was discussed on pages 6-9 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf It should not be a surprise to find similar effects in other conducting lattices. The included references are important. See: 9 Bockris et al, “TRIGGERING OF HEAT AND SUB-SURFACE CHANGES IN Pd-D SYSTEMS”, The Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1993. (ICCF-4) Lahaina, Maui, Dec. 6-9, 1993, http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJtriggering.pdf 10 Storms, E., “Measurement of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-type electrolytic cell using palladium sheet”, Fusion Technology 20, P. 230, 1993 11 S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier-Boss, F. E. Gordon, “PRECURSORS AND THE FUSION REACTIONS IN POLARISED Pd/D-D2O SYSTEM: EFFECT OF AN EXTERNAL ELECTRIC FIELD”, SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, San Diego CA 92152-5001, USA, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf 12 Wikipedea article on degenerate matter, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter 13 Edmond Storms, The Science of Low Energy Nucler Reaction, World Scientific Publishing Co., 2007, P. 226 Some ideas for experimenting with electron fugacity were presented here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusionExp.pdf Some other related experimental ideas are here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Szpak.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EdgeOnGrid.pdf As the conduction bands become filled with electrons that are in effect ionically bound to absorbed hydrogen, motion of one electron necessarily requires the synchronized motion of other electrons. As loading progresses, and conduction bands are filled, electrons cease to operate as a kinetic gas, and are forced to operate in harmony, more like an incompressible liquid. This permits an energy focusing effect, which can be utilized by changing the surface potential in a negative direction, i.e. by adding more electrons. On Jan 6, 2012, at 9:56 PM, Axil Axil wrote: It seems increasingly apparent to me that the fundamental causation of the Rossi effect is an abundance of cooper pairs of protons at the surface of the nickel nano-powder. These “quantum mechanical holes” explain how radioactive nickel reaction products are avoided in the transmutation of nickel to copper as recently explained by H. Heffner here at vortex. Acting as a semi-conductor, the increase in the quantity of these coherent cooper pairs of protons as the reaction temperature increases at the surface of the nano-powder directly corresponds to the Negative Temperature Coefficient of conductivity as observed by Francesco Celani. Such phenomenon: increase in the quantity of these coherent cooper pairs of protons, is correlated with heat production and increases in direct proportion as the production of anomalous heat increases. Nano-powder produces proton “holes” at the center of each nano- granule, a well know phenomena. The absorption of hydrogen quantum mechanically organizes these protons to create coherent cooper pairs of protons which serve as potent charge carriers at the surface of the nano-powder. In other words, the increase in electrical conductivity is a direct measure of the abundance of proton cooper pairs. In the same way that electron cooper pairs support superconnectivity, proton cooper pairs reverse Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) of the resistance to a semi-conductive negative resistance regime when large amounts of Hydrogen are absorbed by nickel nano-powder thereby adding a sort of superconducting like quantum mechanical coherence to the nano-powder. On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-01-06 02:52, Harry Veeder wrote: In plain language is Celani saying he found the electrical resistance of the wire decreases with increasing temperature *if* the wire is loaded with hydrogen? Exactly, and more importantly that this phenomenon appears to be correlated with anomalous heat production (ie successful LENR experiments), so potentially materials/samples showing a more pronounced transition from a positive to negative temperature coefficient of resistance with hydrogen loading are the best ones. If confirmed, this would be a significant step forward towards excess heat reproducibility. I wonder if a Negative Temperature Coefficient is more than a marker of cold fusion but is also a precondition for cold fusion. It might be easier to create a NTC on a surface instead of inside a material and this might explain why powders have been better at producing heat consistently. Harry Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Nickel nanoantennas... its all about resonances.
On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: More evidence that we are dealing with oscillations and need to look at whether there are any harmonic relationships within the H- loaded Ni lattice, plasmons, deflated H, inverse Rydbergs, magnetic effects, etc. This relationship should be self-evident to anyone who has read my deflation fusion papers and posts. The hydrogen deflated state is increased in probability by a large electron flux through hydrogen absorbed in an atomic lattice (mesh), by high electron fugacity and large surface potentials, conditions that occur in a resonant plasmon state. Tunneling of deflated state hydrogen into adjacent nuclei is increased in probability by large magnetic fields, due to a priori spin coupling, and by the energy advantage provided by large magnetic gradients. As noted on page 2 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf this tunneling of deflated state hydrogen into heavy nuclei can result in pure zero point energy extraction, which results in an EM pulse consisting of a positive wave, due to protons escaping, followed by a negative wave due to electron orbital expansion fueled by zero point energy. It can also result in a multiple radiant pulses of electron fueled photon generation post strong force fusion, due to resonant motion of trapped electrons back and forth through the nuclei with which they are trapped, and made feasible via spin flipping when in the nucleus. The resulting nucleus based electromagnetic energy pulses can occur in femtoseconds, and are thus capable of synchronizing with a well tuned stimulating frequency, producing the possibility of direct electrical energy extraction. This effect is proportional to the product of the probability of the deflated state forming in a given oscillation times the probability of heavy nucleus tunneling of the deflated hydrogen within a cycle, and this combined effect needs to be optimized by choice of plasmon frequency, lattice (mesh) spacings, temperature, hydrogen loading, fixed external fields, etc. That is my comment for today. Not sure when I'll be able to post next. Note the statement, “…a strong magnetic behavior”, and that “the oscillations are aligned along the polarization direction of the incident light”. These are the kinds of unusual coherences that one never encounters in bulk matter, thus, all existing theoretical foundations have not had to incorporate them. Since these highly unusual coherences are not taken into consideration, theorists have concluded that the effects from these unusual arrangements are “not possible”. It could very well be that current theoretical models wouldn’t even be able to accurately model these unusual conditions. Caption from the cover: “The cover shows the near-field amplitude image of dipolar plasmon modes in nickel nanodisks. Each disk exhibits two bright spots oscillating along the polarization direction of the incident light, revealing the enhanced near-field at the rims of the nickel disks. The image was recorded by a scattering-type scanning near-field microscope (s-SNOM) within a study of the optical and magnetic properties of nickel nanostructures. An interesting dual functionality is observed: a strong magnetic behavior is identified together with a clear plasmonic response, which could be a useful building block for future biotechnological and optoelectronic applications, where active control of the functional components is required. For more information, please read the Full Paper “Plasmonic Nickel Nanoantennas” by R. Hillenbrand and co-workers” -Mark Iverson Nickel-nanoantennas.jpg Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
On Jan 2, 2012, at 4:24 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Hi Horace, I noticed that the sums of the released photons plus the terms in brackets are close, but not really the same. Why? What is the meaning of that sum? I cannot figure out, I'm sorry. The sums in brackets are estimates of the initial energy deficits due to the trapped electrons. E = x*(Z-x)*(1.44E-9 ev m)/r r = 0.85*(1.25E-15 m) * A^(1/3) ] The reactions you discuss are posted and discussed in the The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle article here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf These deficits are calculated based on 2 simultaneous trapped electrons, as opposed to one at a time trapping that I compute for thousands of of potential initial strong reactions here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt as well as the in the various strong force only equations in the The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle article, and for Pd reactions here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PdFusion.pdf The formula used for computing the initial electron trapping energy is provided at the end of various reports in the dfRpt page. When more than one electron can be trapped at a time, or weak reactions occur in the process, then things get complicated. Mutiple scenarios evolve that end up with the same final reaction energy, but differing trapping energies. I only provide one computation to check feasibility of the trapping reaction, and thus the feasibility of follow-on weak reactions. I should note that the trapping energies I provide in brackets in my equations are approximations. The trapping energy can be greatly increased depending on the nature of the deflated state prior to tunneling into the nucleus. Further, all the variables involved are stochastic. Electron trapping and the impact of the resulting energy deficit, especially the impact on branching ratios, was discussed on pages 2-10 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf The trapping energy for single electron reactions, (Z-1) (1.44 x 10-9 ev m) / r, is discussed in the above. This provides an energy deficit that can only be made up from the zero point field. The energy deficit from deflation fusion was also discussed on p. 10 ff of http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf The initial Coulomb trapping energy formula for multiple simultaneous electron trapping is given in the referenced report: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PdFusion2.pdf as follows: Note: Deflated Electectron binding energy computed using E = x*(Z-x)* (1.44E-9 ev m)/r [ Initial average electron nuclear radius r estimated using r = 0.85* (1.25E-15 m) * A^(1/3) ] Here x is the number of deflated hydrogen atoms added simultaneously. This is the formula noted above. This estimate of the initial trapping energy can be way too low, depending on the nature of the deflated state prior to tunneling. I should also note, that if two electrons are initially involved, i.e. one in the heavy nucleus, and one in the deflated state hydrogen, that the initial magnetic potential probably should be subtracted from the binding energy, because this energy may be imparted in part as kinetic to the electron/proton pair upon tunneling. When only an electron and ordninary heavy nucleus magnetic moment are involved I think this correction is not important. I could of course have clerical errors. 2011/12/17 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net Deflation fusion theory provides a potential solution to the riddle of why the radioactive byproducts 59CU29, 61Cu29 and 62Cu29 to the Ni + p reactions do not appear in Rossi's byproducts. This solution of the specific radioactive byproducts problem is manifest if the following rules are obeyed by the environment, except in extremely improbable instances: 1. The initial wavefunction collapse involves the Ni nucleus plus two p* 2. As with all LENR, radioactive byproducts are energetically disallowed. Here p* represents a deflated hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton and electron in a magnetically bound orbital, and v represents a neutrino. The above two rules result in the following energetically feasible reactions: 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV [-1.842] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV [-11.657] 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV [-8.777] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev [-3.560] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843] Ni28 + 2 p
Re: [Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
On Jan 2, 2012, at 7:10 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Alright, so the most probable reactions are those that minimize the energy spent at any given time. That is, those that require the least binding energy for the deflated proton. But, shouldn't that mean that Ni58 is the one that gives more energy? After all the number in bracket is the smallest energy in the bracket. First, each reaction line on page 1 is independent of the others. What happens to 58Ni is independent of what happens to other isotopes, and only dependent on its abundance in the lattice. The trapping energy only ensures that follow-on weak reactions are feasible. Note the large energy deficits and thus trapping energy that immediately results when one of the electrons is absorbed into a neutron. In any case, the bottom line is the reaction: 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085] produces comparatively little enthalpy because about 18.5 MeV is carried away by the two neutrinos. It is by far the most energetic reaction channel compared to the alternatives: 58Ni28 + p* -- 59Cu29 # + 3.419 MeV [-4.867 MeV] 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 56Ni28 # + 4He2 + 5.829 MeV [-10.650 MeV] 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Zn30 # + 8.538 MeV [-7.941 MeV] given the assumption that the initial intermediate nucleus was formed by a Ni+2p* reaction. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Out for a while
I have to take care of a rental in Anchorage that was just vacated. Makes me a little nervous considering Gene Mallove's history with that kind of thing. I will not be able to follow things here for a while. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
be considered an indication of the feasibility of commercial application. Impurities seem to be key, as do nano- structures. It has to be asked if perfect lattices are actually an impediment to the nuclear catalysis. In fact, it is reasonable to ask if perhaps all energy producing NAEs are non-lattices? Perhaps the surrounding lattice material could be replaced with disordered glass to the same effect. So little is known with certainty, and generally agreed upon, experimentally supported, regarding NAEs, that it is not possible to say with certainty that lattices are required or even catalytically involved at all. Until perfect models of the various forms of nuclear catalysis are formed, the random nature of glasses and highly imperfect, non- lattice, surface films may be of great use in increasing the reliability, the repeatability, of experiments. Such repeatability may be of use in developing useful models, and even lead to commercial processes. In review, here I'll treat the heavy atom transmutation deflation fusion as a process (which it may actually not be) and break it down into the most simple steps possible, assuming there is a net energy deficit created in the process. 1. A small hydrogen state, with ordinary chemical energy, call it the deflated state, precedes subsequent steps. Such a state exists periodically in ordinary hydrogen containing molecules, because even the Schrödinger equation, with its limitations in the regard to relativistic states, magnetic binding, or mutually orbiting heavy electrons and nuclei, predicts the electron to be close enough to the nucleus on occasion. My theory shows the duration of this close proximity can be extended due to magnetic dipole attraction, external electric fields, and relativistic effects, without net energy changes. The probability of this state is increased by bathing absorbed hydrogen in electron currents by various proposed means. 2. The neutral small hydrogen, the deflated hydrogen, tunnels into an adjacent lattice nucleus. The neutral charge eliminates the tunneling barrier, thus greatly increases the hopping rate into the nearby atom over the ordinary hopping rate between the much more separated lattice sites. The size and other physical parameters of the deflated hydrogen state are unaffected by the tunneling process itself. No radiation occurs as a result of the neutral particle ensemble tunneling. 3. The strong force binds the proton. The electron is trapped because it still has a small kinetic energy, but now has a huge negative potential energy. In the case of Ni the electron suddenly has 29 times less potential energy than it did in the pre-fusion deflated sate, because it is attracted to a nucleus that now, instead of containing a single positive charge, contains the 28 Ni protons plus the deflated hydrogen proton. 4. The trapped electron moves about in or very near the nucleus, radiating photons. 5. The trapped electron is either involved in a very fast electron capture, or its kinetic energy drained away sufficiently, i.e. its wavelength is expanded sufficiently by zero point energy, to occupy an orbital, generating auger effects, or it is involved with virtual strange quark pairs. A quick review: 1. Deflated state hydrogen 2. Tunneling state 3. Initial trapped electron state, fused nucleus state 4. Electron radiating state 5. Final state: auger orbital, electron capture by up quark, or strange reaction This 5 step process is non-reversible because the strong force prevents a reversal. There is no way to go back to state 2 from state 3. The field energy of the fused, heavy nucleus bound, proton is negated by superposition with the trapped electron. The binding energy of the electron has increased by a factor of 29, while the kinetic energy it brings to the transaction remains fixed. The *initial* net energy deficit is then equal to the fusion energy plus the electron energy deficit. The net energy in state 3 is the net energy I show in brackets in the reaction equations in my reports. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion device for pB11 fusion? This is a different use of the term degenerate state. The more specific term there is Fermi degeneracy as opposed to degenerate quantum states, which describes linked quantum states of the same energy, dual states of existence, states which require no energy for transition and which release no radiant energy upon transition. Fermi degeneracy occurs in stars when the density is so high that Fermi pressure prevents further collapse. Fermi pressure is said to be due to the fact that only one Fermion can occupy a given quantum state. It is also true that electrons in metals with absorbed hydrogen can, as the percent absorbed hydrogen increases to a sufficient level, occupy all the available quantum states. Electrons in this state are also said to be degenerate. I wrote about the possible relevance of this to cold fusion in the ELECTRON FUGACITY section of my I.E. cold fusion paper, page 6 ff, and in other places: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf Now, coincidentally, or not so much, outward orbital pressure is a result of quantum uncertainty. As an electron orbital is compressed, the Heisenberg principle results in a kinetic energy increase which manifests as (outward) pressure. It is this pressure in fact, that establishes the ground state energy and size of hydrogen atoms (and many other states.) It is this pressure, and given the volume displacement involved, energy, that I say can reinflate the orbital of trapped electrons, electrons that escape the heavy nucleus that traps them, when they do not have the kinetic energy to escape otherwise. This uncertainty pressure can be referred to as Schroedinger pressure or quantum pressure. I think it is also sometimes referred to as Fermi pressure. There is an intimate relationship between Schrodinger pressure and the Casimir force. I see these as different sides of the same coin, i.e of zero point energy. The two effects come into play in the formation of EV's, electron charge clusters, for example. See Puthoff's article: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0408114 The (expansive) energy due to Schrodinger pressure of the hydrogen atom, not so coincidentally, just balances the (contractive) Coulomb force energy at the Bohr radius, and this is a minimum energy state, thus a stable state. However, at the Bohr radius, the magnetic force and potential between the electron and nucleus are near zero and ignored. Also, the particles are not relativistic. At a small radius the magnetic binding energy can overcome the Coulomb binding energy and the Schrodinger pressure, at least momentarily. The Schrodinger kinetic energy of a hydrogen electron is a stochastic variable. This magnetic binding can happen for a short time but also at a high frequency, depending on lattice conditions. In a magnetic orbital the uncertainty energy of the electron decreases by a factor of 1/gamma of the electron, and the inverse square of r. As r decreases gamma increases. In the small orbital radii shown in my computations, the de Broglie wavelengths of the electron and nucleating body do not even overlap. Schoredinger pressure is entirely eliminated by relativistic effects, i.e. by the increase in electron and nuclear mass. This greatly increases the feasible lifetime of the configuration. When the highly magnetically bound electron plus nucleus jointly tunnel into a heavy nucleus, no kinetic energy is gained or lost via this tunneling process of the neutral ensemble, other than the magnetic potential with the nucleus. The hydrogen nucleus binds with the heavy nucleus by the strong force. This leaves the electron with insufficient kinetic energy to escape the nucleus. It is still magnetically bound with the nearby nuclear constituents, all of which have nuclear magnetic moments, and now suddenly bound by the Coulomb force of numerous protons. This creates an initial energy deficit from the tunneling action, and a newly fused nucleus. I hope this makes some sense of these concepts and does not merely confuse everything. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Yes, it does makes sense. But I would suggest you to study Takahashi's model. Your idea seems to work to explain what happens to the electrons in Phase III of his theory, that is, when the tetrahedron collapses. It is not clear to me what happens to the electrons. I pointed out Lerner's theory because it is about ground state of Landau's quantization. Some time ago I did this calculation, and at non relativistic regime around 10fm. The magnetic field is around 10 trillion Tesla. Check it out. If you look at the spread sheet I provided in 2007, you will see the magnetic field of the electron on the deuteron in the D+e deflated state is given as 4.0210e+14 T: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf I was there when he first proposed this more recent version of his theory. There is more to cold fusion than D+D--He, or multiples thereof. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going into the right direction. But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays. You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced. You don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are released from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
