Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I posted drawings of these cross-sections. If you don't have them, I can post them again. Yes, please, if you could. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Here are drawings of what I deduced for construction of the HotCat and HT2 versions (mostly from the Penon report): HotCat (first generation) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2SnVSTFJGbnBNR1k/edit?usp=sharing HT2 (second generation with cat and mouse) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2dzRreW14cWVlazg/edit?usp=sharing Let me know if you have trouble accessing or viewing these .png image files. Bob Higgins On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I posted drawings of these cross-sections. If you don't have them, I can post them again. Yes, please, if you could. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Eric-- Another potential source of H for the Rossi reaction may be an organic molecule with hydrogen bonds. Thermal agitation will release the H readily and cause the molecule to come apart. Again an appropriate magnetic field could draw the H in close to a Ni nucleus given enough electronic shielding. A Cooper pair of H may want to form a duplex BEC with other Bose species in the nano particle of Ni---Ni-60, Ni-62 and Ni-64 all are 0 spin nuclei. A interesting experiment would be to run Rossi's reactor with selected Ni isotopes and note any differences in the energy output. It would not surprise me if this has not already been accomplished under the advice of Focardi to better understand the process. The hot cat may in fact use enriched Ni-?X isotope because of its superior reaction rate and/or need for a higher temperature to be self-sustaining. The Hot Cat catalyst may also utilize a higher work function compound to release H at a higher temperature and controlled rate. Zr-H may again be used in the Hot Cat because it would be formed at about 950 F and potentially decompose, releasing H at a higher temperature of 1100 or 1200 C. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Thus a low work function metal hydride with good magnetic properties would be ideal. Note that an alpha or a beta emitter will also dissociate molecular hydrogen into monoatomic hydrogen (and potentially Rydberg hydrogen at that, which will migrate under a potential). (I like a material with a low work function because it could potentially be heat-activated, as seems to happen with the E-Cat.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
To be effective, an alpha/beta emitter would have to be highly radioactive to produce enough particles to support a sizable amount of H for LENR reactions. Additionally, at these high pressures, the mean free path of monatomic H is very short, so the radioactive material would have to be placed at the NAE. It would be much better if the reaction were catalytic and positive feedback in formation of monatomic H. For example having a catalyst split the H2, having the NAE fuse it producing low energy photons, each of which photons dissociate multiple H2 molecules for the reaction. If a radioactive additive were hot enough to split enough H2 into monatomic species for the entire reaction, it would pose a danger if the contents were exposed, and of course, would be regulated by the nuclear regulation agencies - which no one wants. I absolutely do not believe that Rossi's reaction relies on radioactive additives. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have an effect on the reaction, I just don't think Rossi uses any. Bob Higgins On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Note that an alpha or a beta emitter will also dissociate molecular hydrogen into monoatomic hydrogen (and potentially Rydberg hydrogen at that, which will migrate under a potential). (I like a material with a low work function because it could potentially be heat-activated, as seems to happen with the E-Cat.)
