Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:52 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: (However if you include the Ni mass in the energy density calculation and assume 1 H/Ni, then you get about 21640 eV / H atom which is beginning to stretch the friendship a bit.) Do your calculations make assumptions about the proportion of the fuel used up by the E-Cat during the Elforsk test? Would this calculation be the same if only 1 percent or 0.1 percent of the fuel were used up over the course of the experiment? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 26 May 2014 08:37:09 -0700: Hi, [snip] On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:52 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: (However if you include the Ni mass in the energy density calculation and assume 1 H/Ni, then you get about 21640 eV / H atom which is beginning to stretch the friendship a bit.) Do your calculations make assumptions about the proportion of the fuel used up by the E-Cat during the Elforsk test? Would this calculation be the same if only 1 percent or 0.1 percent of the fuel were used up over the course of the experiment? No, it wouldn't. I calculated the minimum energy you have to get from each H atom, assuming they were all involved. If the energy released were to come from just a fraction of them, then obviously the energy release per atom involved would be higher. In practice I suspect that if f/H of any sort is involved, then there is probably an energy contribution from both shrinkage and some form of nuclear reaction. What percentage is contributed by each would probably vary (perhaps strongly). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
Triple helixes are not involved in replication. The DNA/DNA/RNA version forms when RNA that is produced from the DNA then wraps itself around the double stranded DNA and it thne restructures itself to form a triple helix. This will only happen with pure DNA if the sequences are palindromic. Triple helixes can form with non-palinfromid sequences if the copper ions bind to the triple helix at specific locations that are related to the sequence mismatch. Nigel On 24/05/2014 03:55, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Nigel Dyer's message of Wed, 21 May 2014 17:31:32 +0100: Hi, [snip] And not just LENR. I am currently looking at how this may occur in the copper that is associated with DNA/DNA/RNA triple helixes Are triple helices involved in DNA replication, and if so if the copper attached to the end of the molecule? Nigel Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
From: Eric Walker mix...@bigpond.com wrote: (Still not impossible, as the maximum energy you can get from Hydrinos is 137^2 x 13.6 eV ~= 255 keV (actually precisely half an electron mass) from each Hydrogen atom.) This is to full redundancy? I think there's an effect that is believed to decrease the likelihood of shrinkage in direct proportion with increasingly redundancy, such that even level 1/4 is hard to get to? Actually it was suggested early-on in the development of Mills’ theory that once the shrinkage reached a threshold level, it would become autocatalytic “all the way down”… which is kind of like the old aphorism for all-things unknowable: “turtles all the way down”… and yes, equally without proof. (but appealing in simplicity) If we must choose between the two major non-nuclear hypothetical sources for power density in LENR – some version of the Dirac sea (ZPE) seems to beat out electron shrinkage by a country mile (well, at least a factor of 2) even if both employ electrons as the mass which is to be converted. Plus the beauty of Dirac, in the guise of “dark energy” is that it works as a “sink” as well as a source. In fact, the Dirac sea works better for LENR as an energy sink than as a energy source. IOW, the “holes” in the Dirac sea are positrons in another dimension, so we can essentially send electrons into that sink (if we find the gateway) and retain the full mass energy value in 3-space, instead of a fraction (if energy is conserved) and not worry about the annihilation photons at 511 keV, since that event does not happen in 3-space. This could be why the active electron in LENR, once it goes into autocatalytic redundancy (in an alternative to Mills theory) “keeps on going and going”… like the energizer battery :-) This is where things get interesting – the interplay of Nickel, LENR, Gravity and the Dirac sea. The idea of nickel or a nickel isotope being the gateway to the Dirac sea is then in the forefront. In trying to find small details that point to why nickel is (apparently) the most effective element for this transfer of energy in LENR, more so than iron - one curious detail found in geology of earth… which is “gravity anomalies”. This is the way geologists find nickel deposits (and iron). Gravity anomalies correlate well with nickel deposits, but also with iron. Of course, the standard rationale for this is that many of these deposits are ancient asteroid impact areas, and the source of nickel is from the meteorite. Well and good, but maybe that explanation overlooks another possible explanation, which is a bit convoluted, so bear with me. 1) Nickel proportionality - to iron in Fe/Ni meteorites… Iron is found in much higher ratio than on earth’s surface, tens of times higher than in meteorites. IOW - on earth’s present day surface, iron is far more prevalent, possibly indicating that nickel has become depleted on the surface of earth over billions of years, except in the younger impact sites. 