What part do you not understand: a. the mechanism of trapping of the post fusion nuclear electron b. the low energy state of the post fusion nuclear electron c. the mechanism by which the trapped electron absorbs the fusion energy d. why the fusion energy is not sufficient to eject the post fusion nuclear electron e. the ability of the post fusion trapped nuclear electron to radiate Just to be clear, I am talking about my theory here, deflation fusion, not any other. I think these things have been described in my articles, but often when I look back I find material that was posted but not included in any article, but which I had assumed was included in an article. Sometimes it takes me months to find things, and in the interim I think maybe they were figments of my imagination. On Dec 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: I didn't understand this part from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going into the right direction. But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays. You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced. You don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are released from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:15 AM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice. How can the ground state be degenerate? Do you have any arguments using bra-ket notation? There are two orbital modes, one the normal atomic mode, the other the deflated state mode. The mean orbital radius of the two states differs, and differs for multiple circumnavigations of the nucleus. They are distinct sates. It takes no energy to hop between the two states, and no radiation occurs between states. The two states are thus degenerate. The two states are, or should be, part of the same Hamiltonian. However, absorbed hydrogen is not like atomic or molecular hydrogen. There is not room at a normal lattice site for either atomic or molecular hydrogen orbitals. The electron (statistically) associated with the absorbed hydrogen is essentially ionically bonded, populates conduction bands. The partial orbital structure I think exists there differs from ordinary molecular orbitals, that the electrons involved have a dual conduction band and partial orbital existence. For some notes from 1999 see p. 13 ff of: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PartOrb.pdf This analysis has a significant relationship with degenerate lattice electrons . Unfortunately, it has been long overdue for a rewrite, and melding with the rest of my theory. In any case, on top of having to account for relativistic effects, and magnetic binding potentials, this kind of *additional* electron dual existence makes defining a Hamiltonian difficult. Preferable to what for describing what? Isn't the Takahashi approach preferable to the deflation fusion approach Preferable for describing what? Preferable for answering which questions regarding the lack of signature events, or conservation of energy? because it maintains the standard model? The only reference to deflated hydrogen comes from vortex. I assume you mean the problem is deflation fusion theory only comes from an amateur? As for external references, did you not see the reference I provided you to Deflation Fusion, Speculations Regarding the Nature of Cold Fusions, Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14, Issue 80, July/August 2008: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf The table of contents is here: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue80/index.html Also, see Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions, Journal of Nuclear Physics (Nuclear experiments blog), March 28, 2010: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=179 The pdf version is no longer available there without authorization, but I keep a copy here in which some typos etc are fixed: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf Perhaps you are referring to Journals referencing my work? No chance of *that* happening! Huge numbers of atoms are involved in heavy element transmutation. Can you imagine Bockris' surprise when he found them? there was no prior indication that such energetic events were taking place. I see. There really are several phenomena all confusingly anomalous! Yes, much more anomalous than deuterium fusion. I would guess people want more math. It's hard to convey over email, but I have a solution for that I'll write up this weekend. I do not think the problem is a lack of math. The problem is that I have not explained the processes with enough simplicity that a child can follow them. I sincerely doubt that anyone on this list, at any rate, wants or needs more math for convincing. Math only obscures the underlying concepts. I've never heard a scientist express this sentiment before. For me, I find rather the opposite. My eyes glaze over when confronted by paragraph after paragraph of prose, without equations to really explain what's going on. I don't think children should understand this material! You should keep in mind that I am an amateur writing for an amateur audience. As I wrote on my web page: It has been said ideas are only one percent inspiration vs the 99 percent that is perspiration. Given that, if anything here provides even 1 percent of the inspiration for something truly important to mankind, then the effort has all been worthwhile. Similarly, if the outlandish thoughts here make anyone, especially a self learning physics student like me, question what we really know about the universe, and that leads on to meaningful investigations, then that too makes the effort worthwhile. If a concept is flawed, why is it flawed? I think in the end, if deflation fusion concepts are useful for leading the way to any successful experiments and devices
Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-
mean that such an orbital is possible. 2) It is a far cry from the intent of the original author that you quoted, who proposed applying an external magnetic field. This is becoming a form of circular reasoning: If we had a strong field we could force the electron into a tight orbital that would then produce a strong magnetic field. Perhaps the Lenz effect means that what one is actually calculating may be the degree to which the electron fights the field, i.e. the field strength one would need to enforce to ensure that the electron remained in the orbital? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-
I wrote: However, if they are in orbitals, they align with opposed spin, like so: N S | | S N which is still an attracting mode. I should note that should say opposed poles, not opposed spin. A nucleus with negative mu has spin reversed with respect to the poles. I explained this on page 14 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-
On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:58 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Horace: The reference to the chicken-n-egg was not with your theory... sorry for the misunderstanding. My mistake. Sorry. Any excuse to post on my theory. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Last Chance - Submit Your Nominations NOW
Hi Frank, Nomination categories are: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal and Hydropower. No free energy or nuclear energy categories. On Dec 30, 2011, at 1:16 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: vote for me -Original Message- From: RenewableEnergyWorld.com no-re...@web.renewableenergyworld.com To: Frank Znidarsic Website Contact fznidar...@aol.com Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2011 11:35 am Subject: Last Chance - Submit Your Nominations NOW Having trouble viewing this email - Click HERE Presented by the editors of RenewableEnergyWorld.com and Renewable Energy World North America magazine, these awards recognize the most outstanding projects, programs and technologies in the wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric technology sectors. Awards will be presented in the following categories: Projects of the Year — Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Bioenergy and Hydropower Innovation — Technology, Finance, Policy Leadership — Technology, Finance, Policy Readers' Choice — Readers get a chance to select one winner for the coveted Readers' Choice Award Submit Nominations Today — Click HERE! All winners in all categories will be announced LIVE at Renewable Energy World North America Conference Expo/Solar POWER-GEN Conference Exhibition in Long Beach, California on Feb 14-16, 2012. All Nominations Must Be Submitted By Midnight Eastern Time on December 31st, 2011. For more information visit: RenewableEnergyWorld.com/rea/awards/2012 You are invited to view this message because you are a registered reader of RenewableEnergyWorld.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails please click here to manage your subscription or send an email to rem...@renewableenergyworld.com Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle Update
On Dec 28, 2011, at 3:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:17:21 -0900: Hi, [snip] It is notable that the radioactive isotopes of these elements tend to have nonzero nuclear magnetic moments. ...notable perhaps, but hardly surprising. Pair forming results in stability, hence nuclei with unpaired particles tend to be less stable, i.e. frequently radioactive. Pair forming also results in cancellation of magnetic moments (which is the very reason for the stability in the first place). [snip] This tendency provides some degree of explanation for the mysterious tendency for 2H, 4H, and 6H transmutations, where none exists otherwise. Here “H” means any isotope of hydrogen. ...I assume you mean that none otherwise would exist within your theory. Hydrino molecules provide at least one other explanation for particle pairs, and Axil's notion of entanglement may provide another (though it rubs me the wrong way ;). Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle Update
Sorry for the prior accidental post with no new content. On Dec 28, 2011, at 3:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:17:21 -0900: Hi, [snip] It is notable that the radioactive isotopes of these elements tend to have nonzero nuclear magnetic moments. ...notable perhaps, but hardly surprising. Pair forming results in stability, hence nuclei with unpaired particles tend to be less stable, i.e. frequently radioactive. Pair forming also results in cancellation of magnetic moments (which is the very reason for the stability in the first place). [snip] Yes of course, hardly surprising. I should have said *why* it was notable. I added: This increases their chances of attracting a deflated hydrogen, and thus transmuting into a stable isotope. This tendency provides some degree of explanation for the mysterious tendency for 2H, 4H, and 6H transmutations, where none exists otherwise. Here “H” means any isotope of hydrogen. ...I assume you mean that none otherwise would exist within your theory. Hydrino molecules provide at least one other explanation for particle pairs, and Axil's notion of entanglement may provide another (though it rubs me the wrong way ;). Good point. I changed the statement to: This tendency provides some degree of explanation for the mysterious tendency for 2H, 4H, and 6H transmutations, where none exists otherwise in published theories, as noted by Storms. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 28, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples where the binding energy of a proton is negative. 1. Protium. 2. Helium. Bingo. But do not miss the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that we are only interested in the strong force interaction of two protons in 2-space. They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not realize that this reaction is strongly endothermic. This is false. Consider: H + H -- D + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV This is followed by: e- + e+ -- 2 gamma + 1.02 MeV This is not different in result from: H + H -- D + v + 2 gamma + 1.44 MeV The key to understanding the overcoming of the Coulomb barrier is the realization that absorbed hydrogen is neither molecular or atomic. Electrons can pass close to to the protons, and thus form strong momentary magnetic bonds via spin coupling. Of course the above reactions have a low probability of occurrence. There are many reactions far more likely to occur if lattice elements are involved. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptH These result in most cases with follow-on weak reactions that further increase the net energy. With the other elements involved in Ni-H (nickel and/or a dielectric) there is almost zero probability of a proton getting close enough to react with any Ni nuclei (or other high Z nuclei). This is wrong if you include the possibility that a proton and electron jointly tunnel to the nucleus. In short, the only thing we should be concerned with, in trying to explaining Rossi/DGT thermal gain - is how do protons in dense accumulations interact with each other, This is mistaken. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf in order to produce excess energy without much gamma radiation (some but not much) and without much transmutation (some but not much). If an electron is in the nucleus to begin with the EM field disruption ejects the electron instead of radiating. The electron then radiates the energy in smaller packets, because it is energetically trapped. Fusion is completely ruled out since the reactants are far too cold. This is false. This is a denial of LENR in general. There is experimental evidence of heavy element transmutations in protium experiments. This could not happen if reactants being cold were a valid reason for denial. It is a mistake to think that gammas can be shielded by low density elements. This would be too easy to demonstrate, if it were true. This I agree with. This kind of shielding was the only claim permitted by the examiner in the WL patent. It was accepted without experimental evidence. That is the point that my proposed dynamic interaction: strong force plus negative binding energy between protons, strives to explain. There is excess energy in a way that convention nuclear physics cannot describe because there is minimal mass-energy conversion per nuclei per reaction. Let me reiterate that it is not precisely a nuclear reaction, in that the energy comes from non-quark nuclear mass. I call it subnuclear, since protium has substantial excess mass which is non-quantized. Only the quark mass is quantized, and that is but a fraction of total nuclear mass, even in protium. Jones I must have missed this. I only read a portion of the posts now. When the content no longer matches the thread name, or is preceded by technical content free discussion, I am likely to miss it. Did you calculate the energy of your proposed reactions? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On Dec 29, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-12-29 01:57 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-12-28 08:40 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: Unless I'm greatly mistaken, you've accused a number of people of failing to exist. The only allegation of non existence I've ever made is the non- existence of a proper and credible experiment that proves that the E-cat works as advertised. Of that, I'm quite sure. The other non-existence attributes I've alleged are only potential -- as in: Rossi's anonymous customer may not exist or may be associated with Rossi. -- to give an example. I've never accused anyone of fraud in conjunction with Rossi and Defkalion. I have, however, pointed to Steorn as an example of something which developed similarly and appears very similar and clearly is a fraud -- which has been crystal clear for at least two years. I have said many times that Rossi and Defkalion could be frauds. I think the probability that they are is quite significant. It's an opinion-- not a statement of facts. Having said all that, Stephen, please prove you exist. That's a tough one. Descartes's proof was defective, of course -- it proved only that I do not see how I could not exist, not that I could not possibly not exist. Among other issues with his proof, the rules of inference with which he was working are an assumption, akin to an axiom, and can't be proven. If you accept the causal nature of the universe then that which is not can not create that which is not. If you deny a causal universe then there can be no meaning in anything, especially logical philosophical discussion. The premises of logic do not hold. Logical discussion is not possible. I create therefore I am. If you agree with the existence of my creation then you agree with my existence. These words are my creation. Do you have a response? 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 10:57 PM 12/28/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: Wow. Rossi had better hope he doesn't get the same examiner. (Particularly failure to disclose best mode -- which doesn't even have to be active concealment). All the prior art stuff is well done. A couple of quibbles ... rather fatal to pre-Rossi CF. Paper 9 Page 16 : absence of whole body radiation -- which doesn't seem to happen in Pd-D (At least Rossi needs shielding) Page 19 : identical testing apparatus must give exact result data per settled case law'. -- still too much material-variation in CF. (Surely SOME experimental error / equipment variation is allowed? ) I think it means within reasonable error bars, as opposed to sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Says there is no reputable evidence of record supporting CF ... but leaves the door open with evidence to indicate appellant has so succeeded where others have failed. In short, I think Rossi COULD pass the technical stuff IF he discloses best mode. Yes, if it works as advertised. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not realize that this reaction is strongly endothermic. This is false. Consider: H + H -- D + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV That is half the story. You neglect the threshold condition. I certainly do not ignore the threshold condition. Did you even bother to read the reference? IOW this reaction is meaningless to consider for any form of LENR or even Tokomak fusion, since it does NOT take into account the required threshold condition. Not to mention the neutrino carries away the bulk of energy, so it is endothermic in the sense of being able to sustain a continuing reaction. It takes nominal energy to accommodate deflation fusion, and zero energy to form the deflated state. IOW this reaction cannot happen outside of massive gravity conditions (solar, or else and earthly accelerator that can never reach breakeven). The threshold temperature for protium fusion is on the order of 10,000,000 K (10 million degrees Kelvin). Rossi is getting excess heat at a threshold of about 500 K. In a gas or vacuum yes, in a lattice I would expect a very very small amount, as I noted in my article and repeated here. A very very small amount. A very very small amount. A very very small amount. A very very small amount. I also noted that ... this gamma producing reaction was not observed above background in the Rossi E-cats. Big difference. There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. Jones Hydrogen fusion with hydrogen - yes. Hydrogen fusion with heavy elements - there is evidence, if it if Rossi's circus is not all boondoggle. You are merely making a straw man argument here. You make the straw man, you tear it down. You ignore the important issues. As explained in my article, I think these are the feasible reactions: 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV [-1.842] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV [-11.657] 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV [-8.777] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev [-3.560] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843] Ni28 + 2 p* --- Ni28 + 2 1H1 + 0 MeV [+6 Mev ZPE] and of these, the following are the primary energy producing reactions: 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918] It is not possible to tell at this point what proportion of the energy might come from the purely zero point energy fueled interaction. If it is the great majority, then little isotopic shift would be observed, especially for short experiments. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012
