Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:26 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Joshua, I believe, Zawodny does explain the creation of ULM neutrons through the plasmonic creation of heavy electrons. See (slide 16) of http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/2010-Zawodny-AviationUnleashed.pdf That's not an explanation. That's jargon and an artist's conception. Energetic electrons should be expected to produce x-rays when they interact with matter, but there are none. These 780 keV electrons are basically traveling at the speed of light. It's pretty hard to imagine fields in a solid that can produce electrons like that without any clearly observable byproducts. The electrons are supposedly confined, but that in itself seems implausible. I am unsure as to whether Zawodny is correct, but page 9 of INTENSE FOCUSING OF LIGHT USING METALS (-JB Pendry) -- http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/pendry_crete.pdf -- states that by super-focusing of E-M fields and by confining electrons to thin wires we have enhanced their mass by four orders of magnitude so that they are now as heavy as nitrogen atoms! This is far beyond 780 KeV - and even greater effective mass increases are possible. For sure, though, these electron wave functions are delocalized, but are you sure that such massive pseudo-particles (heavy electrons) cannot donate some of their mass-energy to create ULM neutrons? or possibly provide enhanced screening? Also see papers by Alexandrov and by Breed in vol.2 of Proc. ICCF-14 http://www.iscmns.org/iccf14/ProcICCF14b.pdf This may be the confusion WL were going for. The effective mass of fermions ordinarily referred to in solid state physics is not a relativistic mass; it usually refers to an effective mobility. In the paper you mention, the effective mass increases because of the self-inductance of the particular wire structure. They write: any restoring force acting on the electrons will not only have to work against the rest mass of the electrons, but also against self-inductance of the wire structure. So, it is *as if* a free electron were heavier. The electrons do not have the relativistic energy associated with this effective mass, and so it will not enable electron capture, which requires actual 780 keV of energy. WL claim the electrons get the energy from collective proton oscillations, and seem to indicate the electron actually possesses increased energy, but it seems completely implausible, and more importantly, there is no evidence for it. The Alexandrov paper seems to suggest that increased (non-relativistic) effective mass in solid state can enable electron capture, but don't explain where the energy comes from. The Breed paper argues that increased effective mass can improve charge screening to enable fusion (like muon catalyzed fusion). That's more plausible, but it's not clear how increased effective mass in metal or semiconductor band structures can improve screening of hydrogen nuclei. In any case, they don't claim the effective mass can enable electron capture, as required by WL.
[Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13 2011 http://dev2.slideshare.com/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-and-cold-fusion-are-different-conceptsdec-13-2011
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
I don't know if anyone stopped to think that WL claims are much more spectacular than Rossi's. While Rossi's claims only refer to small black boxe(s), WL includes things that work with the ecat's super qualities plus that nearly all natural phenomena should include some LENR, almost like all nuclear physics, plasma physics, biological systems, normal conducting wires, cannot be described properly without it. 2011/12/13 pagnu...@htdconnect.com Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13 2011 http://dev2.slideshare.com/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-and-cold-fusion-are-different-conceptsdec-13-2011 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: I don't know if anyone stopped to think that WL claims are much more spectacular than Rossi's. While Rossi's claims only refer to small black boxe(s), WL includes things that work with the ecat's super qualities plus that nearly all natural phenomena should include some LENR, almost like all nuclear physics, plasma physics, biological systems, normal conducting wires, cannot be described properly without it. As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the better the evidence has to be. Anyone can claim anything and there are plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the phenomenon. The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not the claim, especially when it comes to Rossi.