2) If Ni were itself more susceptible to interaction with gravity, in some unexplained way that is beyond its higher density, then it would have disappeared faster from early earth, when the surface was molten. Of course, Ni is denser to start with, and that is one major factor - but is there something more vis-à-vis the force of gravity and two dense metals? Uranium is dense, but there is plenty on the surface, so density alone may not be the only determinant of surface proportionality. 3) We only assume the interior of earth is mostly iron – when in fact the interior could easily be mostly nickel. In fact, why not mostly nickel? Answer: traditional belief. 4) The actual density of earth’s core seems to be higher than either iron or nickel, but nickel is significantly denser than iron – ergo – more nickel could be in the core than iron. 5) Many of the largest meteorites are over 50% nickel, yet they are still called “iron” meteorites by tradition, since in general most of the smaller one are higher in iron. 6) Hydrogen interacts far differently with iron than nickel and that could be the “other factor” beyond density. 7) If the core of earth was mostly nickel, with dissolved hydrogen in dense form, then the source of interior heat of earth, which is assumed to come from uranium decay, could be coming from LENR !! In short, geologists assume many things in nature - based on the way the surface of earth looks now, instead of what it could have looked like earlier. That argument above - is a long way to go to support a premise that nickel could be a better “gateway” to Dirac, by being more susceptible to gravity, in some way which goes beyond its higher density. However, this is worth posing as an argument wrt to nickel’s higher propensity to absorb protons and the heat source of earth’s core. And
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
I agree with that line of thinking. I also think the Dirac sea is a Stormy Sea On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker mix...@bigpond.com wrote: (Still not impossible, as the maximum energy you can get from Hydrinos is 137^2 x 13.6 eV ~= 255 keV (actually precisely half an electron mass) from each Hydrogen atom.) This is to full redundancy? I think there's an effect that is believed to decrease the likelihood of shrinkage in direct proportion with increasingly redundancy, such that even level 1/4 is hard to get to? Actually it was suggested early-on in the development of Mills’ theory that once the shrinkage reached a threshold level, it would become autocatalytic “all the way down”… which is kind of like the old aphorism for all-things unknowable: “turtles all the way down”… and yes, equally without proof. (but appealing in simplicity) If we must choose between the two major non-nuclear hypothetical sources for power density in LENR – some version of the Dirac sea (ZPE) seems to beat out electron shrinkage by a country mile (well, at least a factor of 2) even if both employ electrons as the mass which is to be converted. Plus the beauty of Dirac, in the guise of “dark energy” is that it works as a “sink” as well as a source. In fact, the Dirac sea works better for LENR as an energy sink than as a energy source. IOW, the “holes” in the Dirac sea are positrons in another dimension, so we can essentially send electrons into that sink (if we find the gateway) and retain the full mass energy value in 3-space, instead of a fraction (if energy is conserved) and not worry about the annihilation photons at 511 keV, since that event does not happen in 3-space. This could be why the active electron in LENR, once it goes into autocatalytic redundancy (in an alternative to Mills theory) “keeps on going and going”… like the energizer battery :-) This is where things get interesting – the interplay of Nickel, LENR, Gravity and the Dirac sea. The idea of nickel or a nickel isotope being the gateway to the Dirac sea is then in the forefront. In trying to find small details that point to why nickel is (apparently) the most effective element for this transfer of energy in LENR, more so than iron - one curious detail found in geology of earth… which is “gravity anomalies”. This is the way geologists find nickel deposits (and iron). Gravity anomalies correlate well with nickel deposits, but also with iron. Of course, the standard rationale for this is that many of these deposits are ancient asteroid impact areas, and the source of nickel is from the meteorite. Well and good, but maybe that explanation overlooks another possible explanation, which is a bit convoluted, so bear with me. 1) Nickel proportionality - to iron in Fe/Ni meteorites… Iron is found in much higher ratio than on earth’s surface, tens of times higher than in meteorites. IOW - on earth’s present day surface, iron is far more prevalent, possibly indicating that nickel has become depleted on the surface of earth over billions of years, except in the younger impact sites. 2) If Ni were itself more susceptible to interaction with gravity, in some unexplained way that is beyond its higher density, then it would have disappeared faster from early earth, when the surface was molten. Of course, Ni is denser to start with, and that is one major factor - but is there something more vis-à-vis the force of gravity and two dense metals? Uranium is dense, but there is plenty on the surface, so density alone may not be the only determinant of surface proportionality. 3) We only assume the interior of earth is mostly iron – when in fact the interior could easily be mostly nickel. In fact, why not mostly nickel? Answer: traditional belief. 4) The actual density of earth’s core seems to be higher than either iron or nickel, but nickel is significantly denser than iron – ergo – more nickel could be in the core than iron. 5) Many of the largest meteorites are over 50% nickel, yet they are still called “iron” meteorites by tradition, since in general most of the smaller one are higher in iron. 6) Hydrogen interacts far differently with iron than nickel and that could be the “other factor” beyond density. 7) If the core of earth was mostly nickel, with dissolved hydrogen in dense form, then the source of interior heat of earth, which is assumed to come from uranium decay, could be coming from LENR !! In short, geologists assume many things in nature - based on the way the surface of earth looks now, instead of what it could have looked like earlier. That argument above - is a long way to go to support a premise that nickel could be a better “gateway” to Dirac, by being more susceptible to gravity, in
