RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
I never said it was 'exotic'. And I never attempted to explain something as simply claiming it was a resonant phenomenon. Stop putting words in my mouth. This whole discussion started with your statement: Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics. In what way? Explain. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:56 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The simple fact is, that given the SAME amount of 'push' at regular intervals, a resonant system will achieve what appears to be extreme amplitudes whereas the non-resonant push of the SAME amount of force, can NEVER achieve any lasting, That's what I said. I didn't say resonance was not important, only that it is not exotic, and in fact is elementary, and you can't just explain something you don't understand by saying: Oh, it's a resonant phenomenon. And by the way, those big particle accelerators rely on resonance too.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I never said it was ‘exotic’… And I never attempted to explain something as simply claiming it was a resonant phenomenon… Stop putting words in my mouth. This whole discussion started with your statement: “Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics.” ** ** In what way? Explain… Semantic discussions are rarely useful, but I took the meaning of brute force from the context in which you used it, when you said: You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. If all that nuclear physicists know is brute force physics, then resonance is very much a part of brute force physics, because all nuclear physicists are intimately familiar with resonance. It's an elementary phenomenon taught in freshman physics, and permeates all branches of physics, including nuclear physics, in phenomena such as resonant gamma ray absorption or emission (in the Mossbauer effect, as one of many examples). To move beyond the semantics of brute force, your argument was that resonant phenomena made the concentration of thermal energy a millionfold in nickel powder absolutely possible (in caps), and that this was something nuclear physicists would not think of because it is outside their knowledge (which is where I got exotic from).
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Of course resonance is simple physics, and is the foundation for all 'flavors' of spectroscopies, however, that is NOT what I was referring to when I used resonance in this statement, You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. I would have thought with my clear statements about using extremely intense magnetic fields and smashing particles head on at extremely high velocities, it would have been obvious that I was referring to something specific, and not a 'general' concept of resonance. Why does nuclear physics use (BRUTE FORCE) particle accelerators? Because they are boxed in by the thought that the ONLY way to overcome the coulomb barrier is extreme force. Well, ya, that certainly is one way, but my point is that one could achieve the same end using much more modest energies if the device used resonance. That's all. it's certainly not meant to be a full blown explanation of exactly how to achieve that. So how do particle accelerators use resonance to overcome electrostatic repulsion? -mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 12:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I never said it was 'exotic'. And I never attempted to explain something as simply claiming it was a resonant phenomenon. Stop putting words in my mouth. This whole discussion started with your statement: Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics. In what way? Explain. Semantic discussions are rarely useful, but I took the meaning of brute force from the context in which you used it, when you said: You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. If all that nuclear physicists know is brute force physics, then resonance is very much a part of brute force physics, because all nuclear physicists are intimately familiar with resonance. It's an elementary phenomenon taught in freshman physics, and permeates all branches of physics, including nuclear physics, in phenomena such as resonant gamma ray absorption or emission (in the Mossbauer effect, as one of many examples). To move beyond the semantics of brute force, your argument was that resonant phenomena made the concentration of thermal energy a millionfold in nickel powder absolutely possible (in caps), and that this was something nuclear physicists would not think of because it is outside their knowledge (which is where I got exotic from).
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I would have thought with my clear statements about using extremely intense magnetic fields and smashing particles head on at extremely high velocities, it would have been obvious that I was referring to something specific, What specific, exactly? and not a ‘general’ concept of resonance. Why does nuclear physics use (BRUTE FORCE) particle accelerators? Because they are boxed in by the thought that the ONLY way to overcome the coulomb barrier is extreme force. You know, you don't need much energy (on the scale of accelerators) to overcome the Coulomb barrier; that's why you can buy bench top neutron sources that use ordinary fusion produced by accelerating deuterons through a simple electric field. The energy in big accelerators is needed to produce more exotic reactions and particles that don't exist in nature (except in stars or supernovae). Well, ya, that certainly is one way, but my point is that one could achieve the same end using much more modest energies if the device used resonance. The device does use resonance. But if you've got a way to look for the Higg's boson without big accelerators, you're a shoo-in for a nobel prize. I'm honored to have argued with you. But, as I said before, just saying resonance doesn't make something possible. You're going to have to be specific, or there's no cigar. That’s all… it’s certainly not meant to be a full blown explanation of exactly how to achieve that… No. It's not an explanation at all. It's just a vague wish. It's like saying we'll use zero-point energy, or pink unicorns, without any concept of how exactly. ** ** So how do particle accelerators use resonance to overcome electrostatic repulsion? Again, accelerators are many orders of magnitude beyond breaching the Coulomb barrier. But, as one example, from the first sentence in wikipedia on cyclotrons: *Ion cyclotron resonance* is a phenomenon related to the movement of ionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ions in a magnetic field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field. It is used for accelerating ions in a cyclotronhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron ,... Or in the article on particle accelerators: As the particles approach the speed of light the switching rate of the electric fields becomes so high that they operate at microwave frequencies, and so RF cavity resonators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_resonator are used in higher energy machines instead of simple plates. Basically, in any cyclic accelerator, the acceleration has to be in sync (resonance) with the particle motion. Otherwise there's interference and dissipation.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