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: Bob Cook A interesting experiment would be to run Rossi's reactor with selected Ni isotopes and note any differences in the energy output. It would not surprise me if this has not already been accomplished under the advice of Focardi to better understand the process. The hot cat may in fact use enriched Ni-?X isotope because of its superior reaction rate and/or need for a higher temperature to be self-sustaining. Bob, your are mostly correct but the devil is in the details. I was told by the source, and have no reason to doubt the information – that Rossi did purchase enriched isotope several years ago. The supplier is in the USA and it required several calls to discover this. The purchase happened before the time of the patent change and before the HotCat introduction. This detail is being mentioned now - because you are making the trip to Bologna, and can use it to find out more, or understand more - and also because the main issue is coming into closer focus. That issue would be the reality of non-fusion gain - gain which is still nuclear, but results in no gamma, and little transmutation. This isotope testing step, although obvious to anyone who thinks that the Rossi-effect involves nickel as the active element, raised my appreciation level of Rossi’s competence. It changed my comments on Vortex from generally negative to positive. And yes, I personally talked to the isotope supplier but they will remain unnamed, as per agreement. I was told off-the-record, that AR purchased one time - but that it was a significant dollar amount. This could mean several things. Any of these are possible, and no one knows which ones apply and which ones do not apply… other than AR. 1)The addition of isotope did not benefit the reaction, since there was no subsequent repurchase of isotope 2)The addition did make a difference but AR found a lower priced supplier 3)The addition did make a difference but the isotope is not consumed and is still being reused, even today 4)AR chose the wrong isotope to test, so the test was inconclusive 5)The addition did make a difference but AR found a alternative way to enrich in situ (surface layer) with the result that expensive pure isotope is not needed 6)The HotCat only uses the enriched isotope whereas the ECat does not need it. 7)There are other implications, since the information is incomplete. BTW – as to the addition of a beta emitter for Rossi – yes that has been known since before the first demo. Potassium 40 is a beta emitter, which means the addition of potassium in any form makes the fill slightly radioactive. 40K is only .012% of natural (120 ppm) so it is not highly radioactive, but there is enough local activity to start a reaction with the 1.3 MeV electron. Potassium was seen in the spectroscopy scans which were left in the first patent application (now removed). As for the most important issue, we have agreed-to-disagree on the major point: you think the reaction is fusion of a proton to copper, just as Focardi did - and I think it is something completely different - which is non-fusion, but still involves nuclear mass-to-energy conversion. That would be in the sense of spin-coupling of a ferromagnetic nucleus (or alternatively DDL or both) to magnons. Hopefully, you will come back from Bologna with a clearer understanding of the gainful reaction, and hopefully the TIP2 will come out this month as well. This could be the year of the breakthrough in understanding of the Ni-H reaction, and deuterium as well. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
This is definitely an interesting argument. I'm agnostic at this point as to whether Rossi has used a radioactive catalyst in the past. I suspect he does not now, for the regulatory reasons you mention below. About the H2 pressure and the mean free path of monoatomic hydrogen -- I'm curious whether you've seen anything on the pressure in the E-Cat. I got the impression along the way, probably from reading unrelated experimental writeups, that the pressure need not be above ambient pressure, and that the main thing additional pressure would accomplish would be to make additional p (or d) available to the reaction sites. Eric On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: To be effective, an alpha/beta emitter would have to be highly radioactive to produce enough particles to support a sizable amount of H for LENR reactions. Additionally, at these high pressures, the mean free path of monatomic H is very short, so the radioactive material would have to be placed at the NAE. It would be much better if the reaction were catalytic and positive feedback in formation of monatomic H. For example having a catalyst split the H2, having the NAE fuse it producing low energy photons, each of which photons dissociate multiple H2 molecules for the reaction. If a radioactive additive were hot enough to split enough H2 into monatomic species for the entire reaction, it would pose a danger if the contents were exposed, and of course, would be regulated by the nuclear regulation agencies - which no one wants. I absolutely do not believe that Rossi's reaction relies on radioactive additives. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have an effect on the reaction, I just don't think Rossi uses any.
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
As I recall, the original E-Cats were charged from a bottle source of hydrogen to 5-10 bar (depending on the activity he wished his experiment to show) while the device was still cold and then the gas input was valved off (producing a sealed reaction vessel). Since it was charged at about 300 Kelvin and subsequently heated to about 600 Kelvin, the operating pressure would be nearly double that. The hotCat is different. Its operation has been primarily deduced from the Penon report and its pictures. The total reactant is contained between 2 coaxial stainless steel tubes sealed together by welding at each end - the result looking like a single piece of pipe. In between the two coaxial tubes Rossi's Metal powder+catalyst is inserted along with a charged metal hydride. Metal hydrides give off their hydrogen as the temperature increases and peak in hydrogen pressure output into a closed volume at about 30 bar. Above the temperature of peak output pressure, the pressure actually goes down. If I were Rossi, I would pick a hydride whose output pressure would peak near the max desired operating temperature of his reaction. That way if the temperature went hotter, the hydride would provide negative feedback by reducing the hydrogen pressure above its peak pressure temperature. In the hotCat HT2, Rossi filled the inside of the composite cylinder (pipe) with something more like his original recipe powder, and probably a different metal hydride. The ends of the HT2 are cold welded shut with plugs. The inner part is his mouse which I believe provides thermal gain beginning at a lower temperature. I posted drawings of these cross-sections. If you don't have them, I can post them again. It is interesting to speculate that the powder used in the hotCat portion may not even be a catalyzed Ni powder - it could be a more refractory metal, perhaps a titanium powder that has been catalytically activated. Rossi said that in his development he tried many powders besides Ni and found other recipes that worked, only they did not work as well as the catalyzed Ni powder. He could have gone back to one of those other chemistries to build the higher temperature hotCat. Bob Higgins On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: About the H2 pressure and the mean free path of monoatomic hydrogen -- I'm curious whether you've seen anything on the pressure in the E-Cat. I got the impression along the way, probably from reading unrelated experimental writeups, that the pressure need not be above ambient pressure, and that the main thing additional pressure would accomplish would be to make additional p (or d) available to the reaction sites.