On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-12-29 12:02 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-12-29 01:57 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: Having said all that, Stephen, please prove you exist. That's a tough one. Descartes's proof was defective, of course -- it proved only that I do not see how I could not exist, not that I could not possibly not exist. Among other issues with his proof, the rules of inference with which he was working are an assumption, akin to an axiom, and can't be proven. If you accept the causal nature of the universe Ahem. Correlation is not causality. Repeated correlation is not proof of causality. Causality can, in fact, never be proved for any real events, and the existence of causality in our mental model of the universe is not proof that causality plays a role in the universe itself. then that which is not can not create that which is [not?]. If you deny a causal universe then there can be no meaning in anything, especially logical philosophical discussion. The premises of logic do not hold. Well that was kind of the point -- the premises of logic are just that, premises. They are something we assume. Assuming them turns ones own existence into something of a tautology. If we don't assume them, on the other hand, then we we can't conclude anything, including that we, ourselves, exist. Logical discussion is not possible. I create therefore I am. If you agree with the existence of my creation then you agree with my existence. These words are my creation. Do you have a response? 8^) Do your words exist, or do I just think they do? Do my thoughts exist, or am I merely confused? Or am I? If you accept Aristotelean logic, and you acknowledge my statements, you thus acknowledge my existence. I acknowledge your statements, thus I acknowledge your existence. This of course says nothing about our physical nature or location though. Perhaps we are merely subtask clusters in a great parallel computer. Given that the universe is stochastic in nature at its fundamental level, perhaps Aristotelean logic is not justifiable, thus only Bayesian inference is justifiable. Since you acknowledge my statements, you thereby acknowledge the significant probability of my existence. I acknowledge your statements, thus I acknowledge the significant probability of your existence. This of course says nothing about our physical nature or location though. Perhaps we are merely subnetworks in a great quantum computer, or at least one of us is. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-
On Dec 29, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Primarily for the theorists in the Collective… This from the Ni-H yahoo group... -Mark I try to explain it: All you have to do is, to put the electron from the H-atom nearer to the nucleus and Fusion will happen. From the K-electron capture from Be-7 I know, that a faktor 4 is enough. So, how can this be done? Idea comes from Muon, where it is proved, so just enhance the effective mass of the surrounding electron. Vektorpotential A = 1/2 B * r (B orthogonal A, B=const, r is distance) For Fusion, A = sqr(5.405961)*mc/e=0.004 Tesla*meter (to enlarge elektron energy about 782.333keV from proton to Neutron) and from this B=0.008 Tesla (r=1m). For a 5 cm chamber diameter, it is B = 0.16 Tesla (if I am right :-)). Iron is also important, because it has a high Curie temperature. For Nickel is T Curie 360 Celsius, for Iron T Curie 768 Celsius. So, the iron in the chamber enlarges the magnetic field from outside by about a factor 1000. Dietmar Something being overlooked here is that a single iron atom in a nano- cluster of about 100 Ni atoms can magnetize the entire cluster, without an external field. Add a bit of iron (and in some cases copper) to the Ni, heat treat with hydrogen, and you have mu metal. This can increase the permeability by a factor of 40! See my comments on this at: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59662.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.html There are many forms of mu metal. I noted a specific mu metal composition as an example: 80% Ni, 14% Fe, 5% Mo, 0.5% Mn, plus trace S, Si, C, P. This is a very good protium cold fusion lattice prospect. Curie temp about 454°C. The saturation induction is surprisingly low though, at 7500 gauss. Permeability is 325,000! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 29, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Complete nonsense. I like your candor! 8^) The monitor used by Rossi's team in January is specifically designed to detect positrons, which must be there if there is to be H+H fusion. None were detected. Yes. I stated this in my article: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf All other forms of fusion with nickel produce radioisotopes of varying half-lives - easy to detect - which Rossi himself claims are absent, and no test has found them either. Not true. Did you see my reaction set and their justification? Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. Jones How about the detection of gammas by Celani on start-up and shut down? Celani is credible. The gammas admittedly could be faked. From: Jed Rothwell There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. Really? The highest quality testing which was performed in Bologna was radiation monitoring. You would not catch cold fusion Pd D+D reactions with this. They do not produce radiation. I presume H+H would also not produce radiation. I presume it forms deuterium, which is difficult to look for, because it is ubiquitous. I do not know anyone working with Ni +H who has looked for it. - Jed Metal + H can create heavy transmutations. These should be far more probable than hydrogen plus hydrogen reactions, provided the species of hydrogen involved have zero net charge, or less. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHreviewoftr.pdf and for some amusement on the side: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEalchemynig.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:high altitude airships now flight testing: Rich Murray 2011.12.29
On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 10:10 AM 12/29/2011, Rich Murray wrote: high altitude airships now flight testing: Rich Murray 2011.12.29 Fascinating stuff : the weather / piloting http:// airshipstothearctic.com/docs/pr/Weather_and_Piloting.pdf was particularly interesting Dynamic monte-carlo weather simulation route-adjustment. And to keep it on topic . https://vortex.saic.com The notion of flying airships through passes in the Alaska range, as shown in one of the frames, strikes me as out of touch with reality. Mountain passes here are dangerous and unpredictable moment to moment even for high power to volume prop aircraft. In the 1960's I worked for a company that evaluated the use of blimps to transport natural gas from the North Slope of Alaska to the lower 48. Natural gas is lighter than air. This is or will be likely economically viable, if the danger of flying tons of hazardous stuff to unchosen locations is ignored. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method available, other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital description has gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's. The addition of spin coupling magnetic considerations puts the complexity over the top, as far as I know. I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt, experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have. but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept. However, the deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics. Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi? I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am. In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -- intermediate product -- 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D -- X + 4He nuclear catalysis idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the massive heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary. Any such theory that is adequate to do this can not assume neutrons precede the cold fusion reactions, because neither neutron activation nor radioactive byproducts are observed except in very small amounts that do not correspond to the overall transmutation rate. I think heavy element transmutation is where the essence of the field lies. It is unfortunate so much thinking is focused on D+D. Perhaps it is assumed that since D+D is difficult to explain, that X+H or X+D is far more difficult or impossible to explain, or even does not exist. This I think is far from the truth. The most critical impediments are tunneling distance and tunneling energy. These are impediments overcome by the shorter distance to lattice atoms from lattice sites, and the net energy gain to be had from the tunneling of deflated state hydrogen. Heavy element transmutation is far more credible and probable to me than direct hydrogen + hydrogen fusion. Perhaps the latter does not even happen to any significant degree. The lack of conservation of energy, both on the positive and negative sides, is explained by the trapped electron concept, which is also not conventional thinking, but rather part of the deflation fusion concept. The trapped electron can kinetically absorb the initial EM pulse of the strong nuclear reaction, radiate in small increments, and be involved in follow-on weak reactions with greatly elevated probabilities due to extended lingering time. In some cases it may help induce fission. Understanding the trapping mechanism in the first place, once tunneling is accepted, is high school physics. Understanding how the electron can escape without a weak reaction, however, takes some understanding of zero point energy. My theory is really just common sense. I am surprised that it is so non-palatable. I have assumed that is because my writing skills are so bad and because I need pictures. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at all though. Many cold fusion theories are only accepted by their authors. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 29, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Charles Hope wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, I think ultimately it can. I know of no analytic method available, other than possibly FEA. Naudt's relativistic orbital description has gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's. The addition of spin coupling magnetic considerations puts the complexity over the top, as far as I know. I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt, experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment dictates. Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education, this is the only choice I have. but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it? No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept. However, the deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics. How so? It sounds like an electron level below the ground state, forbidden by QM. The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice. A prolonged small state is only forbidden by QM if magnetic binding force and energy is excluded from the Hamiltonian. I provided the deflated deuteron calculation as reference 3 in Deflation Fusion, Speculations Regarding the Nature of Cold Fusions, Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14, Issue 80, July/August 2008: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf It references this spread sheet: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf I later provided the additional deflated state calculations: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf These are of course all rough approximations, but they demonstrate the main points. I expect to improve the calculations using custom code soon. Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi? I see no use in criticizing Takahashi. I gather it is culturally difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me. No need to be even more socially insensitive than I already am. Sorry, I didn't mean criticism of him personally, but his theory. The difference is indiscernible. Doesn't it have less New Physics, and so should be preferable? Preferable to what for describing what? In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -- intermediate product -- 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D -- X + 4He nuclear catalysis idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the massive heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary. I thought I understood you a few days ago to mean that the energy difference (23MeV?) typically seen as a gamma ray, here is seen as heat. That was my interpretation when you said the heat was the correct quantity to the helium. That is correct, or correct to an approximation, as far as it goes. Here you are referring to helium creation. This is the focus of many theories. I can not emphasize enough that this is a tiny portion of the field to be explored. The extreme energy anomalies, COE violations, are not associated with the helium production itself. The heat from He production was measured to 23 MeV within experimental error, i.e about 50% if I recall. What is missing is the energy, and the giant signatures, that should have accompanied the Pd transmutations which occur simultaneously. This missing energy and the missing signatures are associated with Pd+D experiments, as well as numerous other cold fusion heavy element transmutation modes, including protium initiated modes. Those who look for heavy element transmutations, even in the original Fleischmann and Pons type experiment, find them, even when they don't expect them. For example, see Table 1 in: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEalchemynig.pdf There are references to heavy isotopes in Storm's book and some
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace Ø Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. How about the detection of gammas by Celani on start-up and shut down? Celani is credible. The gammas admittedly could be faked. Yes Celani is credible, but this is evidence of a startup device and nothing more. He admits as much. I seem to recall the gammas occurred at cool down too. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle Update
I continue to update The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf The most recent addition is the following section: THE MYSTERY OF 2 H, 4 H AND 6 H TRANSMUTATIONS One of the mysteries of deuterium cold fusion transmutation is why 1, 2, 4, or 6 atoms are added to the lattice elements. (See Storms, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, p. 175) There are also mysteries regarding the apparent preference of pair-wise proton additions to heavy nuclei, as discussed above in relation to Ni + 2 p. Deflation fusion provides some answers in this regard. Following are some isotopes commonly involved in LENR transmutation experiments and their nuclear magnetic moments: 47TI-0.78848 49Ti-1.10417 57Fe+0.0906 57Fe+0.0906 59Co+4.63 61Ni-.75002 87Sr-1.09360 91Zr-1.30362 105Pd-0.642 107Ag-0.11357 109Ag-0.13056 133Cs+2.582 135Ba+0.838 137Ba+0.9374 195Pt+0.6095 197Au+0.14575 The remaining common isotopes of these elements, namely 84Sr, 86Sr, 88Sr, 46Ti, 48TI, 50Ti, 54Fe, 58Fe, 59Fe, 58Ni, 60Ni, 62Ni, 64Ni, 84Sr, 86Sr, 88Sr, 90Zr, 92Zr, 94Zr, 96Zr, 102Pd, 104Pd, 106Pd, 108Pd, 110Pd, 130Ba, 132Ba, 134Ba, 136Ba , 138Ba, 190Pt, 192Pt, 194Pt, 196Pt and 198Pt, have zero magnetic moments. It is notable that the radioactive isotopes of these elements tend to have nonzero nuclear magnetic moments. Nuclear magnetic moments are expressed in units of the nuclear magneton, mu_N, where: mu_N = e h_bar/(2 m_p) = 5.05078324x10^-27 J/T In contrast to the above heavy nucleus nuclear magnetic moments, the magnetic moment of the electron, in terms of mu_N is 1836.1528, about 3 orders of magnitude larger. Elements with positive magnetic moments have nuclear magnetic moments aligned with their spins, as do protons. Elements with negative magnetic moments have nuclear magnetic moments opposed to their spins, as do neutrons. It is common sense that tunneling of deflated hydrogen, with its large magnetic moment, due to its included electron, into a nucleus having a nuclear magnetic moment is energetically feasible due to magnetic attraction. What is of more interest is the involvement of isotopes with zero magnetic moment in heavy element transmutation. It is proposed above that electrons of heavy nuclei occasionally enter those nuclei, thus providing a large momentary nuclear magnetic moment, and thus triggering tunneling of deflated hydrogen into the nucleus. The initial electron, having a large kinetic energy, can be expected to quickly depart during the ensuing process, leaving only the trapped electron behind. This leaves the nucleus with a prolonged large magnetic moment. Any deflated state hydrogen in the vicinity should quickly also tunnel in. However, here the process most likely stops. The trapped electron spins are most likely, but not necessarily, co-aligned. Their spins are with high probability co-aligned as spin up and spin down, thus canceling magnetic fields, but have some probability of aligned spins. In the latter case, a follow-on addition of another pair becomes likely. This tendency provides some degree of explanation for the mysterious tendency for 2H, 4H, and 6H transmutations, where none exists otherwise. Here “H” means any isotope of hydrogen. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
What a surprise to me! If cold fusion patents are suddenly allowed, I can not imagine this kind of patent holding up in general upon challenging in court in infringement proceedings. The application was made in 2000. Most everything was invented, published or publicly discussed in sci.physics.fusion well before that. Maybe the intent is to end up with just some part enforceable? Maybe this was just intended to test the waters in general, to obtain some kind of ruling useful to justify consideration of other patent applications? Perhaps I should apply for a patent on a propulsion means comprised of (1) a construct suitable for passenger occupancy, supported by (2) low energy locomotion devices, such as wheels etc., and (3) a motive device, such as a gasoline engine which propels said locomotion devices, and then include 100 subordinate claims hinting at the nature a car. I think this kind of thing can only be of use to a deep pockets organization with a legal staff. On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if this is old news on Vortex, but I was surprised to find this 2003 USPTO patent application -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0112916.html Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium conditions United States Patent Application 20030112916 Kind Code: A1 Inventors: Keeney, Franklin W. (US) Jones, Steven E. (US) Johnson, Alben C. (US) ABSTRACT: A method of producing cold nuclear fusion and a method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion are disclosed. The method of producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material, hydriding the fusion-promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen, and establishing a non-equilibrium condition in the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material and hydriding the fusion- promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. -- which includes Steven E. Jones as an inventor. Further down is -- BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0001] 1. Field of the Invention [0002] The present invention relates to fusion energy. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for producing cold nuclear fusion and a method for preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion. [0003] 2. Description of the Related Art [0004] Mankind employs many energy sources. Oil, coal, natural gas, water (hydroelectric), and nuclear fission number among the most prominent of these sources. However, most of these sources exists in a limited supply, produces a relatively small quantity of energy per unit of the given source, or raises environmental concerns. Thus, because earth's population and energy needs continue to climb dramatically, researchers continue to seek more plentiful, efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy sources. [0005] These needs have led researchers to consider nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun. First, the raw materials for nuclear fusion abound on our planet. For example, deuterium is plentiful in seawater. Second, fusion of atomic particles and/or light nuclei produces more energy for a given amount of material than virtually any other known energy source. Finally, nuclear fusion holds strong promise as an environmentally-safe process. For these reasons, and based on major technological advances in the latter half of the twentieth century, many knowledgeable individuals now anticipate that nuclear fusion may provide a long-term answer to mankind's energy needs. --- The patent application seems to cover quite a wide range of implementations. Unless this is a different Steven Jones, did he become a believer 14-years after the 1989 CF-brouhaha? Any insights? Lou Pagnucco Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