JC: Thx for the explanations, relevant or not, however, I still think that the discussion wandered from my initial point, which was, given proper conditions, one can disrupt the natural balance within a nucleus and cause unexpected results using much lower levels of energy by using resonance rather than brute force. I have to spend time on paid work so let's just agree to disagree. Aside from that, your comment that the large accelerators go way beyond the energy necessary for overcoming the Coulomb Barrier seems to be only partially right. In the following article, the physicist states: In other words, even the most massive stars, at the incredible pressures and temperatures found at their cores, cannot fuse nickel and hydrogen nuclei together. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_w e.php?utm_source=feedburner http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_ we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+Sciencebl ogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 utm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28Sci enceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 So, even the most powerful accelerator built cannot overcome the CB for the vast majority of atomic elements. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 2:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I would have thought with my clear statements about using extremely intense magnetic fields and smashing particles head on at extremely high velocities, it would have been obvious that I was referring to something specific, What specific, exactly? and not a 'general' concept of resonance. Why does nuclear physics use (BRUTE FORCE) particle accelerators? Because they are boxed in by the thought that the ONLY way to overcome the coulomb barrier is extreme force. You know, you don't need much energy (on the scale of accelerators) to overcome the Coulomb barrier; that's why you can buy bench top neutron sources that use ordinary fusion produced by accelerating deuterons through a simple electric field. The energy in big accelerators is needed to produce more exotic reactions and particles that don't exist in nature (except in stars or supernovae). Well, ya, that certainly is one way, but my point is that one could achieve the same end using much more modest energies if the device used resonance. The device does use resonance. But if you've got a way to look for the Higg's boson without big accelerators, you're a shoo-in for a nobel prize. I'm honored to have argued with you. But, as I said before, just saying resonance doesn't make something possible. You're going to have to be specific, or there's no cigar. That's all. it's certainly not meant to be a full blown explanation of exactly how to achieve that. No. It's not an explanation at all. It's just a vague wish. It's like saying we'll use zero-point energy, or pink unicorns, without any concept of how exactly. So how do particle accelerators use resonance to overcome electrostatic repulsion? Again, accelerators are many orders of magnitude beyond breaching the Coulomb barrier. But, as one example, from the first sentence in wikipedia on cyclotrons: Ion cyclotron resonance is a phenomenon related to the movement of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ions ions in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field magnetic field. It is used for accelerating ions in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron cyclotron,... Or in the article on particle accelerators: As the particles approach the speed of light the switching rate of the electric fields becomes so high that they operate at microwave frequencies, and so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_resonator RF cavity resonators are used in higher energy machines instead of simple plates. Basically, in any cyclic accelerator, the acceleration has to be in sync (resonance) with the particle motion. Otherwise there's interference and dissipation.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC: Thx for the explanations, relevant or not, however, I still think that the discussion wandered from my initial point, which was, given proper conditions, one can disrupt the natural balance within a nucleus and cause unexpected results using much lower levels of energy by using resonance rather than brute force. And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless. ** ** ** Aside from that, your comment that the large accelerators go way beyond the energy necessary for overcoming the Coulomb Barrier seems to be only partially right. In the following article, the physicist states: “In other words, even the most massive stars, at the incredible pressures and temperatures found at their cores, cannot fuse nickel and hydrogen nuclei together.” ** ** So, even the most powerful accelerator built cannot overcome the CB for the vast majority of atomic elements… The *temperatures* and *pressures* in stars are not enough. An accelerator does not give energy to particles by heating them up, but by accelerating them in electromagnetic fields. You need to think outside the box, and consider the power of resonance, and not just brute force heating. You can fire a proton from a small cyclotron at 50 MeV to produce Cu from Ni, no problem. And in the LHC, protons collide at multi-TeV energies, and even for fixed targets, you can get protons close to 1 TeV. The temperature corresponding to 1 TeV would be more than a quadrillion kelvins (10^16 K). There are no stars that hot. Even 50 MeV corresponds to a trillion degrees, far above star temperatures. So, yes, accelerators go way way way beyond the energy needed to breach any Coulomb barrier in nature.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
JC: You continue to claim that accelerators use resonance, and therefore that my comment, Why does nuclear physics use (BRUTE FORCE) particle accelerators? Because they are boxed in by the thought that the ONLY way to overcome the coulomb barrier is extreme force. is somehow faulty. You continue to make irrelevant points. Sure, application of the energy used to accelerate the particles must be applied in a resonant manner to reach the velocities in the most efficient manner, so a form of resonance is used in accelerator design. That is irrelevant. The END RESULT is brute force smashing things together. there is NO resonance in that! That is, and always has been, my point. The actual interaction of the particles is by brute force, NOT RESONANCE. JC writes: And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless. To answer this sad excuse for a rebuttal, the specifics comes from proposing a hypothesis, and then following that hypothesis to see where it leads and whether it could be reasonable from a physics perspective; and then conducting experiments to test the hypothesis. That is the scientific process. Your attitude reeks of closed-minded, theoretically-impossible-so-why-bother-even-thinking-about-it. We'd all be living in caves and throwing spears with that attitude. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC: Thx for the explanations, relevant or not, however, I still think that the discussion wandered from my initial point, which was, given proper conditions, one can disrupt the natural balance within a nucleus and cause unexpected results using much lower levels of energy by using resonance rather than brute force. And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless. Aside from that, your comment that the large accelerators go way beyond the energy necessary for overcoming the Coulomb Barrier seems to be only partially right. In the following article, the physicist states: In other words, even the most massive stars, at the incredible pressures and temperatures found at their cores, cannot fuse nickel and hydrogen nuclei together. So, even the most powerful accelerator built cannot overcome the CB for the vast majority of atomic elements. The *temperatures* and *pressures* in stars are not enough. An accelerator does not give energy to particles by heating them up, but by accelerating them in electromagnetic fields. You need to think outside the box, and consider the power of resonance, and not just brute force heating. You can fire a proton from a small cyclotron at 50 MeV to produce Cu from Ni, no problem. And in the LHC, protons collide at multi-TeV energies, and even for fixed targets, you can get protons close to 1 TeV. The temperature corresponding to 1 TeV would be more than a quadrillion kelvins (10^16 K). There are no stars that hot. Even 50 MeV corresponds to a trillion degrees, far above star temperatures. So, yes, accelerators go way way way beyond the energy needed to breach any Coulomb barrier in nature.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The END RESULT is brute force smashing things together… there is NO resonance in that! That is, and always has been, my point. The actual interaction of the particles is by brute force, NOT RESONANCE. Collisions can be resonant too, but the goal of the experiments is energetic collisions, so accelerators use resonance to achieve the goal. And again, if you have an idea of how to produce exotic particles or probe the subatomic world in another way, I'm sure you'd find an audience. But if you just say use resonance, you're gonna get ignored. ** ** JC writes: “And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless.” ** ** To answer this sad excuse for a rebuttal, the specifics comes from proposing a hypothesis, and then following that hypothesis to see where it leads and whether it could be reasonable from a physics perspective; and then conducting experiments to test the hypothesis. So, you've got nothin'. Your attitude reeks of closed-minded, theoretically-impossible-so-why-bother-even-thinking-about-it. We’d all be living in caves and throwing spears with that attitude… No. You have this the wrong way round. It's the cold fusion experiments that haven't changed significantly in 20 years. The rest of physics has moved on. I'm no more skeptical of cold fusion than the vast majority of scientists, and progress in science has kept pace since 1989. On the other hand, all the scientists who are not appropriately skeptical have made no progress at all. They're spinning their wheels. Zawodny's slides are an indication. He can't find a single definitive thing to say about the field. It's all sporadic detection of this and energy needed for that. Nothing is ever measured or identified consistently. The way science progresses is that knowledge already established is used as a guide. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. QM and relativity could not have been developed without carefully cataloged and reproduced experimental results, just as Newton needed Kepler and Braha. Skepticism is a critical filter in science. Planck himself made great contributions to physics, but it took him a decade to accept the idea of photons, a concept his ideas led to. Cold fusion advocates just throw everything out and say resonance glorp chumble spuzz and hope something works out. Systematic is not in their vocabulary. Nothing should be regarded as impossible, but if you give every idea equal probability of being right, you will get nowhere. Which is where cold fusion has gotten.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Collisions can be resonant too. Please explain. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The END RESULT is brute force smashing things together. there is NO resonance in that! That is, and always has been, my point. The actual interaction of the particles is by brute force, NOT RESONANCE. Collisions can be resonant too, but the goal of the experiments is energetic collisions, so accelerators use resonance to achieve the goal. And again, if you have an idea of how to produce exotic particles or probe the subatomic world in another way, I'm sure you'd find an audience. But if you just say use resonance, you're gonna get ignored.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** ** “Collisions can be resonant too…” ** ** Please explain… ** Here's an abstract from PRL, which I found with 10 seconds of google. Have you heard of it? Resonant collisional energy transfer between atoms with small relative velocity is shown to have such long collision times, ∼0.17 μs, or equivalently such narrow linewidths, 6 MHz, that it may be used to make spectroscopic measurements. Specifically, we report the use of the sharply resonant collisional energy transfer ns+(n-2)d→np +(n-1)p, between velocity-selected K atoms to determine an improved value, 1.711?5(5), and the K np-state quantum defect.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Nope, let me look into it... thx. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: “Collisions can be resonant too…” Please explain… Here's an abstract from PRL, which I found with 10 seconds of google. Have you heard of it? Resonant collisional energy transfer between atoms with small relative velocity is shown to have such long collision times, ∼0.17 μs, or equivalently such narrow linewidths, 6 MHz, that it may be used to make spectroscopic measurements. Specifically, we report the use of the sharply resonant collisional energy transfer ns+(n-2)d→np +(n-1)p, between velocity-selected K atoms to determine an improved value, 1.711?5(5), and the K np-state quantum defect.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Nope, let me look into it... thx. I meant google. Have you heard of google. Don't bother looking in to the particular resonant collisions. It's just an example of where collision energy can be tailored to match energy levels in inelastic collisions. Nothing particularly relevant beyond that.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
I bet you crack yourself up, don't you. Darn, I've already wasted the time. but fortunately I've already found some interesting abstracts that mention drastic changes in branching ratios and enhanced energy transfer in resonant or near-resonant systems. which was my point. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 2:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Nope, let me look into it... thx. I meant google. Have you heard of google. Don't bother looking in to the particular resonant collisions. It's just an example of where collision energy can be tailored to match energy levels in inelastic collisions. Nothing particularly relevant beyond that.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