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
Nickel is a special LENR metal because it reflects near infrared light the best of any material. On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker mix...@bigpond.com wrote: (Still not impossible, as the maximum energy you can get from Hydrinos is 137^2 x 13.6 eV ~= 255 keV (actually precisely half an electron mass) from each Hydrogen atom.) This is to full redundancy? I think there's an effect that is believed to decrease the likelihood of shrinkage in direct proportion with increasingly redundancy, such that even level 1/4 is hard to get to? Actually it was suggested early-on in the development of Mills’ theory that once the shrinkage reached a threshold level, it would become autocatalytic “all the way down”… which is kind of like the old aphorism for all-things unknowable: “turtles all the way down”… and yes, equally without proof. (but appealing in simplicity) If we must choose between the two major non-nuclear hypothetical sources for power density in LENR – some version of the Dirac sea (ZPE) seems to beat out electron shrinkage by a country mile (well, at least a factor of 2) even if both employ electrons as the mass which is to be converted. Plus the beauty of Dirac, in the guise of “dark energy” is that it works as a “sink” as well as a source. In fact, the Dirac sea works better for LENR as an energy sink than as a energy source. IOW, the “holes” in the Dirac sea are positrons in another dimension, so we can essentially send electrons into that sink (if we find the gateway) and retain the full mass energy value in 3-space, instead of a fraction (if energy is conserved) and not worry about the annihilation photons at 511 keV, since that event does not happen in 3-space. This could be why the active electron in LENR, once it goes into autocatalytic redundancy (in an alternative to Mills theory) “keeps on going and going”… like the energizer battery :-) This is where things get interesting – the interplay of Nickel, LENR, Gravity and the Dirac sea. The idea of nickel or a nickel isotope being the gateway to the Dirac sea is then in the forefront. In trying to find small details that point to why nickel is (apparently) the most effective element for this transfer of energy in LENR, more so than iron - one curious detail found in geology of earth… which is “gravity anomalies”. This is the way geologists find nickel deposits (and iron). Gravity anomalies correlate well with nickel deposits, but also with iron. Of course, the standard rationale for this is that many of these deposits are ancient asteroid impact areas, and the source of nickel is from the meteorite. Well and good, but maybe that explanation overlooks another possible explanation, which is a bit convoluted, so bear with me. 1) Nickel proportionality - to iron in Fe/Ni meteorites… Iron is found in much higher ratio than on earth’s surface, tens of times higher than in meteorites. IOW - on earth’s present day surface, iron is far more prevalent, possibly indicating that nickel has become depleted on the surface of earth over billions of years, except in the younger impact sites. 2) If Ni were itself more susceptible to interaction with gravity, in some unexplained way that is beyond its higher density, then it would have disappeared faster from early earth, when the surface was molten. Of course, Ni is denser to start with, and that is one major factor - but is there something more vis-à-vis the force of gravity and two dense metals? Uranium is dense, but there is plenty on the surface, so density alone may not be the only determinant of surface proportionality. 3) We only assume the interior of earth is mostly iron – when in fact the interior could easily be mostly nickel. In fact, why not mostly nickel? Answer: traditional belief. 4) The actual density of earth’s core seems to be higher than either iron or nickel, but nickel is significantly denser than iron – ergo – more nickel could be in the core than iron. 5) Many of the largest meteorites are over 50% nickel, yet they are still called “iron” meteorites by tradition, since in general most of the smaller one are higher in iron. 6) Hydrogen interacts far differently with iron than nickel and that could be the “other factor” beyond density. 7) If the core of earth was mostly nickel, with dissolved hydrogen in dense form, then the source of interior heat of earth, which is assumed to come from uranium decay, could be coming from LENR !! In short, geologists assume many things in nature - based on the way the surface of earth looks now, instead of what it could have looked like earlier. That argument above - is a long way to go to support a premise that nickel could be a better “gateway” to Dirac, by being more susceptible to