Say, if CF breaks as conventional, and this patent is issued, maybe this is intended to provide an excuse for the patent office to reject all subsequent cold fusion patent application claims based on infringement of prior art, until this patent is successfully challenged. On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if this is old news on Vortex, but I was surprised to find this 2003 USPTO patent application -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0112916.html Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium conditions United States Patent Application 20030112916 Kind Code: A1 Inventors: Keeney, Franklin W. (US) Jones, Steven E. (US) Johnson, Alben C. (US) ABSTRACT: A method of producing cold nuclear fusion and a method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion are disclosed. The method of producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material, hydriding the fusion-promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen, and establishing a non-equilibrium condition in the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material and hydriding the fusion- promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. -- which includes Steven E. Jones as an inventor. Further down is -- BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0001] 1. Field of the Invention [0002] The present invention relates to fusion energy. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for producing cold nuclear fusion and a method for preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion. [0003] 2. Description of the Related Art [0004] Mankind employs many energy sources. Oil, coal, natural gas, water (hydroelectric), and nuclear fission number among the most prominent of these sources. However, most of these sources exists in a limited supply, produces a relatively small quantity of energy per unit of the given source, or raises environmental concerns. Thus, because earth's population and energy needs continue to climb dramatically, researchers continue to seek more plentiful, efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy sources. [0005] These needs have led researchers to consider nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun. First, the raw materials for nuclear fusion abound on our planet. For example, deuterium is plentiful in seawater. Second, fusion of atomic particles and/or light nuclei produces more energy for a given amount of material than virtually any other known energy source. Finally, nuclear fusion holds strong promise as an environmentally-safe process. For these reasons, and based on major technological advances in the latter half of the twentieth century, many knowledgeable individuals now anticipate that nuclear fusion may provide a long-term answer to mankind's energy needs. --- The patent application seems to cover quite a wide range of implementations. Unless this is a different Steven Jones, did he become a believer 14-years after the 1989 CF-brouhaha? Any insights? Lou Pagnucco Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application
Wow. Yes, indeed, this should be read. Whatever the intent of the nonsensically broad claims, it did not work out very well! The PTO examiner, John Richardson, did a great job on the rejection. He cites Pons, Miley, etc. Unfortunately, I could only download a page at a time. The server was also overloaded periodically. I uploaded to: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Keeney/ and I will leave it there briefly for those who want to see it. On Dec 28, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Jay Caplan wrote: This was abandoned in 2004 after a non-final rejection by USPTO 1/21/2004. Click Public PAIR link on http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/status/ Choose Application Number and insert 09/514,202 Choose Image File Wrapper tab when this application opens, then the correspondence and actions can be read. I couldn't copy from the Non-Final Rejection, but it should be read - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Curious 2003 Cold Fusion Patent Application Say, if CF breaks as conventional, and this patent is issued, maybe this is intended to provide an excuse for the patent office to reject all subsequent cold fusion patent application claims based on infringement of prior art, until this patent is successfully challenged. On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if this is old news on Vortex, but I was surprised to find this 2003 USPTO patent application -- http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0112916.html Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium conditions United States Patent Application 20030112916 Kind Code: A1 Inventors: Keeney, Franklin W. (US) Jones, Steven E. (US) Johnson, Alben C. (US) ABSTRACT: A method of producing cold nuclear fusion and a method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion are disclosed. The method of producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material, hydriding the fusion-promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen, and establishing a non-equilibrium condition in the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion includes selecting a fusion-promoting material and hydriding the fusion- promoting material with a source of isotopic hydrogen. The method of preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing fusion may include cleaning the fusion-promoting material. The method of preparing a fusion- promoting material for producing fusion may also include heat-treating the fusion-promoting material. -- which includes Steven E. Jones as an inventor. Further down is -- BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION [0001] 1. Field of the Invention [0002] The present invention relates to fusion energy. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for producing cold nuclear fusion and a method for preparing a fusion-promoting material for producing cold nuclear fusion. [0003] 2. Description of the Related Art [0004] Mankind employs many energy sources. Oil, coal, natural gas, water (hydroelectric), and nuclear fission number among the most prominent of these sources. However, most of these sources exists in a limited supply, produces a relatively small quantity of energy per unit of the given source, or raises environmental concerns. Thus, because earth's population and energy needs continue to climb dramatically, researchers continue to seek more plentiful, efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy sources. [0005] These needs have led researchers to consider nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun. First, the raw materials for nuclear fusion abound on our planet. For example, deuterium is plentiful in seawater. Second, fusion of atomic particles and/or light nuclei produces more energy for a given amount of material than virtually any other known energy source. Finally, nuclear fusion holds strong promise as an environmentally-safe process. For these reasons, and based on major technological advances in the latter half of the twentieth century, many knowledgeable individuals now anticipate that nuclear fusion may provide a long-term answer to mankind's energy needs. --- The patent application seems to cover quite a wide range of implementations. Unless this is a different Steven Jones, did he become a believer 14-years after the 1989 CF-brouhaha? Any insights? Lou Pagnucco Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
If you had bothered to read he references provided you would know your statement is nonsense. There is another type of battery that does not appear in the table above, since it is limited in the relative amount of current it can deliver. However, it has even higher energy storage per kilogram, and its temperature range is extreme, from -55 to +150°C. That type is Lithium Thionyl Chloride. It is used in extremely hazardous or critical applications such as space flight and deep sea diving. On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:46 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Horace, lithium batteries will explode in a high temperatures of ecat, especially if batterypack is thermally isolated. Only chemically plausible idea is to hide a bucketful of thermite or some other oxygen containing mixture of chemical compounds and an apparatus for controlled or catalyzed burning. Just ten liters would be enough for explaining the ecat. But even with the thermite, there will be not just the myriads of engineering difficulties, but also physical limitations that the density of thermite is too low compared to measured 100 kg weight. Of course if there is stuffed some depleted uranium few liters, then we have no problems with the weight. —Jouni On Dec 27, 2011 11:11 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium. A Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery works out OK. See post below (archive down at the moment): Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheff...@mtaonline.net Subject:[Vo]:Duplicating Rossi is not worthwhile Date: December 10, 2011 6:20:12 PM AKST Resent-To:undisclosed-recipients: ; To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Duplicating Rossi's setup is not worthwhile. If he is not a fraud it is likely Rossi has something extraordinary. If there is a reasonable chance of actually duplicating that, or something similar, then that is worthwhile. However success along those lines, developing a commercial quality LENR reactor without extensive research and good facilities is highly unlikely - even less likely than developing transistor technology in 1930 I would guess. The notion that Rossi's device is self delusion has looked to me less and less likely day by day. That leaves fraud as the remaining possibility to consider when designing such a test. Such a test is ridiculous. Of course the device can be faked, by numerous means. Despite the fact Rossi removed the outer cover on the E-cat, no one was permitted to see inside the 30x30x30 cm inner box, or the reactor box(es) inside the inner box. Four water tight conduits lead from the outside of the outer box to the inside of the inner box. Anything can be inside the inner box. No one has seen the inside of that box. The inner box has a volume of 27 liters. It can be water tight. What can be put inside the inner box? Lots of chemical things of course. The simplest might be to use a lithium battery, perhaps a Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery. http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html The specifications for Lithium Thionyl Chloride are $1.16 per watt- hour, 700 watts/kg, 2,000,000 Joules/kg, and 1100 watt-hours per liter. For more information of Lithium Thionyl Chloride please contact Tadiran Batteries. The total kWh output produced by the 6 Oct 2011 E-cat was about 27 kWh. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf Net output was about 18 kWh. At 1100 wh/liter that is 29.7 kWh capacity in the 27 liter inner box. That leaves a lot of room for electronic control devices. Might need to route some of the cold water input so as to cool the battery. Also, the battery could be pressurized to prevent boiling. I don't think this was actually done because in one photo, after some processing, I could make out the water entry port on the inside of the box. Cool water I think flows under the box through a thin gap, and along the sides, mostly under the flanges that bolt together the top and bottom halves of the 27 liter inner box. I suspect it sits slightly elevated on a few short legs, possibly bolts which penetrate the bottom of the box, but which are sealed. At 2 MJ/kg, or 00.56 kWH/kg, the 29.7 kWh represents 53 kg, right about what is needed inside the inner box to be credible. There are many ways to make a fake that can replicate the public tests Rossi has performed. Actually building one doe not prove very much. Better to to devote the time to experimenting with stuff that might actually work. For some specific examples of stuff that might actually work, see the posts and associated
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium. A Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery works out OK. See post below (archive down at the moment): Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheff...@mtaonline.net Subject:[Vo]:Duplicating Rossi is not worthwhile Date: December 10, 2011 6:20:12 PM AKST Resent-To:undisclosed-recipients: ; To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Duplicating Rossi's setup is not worthwhile. If he is not a fraud it is likely Rossi has something extraordinary. If there is a reasonable chance of actually duplicating that, or something similar, then that is worthwhile. However success along those lines, developing a commercial quality LENR reactor without extensive research and good facilities is highly unlikely - even less likely than developing transistor technology in 1930 I would guess. The notion that Rossi's device is self delusion has looked to me less and less likely day by day. That leaves fraud as the remaining possibility to consider when designing such a test. Such a test is ridiculous. Of course the device can be faked, by numerous means. Despite the fact Rossi removed the outer cover on the E-cat, no one was permitted to see inside the 30x30x30 cm inner box, or the reactor box(es) inside the inner box. Four water tight conduits lead from the outside of the outer box to the inside of the inner box. Anything can be inside the inner box. No one has seen the inside of that box. The inner box has a volume of 27 liters. It can be water tight. What can be put inside the inner box? Lots of chemical things of course. The simplest might be to use a lithium battery, perhaps a Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery. http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html The specifications for Lithium Thionyl Chloride are $1.16 per watt- hour, 700 watts/kg, 2,000,000 Joules/kg, and 1100 watt-hours per liter. For more information of Lithium Thionyl Chloride please contact Tadiran Batteries. The total kWh output produced by the 6 Oct 2011 E-cat was about 27 kWh. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf Net output was about 18 kWh. At 1100 wh/liter that is 29.7 kWh capacity in the 27 liter inner box. That leaves a lot of room for electronic control devices. Might need to route some of the cold water input so as to cool the battery. Also, the battery could be pressurized to prevent boiling. I don't think this was actually done because in one photo, after some processing, I could make out the water entry port on the inside of the box. Cool water I think flows under the box through a thin gap, and along the sides, mostly under the flanges that bolt together the top and bottom halves of the 27 liter inner box. I suspect it sits slightly elevated on a few short legs, possibly bolts which penetrate the bottom of the box, but which are sealed. At 2 MJ/kg, or 00.56 kWH/kg, the 29.7 kWh represents 53 kg, right about what is needed inside the inner box to be credible. There are many ways to make a fake that can replicate the public tests Rossi has performed. Actually building one doe not prove very much. Better to to devote the time to experimenting with stuff that might actually work. For some specific examples of stuff that might actually work, see the posts and associated threads here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57397.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg21943.html It might just be as simple as cycling the temperature about the Curie point in a mu-metal filament in high pressure hydrogen gas under the influence of an intense and slowly rotating magnetic field. I might be as simple as loading powdered zeolites with a mu-metal like compound and stimulating with microwaves, or high intensity laser. Despite the odds, there is a tiny possibility a useful and simple solution is available. Better to spend time seeking that than debating the ridiculous. The odds of success may be small, but the payoff is vastly greater. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Dec 26, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: However, in open cells, the oxygen leaves the cell as it is generated, and in closed cells, excess oxygen is still vented, my understanding (otherwise the pressure would rise very high, as oxygen isn't loaded into palladium. Some of the oxygen combines with deuterium that bubbles up, in a closed cell, at the recombiner, but the amount of deuterium in a fully loaded piece of palladium is phenomenal. Catalytic recombiners theoretically, and in some cases practically, can work and have worked indefinitely. The problem is murphy's law. If water gets on some part of the the recombining catalyst surface then that part of the surface does not work. Explosions still can occur, even from combiners located remotely from the sealed cell. Flashback preventers fail. Operating closed electrolytic cells is very dangerous. Operating high pressure electrolytic cells is even more dangerous. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
It is not theory, it is experimental result. Go to: http://www.lenr-canr.org/ and enter Miles helium and McKubre helium. On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote: How's that? According to what theory? On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen wrote: If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat. You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
There is no need for down-conversion to explain the lack of high energy gammas associated with excess heat of LENR, provided those gammas are not produced in the first place. If an energetically trapped electron in the nucleus carries away the reaction heat away from the nucleus in the form of kinetic energy, but that energy is insufficient to overcome the trapping energy (shown in brackets in the deflation fusion reactions I provide) then the electron will radiate until zero point energy, uncertainty energy, expands its wavefunction sufficiently for it to escape the nucleus, or a weak reaction follows. On Dec 26, 2011, at 2:25 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: I think that the frequency of the outgoing down-converted photons will remain the same whether the incoming high frequency photon is absorbed by one atom or collectively by N-atoms. A coherent multi-atom absorption will create a Schroedinger-Cat-like state of one excited atom and (N-1) ground state atoms, which should still radiate at the same lower frequencies. However, multi-atom absorption could result in strong variation in emitted intensity bursts (superradiance). But, maybe there's more to it than that. Some anomalous down-conversion of gamma-rays were reported in the 1930s. I do not know whether they have been explained since then. If interested, the papers are at: The Nature of the Interaction between Gamma-Radiation and the Atomic Nucleus http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/136/830/662.full.pdf +html Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy Gamma Radiation. II http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/681.full.pdf +html Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy Gamma Radiation. III http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/706.full.pdf +html Some insights from quantum mechanics… Spontaneous parametric down-conversion Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that energy is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with each entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy. The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared between the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally between the N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N. Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important process in quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons. [...] Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 01:43 AM 12/27/2011, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'll comment on it: he went on to say, but it isn't fusion. That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker, Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to explain LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value. Abd, If you reject W-L theory, what would you regard as the most reasonable explanation for all of the transmutations reported? Is there a particular paper that you could recommend. I'm too overwhelmed by the complexity of solid state reactions to take any side in the controversy. Transmutations are not observed with any clean correlation with excess heat. Some experiments produce more, some less. Levels of transmuted products other than helium are produced at far lower levels than helium, many orders of magnitude lower. This is far from true. Transmutation products have been detected by chemical means, and XRF. This requires large quantities of product. This is one of the great mysteries of LENR - the vast amount of nuclear reactions involved in heavy element transmutation, without the corresponding excess heat. It is explanation of this experimental observation that is one of the strong points of deflation fusion theory. The initial energy deficits in heavy element transmutation, due to the trapped electron, are typically very large. This is due to the large positive charge of the heavy nucleus involved. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt for many examples. For Rossi E-cat related examples see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf The large initial energy deficit makes follow-on weak reactions likely, involving the trapped electron(s) when energetically favorable. Most of the reaction energy, about 99%, is carried away by neutrinos in the case of the follow-on weak reactions. This, plus the initial energy deficit, is why heavy element LENR often produces no observable excess heat. This was discussed with references on page 1 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf This lack of corresponding heat from heavy element transmutation, required by and corresponding to the mass deficit change, is also why the huge amount of transmutation that occurs was such a surprise to Bockris and others when it was first observed. Explaining this is one of the strong points of deflation fusion theory. It is an even stronger argument for deflation fusion theory than the fact it also explains the change in branching ratios in D+D fusion, and the 10^-8 ratio of n/T observed in some LENR experiments. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined with magnetic effects. This is why I took the state down to such extremely low radii in my computations: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf A QM description could describe a larger volume state. At close radii, the deBroglie wavelengths of the entities are smaller than the orbital radius, thus describing a Rydberg like state, wherein QM need not be applied. The state then is relativistic Newtonian. It is the transition between states that requires a full QM treatment, and I don't know that such a treatment is feasible. However, since zero energy is required for the transition between deflated state and ordinary ground state, the two states are degenerate and QM permits the two states to be co-existent. Co- existent degenerate electron states exist in some molecules, wherein the electron wavefunction is split between distant parts of the molecule, with forbidden zone(s) in between. It seems to me not much of a stretch, without QM computations, for the deflated state to have a similar characteristic. I realize my writing is not clear, and that some of the material in my articles is out of date, evolving, and needs correction. I need to create a FAQ, or write a book. I have been diverted from that by the Rossi circus. Now my personal life is overcoming my ability to spend time on physics. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