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Jones and Bob H-- I remember that the cold H pressure was 12 Atm. for the E Cat reactor. At temperature it would be significantly higher unless there was a hydride reaction taking place with the rise in temperature. The subsequent decomposition of the hydride would occur at higher temperatures than that at which the hydride was formed. Alloy hydrides may be possible with the correct uptake and subsequent release at desirable temperatures. Bob - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- As I recall, the original E-Cats were charged from a bottle source of hydrogen to 5-10 bar (depending on the activity he wished his experiment to show) while the device was still cold and then the gas input was valved off (producing a sealed reaction vessel). Since it was charged at about 300 Kelvin and subsequently heated to about 600 Kelvin, the operating pressure would be nearly double that. The hotCat is different. Its operation has been primarily deduced from the Penon report and its pictures. The total reactant is contained between 2 coaxial stainless steel tubes sealed together by welding at each end - the result looking like a single piece of pipe. In between the two coaxial tubes Rossi's Metal powder+catalyst is inserted along with a charged metal hydride. Metal hydrides give off their hydrogen as the temperature increases and peak in hydrogen pressure output into a closed volume at about 30 bar. Above the temperature of peak output pressure, the pressure actually goes down. If I were Rossi, I would pick a hydride whose output pressure would peak near the max desired operating temperature of his reaction. That way if the temperature went hotter, the hydride would provide negative feedback by reducing the hydrogen pressure above its peak pressure temperature. In the hotCat HT2, Rossi filled the inside of the composite cylinder (pipe) with something more like his original recipe powder, and probably a different metal hydride. The ends of the HT2 are cold welded shut with plugs. The inner part is his mouse which I believe provides thermal gain beginning at a lower temperature. I posted drawings of these cross-sections. If you don't have them, I can post them again. It is interesting to speculate that the powder used in the hotCat portion may not even be a catalyzed Ni powder - it could be a more refractory metal, perhaps a titanium powder that has been catalytically activated. Rossi said that in his development he tried many powders besides Ni and found other recipes that worked, only they did not work as well as the catalyzed Ni powder. He could have gone back to one of those other chemistries to build the higher temperature hotCat. Bob Higgins On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: About the H2 pressure and the mean free path of monoatomic hydrogen -- I'm curious whether you've seen anything on the pressure in the E-Cat. I got the impression along the way, probably from reading unrelated experimental writeups, that the pressure need not be above ambient pressure, and that the main thing additional pressure would accomplish would be to make additional p (or d) available to the reaction sites.