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If we must choose between the two major non-nuclear hypothetical sources for power density in LENR – some version of the Dirac sea (ZPE) seems to beat out electron shrinkage by a country mile ... I rather like the imagery of something coming out of the Dirac sea, which reminds me of the sci-fi stories and movies of my youth. As far as my acquaintance with the corpus of modern scientific literature goes, anything that is based on virtual particles becoming real particles sounds a lot to my mind like *ex nihilo aliquid fit*. There's always an energy balance problem to be dealt with or explained away. I guess the needed energy could come from dark energy or dark matter. Physicists leave themselves open to speculation on the possibility of that stuff being converted into real matter and energy by taking the dark forms seriously in the first place. I have no strong opinion on the question, although at first glance they give the impression of being a Rube Goldberg-like consequence that is needed to save some broken prior assumptions. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
From: Eric Walker If we must choose between the two major non-nuclear hypothetical sources for power density in LENR – some version of the Dirac sea (ZPE) seems to beat out electron shrinkage by a country mile ... I rather like the imagery of something coming out of the Dirac sea, which reminds me of the sci-fi stories and movies of my youth… I guess the needed energy could come from dark energy or dark matter. Well, if the Dirac dimension is acting as a sink instead of source – then energy is not exactly coming out. The semantics are difficult (like multiplying two negatives to get a positive). CoE states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; but can be changed from one form to another (mass-to-energy which implies negative-mass to negative-energy). However, that strange situation leaves open the gate for non-nuclear matter (electrons, for example) to be depleted of mass-energy in our 3-space while the transaction is balanced by negative energy being reduced in an adjoining dimension. Two negatives giving a positive – yet does anything really transfer? Physicists leave themselves open to speculation on the possibility of that stuff being converted into real matter and energy by taking the dark forms seriously in the first place… they give the impression of being a Rube Goldberg-like consequence that is needed to save some broken prior assumptions. Today’s unexplained crude oddity is tomorrow’s stroke of genius. You remember Rossi’s first reactor, right? You can see better craftsmanship in introductory high school “shop” classes. However, the first cyclotron of EO Lawrence was not much better – held together with wax and string. Sometimes Rube wins the jackpot. The big difference is that Lawrence understood what he was doing theoretically and Rossi does not. Yet AR has been apparently able to get E-Cat to function most of the time. Luck plays a role, but perseverance and learning-from-mistakes plays a bigger role. I just hope that we (the long-time followers of LENR) will get enough real information to provide the answers and insight that AR may be unable to provide by himself. He can have the glory, and the megabucks, which he deserves - but there are some of us who only want to know “why.” Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
Jones, I like your thinking about that some people wants glory and megabucks while others just want to know why. I like the generous attitude and I think that AR should make liaisons with people who mostly wants to know why in as many ways as possible.The secrecy and the misleading maneuvers do not benefit anyone or the LENR field as a whole. I am sure that with just an ounce of creativity it is possible to create alternatives to secrecy. A hint- it is not patents. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker If we must choose between the two major non-nuclear hypothetical sources for power density in LENR – some version of the Dirac sea (ZPE) seems to beat out electron shrinkage by a country mile ... I rather like the imagery of something coming out of the Dirac sea, which reminds me of the sci-fi stories and movies of my youth… I guess the needed energy could come from dark energy or dark matter. Well, if the Dirac dimension is acting as a sink instead of source – then energy is not exactly coming out. The semantics are difficult (like multiplying two negatives to get a positive). CoE states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; but can be changed from one form to another (mass-to-energy which implies negative-mass to negative-energy). However, that strange situation leaves open the gate for non-nuclear matter (electrons, for example) to be depleted of mass-energy in our 3-space while the transaction is balanced by negative energy being reduced in an adjoining dimension. Two negatives giving a positive – yet does anything really transfer? Physicists leave themselves open to speculation on the possibility of that stuff being converted into real matter and energy by taking the dark forms seriously in the first place… they give the impression of being a Rube Goldberg-like consequence that is needed to save some broken prior assumptions. Today’s unexplained crude oddity is tomorrow’s stroke of genius. You remember Rossi’s first reactor, right? You can see better craftsmanship in introductory high school “shop” classes. However, the first cyclotron of EO Lawrence was not much better – held together with wax and string. Sometimes Rube wins the jackpot. The big difference is that Lawrence understood what he was doing theoretically and Rossi does not. Yet AR has been apparently able to get E-Cat to function most of the time. Luck plays a role, but perseverance and learning-from-mistakes plays a bigger role. I just hope that we (the long-time followers of LENR) will get enough real information to provide the answers and insight that AR may be unable to provide by himself. He can have the glory, and the megabucks, which he deserves - but there are some of us who only want to know “why.” Jones