It seems to me that LENR cannot be weaponized. The stuff that permits chain reactions accumulates slowly, if it even exists at all. This permits cosmic rays to limit the accumulation. Cosmic ray secondary muons might trigger conventional fusion in super high density pockets of hydrogen, but such pockets are rare, and cause fracturing if they get too big. Even if large accumulations of potential energy were possible, say deep in a mine where cosmic rays are rare, this would be impractical, because a single cosmic ray could trigger it. Cosmic rays would also continue to rapidly erode stored material by generating small chains. Even short term storage would be infeasible. Creation of mass/energy from the vacuum, where the real power lies, strikes me as useful for on demand use, such as providing impulse for a space craft. On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote: A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD. Never, never, never. This is essentially why SPAWARS is being closed. They were only supposed to be a token effort anyway - but instead they got too close to exposing the shocking truth - with all of its neglected implications. In short, there is an offshoot of LENR that can be weaponized. At least that is the only scenario that makes sense in the big picture. Going back many years in the history of LENR, a few have voiced this minority opinion about ulterior motives. Big oil in not the intended beneficiary of official neglect. The silent factor at the highest- level (in decision making relative to LENR) is explainable solely in terms of National Defense. This goes well beyond the problem of nuclear proliferation - and it is not necessarily 'nuclear' per se, but instead relates to extremely high energy explosives of any varieties. Even though the PF 'meltdown' in Utah was under-publicized, it certainly was not un-noticed by those who look for these things. Never mind that the so-called 'red mercury' scare turned out to be an obsession of one researcher - Samuel Cohen. At least that is what we are supposed to believe. Even if 'red mercury' is now a generic code name for any ballotechnic, I think that there is more hysteria than ever before in top military circles about the repercussions of a tactical substitute, since detection is more difficult. Rossi has awakened these old nightmares from the early nineties. In short, the biggest threat to the West, in the eyes of a few at the Pentagon is not a nuclear weaponized Iran, nor even a nuke purchased by others who do not share our values: Syria/Libya/Yemen/Somalia/etc. Almost any sovereign country will have too much to lose to play that game. The biggest threat to the West, in the eyes of the Pentagon, is a non-nuclear or nuclear-optional (less detectable) but near kiloton capable weapon in the hands of the Taliban (or next radical terrorist group with access to plenty of cash or a substitute like Afghani heroin)... and by extension, a weapon which is deliverable in the trunk of compact vehicle by a surrogate group in our backyard- like the Zetas, for instance. Scary indeed. Jones -Original Message- From: Jones Beene ... not to mention a few hints (re: supra-chemistry) coming direct from National Labs ... years before nano-thermite made an impact, so to speak. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/437696-qcD7AM/webviewable/ 437696.pd f Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium. You appear to have ignored the possibility of super-chemistry, a la Mills or IRH. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Horace, Thanks for the comment. What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations. I will check out your theory. Do you believe any new physics is required - or does standard QM suffice? I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all. LP I should have noted that my application of zero point energy to nuclear reactions is possibly new physics, though the concepts applied are not new at all, i.e. Casimir force, uncertainty energy, Fermi pressure, etc. What is new is the concept of the energetic trapping of electrons in heavy nuclei. This concept requires no new physics I think, just an understanding of a simple mechanism by which a net zero charge ensemble can enter the nucleus via tunneling and a net magnetic energy gain. That this is feasible is to me self evident. The basic concept behind the deflated state is simple conventional physics - namely that the magnetic force, a 1/r^4 force, becomes larger than the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at close radii. The basic theory is very simple. It has to be. I'm a self trained simple minded amateur. Of course it could be all wrong! It does make useful predictions and suggest many experimental avenues of research, so it seems to me at least useful in that regard. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)
momentum orbital one dimensional values can be applied for uncertainty energy. The zero point energy of a particle in a box with sides of length L is given by: Ezp = (h^2/(8 m)) (1/L^2) The zero point energy of a particle confined to a box with radius r is thus approximated by: Ezp ~= (h^2/(8 m)) (1/(2*r)^2) Ezp ~= (h^2/(32 m)) (1/r^2) An alternate view on uncertainty energy can be obtained by starting with the uncertainty on momentum, given a constraint x in position location, provided by Heisenberg as (delta p) = h/(2 Pi (x)) but since: KE = (1/2) m v^2 = (1/(2 m)) (mv)^2 delta KE = (1/(2 m)) (h/ (2 Pi (delta x)))^2 delta KE = (h^2/(8 Pi^2 m)) (1/(delta x)^2) In motion constrained to (delta x) = 2 * r we have: delta KE = (h^2/(8 Pi^2 m)) (1/(delta x)^2) delta KE = (h^2/(32 Pi^2 m)) (1/r^2) To be conservative in computing an electron potential Ezp will be used, because it is larger by a factor Pi^2. We now are using Ezp ~= k2 / x^2 Uc = k1 / x Um = k3 / x^3 where, for the electron: K2 = h^2/(32 Pi^2 m) = 1.5261x10^-39 J m^2 and for the electron-deuteron: K1 = -2*(1/(4*Pi*e0))*q^2 = -4.61416x10^-28 J m K3 = -mu0*muD*muB/(2*Pi) = -8.03267x10^-57 J m^3 when using constants: e0 = 8.85419x10^-12 F/m q = 1.602177x10^-19 coul mu0 = 1.25664x10^-6 m/A^2 muB = 9.27402x10^-24 A m^2 muD = 4.33074x10^-27 A m^2 We now have the potential function: Ut = k1/x + k2/x^2 + k3/x^3 where x is the distance between electron and deuteron. Some numbers of interest are the points at which the uncertainty potential matches the Coulomb plus magnetic potential. In other words, where: -k1/x - k3/x^3 = k2/x^2 (4.61416x10^-28 J m)/x + (8.03267x10^-57 J m^3)/x^3 = (1.5261x10^-39 J m^2)/x^2 The solutions are x=3.3074x10^-12 m, and x=5.2635x10^-18 m. This means to find a correct solution the relativistic mass must be used for the electron in k2. This will result in a much larger value for the smaller solution for x. This so far resolves that the tunneling distance for the electron from normal state to deflated state is limited to no more than 3.3x10^-12 m, far less than the tunneling distance in Josephson junctions. Given the potential plus kinetic energy of the system is constant, i.e that no radiation is involved, the deflated state is a degenerate state of the orbital, thus it can be expected the electron wavefunction can have a dual existence embodying a normal state with probability p, and a magnetically bound small state, with probability 1-p. For some miscellaneous thoughts on nuclear zero point energy (ZPE) tapping, and some excellent references, see: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
Excuse me. I didn't realize your level of understanding. Mass and energy are related by E = m c^2. If the inputs and outputs have a mass difference, then that mass is converted to energy, in kinetic form, radiant form, or both. This is the basis of most all nuclear reaction energy calculations, and the energy calculations I provided for many hundreds of feasible (though most of them improbable) reactions here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt Note the deuterium reactions here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptC By this investigation I cam up with an entirely new form of LENR, namely nuclear catalytic action, exemplified by the many reactions in Report C. These are reactions of the form: X + 2 D* -- X + 4He + 23.847 MeV The conventional D+D fusion reaction, using mass differences, is: D + D -- 4He + 23.847 MeV The heavy lattice atoms are closer to absorbed hydrogen than hydrogen in adjacent lattices. The tunneling probability of a deflated hydrogen nucleus to the vicinity of a heavy nucleus is higher than to an adjacent lattice site. If immediate strong reaction does not occur, as is the case for heavy nuclei where it is not energetically feasible, then the second catalytic action, producing a helium nucleus (alpha particle) is feasible. This kind of reaction might be engineered to produce a high rate of energy production using the right kind of lattice with deuterium. In any case, as you can see, the mass deficit is 23.847 MeV/c for D+D -- 4He, no matter by what pathway this occurs. On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Charles Hope wrote: If the helium levels are what they should be compared to the heat, that assumes some theory that correlates them. Which theory is that? On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:24, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: It is not theory, it is experimental result. Go to: http://www.lenr-canr.org/ and enter Miles helium and McKubre helium. On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote: How's that? According to what theory? On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen wrote: If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat. You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
I wrote: The heavy lattice atoms are closer to absorbed hydrogen than hydrogen in adjacent lattices. That should say: Absorbed hydrogen nuclei are closer to adjacent heavy lattice atom nuclei than to hydrogen nuclei in adjacent lattice sites. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, I considered this point (no neutron chain reaction nor obvious substitute) but am convinced that there is no need for the kind of chain reaction we are familiar with in fission. If you understand subcritical neutron multiplication, you will see that massive gain is possible without true chain reaction dynamics. Subcritical neutron generation merely makes expanded use of each neutron supplied by an external source. If the neutrons themselves generate more than a neutron on average, then the reaction is a chain reaction. If not, the energy is limited in the extreme, by the input flux, which in the case under discussion is cosmic rays. A large explosion is not feasible without a chain reaction. Obviously, my theory for gain is not the same as yours, although there is some similarity. In this hypothesis, which borrows from Mills but is very different, and also from Robin's version of Mills - there is dense hydrogen accumulation via Mills' catalysis - not unlike the Holmlid/Miley model, and protons reside on a dielectric surface, ala Lawandy. Even with maximum pitting (Casimir pits) the IRH is too transitory, without cryogenics. Cryogenics is one major limitation for weaponization (thankfully). Precision is another. Planar configurations are not condusive to criticality. Without cryogenics to quench during the IRH accumulation stage, and the occasional cosmic ray - you would likely have a Rossi-type of reaction that cannot go far beyond the meltdowns he claims to have seen. Yes. Thermally driven slow (non-cahin) reactions necessarily die off when the lattice melts. Mirror electrons in the dielectric keep the protons close to each other. They can be degenerate or deflated. They can form ordinary atoms in that case, i.e. being on a surface with spare electrons. There is no primary fusion nor fission. Gain comes from non-quark nuclear boson depletion, is instigated by strong force attraction, followed by Coulomb repulsion - and depends on quark statistics. As Robin says, this make no sense. Gain is in the range of tens to hundreds of keV per proton. There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from accelerated protons. The leap of faith is that net proton mass is an average, not quantized like quark mass, and can vary a fractional percent. Of course, some of the mass variation is convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. The suggested P-e-P reaction is absurd except under solar conditions - and is discarded in place of strong force attraction, followed by energetic repulsion when the two cannot bind. I am not sure what you mean here. If you are referring to: I said A very very small rate of pep reactions may occur This I think is obviously true. Very very small is very very small. 8^) I also noted that ... this gamma producing reaction was not observed above background in the Rossi E-cats. In a weapon, a surrounding ballotechnic (nano-thermite??) would be needed to implode a target with great spherical precision, so that a uniform statistical first wave is instigated. This would be followed by the functional equivalent of (slowly decreasing waves) of neutron multiplication in a subcritical reactor This result depends on rapid timing and high initial energy density in the surround. The required level of precision would be another limitation for terrorist groups, since none of them would likely put up the millions needed for tooling - not to mention many years of development. I don't see a neutron based chain reaction as feasible at all. For that fast neutron fissioning material is needed. LENR stuff would merely make that kind of thing even more difficult. Rossi or DGT may change that situation. Jones -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner It seems to me that LENR cannot be weaponized. The stuff that permits chain reactions accumulates slowly, if it even exists at all. This permits cosmic rays to limit the accumulation. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real reason for fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out). This isn't a good place for politics but I can't let something that stupid get by. Sure you can. Just try hard. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:If I Had Free Energy/Politics
specimen, amounts to more than 1E5. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Kamamda also had a similar paper in 1992 regarding energetic particle detection upon electron bombardment of a deuterated lattice. The 1992 (Kamada) results showed 1.3 MeV or greater 4He (about 80 percent) and 0.4 MeV or greater P (about 20 percent) tracks using Al loaded with *either* H or D. The electron beam energy used was 200 and 400 keV. H3+ or D3+ ions were implanted with an energy of 90 keV into Al films. The implantation was done at a fluence of 10^17 (H+ or D+)/cm^2 using a Cockcroft Walton type accelerator. The Al foil used was would pass 200 keV electrons. It was bombarded in a HITACHI HU-500 with a beam current of 300 to 400 nA with a beam size of roughly 4x10^-5 cm^2, or (4-6)x1016 e/cm^2/s flux electron beam. The area the beam passed through was roughly 2x10^-3 cm^2. Total bombarding time was 40 m. The Al target was a 5 mm dia. disk 1 mm thick, but chemically thinned. The particle detectors were 10 mm x 15 mm x 1 mm CR-39 polymer plastic detectors supplied by Tokuyama Soda Co. Ltd. Great care was taken to avoid radon gas exposure. Detectors were set horizontally on either side of the beam 20 mm above the target and two were set vertically one above the other 20 mm to the side of the target but starting at the elevation of the target and going upward (beam source upward from target). The detectors were etched with 6N KOH at 70 deg. C for 2 h. at a rate of 2.7 um/h. Energies and species were determined by comparison of traces by optical microscope with traces of known origin. Traces on the backsides of the detectors were found to be at background level. Background was determined by runing the experiment with Al films not loaded with H or D. Four succesive repititions of the experiment at the 200 keV level were run to confirm the reproducibiliy of the experiment. There was a roughly 100 count above background in each detector, or 1340 total estimated per run for the H-H reaction. A slightly higher rate was indicated for the D-D reaction. This is a rate of 5x10-15 events per electron, or 2x10^14 electrons per event. However, the fusion events per hydrogen pair in the target is 2.8x10^12 events/H-H pair. The events per collision based on the stimulation energy was calculated to be 10-12 to 10-26 times less than the observed events. The 1996 results (Kamada, Kinoshita, Takahashi) involved similar procedures but bombardment was at 175 keV using a TEM which simulataneously was used for taking images of the target. Transformed (melted) regions with linear dimensions of about 100 nm were observed that indicated heat evolvement of 160 MeV for each transformed region. The (energy evolved) / (beam energy) for each region is about 10^5. Implantation of H was done at 25 keV to a depth of about 100 nm. at a fluence of 5x10^17 H+/cm^2. Bubbles of molecular coagulations of H were formed at pressures of 7 GPa. At a depth of 60 nm H density was measured by ERD to be 2x10^22 atoms/cm^3. Immediately after implantation molecular density was 1x10^22 mol./ cm^3, Molar volume was 60 cm^3/mol and pressure 54.5 MPa. The targets were 5 mm dia 0.1mm thick polished using a TENUPOLE chemical polishing machine to a thickness of 1 uM over an area of 1 mm and a small hole of 0.1 mm dia. in the central part. A HITACHI H-700 TEM was used. The beam was 50 nA on an area of about 1 um dia. giving flux of 4x10^19 e/(cm^2*s). The area is first examined with the beam not fully focused and the spots are not there. The beam is focused and the spots appear (photographed) within about 10 s. for D2, not at all with H2. The experiment was repeated over 30 times!. To reliably reproduce the result two conditions must be met: (1) The microstructure must be optimum, meaning there must be a minimum of tunnel structures connecting the implanted bubbles. (This is insured by limiting the fluence of the implanting beam to 5x10^17 H+/cm^2.) (2) The intensity of the electron beam must be roughly 1x10^19 electrons/(cm^2*s). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells
On Dec 27, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The conventional D+D fusion reaction, using mass differences, is: D + D -- 4He + 23.847 MeV OK, I get it. Am I correct that the conventional theory says this reaction doesn't really occur (it's either 3He + n, or 3H + H), or if it did somehow, the energy would be emitted as gamma ray, and not as heat? As noted on page 9 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf the standard branching ratios are: D + D -- T(1.01 MeV) + p(3.03 MeV) (4.03 MeV, 50%) D + D -- 3He(0.82 MeV) + n(2.45 MeV) (3.27 MeV, 50%) D + D -- 4He( 76 keV) + gamma (23.8 MeV) (23.9 MeV, 1x10-6) The D+D -- 4He happens about 1 time in a million. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 27, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 01:01 PM 12/27/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Transmutations are not observed with any clean correlation with excess heat. Some experiments produce more, some less. Levels of transmuted products other than helium are produced at far lower levels than helium, many orders of magnitude lower. This is far from true. Transmutation products have been detected by chemical means, and XRF. This requires large quantities of product. Horace, can you provide a reference for this. It contradicts what I've understood. As I noted, this was discussed with references on page 1 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf See references: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. Reference 14 is good, for example: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf Transmutation of Cs into Pr was demonstrated in more than 60 cases, with reproducibility close to 100%. Thus the results were highly repeatable. No electrolysis was used to accomplish the transmutations, just gas flow. The Pr was cross- checked by various methods such as XPS, TOF-SIMS (Time of Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry), XANES (X-ray Absorption Near Edge Structure), XRF and ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry). Analysis was performed in situ, before and after using XREF, thus avoiding contamination. Check the references at the end of this and other articles for more information. To be sure, I'm talking about widely reported results, not about isolated reports. Baloney. What widely reported results of a single experiment are there in this field? Lack f interest in replication has always been a problem in this field. Every researcher wants to get in his ego mods. There are more theories than researchers. The fact is almost any researcher that looks for transmutations in LENR experiments finds them. This is one of the great mysteries of LENR - the vast amount of nuclear reactions involved in heavy element transmutation, without the corresponding excess heat. It is explanation of this experimental observation that is one of the strong points of deflation fusion theory. Please specify the experimental observation. Quantitatively. Various techniques have been used to detect extremely small quantities of transmuted elements on cathode surfaces, but this work is hampered by the garbage collector characteristic of an electrolytic cathode, it attracts cations from the tiniest impurities in cell materials, one can find almost anything on a cold fusion cathode. However, my understanding has been that the detected quantities, compared to the helium found to be correlated with the FPHE, are far lower. I.e., typical tritium results might be a production of about 10^11 atoms of tritium, compared to, say, 10^14 atoms of helium. That's about three orders of magnitude down. Take a look at Fig. 2 of reference 10: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHreviewoftr.pdf The y axis is in units of 10^14 atoms/cm^2. Many transmutation results exceed He concentrations from D+D experiments, and the products are much easier to count reliably. Theories that account for D+D--He account for only a tiny part of the mysteries of cold fusion, a little corner of the field. The major mystery is the lack of corresponding heat and very high energy particles that can be expected from heavy element transmutation. This is what my theory addresses. It also happens to cover the more ordinary X+p, X+D and D+D results. A lack of heat from various heavy element experiments constitutes a violation of conservation of energy. Pretty darn strange this gets swept under the rug, ignored, isn't it! That puts a twist in some knickers I'll bet. Its a huge elephant in the room. I stinks and bellows and breaks china, yet is completely ignored. It is a potential source of derision. Life was difficult enough on folks like Bockris at TAMU, just from the cold fusion fiasco. My understanding has been that in most reports, other transmuted elements are at even lower numbers. Most reports is not all reports, it still leaves many reports, some focused strictly on heavy LENR. Light water experiments can produce transmutations, and helium is not even an issue. Also, there is much literature on transmutation observations. It seems you are up on D+D in Pd but not much on heavy element transmutation. It is well worth the trouble to read up on it. I think the real mysteries of LENR, and the greatest opportunities for amateur work, lie in the heavy element transmutations. Overcoming the Coulomb barrier is much more difficult to explain when it happens into a nucleus with 28 protons, vs just one. With long run times transmutatin experiments might be much better subject matter for high school lab
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
I forgot to mention Table 2 of: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHreviewoftr.pdf Note that the results are reported in percent of isotopic abundance. In terms of atoms this is *huge*. It is *huge* compared to helium results. If you find related reactions in my tables (all energetically feasible reactions are included, whether of unobservable branch probability or not) at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt you will see that the energies involved are enormous in most all cases involved. Iwamura results were treated in some special reports at the end. Note that only the strong reactions, which precede the weak reactions, are included in my tables. Weak reactions often follow immediately, and only add to the mass difference. There is a giant missing energy problem, in addition to the enormous missing energetic signature radiation problem, when it comes to heavy element transmutation. My theory provides some answers to this missing transmutation energy. Too bad no one has focused on that. I suspect few if any were even aware of it, until I posted it. Even then, I think it was ignored. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Orbital Stressing and Deflation Fusion
The applicability of deflation fusion concepts to fusion, especially Ni plus hydrogen fusion were discussed here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.html The probability of the deflated electron state is increased as electron flux through or very near a hydrogen nucleus is increased. This kind of electron flux can be induced on an absorbed hydrogen via various mechanisms, such as directly applied currents, flux of conduction band electrons through partial orbitals, surface currents, EM induced conduction ring currents, such as that provided by a benzene ring, or magnetic vortices in magnetic materials. The deflated state of heavy nucleus components can be induced by dense electron flux, but the above methods can not conveniently do this. Creation of a heavy nucleus deflated state, and thus the increase of its nuclear magnetic moment by orders of magnitude, is important to nuclear reactions involving heavy nuclei without nuclear magnetic moments, such as various Ni nuclei. The primary way to induce large electron flux through a heavy nucleus is to displace it from its atomic center of charge. The electron flux then involved is that of the heavy atom itself, consisting primarily of the innermost and thus most energetic of its electrons. This displacement can be induced by imposition of EM fields, and other means of orbital stressing, such as raising temperature or increasing lattice stress by loading and then thermal cycling. The methods, value and potential uses of orbital stressing to place nuclei into a strong electron flux were discussed in this 1997 article: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Ostressing.pdf As discussed in this article, lattice nuclei are confined in linked electron cages. Since the nuclei are 1000 times heavier than the electrons, the electron cages are, for the most part, going to move around the nuclei as a single lattice unit. The nucleons will not be involved in most of the motion. Thus the amount of mass involved in actual motion is small, three orders of magnitude less than the entire lattice mass, which is good for creating higher speed action. The hard part, it seems, is keeping the lattice electron motion uniform throughout the sample, thus avoiding heat loss. Coherent, or nearly coherent motion of the electron cages can slowly induce periodic motion of the nuclei. The electron cages of nanoparticles are small. They are thus more subject to coherent motion when stimulated electro-magnetically than large lattices. Brief moments of electromagnetic stimulation can create coherent cage motion, followed by increased nucleus motions and thus degeneration of the coherent cage motion into coordinated opposed nuclear motions, and then the randomization into heat. Throughout the process, the nuclei are dislocated from their centers of charge, and thus exposed to higher than normal through-nucleus electron flux. The initial coordinated electron cage motion should be most easily generated in nano-particles. Their small size permits small and thus energetic EM wavelengths to be effective. Isolating metal nanoparticles in dielectric pore arrays should provide a means to coordinate the stimulation via localized resonances. Conveniently, such coordinated electron cage motion also increases the population of the deflated state of hydrogen simultaneously. Electrical isolation of conducting nanoparticles in dielectric arrays permits large displacements of nuclei within the nanoparticles via use of large electrostatic fields. The use of nanoparticles permits a large surface to volume exposure, and thus a large voltage differential across a volume of interest. A surface effect is thereby converted into a volume effect, at least to some depth. The addition of the AC stimulation then is additive to this electrostatic field stress. The discussed methods of orbital stressing should be useful in improving fusion rates in any lattice with absorbed hydrogen. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:vortex-l archives are being monetized?
This archive URL appears to produce ads: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59132.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex-l archives are being monetized?
I get ads just below the title data and time, and in the right margin. I am using Safari on a Mac. I also get the adds on Internet explorer on Win 7. I don't get the adds on other archive links I have checked. On Dec 23, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: I cannot see ads... 2011/12/23 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net This archive URL appears to produce ads: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59132.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex-l archives are being monetized?
On Dec 23, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I guess you have some spyware infesting your system... Certainly possible but another explanation is that it's a leftover popup or popunder from another window in your browser -- perhaps one you just closed. I've seen the phenomenon occasionally and wondered about it. Another possibility is that it's due to the forum software, especially if it's free or shareware. In my case, I check my system regularly with Malwarebytes and continuously run Avira Antivirus so I am pretty sure that Malware is not a cause of the ads. Are you seeing the ads? Especially on: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59132.html I am seeing the ads on both a Mac G5 running IBM RISC chips using Safari, and an Intel based Win 7 system using I.E. It is very unlikely the same virus is infecting both environments. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex-l archives are being monetized?
On Dec 23, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Are you seeing the ads? Especially on: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59132.html I am seeing the ads on both a Mac G5 running IBM RISC chips using Safari, and an Intel based Win 7 system using I.E. It is very unlikely the same virus is infecting both environments. No ads using Windoz 7 IE9 nor Chrome 15. What does the ad look like? T Attached it top add. It was a flash add I think. inline: Capture.jpg Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex-l archives are being monetized?
On Dec 23, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Are you seeing the ads? Especially on: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59132.html I am seeing the ads on both a Mac G5 running IBM RISC chips using Safari, and an Intel based Win 7 system using I.E. It is very unlikely the same virus is infecting both environments. No ads using Windoz 7 IE9 nor Chrome 15. What does the ad look like? T Here is a side margin ad, attached. inline: Capture2.jpg Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex-l archives are being monetized?
The problem may have started when I clocked on the link at the bottom of my December 17th, 2011 at 12:43 AM post here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=179 I get the ads no matter how I reference the link: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59132.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex-l archives are being monetized?
The problem was due to a cached web page from Rossi's site. I deleted the browser cache on both systems and the ads went away. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
in comparison. There are various means of inducing dense electron flux on nanoparticle surfaces. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, David Roberson wrote: Second, if a small volume of material achieves reaction and releases several MeV of energy does the material then allow the reaction to spread? Of course the release of many MeV at the active region now would be adequate to enable more reactions since it far exceeds the 100 keV threshold suggested if in the correct form. Is there evidence pro or con as to whether or not this is happening? Chain reactions happen far faster than big atoms move or melt. The melting is a secondary effect that happens after the reaction is finished. The nuclear active site, or NAS, appears to be located below the surface. The melting and expansion drives the material out through the surface, making a crater like formation. Various estimates of energies and reaction rates have been given. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf (vi) Location/size. The presence of discrete, randomly distributed sites (hot spots, craters, boulders, etc) implies the existence of volumes within the electrode material where conditions promoting the highly energetic reactions exist. In estimating their magnitude, one must make a certain number of assumptions, eg (i) energy per single event is that of the reaction D + D He, (ii) the number of single events to produce a crater is on the order of 10^4 or higher, depending upon its radius[9], (iii) the number of single events needed to generate the “hot spot” displayed by IRimaging is on the order of 10^4 or higher, depending upon its size and brightness. Under these conditions and assuming the loading ratio greater than unity, one can calculate the radius of this volume to be on the order of 100 Å or higher. The events take place within the bulk material in the close vicinity to the contact surface. If producing one watt of output requires 6.24x10^11 fusions, as shown earlier, and each comic ray triggers 10^4 reactions, then 6.24x10^7 pits per second should show up, per watt of output. This does not appear to be a reasonable pit formation rate, nor anywhere near a cosmic ray background count. At 4 kW output that would be about 10^16 pits for a 10 hour test. Pit formation then is a very unusual thing if high energy density long term reactions exist, as Rossi claims. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
On Dec 22, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Horace: The problem I see with some kind of outside trigger is that the “turn-on” of excess heat would occur randomly… how does one control when that cosmic ray or muon will initiate the reaction? In one of the demos, it appeared to turn on at a specific temperature. -mark Cosmic ray background is random but essentially a continuous condition on the time scale of nuclear active site generation. Nuclear active sites capable of chain reactions are not dense. They are islands which apparently grow with time, otherwise events many orders of magnitude larger than 10^4 fusions would occur. The size of craters would not be nearly uniform. The cross section of such islands to cosmic rays etc. apparently grows slowly, and is affected by temperature, and external conditions and forms of stimulation. This is one reason LENR can not be expected to be useful for nuclear explosives. Triggers in the form of cosmic rays and other background radiation are constantly present in the environment. The active sites have to be generated on demand. Practical LENR is inherently a dynamic process. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith
On Dec 22, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Am I to assume you examined the mathematical modeling and resulting curves in the links I provided and have analyzed and rejected them for some good reason? Yes. I have seen blacksmiths at work. I have seen one heat a large chunk of iron, as big as the reactor core, to red hot incandescence. This is hotter than an electric heater could make the core. The iron is dunked into a bucket of water. This produces a cloud of steam, and then rapid boiling for a minute or two. It does not cause the bucket of water to boil for four hours. There is no conceivable way to store that much heat in this much iron. You can verify that with a small-scale experiment. Try heating a nail and putting it in water. I seriously suggest people should try this. Why not? a skeptic who sincerely believes it is possible to achieve this effect by conventional means should do some simple tests to confirm that. Evidently the mathematical modeling is wrong. I do not have to determine the details when it is obvious the conclusions conflict with everyday experience and fundamental observational physics to this extent. If someone makes a mathematical model showing that I can jump over the Empire State building I do not need to prove it is wrong. Note that Rossi means Smith. Perhaps he comes from a long line of blacksmiths. He has the kind of intuitive skills that a good blacksmith has. People have been working with hot iron for thousands of years. They know how it works. I know how it works. All the skeptical hypotheses that attempt to explain these test contradict knowledge going back hundreds of thousands of years. - Jed The heat capacity of a conductor like iron is only useful for storing energy. Insulation is required to limit the rate of dissipation of that energy. A medium, or combined layers, with a net low diffusivity, using materials like ceramics, cement, fire brick, etc. is necessary for significant dynamic effects, like peak heat release long after the source was applied. Those are the purely passive considerations. If good insulation is present, as well as active control, heat can be released to meet any demand curve that conserves energy. Apparently commenting further is of no use, so I'll try to refrain. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:NOT: CFRL News No. 77, carbon in the news
See: http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/News/CFRLEngNews/CFRLEN77.htm A significant transmutation result was reported: 2-1. The Cold Fusion Phenomenon in Hydrogen Graphites In this paper, we took up experimental data sets of nuclear transmutation and excess heat in discharge and electrolysis systems with carbon (graphite) electrodes. The discharge experiments are performed in water with carbon cathode and carbon or metal anodes where measured generation of new elements of Ca, Si, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu and/or Zn. As we have shown a possible explanation of nuclear transmutation in XLPE (cross-linked polyethylene) (Proc. ICCF14 pp. 618 – 622 (2010)) by an interaction between carbon and hydrogen in interlaced superlattice, it is possible to explain the results obtained in the carbon arc experiments with similar mechanism in interlaced superlattice of carbon lattice (graphite) and occluded hydrogen lattice. Some experimental and simulation results favorable for this mechanism are given. Full paper of this work will be published in Proc. JCF12 to be published next year. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094
The tag NOT is very misleading or confusing. Perhaps nOT is more useful? Or maybe something like TECH: is more descriptive. Future searches on TECH: should be more useful than searches on TECH. Non-technical debates, i.e. ones about fraud or no fraud, fake or not fake, political, legal or investment related, etc., that are content light might be on topic but not technical, so TECH and OT are not opposites, but still have useful meaning perhaps? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?