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
The topic now is WL theory... Rossi's claims are just too shy in comparison. 2011/12/13 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: I don't know if anyone stopped to think that WL claims are much more spectacular than Rossi's. While Rossi's claims only refer to small black boxe(s), WL includes things that work with the ecat's super qualities plus that nearly all natural phenomena should include some LENR, almost like all nuclear physics, plasma physics, biological systems, normal conducting wires, cannot be described properly without it. As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the better the evidence has to be. Anyone can claim anything and there are plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the phenomenon. The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not the claim, especially when it comes to Rossi. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
The statement from Lattice Energy LLC strikes me as essentially saying: Accept no other theory than our own. IOW, product placement. If LE LLC eventually gets around to unveiling their own Dog Pony show, meaning the presentation of a product (or just a prototype), then by all means, let the chips fall where they may. However, until they do get around to doing so it would seem to me that keeping an eye on the DP shows of Rossi, DGT, and related competitors will likely be a better use of my time. My two cents. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
Members of the Vortex: I joined last night to address an issue raised by Maryyugo. Being a lawyer I really have no special expertise in the sciences and thus have little to offer on technical issue. Thus, not wanting to burden all of you I will likely either stay a member and be quiet or exit the membership in the near term. I do read your website and have enjoyed all the debates and wonderful information many of your members have to offer. The above being said, I have a very strong opinion about this latest posting by Lattice Energy. I think it is utter nonsense to draw a distinction between the term Cold Fusion and LENR. In my opinion they are both moniker's for the same physical anomaly, ie anomalous heat described by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989 and many others thereafter. I don't think a definitive theory has been accepted, indeed plenty of mainstream scientists seem not to accept it at all under either moniker. While I appreciate that theories for the anomalous heat differ, I could care less which turns out to be correct and talking for the general public (only because I like them am not a scientist) I doubt they do either. I also don't care if the name given to the process is particularly accurate from a scientific standpoint, you guys can call it whatever you want once you figure it out. Personally, I think the term Cold Fusion is cool and would prefer to keep it as the moniker of choice. What troubles me about this letter from Lattice Energy and Krivit's apparent obsession with the distinction is the notion that somehow the people who have used the term Cold Fusion to describe what they have been doing are talking about a different physical anomaly. It also suggests these people who from what I understand simply have a different theory to explain the anomaly have been doing bad science. This in my opinion is outlandish and the scientific community (ie YOU guys) shouldn't stand for it. If LENR, Cold Fusion CANR (call it what you wish) becomes a commercial energy source for the world, everyone who has worked on it regardless of their theory should be applauded and recognized for keeping the torch burning for mankind while many of your brethren scoffed at the subject. Just a lawyer's two cents. Ransom - Original Message - From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:12 PM Subject: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13 2011 http://dev2.slideshare.com/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-and-cold-fusion-are-different-conceptsdec-13-2011
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13 2011 As usual, he points out 1) the absurdity of breaching the Coulomb barrier in ordinary fusion, which would take something approaching 100 keV for appreciable tunneling probability, and 2) the absence of a Coulomb barrier in neutron capture (hooray!) And, as usual, he neglects to point out 3) the 780 keV energy barrier to the formation of those neutrons by electron capture. The existence of relativistic, 780 keV electrons in ordinary matter (without copious x-rays) is far more implausible than 100 keV deuterons, and that leaves aside the implausibility of the complete absorption of gammas from all the proposed reactions. He's just after more investment in Lattice Energy, LLC.