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 23 May 2014 20:57:54 -0700: Hi, [snip] On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:52 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: (Still not impossible, as the maximum energy you can get from Hydrinos is 137^2 x 13.6 eV ~= 255 keV (actually precisely half an electron mass) from each Hydrogen atom.) This is to full redundancy? yes. I think there's an effect that is believed to decrease the likelihood of shrinkage in direct proportion with increasingly redundancy, such that even level 1/4 is hard to get to? Mills claims that the deeper you go the higher the multipolarity of the radiation required to be created, making it ever more unlikely. This is the reason he gives why he keeps on finding H[n=1/4]. I have another reason:- If you look at Hydrinohydride formation, the formula Mills provides for the formation energy of the Hydride gives a maximum p value of 24. Beyond that the formation energy is positive, IOW it doesn't form. The maximum is at p=16. Now if you assume that the radius goes as the inverse square of p rather than inversely linear with p then you find that then Mills p=16 has the same radius as p=4, and p=5 would equate to Mills p=25, which is unbound. In short if the radius goes as the square of p, then the smallest Hydrinohydride occurs for p=4, which could go a long way toward explaining why p=4 keeps on cropping up in Mills' experiments. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
In reply to Nigel Dyer's message of Sat, 24 May 2014 15:04:02 +0100: Hi, [snip] Triple helixes are not involved in replication. The DNA/DNA/RNA version forms when RNA that is produced from the DNA then wraps itself around the double stranded DNA and it thne restructures itself to form a triple helix. What role does the triple helix play in nature, or is this merely a lab curiosity? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 21 May 2014 20:24:38 -0700: Hi, [snip] On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: For instance, relativistic electron pumping via Dirac mechanics would not be nuclear. Is this a Dirac sea mechanism? Aside from a nuclear source, we have as possibilities f/H shrinkage, something coming out of the Dirac sea, and pure pair production from light. I'm inclined to invoke Occam, but I guess that's not so persuasive here. ;) Will f/H shrinkage provide a specific energy of 10E7 Wh/kg? When I think of f/H, the thought ~100 eV comes to my mind. Eric I assume that by 10E7 you actually mean 1E7 , i.e. 10 million ;). Going on this assumption, an energy density of 1E7 Wh/kg for an individual Hydrogen atom implies an energy of 373 eV, which is well within the range of Hydrinos. (Even 3730 eV would be possible, though less likely.) (However if you include the Ni mass in the energy density calculation and assume 1 H/Ni, then you get about 21640 eV / H atom which is beginning to stretch the friendship a bit.) (Still not impossible, as the maximum energy you can get from Hydrinos is 137^2 x 13.6 eV ~= 255 keV (actually precisely half an electron mass) from each Hydrogen atom.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
In reply to Nigel Dyer's message of Wed, 21 May 2014 17:31:32 +0100: Hi, [snip] And not just LENR. I am currently looking at how this may occur in the copper that is associated with DNA/DNA/RNA triple helixes Are triple helices involved in DNA replication, and if so if the copper attached to the end of the molecule? Nigel Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:52 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I assume that by 10E7 you actually mean 1E7 , i.e. 10 million ;). Yes -- it would be nice for my argument if it were 10E7, but really it's 1E7. :) (However if you include the Ni mass in the energy density calculation and assume 1 H/Ni, then you get about 21640 eV / H atom which is beginning to stretch the friendship a bit.) To get a number comparable to the number used in the calculation of the Elforsk team, I think one would have to include some nickel. :) If this is true, I think that means that both you and I suspect that it's beginning to stretch things, and we might want to look for something other than f/H in this particular instance. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:52 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: (Still not impossible, as the maximum energy you can get from Hydrinos is 137^2 x 13.6 eV ~= 255 keV (actually precisely half an electron mass) from each Hydrogen atom.) This is to full redundancy? I think there's an effect that is believed to decrease the likelihood of shrinkage in direct proportion with increasingly redundancy, such that even level 1/4 is hard to get to? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
In consideration of the recent posting regarding converting light into mass, the upper limit of energy density is set by the speed of light at 2.5 x 10^13 Wh/kg. Although the scientists have not actually converted photons to electrons and positrons, a controlled reverse process can be conceived which could achieve the upper limit. Such process would not necessarily involve any nucleus.