JC wrote: Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true. That certainly is one possibility. but it's just as plausible that your and MY's eyes glaze over because you don't have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what's being proposed. And he also smugly states: Honestly, if a talk so devoid of hard results or plausible mechanisms were presented in any other field, it would be laughed off stage. One can only hope this is not representative of much of the research that goes on at NASA. Cude, you're such an A$$ sometimes. this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don't have? What experiments they've done or not done? Have you talked to Bushnell or Zawodny in order to verify your speculations BEFORE making such condescending remarks behind their back? We all know the answer to that question, don't we! -mark
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC wrote: “Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true.” ** ** That certainly is one possibility… but it’s just as plausible that your and MY’s eyes glaze over because you don’t have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what’s being proposed. But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an incomprehensible sentence. You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni. People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing WL, even though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much respect. this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don’t have? What experiments they’ve done or not done? It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't it make more sense to present evidence like that? The presentation looks pretty similar to the one he gave in 2009. No indication of progress at all. But again, maybe he's got a reason for hiding it. Maybe, but I doubt it. Anyway, based on what's available, I remain skeptical.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Joshua wrote: So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE. You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. Tesla generated electrical discharges over 130 feet long when in Colorado Springs in 1899. That represents many 10s of millions of volts when his primary coil was operating at some very small fraction of that. He had VERY crude materials to work with and very limited electrical equipment (much of which he had to build). Despite the primitive resources, he was able to generate the EXTREME voltages and currents BECAUSE OF RESONANCE. Ever hear of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw For most, theory is a transparent box. those inside don't know they're inside, or that there's even an outside! -Mark
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Joshua wrote: “So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon.” ** ** ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE. ** ** You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics. It's well-understood, and not magical at all. Your argument is that resonance has some amazing macroscopic effects, and so WL is absolutely possible. Sorry, it doesn't do anything for me. ** ** Tesla generated electrical discharges over 130 feet long when in Colorado Springs in 1899. That represents many 10s of millions of volts when his primary coil was operating at some very small fraction of that. Big deal. Tesla coils are not magic. A resonant transformer is well understood. Producing a million volts in a macroscopic device is pretty easy. But even those fields are 10,000 smaller than WL need localized to produce electron capture. And how does a resonant transformer relate to concentrating thermal energy into an electric field fluctuation at a single atomic site. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying your arguments and Zawodny's (or WL) jargon don't make it any more plausible. And it still leaves the question of why WL is any more plausible than ordinary fusion. The latter should be a 10 times easier resonant phenomenon, so why does anyone (NASA) pay attention to WL? I can read minds using resonance. Don't believe me? Look up Tesla coils and the Tacoma bridge.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint posted a study on Rydberg matter a few weeks ago which stated that this special form of exotic hydrogen (alkali matter) can amplify quantum mechanical properties of atoms by some 11 orders of magnitude; that is 10 to the 11th power. The Coulomb barrier cannot protect the nucleus of the atom from proton intrusion when exposed to such a huge and powerful masking force. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC wrote: “Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true.” ** ** That certainly is one possibility… but it’s just as plausible that your and MY’s eyes glaze over because you don’t have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what’s being proposed. But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an incomprehensible sentence. You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni. People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing WL, even though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much respect. this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don’t have? What experiments they’ve done or not done? It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't it make more sense to present evidence like that? The presentation looks pretty similar to the one he gave in 2009. No indication of progress at all. But again, maybe he's got a reason for hiding it. Maybe, but I doubt it. Anyway, based on what's available, I remain skeptical.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Hi Axil, Gee, I don't even remember whether I posted that one or not, but what's important is that there is plenty of evidence that extraordinary CONDITIONS frequently produce results that don't make sense. Nice to know that someone has seen my FYI postings to be potentially useful. Why did I post that particular article??? When I read thru the latest science headlines, I just get a feeling that certain ones have some importance beyond the obvious. Is it 'intuition'? Not sure about intuition. some ascribe to it some kind of 'magical' qualities. I'm think more along the lines that the subconscious mind is much more aware of things and 'sees' the connections which the conscious mind does not. thus, the light bulb going on seems magical to the conscious mind, but is perfectly clear why to the unconscious mind. -m From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint posted a study on Rydberg matter a few weeks ago which stated that this special form of exotic hydrogen (alkali matter) can amplify quantum mechanical properties of atoms by some 11 orders of magnitude; that is 10 to the 11th power. The Coulomb barrier cannot protect the nucleus of the atom from proton intrusion when exposed to such a huge and powerful masking force. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC wrote: Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true. That certainly is one possibility. but it's just as plausible that your and MY's eyes glaze over because you don't have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what's being proposed. But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an incomprehensible sentence. You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni. People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing WL, even though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much respect. this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don't have? What experiments they've done or not done? It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't it make more sense to present evidence like that? The presentation looks pretty similar to the one he gave in 2009. No indication of progress at all. But again, maybe he's got a reason for hiding it. Maybe, but I doubt it. Anyway, based on what's available, I remain skeptical.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