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Bob etal-- I have been a fan of Focardi since about that interview. He was an honest scientist. He had many friends that seemed to respect his expertise. I found the interview interesting. I did not know that he had been saved from a-too-early cancer death. It is interesting that he did not want to know the identify of the the catalyst Rossi selected. I agree with Eric that in may have been a low work function for the H in the compound enlisted as the catalyst. Maybe something like Zr-hydride (I do not know the work function of H for this compound. I know that Zr-hydrogen reaction is exothermic at about 950 degrees F.) Maybe even Ni-H5 as a hydride would work. I still think that the magnetic properties of the catalyst may be important in getting the H to fuse with the Ni-62 and potentially other Ni isotopes in the Ni nano powder fuel. Thus a low work function metal hydride with good magnetic properties would be ideal. Thanks for that reference. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Well, supper's done and I found the reference I was looking for ... a.. A radio interview with Sergio Focardi, the father of 'Ni-H Cold Fusion'; Radio Citta del Capo - Bologna - Italy. Excellent sources, Bob. I enjoyed reading all of them. Hopefully they will put to rest once and for all the question of whether Rossi and Focardi have or have not seen gammas. It is obviously not a response to reply that they haven't reported gammas in recent descriptions. In a different connection, there was this interesting tidbit from the interview concerning the catalyst used in the E-Cat: And the purpose of this secret compound is, I believe, to facilitate the formation of atomic hydrogen instead of molecular hydrogen, because hydrogen typically settles down in molecules, but if one has a molecule, it can not penetrate into the nucleus. So I think the additive is used to this purpose: it forms atomic hydrogen, which penetrates into the nucleus. This is yet another hint strengthening my suspicion that the catalyst is a material with a low work function. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Thus a low work function metal hydride with good magnetic properties would be ideal. Note that an alpha or a beta emitter will also dissociate molecular hydrogen into monoatomic hydrogen (and potentially Rydberg hydrogen at that, which will migrate under a potential). (I like a material with a low work function because it could potentially be heat-activated, as seems to happen with the E-Cat.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Nonsense. In fact within a month – at the very next test there was NO LEAD and there has been no lead since then. Yes, as far as I know that is the case. You still have not shown that Rossi ever reported gamma radiation in an operating E-Cat ! Please – put up or shut up. In fact Rossi explicitly denies that he has seen gamma radiation. Yes he has denied this. However, Celani said he did measure radiation during the first demo he participated in. This upset Rossi. In all of the other reports I know of, people said they looked for radiation but they did not find it. I do not know what to make of it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: Bob Cook * … I would only gloat to myself. Feel free to gloat in a big public demonstration if gammaless fusion is proved :-) Side Note: There is a strange mentality, which is seen in some skeptics of LENR – the relevant characteristic of which is that they actually suspect (and want to believe) on a gut level that the technology is valid. They can see that people as smart as they are, who have done the actual experiments, believe strongly in it. Yet, they have been taught and fully believe in the mainstream objections, often at a graduate school level. That is their security blanket, and therefore they “need to be fully convinced” to go against their schooling and accept a paradigm shift. Then, if all goes well – the freshly converted true-believer can become a minor celebrity of a sort and get their 15 minutes of fame – kinda like the atheist who gets “saved” by an evangelist, and thereafter enjoys testifying once a week about how great it all is. Personally, I am not a skeptic of the excess heat of LENR, quite the opposite, and so the underlying sentiment is not the same as the above. But it is easy to recognized that the “easy explanation” for most believers in LENR (as an alternative religion) is that fusion is happening, since that is the only way they can conceive, based on their education and the word of a few role models, to get to greater than chemical energy. And the unjustifiable rationalizations which become necessary (for the lack of gamma radiation) which are put forward then become part of the “read my book” package, and are intrinsic to this easy way out. Bob Higgins objected to my calling this “read my book” approach “brain dead” but it is only a slight exaggeration– failure to use one’s cognitive and analytical skills to the fullest. The correct approach, scientifically, is seldom easy. It involves finding a rationale which fits the facts - ALL the facts, and is repeatable in the Lab, and moreover - makes accurate predictions. The concept of gammaless fusion has failed us in that regard and after 25 years of failure it should be obvious that it is almost certainly false and needs full revision. But of course, there is still hope for those who are fully invested. There are two basic choices, when you strip away the fluff: 1) A two miracle scenario, where the first miracle is fusion at low input. The second and more difficult miracle is that the known amount of excess energy is seen, but it is delivered in a completely unique way, unlike the known reaction, and this happens 100% of the time, with no exceptions. 