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Members of the Vortex: I joined last night to address an issue raised by Maryyugo. Being a lawyer I really have no special expertise in the sciences and thus have little to offer on technical issue. Thus, not wanting to burden all of you I will likely either stay a member and be quiet or exit the membership in the near term. I do read your website and have enjoyed all the debates and wonderful information many of your members have to offer. Welcome. Nobody's perfect. We have at least one other juris doktor in the audience, Mr. Beene. The above being said, I have a very strong opinion about this latest posting by Lattice Energy. I think it is utter nonsense to draw a distinction between the term Cold Fusion and LENR. In my opinion they are both moniker's for the same physical anomaly, ie anomalous heat described by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989 and many others thereafter. I don't think a definitive theory has been accepted, indeed plenty of mainstream scientists seem not to accept it at all under either moniker. While I appreciate that theories for the anomalous heat differ, I could care less which turns out to pardon my interruption; but, you really mean I could *not* care less . . . (sorry a pet peeve [prepare for chastising from SVJ]) be correct and talking for the general public (only because I like them am not a scientist) I doubt they do either. I also don't care if the name given to the process is particularly accurate from a scientific standpoint, you guys can call it whatever you want once you figure it out. Personally, I think the term Cold Fusion is cool and would prefer to keep it as the moniker of choice. Adobe likes Cold Fusion too. What troubles me about this letter from Lattice Energy and Krivit's apparent obsession with the distinction is the notion that somehow the people who have used the term Cold Fusion to describe what they have been doing are talking about a different physical anomaly. It also suggests these people who from what I understand simply have a different theory to explain the anomaly have been doing bad science. This in my opinion is outlandish and the scientific community (ie YOU guys) shouldn't stand for it. If LENR, Cold Fusion CANR (call it what you wish) becomes a commercial energy source for the world, everyone who has worked on it regardless of their theory should be applauded and recognized for keeping the torch burning for mankind while many of your brethren scoffed at the subject. In all honesty, there are probably several different reactions happening which we tend to group under one term. As we are better educated, we will find more descriptive names for these reactions. Just a lawyer's two cents. And you bill at, what, $300/hr. Ransom Indeed! Welcome! T
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
From Randy Wuller: ... ... I also don't care if the name given to the process is particularly accurate from a scientific standpoint, you guys can call it whatever you want once you figure it out. Many on this list have argued this very issue. So have I. Before I was asked to resign, while I was still a BoD member on Krivit's New Energy Time's (NET) publication I asked Steve Krivit why is NET making such a big deal out of knocking the word cold fusion out of the ball park. I noticed that Krivt seemed strongly inclined to replace the cold fusion word with another word, nuclear reaction - as if the term nuclear reaction explained everything more succinctly. The only problem is: nobody really knows what's going on. ...not yet. Whether this is true or not, Krivit's attempt to destroy the cold fusion word helped brand him as a Widom Larsen cheer leader advocate. I think it has also left many observers with the distinct impression that certain corners of the CF field have a bone to pick. Much of the pickings seem to be blatant product placement. Accept no imitations other than our own brand. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF
Joshua, I believe, Zawodny does explain the creation of ULM neutrons through the plasmonic creation of heavy electrons. See (slide 16) of http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/2010-Zawodny-AviationUnleashed.pdf I am unsure as to whether Zawodny is correct, but page 9 of INTENSE FOCUSING OF LIGHT USING METALS (-JB Pendry) -- http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/pendry_crete.pdf -- states that by super-focusing of E-M fields and by confining electrons to thin wires we have enhanced their mass by four orders of magnitude so that they are now as heavy as nitrogen atoms! This is far beyond 780 KeV - and even greater effective mass increases are possible. For sure, though, these electron wave functions are delocalized, but are you sure that such massive pseudo-particles (heavy electrons) cannot donate some of their mass-energy to create ULM neutrons? or possibly provide enhanced screening? Also see papers by Alexandrov and by Breed in vol.2 of Proc. ICCF-14 http://www.iscmns.org/iccf14/ProcICCF14b.pdf On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13 2011 As usual, he points out 1) the absurdity of breaching the Coulomb barrier in ordinary fusion, which would take something approaching 100 keV for appreciable tunneling probability, and 2) the absence of a Coulomb barrier in neutron capture (hooray!) And, as usual, he neglects to point out 3) the 780 keV energy barrier to the formation of those neutrons by electron capture. The existence of relativistic, 780 keV electrons in ordinary matter (without copious x-rays) is far more implausible than 100 keV deuterons, and that leaves aside the implausibility of the complete absorption of gammas from all the proposed reactions. He's just after more investment in Lattice Energy, LLC.