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
And not just LENR. I am currently looking at how this may occur in the copper that is associated with DNA/DNA/RNA triple helixes Nigel On 20/05/2014 16:28, Jones Beene wrote: With all the recent talk about the overlooked magnetic component of LENR - and spin coupling - at least for Ni-H and the Rossi effect, here is an excellent older paper which may contain insight on another piece of the puzzle, even if it was written to explain a completely different phenomenon (the Hans Coler effect) For this paper to be particularly relevant to Ni-H, we would need to take a closer look at the function of the resistance heater in the E-Cat. Is the 50/60 cycle input providing a hidden function in cohering magnetic precession somehow? Coherence could be inadvertent. It would be interesting to know if the 60 cycle AC in the USA has different effects than the 50 cycles of Italy since Larmor frequencies are typically microwave spectra. Cyril Smith says: If we wish to use Larmor precessions as charge pumps, but without external microwaves maintaining the FMR resonance, we need another method for cohering the precessions. There is an argument that, in a ferromagnetic conductor, phase-locking of the individual lattice precessions can be achieved by spin-spin coupling to and from conduction electrons, the conduction electrons themselves must precess and could therefore transport phase across the lattice. http://www.overunity.com/14614/the-bearden-meg/dlattach/attach/138654/ Larmor Precessions as Charge Pumps by Cyril Smith, July 2007 There is currently great interest in generating dc currents via spin dynamics. This comes from the emerging science of spintronics where research efforts are directed towards new means for investigating spin dynamics and development of new spin sources. Not surprisingly these efforts concentrate on spin transport, used as a digital signal, which offers lower losses than the dissipative charge transport used in modern computers. However spin dynamics can also influence charge transport, which has a wider application than computing. With global issues forcing new interest in sustainable energy sources, the prospect of power generation from quantum spin is appealing and worthy of serious consideration. Only in recent years has science demonstrated the realization of pumping electrons 'uphill' (i.e. against a potential gradient) in what has been called quantum ratchets. END of quote The specific reason that charge pumping by Larmor precession could be relevant to LENR is to be found in the recurrent hints of oscillation between ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetic states in the active material near the Curie point. This could be an important clue in the context of precession powering the oscillation, yet there are missing pieces of the puzzle. As to exactly why this oscillation creates the Ni-H thermal anomaly, we would almost certainly need to abandon a nuclear fusion scenario in place of gain via Dirac sea interaction. Since many observers seem wedded to a fusion scenario, despite the lack of any relevant indicia of a nuclear reaction, this insight from Cyril may be limited to those on the fringe of the fringe. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
-Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer And not just LENR. I am currently looking at how this may occur in the copper that is associated with DNA/DNA/RNA triple helixes Cyril Smith says: If we wish to use Larmor precessions as charge pumps, but without external microwaves maintaining the FMR resonance, we need another method for cohering the precessions. There is an argument that, in a ferromagnetic conductor, phase-locking of the individual lattice precessions can be achieved by spin-spin coupling to and from conduction electrons ... Nigel - Why not iron, instead of copper? Out of curiosity, I did a brief googling to see if DNA has an associated RF resonance. This turned up: Biophysicists have demonstrated that DNA... resonantly absorbs electromagnetic energy in the microwave range of the frequency spectrum... They have found in their experiments that microwaves in the 300 MHz to 3 GHz range can be thermally absorbed by causing a dipolar molecule, such as water to oscillate in a frictional media, thereby dissipating the energy in the form of heat... ... which seems a bit high for Larmor precession and seems to be a relic of water, not DNA, but it is one more reason why cell phones are not recommended for constant use by teenagers (since the range overlaps) attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
50 million in US with autoimmune diseases and growing. We are cooked (by microwaves) On Wednesday, May 21, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer And not just LENR. I am currently looking at how this may occur in the copper that is associated with DNA/DNA/RNA triple helixes Cyril Smith says: If we wish to use Larmor precessions as charge pumps, but without external microwaves maintaining the FMR resonance, we need another method for cohering the precessions. There is an argument that, in a ferromagnetic conductor, phase-locking of the individual lattice precessions can be achieved by spin-spin coupling to and from conduction electrons ... Nigel - Why not iron, instead of copper? Out of curiosity, I did a brief googling to see if DNA has an associated RF resonance. This turned up: Biophysicists have demonstrated that DNA... resonantly absorbs electromagnetic energy in the microwave range of the frequency spectrum... They have found in their experiments that microwaves in the 300 MHz to 3 GHz range can be thermally absorbed by causing a dipolar molecule, such as water to oscillate in a frictional media, thereby dissipating the energy in the form of heat... ... which seems a bit high for Larmor precession and seems to be a relic of water, not DNA, but it is one more reason why cell phones are not recommended for constant use by teenagers (since the range overlaps)