2) The alternative is a single miracle, involving either a non-fusion kind of nuclear reaction, or a supra-chemical reaction (inner orbital manipulation), or zero point field – etc, where there is more energy released than nuclear, but delivered in a standard way. Aside from the issue of conservation of miracles, the huge problem for strong believers in 1) - many of whom are contributors here, is that the undeniable implication of 2) is that the energy available is less than fusion and possibly limited to a low COP. In fact, it could be no mistake that many of the best performed experiments in the field: from Thermacore in the early nineties to the new Mizuno work, show a COP of slightly less than 2. There is adequate reason to believe that there is an effective limit at somewhere around this level – COP~2. We should welcome this limitation ! Even cheer for it. Of course, it would be great if it were more, but COP~2 is a game-changer. Get used to it. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Obviously I have some catch-up posting to do. I will begin with some of the latter comments. Jones, you exemplify the other side of the coin: If I thought of it, so it must be right. We stand on the shoulders of giants. I read and try to synthesize the best understanding I can piece together from what I read. The DDL works by Maly Va'vra are outstanding inputs. I didn't derive the DDL solutions myself, nor, I suspect did you. You obtained your knowledge and opinions of their existence from reading the opinions of experts who studied the topic for years. Do not promote the delusion that just because someone has a different opinion that it is based on unsound synthesis of the facts and faith. I do consider Ed Storms an expert as he has an order of magnitude more hands on, true analytic experience with this technology than perhaps any of us. We should be grateful that he has shared his knowledge so willingly. I don't accept everything I read at face value, but instead weigh facts and expert opinions to synthesize my own view. Basically, your view has now become Mills-ian. Both you and Mills are convinced that all of the excess energy is coming from photon-less transitions below hydrogen ground state. I can see your point - it is just not my viewpoint because it doesn't fit all of the facts. As far as I can see, none of the Ni-H experiments have been analytic in the sense that the energy/ atomic event has been estimated based on the measurements of the system. This has been done for Pd-D and the results are far more consistent with fusion than they are with DDL transitions. That doesn't mean that DDL energy extraction wasn't happening, only it was swamped by a greater energy producing reaction. As far as a COP of 2 being supportive of DDL vs Fusion - that point is ridiculous. The COP of 2 includes the factor of the (number of events per second)(energy per event)/(Power in) +1. In most Ni-H cases we have zero data for the number of events per second and so the COP is completely useless as an indicator of what is happening. A COP of 2 (or anything) provides no clue to the value for (energy/event). A COP of 2 is incredibly valuable in pointing out new physics being involved, and may prove to have some commercial use. But it has nothing to do with elucidating the reaction mechanism. You also seem to gloss over your own miracles. The predictions for DDL are that it requires photon-less transitions. You throw out spin coupling as a mechanism without any additional chain of reaction that would lead to dissipating the large energy available from DDL transition [you might as well throw out ice cream sandwich]. Are you positing that, as per the Va'vra paper that the DDL states are many, and like Mills, you are only descending a few levels below the normal ground state? How are you proposing that coupling occurs? Spin coupling would be a short range event requiring close physical proximity of the descending atom to whatever you are proposed it is spin coupled to - closer than a gas phase statistical concentration [and it would have to work with the low pressure of Mizuno's experiments]. What is it that you are proposing as the concentrating mechanism? Are you proposing a BEC? A BEC cannot form at these temperatures, but some other nano-magnetically confined condensation may exist - only there is no real evidence for them, they are purely speculative (until proven they exist, they are just another form of miracle). You stated that Mizuno's experiment had no cracks. This is another absurd statement. Nano-cracks, as have been implicated by Storms as the NAE, would not be visible in an SEM at a scale 100x smaller than what is shown. With the processing that Mizuno described, I can guarantee that there are cracks. Surfaces that appear smooth and single crystalline are the ones unlikely to have significant numbers of cracks. The bubbly features in Mizuno's SEM are micron-scale features, not nano-scale features; and the features you see are *unlikely* to be those that are responsible for the effect. It is just noted that when Mizuno processed the wire this way, he got this morphology at the micron-scale and he got excess heat. We cannot expect to see the nano-scale features in the SEM and can only use these SEMs as signposts in trying to reproduce the experiment. Yeah, the Farnsworth fusor is a strange little device. It is useful as a thermal neutron source and novel light bulb. I don't see the connection to this discussion. Are you trying to say that production of He and T are similar novelties that are unrelated to LENR? I have been involved in helium leak testing of crystal packages before. I can tell you it is possible to make a good seal against He, and He would not pass through in any measurable way through even a millimeter of Pyrex over a fairly long duration. These Heat/He experiments were expected to be controversial and the researchers went to great pains to make