. On an earlier post I suggested that the LENR reactions such as those exhibited by Rossi could have been triggered by cosmic rays. I was a little disappointed by the few comments that were generated and I was hoping to further study this possibility. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094
Robin, I think I pointed out a similar relation a while back. My memory is not very good though. It had to do with the speed of thermal pulses though very fine metal whiskers. Heat pulses were measured at the mean speed of the conduction band electrons, which is about 2x10^6 m/ s, which is about twice Frank's constant. I never did find that article though. On Dec 21, 2011, at 4:54 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:34:04 -0800: Hi, alpha*c is the speed you get for the electron in a Bohr orbit, utilizing the De Broglie wavelength. What is not apparent from the snippet quoted is why this velocity follows from a screw type of motion. Might I suggest all Not Off Topic (i.e., technical, aka, ‘signal’) postings use NOT in the subject line to make them more obvious to those who care not to waste bandwidth on the personal aspects of the Rossi saga… In my latest session of ‘serendipitous surfing’, I was scanning a PDF of the document in the Ref: section below, and noticed this little bit of text and the accompanying calculation: == “This screw type of motion obviously is optional and let us suppose that it corresponds to the electron motion in Bohr atom at orbit a0 with energy of 13.6 eV. Then the axial velocity is: v = (e^2) / ( 2*h*epsilon_sub_0 ) = alpha*c = 2.18769e6 m/s (3) where: e = charge of electron, h = Planck constant, c = speed of light, alpha = fine structure constant == Now what struck me was the result, 2.188e6 m/s. This is exactly twice the constant in Znidarsic’s work, 1.094e6 Hz.m Any connection? Frank, does this make sense to you? -Mark Ref: Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM - Supergravitation Unified Theory Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev York University, Toronto, Canada E-mail: stoy...@yorku.ca Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:NOT: Some catalyst ideas
Some ideas for catalyst searches seem in order at this point. Back in the 1950's, when I was a kid, and long before Buckyballs were discovered, I used a high voltage neon sign transformer discharge under carbon tetrachloride to create very chunky and hard (for carbon), but very light, granules of black material. It was like coal cinders. It probably had Bucky balls and nanotubes mixed with miscellaneous other things, including some attached Cl and metal atoms. I of course had no idea that the lightweight black hard stuff might contain very special carbon structures. I have since wondered though, after the Buckyball announcement, etc. I would just touch a metal wire to a metal plate, or draw it across, to draw short arcs. The arcs popped like sparging steam. I thought the material creation rate was surprisingly fast, given the low current involved. Chlorine gas evolves, but that is a small problem to handle. I just used a long plastic rod with a big alligator clip on the end to manipulate the wire. I did this in my small bedroom, with no ventilation, when my parents were not aware of what I was doing. Not such a great approach. At least three modes of harm at once! This might have been creating a metal loaded carbon catalyst, similar to what Les Case used, and patented in WO 97/43768 (20 November 1997). His claims included catalysts Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru, Ir, Re, Ni, Ti, and the rare earths. His support media included carbon, graphite, silica, alumina, kieselguhy, zeolite, and clay. At any rate, this technique, using Pt, and maybe even Pd and/or Ni, wire and plate, or just wires, might produce something of interest, either to use directly, or to load using chlorides It should not take long to create a few ml. Making large amounts would make a simple automation of the process worthwhile. The neon sign transformer used was 7500 V at 30 mA. The various metals specified by Case in his patent would be worthy of testing as electrode material. Also, mu metal might be worth testing to see the effect in H2 (protium) vs D2. The reason for this was discussed in the vortex thread Cu isotopes, nanopores, mu metal, deflation fusion here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.html and here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf A mu metal wire source of possible interest is here: http://www.bloc kemf.com/catalog/product_info.php? cPath=763products_id=5101 http://tiny url.com/3smxtlb (space added to avoid censoring) When using mu metal the use of a strong magnetic field in addition is obviously implied. In all cases, use of HF HV stimulation is possibly useful, given the small metal particles enclosed in dielectric or semiconducting support material permits inducement of strong surface currents and charges having a high volume density. Microwave stimulation might be effective. I've written much here about the prospective use of nanopore material, zeolites and clays as prospective loaded nanoparticle isolation materials to permit formation of large gradient fields and surface charges. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 19, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: I didn't invent the name. It was called the Fleischmann-Pons Effect for years. Google it. All I'm suggesting is that we should honour the effect they discovered with their names, even if we don't know how and why it happens. No point in inventing a new name for an effect that already has a very definitive name. It is the Fleischmann-Pons Effect. AG I don't need to check the archives. What do you think I've been doing for the last 20 years? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:FusionCatalyst.org
Potentially a good idea for a non-profit, especially if donations can drive the price down well below cost. That said, where is the calorimeter? Also, the device looks too small. This looks more like a Rossi replicator idea than a general purpose LENR investigation device. That seems a bit premature, given the publicly released evidence provided by Rossi thus far is so lacking scientifically. If Rossi has a successful venture this research might be moot, given the way multi-year billion dollar budgets that likely will quickly develop. If Rossi is not successful, this approach might be barking up the wrong tree. On Dec 19, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Bastiaan Bergman wrote: Hi group, I'm excited to announce our newly formed non-profit organization to the advancement of cold fusion. We are planning an open catalyst project geared towards finding the secret catalyst needed to achieve nuclear fusion in the solid state. The plan is to use the power of the crowd to search and try the many different possibilities in a highly paralleled and fast way. By installing many many reactor-calorimeters in labs of participating scientist all over the world and by sharing all data in a structured way we envision an enormous advantage compared to the individual approach. For this purpose I designed a special reactor-calorimeter called the *Peer Pressure*, it is a simple reactor with extended data logging and autonomous Internet connectivity. Individual scientists can purchase a reactor, hook it up directly to the Internet through its TCP/IP connection, start testing materials and share results. The reactor is designed with a minimum of presumptions about the detailed working of cold fusion reactions and providing maximum versatility for the experimentalist. Please have a look at the Peer Pressure and let me know what you think of it, can you use it? Suggestions for improvement? http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/open-catalyst/peer-pressure/ Cheers, Bastiaan. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 11:18 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: McKubre believes in the Conservation of Miracles. I agree with him and would add my version: Different dog, same leg action. What is at the heart of the FPE drives all the effects we see. For all the early years the effect was called the Fleischmann-Pons Effect. Why change it now? The effect initially was the ability of a palladium cathode sufficiently loaded with D, by electrolysis, to produce excess enthalpy excess heat without the corresponding tritium or neutrons expected using hot fusion branching ratios. It was later discovered, by Bockris and others, that Pd transmutation occurred also, as a byproduct of the FP effect, that different regimes produced different products. This might have some justification being called part of the FP effect, because it was still palladium Many other discoveries followed which were not by FP, and not in their regime of research. Claytor's low pressure gas cells, Storm's glow discharge, Mizuno and Ohmori's HV DC plasma electrolysis, or Mizuno's solid state electrolyte experiments, Piantelli's gaseous Ni- H, Arata and Zhang's double structured spillover cathode using Pd black, Patterson's layered Pd-Ni beads, Szpack's codepositon cells, Les Case's Ni-carbon catalyst in gaseous deuterium, etc., are not called the called FP effect. Cold fusion itself is not even entirely the domain of FP. Muon- catalyzed fusion was called this also. This muon catalysis effect was predicted by Andrei Sakharov, and first observed by Luis Alarez. Steve Jones et al. were preparing to make a cold fusion announcement regarding achieving 150 d-t fusion per muon, not enough for energy break-even. The FP effect, initially called by some (mostly Americans) the PF effect, was called that to distinguish it from muon catalyzed fusion, the other kind of cold fusion. Muon catalyzed fusion obeys conventional hot fusion branching ratios. The FP effect does not. Other forms of cold fusion can have differing branch ratios, especially very different T/n ratios, and differing triggering conditions. However, to call every such discovered effect a Fleischmann and Pons effect is to greatly diminish the work of others. The general field has been called LENR, CANR, LANR, and finally CMNS, for a reason. We owe Fleischmann and Pons a great debt for discovering the general field of research, this part of cold fusion which shows such great promise, unlike muon catalyzed fusion at this time. Still it is inappropriate to stamp their name on every effect discovered by everyone in the field, just a it would be inappropriate to include their names on every patent that will eventually be issued in the field. This is disrespectful to the contributions of those who have followed. It also brings confusion to the terminology that has developed over 20 years. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 11:18 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: McKubre believes in the Conservation of Miracles. I agree with him and would add my version: Different dog, same leg action. What is at the heart of the FPE drives all the effects we see. For all the early years the effect was called the Fleischmann-Pons Effect. Why change it now? I say give them the respect and credit they deserve. To hell with avoiding their names like they are poison and calling the effect they discovered a politically nice title of LENR as if not mentioning FP will make that new paper on LENR more politically correct and likely to get published. FP did the hard yards and paid with their careers. They deserve to be remembered and the effect they discovered named after them until the stars burn out and it all goes black. George Washington is regarded as the father of the United States just as Fleischmann and Pons are regarded by many as the fathers of LENR, or CMNS. A single individual deciding after these many years to call the entire United States George Washington or Washington would be inappropriate on their part, and confusing to others, to say the least. It is just as inappropriate now to call the field PFE. Cold fusion, LENR, LANR, CANR, and CMNS, these are all terms that have established, distinct, and useful meanings, just as the US, or United States, does. It is confusing for someone from Utah to say they are a citizen of Washington if they have never even been there. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 19, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Horace I suggest that call should be made when we have nailed the exact process that caused Effect A and Effect B to have a different pathway. Until that time, if it ever occurs, I feel Different Dog, Same Leg Action is the road to follow. I have no problem if say WL is proven to be the correct pathway. It is still the FPE effect produced by a WL pathway. It will never be the WL effect as they did not discover it. History always records the initial discover and that is what should happen with the FPE effect. If it so happens that the H. Heffner theory is the correct pathway, it becomes the FPE effect produced by the HH pathway. Then both the effect discover and the pathway discover are recorded in history. Each then gets a fair go. It is hubris to think you or I or the members of this list combined should or could make such a determination. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
I suggest that a blog be created by whomever wants to, to discuss things related to Rossi. Personally, I like email format, and the fact vortex-l has over 15 years of archives. I prefer to post here. On Dec 19, 2011, at 8:38 AM, ecat builder wrote: Vortex is a great list.. but I think it has outgrown the email list format. I propose moving the list to a modern web forum based product. Modern forums allow embedded HTML/multimedia, moderation, yellow-card/red-card infractions, personal messaging, email protection, full searching, plus all the other features of web over email. talk-polywell.org has a decent forum, but LENR is still marginalized and off-topic. I would be happy to host vortex in any format on my site (ecatplanet.net) and would also be willing to transfer ownership or the domain name to something owned by the vort collective.. There are a number of fascinating writers out there who's work doesn't have a forum for ongoing discussion. (Frank, Axil, Horrace, to name a few.) Web based forums can have unlimited categories that are easily searched for a particular author or subject. This may be inviting too much off-topic discussion, but I've been thinking about this for a while.. - Brad Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
email: neutr...@mfphysics.com FAX: 719-598-2599 Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
mirror matter could be manufactured by LENR. Mirror matter radiates mirror photons which travel through ordinary matter unimpeded. There is no means to insulate mirror matter, so it causes matter to which it is coupled to spontaneously cool. If enough mirror matter is created, and bound by the very small mirror matter couplig constant, it can be detected by this thermal property. For a sample experiment see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Mirror4 SUMMARY Two assumptions regarding Ni + p, assumptions with some degree of logical foundation, given the application of deflation fusion theory, can explain the lack of radioactive byproducts from Ni + p reactions. These assumptions also make potentially useful predictions. The most important predictions are the potential improvements to reaction rates that can be provided by use of magnetic fields and high mu fusion catalysis material, such as mu metal. Also, the use of Ni highly enriched in 62Ni and 64N is implied to improve energy density. In 62Ni and 64Ni only material production of Zn is predicted to be highly correlated with excess enthalpy production. This is a tenuous theory, but one with readily testable predictions and potentially useful applications. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
I have consolidated my remarks in this thread, with some additional comments, into this paper: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? The ones who are dead. Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage, and so on. - Jed One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may have been to bring young people into the field. Once it becomes clear in the mind that nuclear reactions triggered by chemical potentials, without nuclear waste, is a reality, however impractical at this point, and the desperately needed benefit to society such a process can have, if successfully optimized and engineered, the field has more lure than sirens singing and combing their hair sitting on a rock. The timing of all this is unfortunate. Should an ignominious failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal, that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever. Perhaps that is already underway. Despite the lure, if no proven major practical development occurs, the field will be once again be left to old retired folks, self funded personal time efforts, wildcat businesses, dilettantes, hobbyists, and frauds. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? The ones who are dead. Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage, and so on. - Jed One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may have been to bring young people into the field. Once it becomes clear in the mind that nuclear reactions triggered by chemical potentials, without nuclear waste, is a reality, however impractical at this point, and the desperately needed benefit to society such a process can have, if successfully optimized and engineered, the field has more lure than sirens singing and combing their hair sitting on a rock. The timing of all this is unfortunate. Should an ignominious failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal, that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever. Perhaps that is already underway. Despite the lure, if no proven major practical development occurs, the field will be once again be left to old retired folks, self funded personal time efforts, wildcat businesses, dilettantes, hobbyists, and frauds. If LENR research is suppressed in the US then the US will be the worse off for it. The opposite approach is justified. As I wrote on page 36 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf There are clearly extensive possibilities for the exploration of LENR. The best way to do so is through use of an interdisciplinary team, backed by extensive laboratory and computing facilities. Expertise in electrochemistry, nanotechnology, materials science, particle physics, supercomputer simulation, and a wide variety of engineering fields is required. The best lattices and operating conditions are not likely to be found by Edisonian search, but through a combined computational experimental approach which is team directed. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
First, let me say we should all keep in mind at year end contributing the suggested $10 donation for vortex-l operation. The main purpose of this post is to bring up the issue of possibly routing all non-technical material relating to the Rossi E-cat to vortex-B. The technical content of this list has been highly diluted, and the posting rate greatly expanded. Many of the posts are now more appropriate for tweeting than for posting on a scientific discussion list. The Rossi fraud-no-fraud issue is a dead horse that has been beaten to death, worse than beaten, pulverized. The discussion has degenerated to name calling and comparisons to antifeminism and racism. We have to remember the reason this list was created in the first place: http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly becoming a battleground for the two types. Those who reasoned that we must study cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is real were constantly attacked by those who believe we must reject cold fusion because there is little evidence for it. And vice versa. Particularly shameful was the amount of hostility including sneering ridicule, emotional arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and great use of the low, unscientific techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY. (See http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html) Rule 2 is found here: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html#rules 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. Pathological Skepticism is banned (see the link.) The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test crazy claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board! The problem is what is reasonable to discuss on this list It is rather like: what is pornography? You know it when you see it. Personally I think the following are OK, even if about Rossi, if discussed in a respectful and scientific fashion: 1. News developments (after all this is a news list), including news reports, new papers, announcements, etc. 2. Experiment reports 3. Theory and theory papers 4. Related history of the field The problem is much discussion of Rossi has become repetitive, devoid of technical content, and virulent. The problem is throwing out the bath water and not the baby. What is needed is common sense and self restraint. Given that is missing to a large extent at the moment, some remedy is needed. We are losing members and/or meaningful member participation. The posting volume is too high to keep up, at least for me. I only read about half of what is posted, if that. I think something should be done. Anyone else feel the same? Suggestions or comments are requested. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: How about creating a foundation for distributing grants to researchers in the field of LENR? Of course the founding would come from private individuals and institutions. Would that make sense? mic I think this is a good idea. The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Jed you underestimate the contribution you have made. You have invested a lot of time, effort and skin in creating LENR-CANR.org You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their lives and health. However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field. If not sufficient for success of the field, it certainly is necessary for that success. I think it is worthy of a Preperata medal even now. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mysterious white web found growing on nuclear waste