RE: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton In consideration of the recent posting regarding converting light into mass, the upper limit of energy density is set by the speed of light at 2.5 x 10^13 Wh/kg… Such process would not necessarily involve any nucleus. Yes - Exactamundo… this is the crux of my post to Eric - that high energy density alone does not necessarily imply nuclear energy … (unless of course, one chooses to define anything higher than chemical as nuclear - which is not a valid definition). For instance, relativistic electron pumping via Dirac mechanics would not be nuclear. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
recent data on kids, shows that the consumption of antibiotic while young kid is doubling asthman and alergy... more generally the hygiena hypothesis seems validated since long and denied by mainstream because of inconvenient conclusion that don't please the whistleblowers that have their prefered scapegoat. 2014-05-21 18:57 GMT+02:00 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com: 50 million in US with autoimmune diseases and growing. We are cooked (by microwaves) On Wednesday, May 21, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer And not just LENR. I am currently looking at how this may occur in the copper that is associated with DNA/DNA/RNA triple helixes Cyril Smith says: If we wish to use Larmor precessions as charge pumps, but without external microwaves maintaining the FMR resonance, we need another method for cohering the precessions. There is an argument that, in a ferromagnetic conductor, phase-locking of the individual lattice precessions can be achieved by spin-spin coupling to and from conduction electrons ... Nigel - Why not iron, instead of copper? Out of curiosity, I did a brief googling to see if DNA has an associated RF resonance. This turned up: Biophysicists have demonstrated that DNA... resonantly absorbs electromagnetic energy in the microwave range of the frequency spectrum... They have found in their experiments that microwaves in the 300 MHz to 3 GHz range can be thermally absorbed by causing a dipolar molecule, such as water to oscillate in a frictional media, thereby dissipating the energy in the form of heat... ... which seems a bit high for Larmor precession and seems to be a relic of water, not DNA, but it is one more reason why cell phones are not recommended for constant use by teenagers (since the range overlaps)
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
I have been looking at copper because it has an interesting relationship with the DNA triple helix.There is no evidence that iron has such an intimate relationship. The Copper 2+ ion is magnetic, and is borderline between being ferro and ferri magnetic, and I suspect that biology has learnt how to make good use of this marginal state. What is then interesting is the possibility of coupling between the copper atom's spin state and the spin state of protons of the water associated with the DNA. If anything, what mobile phone usage demonstrates is how resiliant the brain is to EM interference, in that while I have no dount it has some effect, it is nevertheless very subtle. Nigel On 21/05/2014 17:53, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer And not just LENR. I am currently looking at how this may occur in the copper that is associated with DNA/DNA/RNA triple helixes Cyril Smith says: If we wish to use Larmor precessions as charge pumps, but without external microwaves maintaining the FMR resonance, we need another method for cohering the precessions. There is an argument that, in a ferromagnetic conductor, phase-locking of the individual lattice precessions can be achieved by spin-spin coupling to and from conduction electrons ... Nigel - Why not iron, instead of copper? Out of curiosity, I did a brief googling to see if DNA has an associated RF resonance. This turned up: Biophysicists have demonstrated that DNA... resonantly absorbs electromagnetic energy in the microwave range of the frequency spectrum... They have found in their experiments that microwaves in the 300 MHz to 3 GHz range can be thermally absorbed by causing a dipolar molecule, such as water to oscillate in a frictional media, thereby dissipating the energy in the form of heat... ... which seems a bit high for Larmor precession and seems to be a relic of water, not DNA, but it is one more reason why cell phones are not recommended for constant use by teenagers (since the range overlaps)
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: In consideration of the recent posting regarding converting light into mass, the upper limit of energy density is set by the speed of light at 2.5 x 10^13 Wh/kg. Although the scientists have not actually converted photons to electrons and positrons, a controlled reverse process can be conceived which could achieve the upper limit. Such process would not necessarily involve any nucleus. To get the power seen in the 2013 E-Cat test, I assume the amount of pair production and resulting 511 keV annihilation photons from such a process would make a fantastic x-ray CRT and would be lethal to anyone nearby if not adequately shielded. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: For instance, relativistic electron pumping via Dirac mechanics would not be nuclear. Is this a Dirac sea mechanism? Aside from a nuclear source, we have as possibilities f/H shrinkage, something coming out of the Dirac sea, and pure pair production from light. I'm inclined to invoke Occam, but I guess that's not so persuasive here. ;) Will f/H shrinkage provide a specific energy of 10E7 Wh/kg? When I think of f/H, the thought ~100 eV comes to my mind. Eric
[Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