So sorry, I should have included a reference to that paper for the convenience of Mr. Cude. http://physics.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.031402.pdf Best regards, Axil On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hi Axil, ** ** Gee, I don’t even remember whether I posted that one or not, but what’s important is that there is plenty of evidence that extraordinary CONDITIONS frequently produce results that don’t make sense. Nice to know that someone has seen my FYI postings to be potentially useful… Why did I post that particular article??? When I read thru the latest science headlines, I just get a feeling that certain ones have some importance beyond the obvious. Is it ‘intuition’? Not sure about intuition… some ascribe to it some kind of ‘magical’ qualities… I’m think more along the lines that the subconscious mind is much more aware of things and ‘sees’ the connections which the conscious mind does not… thus, the light bulb going on seems magical to the conscious mind, but is perfectly clear why to the unconscious mind. ** ** -m ** ** *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, December 05, 2011 9:31 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit ** ** ** ** Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint posted a study on Rydberg matter a few weeks ago which stated that this special form of exotic hydrogen (alkali matter) can amplify quantum mechanical properties of atoms by some 11 orders of magnitude; that is 10 to the 11th power. The Coulomb barrier cannot protect the nucleus of the atom from proton intrusion when exposed to such a huge and powerful masking force. ** ** On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: ** ** On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC wrote: “Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true.” That certainly is one possibility… but it’s just as plausible that your and MY’s eyes glaze over because you don’t have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what’s being proposed. ** ** ** ** But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an incomprehensible sentence. ** ** You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni. ** ** People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? ** ** It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing WL, even though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much respect. ** ** this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don’t have? What experiments they’ve done or not done? ** ** It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
It is clearly demonstrable that there exist mechanisms (of unknown type) in room temperature condensed matter to create at least 10's of keV, check out the rather fascinating following video: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/10588/X_Rays_from_Sellotape/ On 5 December 2011 15:52, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC wrote: “Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true.” ** ** That certainly is one possibility… but it’s just as plausible that your and MY’s eyes glaze over because you don’t have enough in-depth knowledge of the relevant physics to fully understand what’s being proposed. But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an incomprehensible sentence. You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni. People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing WL, even though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much respect. this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do you know what data they have or don’t have? What experiments they’ve done or not done? It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't it make more sense to present evidence like that? The presentation looks pretty similar to the one he gave in 2009. No indication of progress at all. But again, maybe he's got a reason for hiding it. Maybe, but I doubt it. Anyway, based on what's available, I remain skeptical.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Am 05.12.2011 19:50, schrieb Robert Lynn: It is clearly demonstrable that there exist mechanisms (of unknown type) in room temperature condensed matter to create at least 10's of keV, check out the rather fascinating following video: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/10588/X_Rays_from_Sellotape/ They should use glue made out of deuteriumcarbon, instead of hydrogencarbon and see if they get neutrons ;-)
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
JC, IMHO the resonance as mentioned by Mark, and the Rydberg matter as mentioned by Axil, are both involved in supplying this million fold energy gain you require but are not the source. I do like that you referred to the random atomic motion because it is actually just that chaotic motion of hydrogen gas when confined inside the Ni powder that accumulates your energy in what may be our first glimpse of a Heisenberg Uncertainty trap. Both Mill's skeletal catalyst and Rossi's nano powder form geometries that displace larger virtual particles which lowers the total energy density of space time in these suppression regions. Catalytic action only occurs where there are openings or changes in these geometries which is why these geometries are so critical and easily degraded. An ideal Casimir cavity has a rather steady energy density except near the slab edges and therefore very little catalytic action, but, if you were to corrugate the boundaries so the energy density between them varies you would have a synthetic catalyst [like the Haisch - Moddel prototype]. This means much care must be taken to maintain rough grainy boundaries as the working environment but still need to provide rapid relative motion of the hydrogen to the boundaries, This is why Mark focused on resonance which instead of a direct current stream of hydrogen circulation through the bulk powder equates to an alternating stream of the hydrogen sloshing back and forth through the powder. [a static fill as Jones Beene refers to it as opposed to a messy external path and pump assembly. H2 recombination has a high energy release and my posit remains that existing heat and vigorous catalytic action can discount the energy needed to disassociate the newly formed molecule at over unity. This requires a careful balance of temp near disassociation, an agitator like Rossi's RF to move the hydrogen and heat extraction to protect the geometry and cool the hydrogen back into recombination in an endless cycle. Axil's Rydberg hydrogen and my own inverse Rydberg hydrogen are born from the environment. Jan Naudts said the hydrino was relativistic but didn't say how which led me to interpret Casimir effect as relativistic. The environment makes the hydrogen appear relativistic without the need for speed - more of a segregation where regions of reduced density form inverse Rydberg matter while balancing regions of increased density form Rydberg matter. See http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58001.html IOW a kind of maxwellian demon based on change in vacuum energy density that discounts the disassociation threshold of dihydrinos but allows hydrino motion unopposed. Fran From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit Joshua wrote: So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant phenomenon. ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE. You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. Tesla generated electrical discharges over 130 feet long when in Colorado Springs in 1899. That represents many 10s of millions of volts when his primary coil was operating at some very small fraction of that. He had VERY crude materials to work with and very limited electrical equipment (much of which he had to build). Despite the primitive resources, he was able to generate the EXTREME voltages and currents BECAUSE OF RESONANCE. Ever hear of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw For most, theory is a transparent box... those inside don't know they're inside, or that there's even an outside! -Mark
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics. I think I need to explain resonance to you. Resonance is an interesting phenomenon where SMALL INputs of force or energy into a system results in VERY LARGE OUTputs. There is nothing resonant about using EXTREMELY powerful magnets cooled with liquid helium to accelerate atomic particles to EXTREMELY hi velocities and smashing them head-on into each other. The amount of energy INTO the system is EXTREME and the energy out is paltry. The situation there is opposite the definition of resonance. It's more akin to breaking a wine glass with a 12,000 lb wrecking ball, which is not resonance. This is an odd instance of how my 'intuition' leads me to what I seek/need. After reading your reply, I did some paying work, and then began doing some web browsing and reading other Vortex postings, and after ~30 mins, I ended up at the CMNS website; have no idea why I ended up there. In the first document I opened up, which was the latest online issue of their journal, I came across the following article by Hagelstein, which I think is most relevant to the issue of resonant atomic/nuclear processes. Note his comment, When we augment the spin-boson model with loss, we see that the coherent energy exchange process improves dramatically [10]. In perturbation theory we see that this comes about through the removal of destructive interference, Coherent Energy Exchange in the Strong Coupling Limit of the Lossy Spin-Boson Model http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/publications.htm The following lengthy excerpt is from Vol. 5, --- Hence, experiment suggests that the energy is probably nuclear in origin, and that perhaps deuterons are somehow reacting to make 4He. The big problem with such a statement is that there are no previous examples in nuclear physics of nuclear reactions making energy without commensurate energetic particles [7]. So, whatever process that is responsible for the effect is one that hasn't been seen before. There are no previous relevant models in the nuclear physics or condensed matter physics literature, and most scientists believe the literature that does exist rules out any possibility of such an effect. This situation would change radically if there were a known mechanism which could take a large nuclear scale MeV quantum and convert it efficiently into a large number of optical phonons. Such a scenario would be consistent with recent two-laser experiments [8,9], where two weak lasers incident on the cathode surface initiate an excess heat event when the beat frequency is matched to zero-group velocity point of the optical phonons, and the excess heat persists after the lasers are turned off. The excess heat effect initiated with a single laser does not persist. The picture which has been proposed to account for this is one in which the two lasers provide an initial excitation of the optical phonon modes which the new process requires; then, when the lasers are turned off, the new process channels energy into the same modes which sustains the effect. To make progress given such a picture, we need to understand the conditions under which a large nuclear energy quantum can be converted into a large number of optical phonons. Once again, there is no precedent for this; however, it does seem to be what is going on in these experiments, and this motivates us to explore theoretical models which exhibit such an effect. Coherent energy exchange as a physical effect under conditions where a large quantum is divided into many smaller quantum is known in NMR and in atomic physics; it is predicted in the spin-boson model. However, the effect in the spin-boson model is weak, and we need a much stronger version of it to make progress with the excess heat effect in the Fleischmann-Pons effect. When we augment the spin-boson model with loss, we see that the coherent energy exchange process improves dramatically [10]. In perturbation theory we see that this comes about through the removal of destructive interference, which drastically hinders the effect in the basic spin-boson model. In a set of recent papers [10-13], we have been discussing the model, and building up tools and results to try to understand coherent energy exchange when the coupling is stronger and when more quanta are exchanged. In the preceding paper [13], we introduced the local approximation for the lossy spin-boson model, which provides us with a powerful tool with which to address the strong coupling regime. In this work, we continue the analysis by first introducing a numerical algorithm which allows us to obtain eigen- functions, self-energies, and indirect coupling matrix elements in the strong coupling regime. As will be discussed, once we began assembling the results from systematic calculations we noticed that the system appeared to obey scaling laws in the
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Thx for taking time to post that reference Axil. I'm visually oriented, so some of the charts do look familiar. -m From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit So sorry, I should have included a reference to that paper for the convenience of Mr. Cude. http://physics.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.031402.pdf Best regards, Axil snip