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation of leptons. These reactions are forbidden. Meson production does not violate conservation laws. I went with meson production because of this. On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously I have some catch-up posting to do. I will begin with some of the latter comments. Jones, you exemplify the other side of the coin: If I thought of it, so it must be right. We stand on the shoulders of giants. I read and try to synthesize the best understanding I can piece together from what I read. The DDL works by Maly Va'vra are outstanding inputs. I didn't derive the DDL solutions myself, nor, I suspect did you. You obtained your knowledge and opinions of their existence from reading the opinions of experts who studied the topic for years. Do not promote the delusion that just because someone has a different opinion that it is based on unsound synthesis of the facts and faith. I do consider Ed Storms an expert as he has an order of magnitude more hands on, true analytic experience with this technology than perhaps any of us. We should be grateful that he has shared his knowledge so willingly. I don't accept everything I read at face value, but instead weigh facts and expert opinions to synthesize my own view. Basically, your view has now become Mills-ian. Both you and Mills are convinced that all of the excess energy is coming from photon-less transitions below hydrogen ground state. I can see your point - it is just not my viewpoint because it doesn't fit all of the facts. As far as I can see, none of the Ni-H experiments have been analytic in the sense that the energy/ atomic event has been estimated based on the measurements of the system. This has been done for Pd-D and the results are far more consistent with fusion than they are with DDL transitions. That doesn't mean that DDL energy extraction wasn't happening, only it was swamped by a greater energy producing reaction. As far as a COP of 2 being supportive of DDL vs Fusion - that point is ridiculous. The COP of 2 includes the factor of the (number of events per second)(energy per event)/(Power in) +1. In most Ni-H cases we have zero data for the number of events per second and so the COP is completely useless as an indicator of what is happening. A COP of 2 (or anything) provides no clue to the value for (energy/event). A COP of 2 is incredibly valuable in pointing out new physics being involved, and may prove to have some commercial use. But it has nothing to do with elucidating the reaction mechanism. You also seem to gloss over your own miracles. The predictions for DDL are that it requires photon-less transitions. You throw out spin coupling as a mechanism without any additional chain of reaction that would lead to dissipating the large energy available from DDL transition [you might as well throw out ice cream sandwich]. Are you positing that, as per the Va'vra paper that the DDL states are many, and like Mills, you are only descending a few levels below the normal ground state? How are you proposing that coupling occurs? Spin coupling would be a short range event requiring close physical proximity of the descending atom to whatever you are proposed it is spin coupled to - closer than a gas phase statistical concentration [and it would have to work with the low pressure of Mizuno's experiments]. What is it that you are proposing as the concentrating mechanism? Are you proposing a BEC? A BEC cannot form at these temperatures, but some other nano-magnetically confined condensation may exist - only there is no real evidence for them, they are purely speculative (until proven they exist, they are just another form of miracle). You stated that Mizuno's experiment had no cracks. This is another absurd statement. Nano-cracks, as have been implicated by Storms as the NAE, would not be visible in an SEM at a scale 100x smaller than what is shown. With the processing that Mizuno described, I can guarantee that there are cracks. Surfaces that appear smooth and single crystalline are the ones unlikely to have significant numbers of cracks. The bubbly features in Mizuno's SEM are micron-scale features, not nano-scale features; and the features you see are *unlikely* to be those that are responsible for the effect. It is just noted that when Mizuno processed the wire this way, he got this morphology at the micron-scale and he got excess heat. We cannot expect to see the nano-scale features in the SEM and can only use these SEMs as signposts in trying to reproduce the experiment. Yeah, the Farnsworth fusor is a strange little device. It is useful as a thermal neutron source and novel light bulb. I don't see the connection to this discussion. Are you trying to say that production of He and T are similar novelties that are unrelated to