With all the recent talk about the overlooked magnetic component of LENR - and spin coupling - at least for Ni-H and the Rossi effect, here is an excellent older paper which may contain insight on another piece of the puzzle, even if it was written to explain a completely different phenomenon (the Hans Coler effect) For this paper to be particularly relevant to Ni-H, we would need to take a closer look at the function of the resistance heater in the E-Cat. Is the 50/60 cycle input providing a hidden function in cohering magnetic precession somehow? Coherence could be inadvertent. It would be interesting to know if the 60 cycle AC in the USA has different effects than the 50 cycles of Italy since Larmor frequencies are typically microwave spectra. Cyril Smith says: If we wish to use Larmor precessions as charge pumps, but without external microwaves maintaining the FMR resonance, we need another method for cohering the precessions. There is an argument that, in a ferromagnetic conductor, phase-locking of the individual lattice precessions can be achieved by spin-spin coupling to and from conduction electrons, the conduction electrons themselves must precess and could therefore transport phase across the lattice. http://www.overunity.com/14614/the-bearden-meg/dlattach/attach/138654/ Larmor Precessions as Charge Pumps by Cyril Smith, July 2007 There is currently great interest in generating dc currents via spin dynamics. This comes from the emerging science of spintronics where research efforts are directed towards new means for investigating spin dynamics and development of new spin sources. Not surprisingly these efforts concentrate on spin transport, used as a digital signal, which offers lower losses than the dissipative charge transport used in modern computers. However spin dynamics can also influence charge transport, which has a wider application than computing. With global issues forcing new interest in sustainable energy sources, the prospect of power generation from quantum spin is appealing and worthy of serious consideration. Only in recent years has science demonstrated the realization of pumping electrons 'uphill' (i.e. against a potential gradient) in what has been called quantum ratchets. END of quote The specific reason that charge pumping by Larmor precession could be relevant to LENR is to be found in the recurrent hints of oscillation between ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetic states in the active material near the Curie point. This could be an important clue in the context of precession powering the oscillation, yet there are missing pieces of the puzzle. As to exactly why this oscillation creates the Ni-H thermal anomaly, we would almost certainly need to abandon a nuclear fusion scenario in place of gain via Dirac sea interaction. Since many observers seem wedded to a fusion scenario, despite the lack of any relevant indicia of a nuclear reaction, this insight from Cyril may be limited to those on the fringe of the fringe. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Since many observers seem wedded to a fusion scenario, despite the lack of any relevant indicia of a nuclear reaction, this insight from Cyril may be limited to those on the fringe of the fringe. There is at least one relevant indicium that NiH is a nuclear process: http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/130520_ragone_04.png Eric
RE: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
From: Eric Walker There is at least one relevant indicium that NiH is a nuclear process: http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/130520_ragone_04.png Hmm… your assumption seems to be that if any reaction is an outlier to the main grouping, and much higher in energy or power density (than the chemical, mechanical etc reactions shown)… as NiH appears to be if we trust the data - then it must be nuclear, since the nuclear reaction which is shown is much higher as well. If you think about that logically for a while, you will probably realize that your conclusion is false for reasons related to the incompleteness of the chart. First, there are forms of non-nuclear energy release which are not plotted, and are higher in energy density than ones shown (such as electron-positron annihilation) and secondly there is a basic correlation error because the outliers are themselves in very different locations. The most that one can say is that power and energy characteristics of Ni-H do not resemble the main grouping, but they also do not resemble the nuclear parameters either.
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If you think about that logically for a while, you will probably realize that your conclusion is false for reasons related to the incompleteness of the chart. Far from the conclusion that the location on the Ragone chart suggests that the process involved in NiH is probably nuclear in origin is false, it seems to me that it's quite reasonable, and perhaps the most reasonable. What the chart shows us is that there are few if any known chemical processes as far to the right as the red pentagram (and none shown that have as much peak power). In this context one might draw the following conclusions: 1. There is a chemical reaction that has the same peak power and specific energy, and we just don't know about it, or it hasn't been included. 2. The process in NiH is somehow nuclear, and a lot of nuclear mass is being converted into energy. 3. There is something driving the NiH reaction that is neither nuclear nor chemical (e.g., dark matter). 4. The measurements in the March 2013 E-Cat test were in gross error. I am quite comfortable with (2). Option (1) strikes me as lacking credibility. Option (3) is possible, but it doesn't stand out as being the first hypothesis one would want to adopt. If you are inclined towards (4), I would like to know what the flaws in the test might be. If I have missed an option, please point it out. Eric