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** ** I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, “Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics.” ** ** I think I need to explain resonance to you… Resonance is an interesting phenomenon where SMALL INputs of force or energy into a system results in VERY LARGE OUTputs. There is nothing resonant about using EXTREMELY powerful magnets cooled with liquid helium to accelerate atomic particles to EXTREMELY hi velocities and smashing them head-on into each other. I guess it depends what you mean by brute force physics. To me, when I push a child on a swing, I'm using brute force physics. And I know intuitively that if I push at the natural frequency of the pendulum, the amplitude of the oscillation is much higher. That's resonance. If I push at a random frequency, energy will be dissipated, and the child will cry. Resonance allows the efficient storing of energy, so it can be built up after multiple cycles. The output energy does not exceed the input energy. Resonance is so intrinsic a part of so many branches of physics that I regard it as brute force. It is certainly not exotic by any measure. ** ** I came across the following article by Hagelstein, which I think is most relevant to the issue of resonant atomic/nuclear processes. Note his comment, ** ** “When we augment the spin-boson model with loss, we see that the coherent energy exchange process improves dramatically [10]. In perturbation theory we see that this comes about through the removal of destructive interference,” ** So, no proposed mechanism. The rest of the lengthy quotation just emphasizes that he doesn't have a mechanism, and in any case talks more about how the nuclear energy might be thermalized: perhaps deuterons are somehow reacting to make 4He. […] there are no previous examples in nuclear […] So, whatever process […] hasn’t been seen before. There are no previous relevant models[…] if there were a known mechanism […] there is no precedent for this; etc. Why not use your brain to help Hagelstein and others, who are at least open-minded enough to try thinking out of the box, to come up with a plausible hypothesis to explain the ‘current-theory-says-its-impossible’ evidence. ** Because, the evidence to date does not merit it.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: It is clearly demonstrable that there exist mechanisms (of unknown type) in room temperature condensed matter to create at least 10's of keV, check out the rather fascinating following video: I wouldn't say that's a mechanism *in* condensed matter. And although the details of the fascinating interactions are not known, the essential concept is well understood, and nothing particularly new. Friction produces separation of charge, and that can produce large potential differences. That's it. Combing your hair can produce thousands of volts, and clouds millions of volts. And such effects can produce high energy electrons. However, to get 10s of keV electrons, as you saw, required a vacuum. Because you need to separate the charge by macroscopic distances to get the necessary voltage, and electrons have a pretty short mean-free path in air. So it's not clear how this could apply to nickel powder under pressure. I agree, there are ways to get a lot of energy into atomic sites. Simply accelerating ions with an electric field (fusors), or using pyroelectricity (pyroelectric fusion), or even using pneumatic rams (General Fusion). The problem is that none of these are (so far) efficient enough to get more energy out than in, and none of them are comparable to a hot nickel lattice with hydrogen in it. Again, that's not saying it's impossible; it's just that saying it's a resonance phenomenon doesn't make it plausible. Especially without experimental data to support it.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, “Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics.” I think I need to explain resonance to you… Resonance is an interesting phenomenon where SMALL INputs of force or energy into a system results in VERY LARGE OUTputs. There is nothing resonant about using EXTREMELY powerful magnets cooled with liquid helium to accelerate atomic particles to EXTREMELY hi velocities and smashing them head-on into each other. I guess it depends what you mean by brute force physics. To me, when I push a child on a swing, I'm using brute force physics. And I know intuitively that if I push at the natural frequency of the pendulum, the amplitude of the oscillation is much higher. That's resonance. If I push at a random frequency, energy will be dissipated, and the child will cry. Resonance allows the efficient storing of energy, so it can be built up after multiple cycles. The output energy does not exceed the input energy. Joking asideas they say on Star Trek if you can match the shield harmonics you can pass through the shield. If resonance plays a role it might be to bring about a kind of frequency matching among the charged particles. This of course implies the 19th century notion of charge as a discrete and static property of matter is a simplication. Harry
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Cude replied with the following 'reasonable sounding' rebuttal, but it is faulty at a fundamental level. It is not a valid comparison... I think he was just accusing someone else of that same thing. I guess it depends what you mean by brute force physics. To me, when I push a child on a swing, I'm using brute force physics. And I know intuitively that if I push at the natural frequency of the pendulum, the amplitude of the oscillation is much higher. That's resonance. If I push at a random frequency, energy will be dissipated, and the child will cry. Resonance allows the efficient storing of energy, so it can be built up after multiple cycles. The faulty reasoning here is s simple that I can't believe Cude isn't aware of it. which means he is either a pathological skeptic, being consciously aware of only the elements of a debate which support his beliefs (theory), or, he is consciously using faulty, but reasonable sounding rebuttals, to maintain other people's skepticism, or, just trying to appear to win a debate. Here is how his 'rebuttal' is so blatantly faulty: Pushing a person on a swing does indeed involve force (not brute force), and if timed right, as Cude agrees, involves resonance. That is obvious. What also should be obvious to Cude, and is why his rebuttal is laughable, or worse yet, deceptive, is that in order to achieve the SAME amplitude of the swing when the 'push' is given in resonance with the swing's oscillations, as opposed to when it is not resonant, the latter would have to push EXTREMELY hard in order to get the person to swing to the same height, and then, that amplitude would likely be destructively reduced by the next, wrongly timed, hard push; so one might get occasional large amplitudes in a non-resonant system, but never continuous large amplitudes as in a resonant system. The simple fact is, that given the SAME amount of 'push' at regular intervals, a resonant system will achieve what appears to be extreme amplitudes whereas the non-resonant push of the SAME amount of force, can NEVER achieve any lasting, significant amplitude. This is physics 101, and why Cude couldn't see that is most revealing. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The simple fact is, that given the SAME amount of ‘push’ at regular intervals, a resonant system will achieve what appears to be extreme amplitudes whereas the non-resonant push of the SAME amount of force, can NEVER achieve any lasting, That's what I said. I didn't say resonance was not important, only that it is not exotic, and in fact is elementary, and you can't just explain something you don't understand by saying: Oh, it's a resonant phenomenon. And by the way, those big particle accelerators rely on resonance too.
[Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
I just posted a slideshow from Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny of NASA Langley Research Center from the September 22 LENR Workshop. http://www.ecatplanet.net/content.php?133-LENR-Presentation-by-Joseph-Zawodny-2011 Its a 35 page PowerPoint presentation that covers history, theory, ramifications, and more. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On 2011-12-05 01:44, ecat builder wrote: I just posted a slideshow from Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny of NASA Langley Research Center from the September 22 LENR Workshop. http://www.ecatplanet.net/content.php?133-LENR-Presentation-by-Joseph-Zawodny-2011 Its a 35 page PowerPoint presentation that covers history, theory, ramifications, and more. This version is better than Krivit's edited .pdf one. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Interesting. Long on theory. Short on data.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
The only set of slide notes in the presentation said the following about WLT: The theory makes specific, testable predictions. Predictions that can be inexpensively verified. -mark
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. Long on theory. Short on data. Long on obfuscation. A few things that struck me about that presentation: Slide 13: Zawodny is up front about the energy needed for electron capture by a proton, which is more than you can say for WL. They say it is: inhibited by 0.78 MeV. [...] Then, a couple of lines further down, they try to explain where the energy might come from: Field results from a breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation via a coupling of Surface Plasmon Polaritons to a collective proton resonance in the metal hydride. Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds sophisticated enough that it must be true. But how exactly is concentrating 780 keV energy into a site where the bonds are a million times weaker than that made plausible by a breakdown of an approximation? It's like a mechanic telling a naive customer their car needs new muffler bearings. Slide 14: gamma rays get thermalized by heavy electrons Right, that's the patent WL just got. Heavy electrons are the new lead. But that's just about the easiest thing to test. Fire gamma rays at a LENR foil and see if they're absorbed. NASA has been working on this for years, and they don't have data to show that this works? Please. And *all* the gamma rays? None escape to indicate the signature for all those proposed reactions? The heavy electrons that are captured by protons are not around to absorb gamma rays, so they have to be absorbed by *other* heavy electrons. That's gonna require some density to make sure all the gammas are absorbed. Slide 15: In the chain of events in the Li-Be-He cycle, they admit the first step (electron capture) requires energy (as mentioned above), and claim some mechanism to provide it. But further down the list, the 4He + n - 5He is proposed with no mention that it is also highly endothermic. It also requires about 735 MeV, but there is no mechanism suggested this time that might provide that energy. In fact, they like to claim that the neutrons are ultra low momentum, so where exactly does the energy for this step come from? Slide 16: This slide is full of vague justifications for the theory, but as MY said, no hard data at all. And the best line is: Simplicity: Only need one theory to explain all the LENR data as well as a few other long standing anomalies They call 3 miracles simple. First they can provide 780 keV to induce electron capture by, as Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes put it when asked to explain Newton's law in his own words: Yakka Foob Mog. Grug pubbawup sink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. Then they provide 735 keV by an unmentioned mechanism to induce neutron capture by 4He, and finally all gammas associated with the various proposed reactions are absorbed by heavy electrons. Simple. Slide 26: 6p + 3e -- 6Li + 28 MeV (and neutrinos) is called getting energy from the *weak* interaction. Sure the weak interaction is involved in the electron capture, but that *consumes* energy. Building 6Li out of 3 protons and 3 neutrons is where the energy comes from, and that's all about the *strong* interaction. (There are many intermediate steps, but those are the starting and ending particles, and all the energy released is from the strong force.) This may be quibbling, but they make such a big deal about tapping the weak force. The weak interaction may be critical to the process, but is it so hard to identify the source of the energy correctly? Slide 9: -- The summary of evidence for LENR is a perfect indication of the complete absence of evidence: Metal hydrides of both H D • High H loading required • Not just 4He being produced • Full range of elemental transmutations • Energy input needed • Forcing at resonant hydride frequencies is effective • Sporadic detection of neutron or gamma radiation Not a definitive thing in there. Sporadic detection of neutron or gamma radiation? If there's gamma radiation, they should be able to nail down the reactions. And high H loading? Only in the electrolysis experiments. It doesn't seem to have to be high in gas loading experiments. Honestly, if a talk so devoid of hard results or plausible mechanisms were presented in any other field, it would be laughed off stage. One can only hope this is not representative of much of the research that goes on at NASA.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The only set of slide notes in the presentation said the following about WLT: “The theory makes specific, testable predictions. Predictions that can be inexpensively verified.” Well, one prediction it makes is that heavy electrons absorb gamma rays with near perfect efficiency. That should be testable. Not much else is. And they say they've been working at this for several years. If these predictions are so easy to test, why hasn't NASA done it?