On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:31 PM, MJ wrote: http://io9.com/5868883/mysterious-white-webs-found-growing-on- nuclear-waste This reminds me of a weak Ni sulfate solution codeposition on aluminum electrodes CF experiment I did years ago. Ni filaments formed in solution - massive amounts, that looked like cob webs. When a filament path formed between anode and cathode, a bright flash disintegrated the filament. It was like a miniature lightning bolt. The really weird thing about it was this happened at a fast rate, yet it was completely silent. It was like a storm in a beaker. There was no cavitation sound. There was no clear indication of excess heat, so I didn't follow up on it. That was an experiment that should have been followed up on for heavy element transmutation. I don't have the tools available for that. It is remotely possible the radiation, charged particle flux through the fuel rod cladding, or thermal stress, induces nickel or tin metal whiskers to grow to arbitrary lengths. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisker_(metallurgy) This article has some great photos of tin whiskers: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1742110show=html Google (tin whiskers). Just wild speculation. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money. As many other foundations do. If someone does not agree with a foundation politics, then he can make a better one. The good thing of LENR is that however expensive the research is, it is to a level that it can avoid state/national funding, and that is Rossi's lesson. Having competition on how to manage funding? would happen for sure, but that would be a positive thing, as always when there is fair competition. The important thing is to get started at some point, since the existing public institutions fail to see the benefits and since we know that it is something that if realized would benefit all, we must take our responsibilities at some point. mic Still some guidelines are required, and money needs to be compartmentalised. Such an institution should not give all its money to one person or group, for example. Grants should not all be in the same size range - many should be small, some large. Larger grants should be for follow-on work based on successful work. Considerations need to be made for fund investing. Here is a funding plan I put together for more commercially oriented research and development of renewable energy in general: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LegacyPlan.pdf This is not appropriate for LENR work only, but provides some ideas about what kinds of considerations need to be made. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: [snip] How are the donations made? http://amasci.com/weird/wvort.html Being an old fogey I snail mail mine to: William J. Beaty 6632 Corson Ave S Seattle, WA 98108 206-543-6195 USA I think there is a way using Paypal, but I don't know what it is. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
On Dec 18, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: I have consolidated my remarks in this thread, with some additional comments, into this paper: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf As typical for me, I continue to find and correct typos. Somehow I submitted a back level version. Thank you for your patience. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: Horace, Your plan has a much broader scope IMHO, would be nice some politician were able to understand it and apply it... mic Yes it would have been nice. I think Hillary Clinton had some similar plans , but was not elected. She certainly understood the issues I think. It would have worked far better than estimated, due to the extremely cheap solar cells now on the market. The fund would have made a lot of money, and would have completely removed itself from the political vagaries of annual national budget cycles. This could be an advantage to a private fund, provided the fund has a mechanism other than donations, to self sustain through partial vested financial interest in patents, stock, etc. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their lives and health. However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field. Perhaps. I hope so. But the point is, it did not call for any moral courage. I have no standing in academia and nothing to lose. I sacrificed nothing, other than money. Okay, lots of money. Other than that, it was tedious work and some rudimentary programming. People like Mallove and Mizuno made tremendous personal sacrifices. I would not want to be compared to them. Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. Mizuno spent every yen he ever earned on equipment. (He has the Japanese equivalent to Social Security, and they have national health insurance.) He went without a promotion for 20 years, and was still doing junior professor assignments at the end. Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? - Jed I should have said: However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field, with the exception of those of the founding fathers Fleischmann and Pons. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
The use of the term FPE is misleading and confusing. The Wright brothers invented the first controlled flight. It would be nonsensical and misleading to call every kind of winged aircraft a Wright machine, not distinguishing between a 747 and a piper cub. The FP protocol was Pd-D low voltage electrolysis. This differs from Claytor's low pressure gas cells, Storm's glow discharge, Mizuno and Ohmori's HV DC plasma electrolysis, or solid state electrolyte experiments, Piantelli's gaseous Ni-H, Arata and Zhang's double structured spillover cathode using Pd black, Patterson's layered Pd- Ni beads, Szpack's codepositon cells, Les Case's Ni-carbon catalyst in gaseous deuterium, etc. etc. Not all airplanes are the same, not all LENR devices are the same. There are important differences. There is a vocabulary that describes those differences, and which is used by people in the field. Who is going to know what you are talking about if you call every LENR device an FPE? On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: On 12/19/2011 5:19 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: If it were possible to replicate FP and build on it, there are thousands of people and companies who would have. They have been replicated. In many labs all around the world. Try searching in Jed's archives. Have you not listened to anything Jed has said about the history of the FPE? People lost their jobs and had their careers destroyed for reporting successful replications. Even FP themselves enjoyed new labs and millions of dollars in funds from the Japanese and never came up with definitive proof of their concepts. Amazing statement that. Too bad it is not correct. What they failed to do, as I understand it, is to produce a commercially ready device. Forged or ignored? I don't think there is any good evidence for that. Did you not see the unedited positive for FPE excess heat MIT results versus the edited no FPE excess heat MIT results? Someone in MIT forged the data and the Hot Fusion lab guys had a party. As for ignored, you must be joking? Right? Like the 24 SPAWAR peer reviewed results that were ignored? BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device. I wish you good luck with that-- I really do. We will get it done. Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it. I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or Defkalion! And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a factory visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
energies. It is also notable that the electron energy deficits noted are only initial lower limits. The actual initial energy deficit can be much higher, depending on the radius of the deflated proton or deflated quark involved. The tendency for Ni + 2 p* reactions to occur rather than Ni + p* reactions may be due to a tunneling energy threshold. The tandem aligned 3 poles configuration, N-S N-S N-S contains more potential than the corresponding two pole configuration, N-S N-S. For this reason it seems a strong magnetic field may benefit the reaction rate, even above the Debye temperature. For background on deflation fusion theory see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59132.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: Resonances...
On Dec 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: [snip] This ties in with Alchemy as well, and the very difficult time LENR scientists had with repeatability... conditions HAVE TO BE JUST RIGHT, or else the effect does not manifest. This should tell you something about this kind of downshifting theory, as well as the Chubb theories, and WL theory. In many cases the LENR reactions have been determined to occur at or very near the surface. This presents two major problems: (1) there is not enough material between the reaction site and the surface to screen gammas by the means suggested, and (2) the surfaces of cathodes are typically very dirty, hardly a pristine lattice. Proof of the ability of a very thin film surface layer to screen high energy gammas by collective action should be relatively easy to obtain. All that is required is a an x-ray tube, an x-ray flux meter, and an x-ray transparent medium on which the surface film is deposited and operated under the proposed conditions. Cold fusion as been proposed to be enhanced by nanostructures. A surface layer of nanoparticles one deep should be capable of producing LENR. If so, such a layer should not be capable of suppressing MeV level gammas - yet it should be feasible to test for high energy particles or gammas. I know of no one proposing a collective action which bridges nanoparticle gaps. I think it is much more probable that high energy nuclear radiation is suppressed or downshifted before it leaves the reacting nucleus excited state. It seems to me the state of nuclei undergoing LENR is necessarily de-energized a priori, i.e. before the energy of fusion is released. An obvious mechanism to achieve this a priori de- energizing is one or more electrons in the reacting nucleus before the nuclear reaction occurs. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: Resonances...
On Dec 17, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: How does one explain the observation that the energy involved with interactions of electrons is a million times less than nuclear interactions, and yet the 'electric' charges are 'equal' (and opposite). I would argue that there is no 'electric charge'; charge cannot be separated from the e or p 'objects'. I think this is primarily a matter of the *range* of the interactions. If you look at the deflated states you can see the electron involved has a mass similar to that of the nucleating particle, be it proton, deuteron, or quark. The physical parameters of these states are shown in approximate form here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf I had hoped to develop a more accurate and dynamic model, with compensation for the distribution of charge in the particle wavefunction, but this has been on a back burner for some years now. At close range extremely high velocities and relativistic gammas are involved. For example, the proton mass to electron mass ratio is given as 1.06983, and its gamma is 2.62791e+4. Further, the presence of an electron in a Ni nucleus diminishes its electro-magnetic field mass-energy by MeV levels. Another consideration may be that a large portion of the binding energy of a nucleus can be shown to be due to the Casimir force. This is an electromagnetic effect, and one not fully appraised in typical models of the nucleus I think. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Brief Deflation Fusion Summary
it an electron. An electron energetically trapped within a nucleus provides the possibility of a very short half-life weak reaction. I have published numerous prospective strong force only heavy LENR reactions here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt along with an approximation (in brackets) of the resulting energy deficit based on the composite nucleus radius. To look at weak reaction prospects it is only necessary to assume a weak reaction follows and then compute the product masses and energies involved. DEFLATION FUSION AND MIRROR MATTER I think mirror matter has a negative gravitational charge. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CosmicSearch.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GravityPairs.pdf This is of some relevance with regard to LENR. If LENR can create low mass neutral particles, like K0 kaons, then there is a possibility it can create long lasting mirror matter. Small neutral particles like K0 kaons can oscillate state, like neutrinos. If the oscillations include mirror symmetry, then mirror particles could be created before kaon disintegration or absorption. Anti-gravitational mirror matter could be manufactured by LENR. Mirror matter radiates mirror photons which travel through ordinary matter unimpeded. There is no means to insulate mirror matter, so it causes matter to which it is coupled to spontaneously cool. If enough mirror matter is created, and bound by the very small mirror matter couplig constant, it can be detected by this thermal property. For a sample experiment see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Mirror4 Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
Deflation fusion theory provides a potential solution to the riddle of why the radioactive byproducts 59CU29, 61Cu29 and 62Cu29 to the Ni + p reactions do not appear in Rossi's byproducts. This solution of the specific problem byproducts is manifest if the following rules are obeyed by the environment, except in extremely improbable instances: 1. The initial wavefunction collapse involves the Ni nucleus plus two p* 2. As with all LENR, radioactive byproducts are energetically disallowed. Here p* represents a deflated hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton and electron in a magnetically bound orbital, and v represents a neutrino. The above two rules result in the following energetically feasible reactions: 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV Ni28 + 2 p* --- 2 1H1 + 0 MeV Note that in the case where the second p* is rejected and results in 1H1, ultimately a hydrogen atom, that the electron and proton are not ejected at the same time. The large positive nuclear charge ejects the proton immediately with approximately 6 MeV kinetic energy. This should result in detectible brehmstrahlung. This energy is in addition to the mass change energy listed above. The approximately 6 MeV free energy so gained is made up from the zero point field via uncertainty pressure expanding any remaining trapped electron's wavefunction. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
deficits noted are only initial lower limits. The actual energy deficit can be much higher, depending on the radius of the deflated proton or deflated quark involved. For background on deflation fusion theory see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59132.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight
On Dec 16, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc LENR stands for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. The low energy part is the fact the reactions can occur with thermal or chemical inputs, energies well below even 1 eV. The outputs of course are not necessarily low energy. Such reactions can occur in lattices, amorphic substances like metallic glasses, on surfaces, and in liquids. They can occur at very low pressure or high pressure. LENR applies to all forms of reactions where nuclei are changed with low energy inputs. Sometimes nuclear reactions induced with intermediate energies, i.e. 100 V to several kV are referred to as warm fusion, but LENR, LANR, or CMNS is used also, as applicable. Claytor's low pressure gas and filament experiments are referred to as LENR experiments, even though kV energies were used. It became clear early on that cold fusion experiments produced more than just helium. Heavy elements were transmuted in the process of many experiments. That is the reason for describing these cold fusion results with the term LENR. In some cases the byproducts are due to more than just the fusion of two nuclei. The term LENR was meant to cover these cases. Many people do not distinguish between the two terms because most everyone who has been in the field long term knows what they mean. LANR stands for Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions. This is LENR in a lattice. Some theories require a lattice. Use of the term LANR is appropriate in those cases. It is not established that a lattice is required for all forms of LENR. CMNS stands for Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions. The term applies to low energy nuclear reactions that occur in condensed matter. The terms cold fusion, LENR, LANR, and CMNS have distinct meanings that have been established for many years. The last few years there has been a tendency to bastardize the vocabulary, in some cases possibly for personal gain, in some cases just from ignorance. This is unfortunate and deserves resistance. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat article by Haiko Leitz
On Dec 15, 2011, at 5:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up with a plausible method. Jed, your memory must be even worse than mine. I mean it. Take your analysis here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input power. It was too hot to touch. It burned an observer. This is irrefutable proof that the effect is real. Instead of explaining this, or even trying to deal with it, you raise nitpicking objections to irrelevant details. I take this as tacit admission on your part that the effect is real. Your paper is the best proof that even thoughtful, careful skeptics have no reasons to doubt this claim. Obviously, people who think that ultrasonic humidifier mist can be pushed through a long hose never did have any valid reasons. - Jed Either your memory is bad or you set very different standards of credibility for Rossi's claims than you do for the plausibility of faking methods. Your choice of my paper as an example is diversionary because (1) it only deals with one test and (2) it assumes a configuration with no fraud, no chemical energy being provided, a configuration with a logical reason behind it. That said, I think you should read the analysis again. All that is required to boil water and burn people for the test duration is an appropriate thermal mass and thermal resistance. The gross calculations of those were provided early on. Later I provided Graph 2S, referenced on page 13 as: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph2S.png which demonstrates an output of between 1500 W and and 750 W between time 150 minutes and time 476 minutes. I'd say sustaining a thermal output of between 1500 W and 750 W, or even half that, *without even using chemical energy*, just thermal mass, is enough to boil water and burn observers for 4 hours. Not all the water needs be boiled that was claimed for your conditions to be met. Also, the position of the Tout thermocouple, as well as the horizontal position of the heat exchanger, in the Oct test is not nitpicking. These things are critical to the interpretation of the results. If you assume fraud and add the possibility of chemical energy, which is feasible by numerous means, and only the use of the 30x30x30 cm interior box, then it is even feasible to produce the *claimed* energy output which was assumed but not proven. Even batteries can do that. For example see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58712.html Pyrolysis of carbon based fuels is another feasible method. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg56339.html Don't bother saying people saw inside the box. No one saw inside the 30x30x30 cm interior box, shown in photos 1 and 2 in my paper, much less inside the supposed reactor chambers. There was not even proof given such reaction chambers even existed. As for the other public tests, the *assumption* that pure steam was being provided makes the tests invalid as proof of principle. You apparently think waving your arms in the air and convincing yourself amounts to some kind of proof, or even has any meaningful bearing, regarding what did or did not, or could or could not, have happened in the Rossi tests. There remains doubt. I think even you have some doubts. There is no actual proof of anything - even though that proof could have easily been provided if Rossi cared to do so. Watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9I_CJti-RU from 10:26 to 16:09, where the Petroldragon fiasco is reviewed, provides sufficient reason to have some cautious reservation regarding Rossi's present results. Numerous methods of faking the Rossi demonstrations have been discussed, methods just as credible as Rossi's claims that is. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. NASA certainly does not find the tests credible proof. There clearly are numerous credible ways for such short running tests to be erroneous or faked. The burden of proof is not on NASA or anyone else to provide faking methods credible to everyone. Certainly various faking methods have been presented which are credible to me. I have seen neither proof nor disproof publicly provided that Rossi has anything worth investment. The burden of proof is on Rossi. What is necessary is Rossi's credibility, not the credibility of specific faking mechanisms. What is shocking is the assumption on the part of so many people that Rossi's claims are true without the proof that could have been so easily provided by Rossi if he cared. If this turns out to be a boondoggle then it will damage the credibility of the field and the serious researchers who