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Are you proposing a BEC? A BEC cannot form at these temperatures, This is not correct. A polariton has a mass the is 10^-11 that of an electron. Because of this almost zero polariton mass, a polariton condensate are almost always produced at any temperature. On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation of leptons. These reactions are forbidden. Meson production does not violate conservation laws. I went with meson production because of this. On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously I have some catch-up posting to do. I will begin with some of the latter comments. Jones, you exemplify the other side of the coin: If I thought of it, so it must be right. We stand on the shoulders of giants. I read and try to synthesize the best understanding I can piece together from what I read. The DDL works by Maly Va'vra are outstanding inputs. I didn't derive the DDL solutions myself, nor, I suspect did you. You obtained your knowledge and opinions of their existence from reading the opinions of experts who studied the topic for years. Do not promote the delusion that just because someone has a different opinion that it is based on unsound synthesis of the facts and faith. I do consider Ed Storms an expert as he has an order of magnitude more hands on, true analytic experience with this technology than perhaps any of us. We should be grateful that he has shared his knowledge so willingly. I don't accept everything I read at face value, but instead weigh facts and expert opinions to synthesize my own view. Basically, your view has now become Mills-ian. Both you and Mills are convinced that all of the excess energy is coming from photon-less transitions below hydrogen ground state. I can see your point - it is just not my viewpoint because it doesn't fit all of the facts. As far as I can see, none of the Ni-H experiments have been analytic in the sense that the energy/ atomic event has been estimated based on the measurements of the system. This has been done for Pd-D and the results are far more consistent with fusion than they are with DDL transitions. That doesn't mean that DDL energy extraction wasn't happening, only it was swamped by a greater energy producing reaction. As far as a COP of 2 being supportive of DDL vs Fusion - that point is ridiculous. The COP of 2 includes the factor of the (number of events per second)(energy per event)/(Power in) +1. In most Ni-H cases we have zero data for the number of events per second and so the COP is completely useless as an indicator of what is happening. A COP of 2 (or anything) provides no clue to the value for (energy/event). A COP of 2 is incredibly valuable in pointing out new physics being involved, and may prove to have some commercial use. But it has nothing to do with elucidating the reaction mechanism. You also seem to gloss over your own miracles. The predictions for DDL are that it requires photon-less transitions. You throw out spin coupling as a mechanism without any additional chain of reaction that would lead to dissipating the large energy available from DDL transition [you might as well throw out ice cream sandwich]. Are you positing that, as per the Va'vra paper that the DDL states are many, and like Mills, you are only descending a few levels below the normal ground state? How are you proposing that coupling occurs? Spin coupling would be a short range event requiring close physical proximity of the descending atom to whatever you are proposed it is spin coupled to - closer than a gas phase statistical concentration [and it would have to work with the low pressure of Mizuno's experiments]. What is it that you are proposing as the concentrating mechanism? Are you proposing a BEC? A BEC cannot form at these temperatures, but some other nano-magnetically confined condensation may exist - only there is no real evidence for them, they are purely speculative (until proven they exist, they are just another form of miracle). You stated that Mizuno's experiment had no cracks. This is another absurd statement. Nano-cracks, as have been implicated by Storms as the NAE, would not be visible in an SEM at a scale 100x smaller than what is shown. With the processing that Mizuno described, I can guarantee that there are cracks. Surfaces that appear smooth and single crystalline are the ones unlikely to have significant numbers of cracks. The bubbly features in Mizuno's SEM are micron-scale features, not nano-scale features; and the features you see are *unlikely* to be those that are responsible for the effect. It is just noted that when Mizuno processed the wire this way, he got this morphology at the micron-scale and he got excess heat. We cannot expect to see the nano-scale features in the SEM and can
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Also if two DDL hydrogens fuse is the product a DDL helium? If they do then the product would tend to look like tritium. Harry On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously I have some catch-up posting to do. I will begin with some of the latter comments. Jones, you exemplify the other side of the coin: If I thought of it, so it must be right. We stand on the shoulders of giants. I read and try to synthesize the best understanding I can piece together from what I read. The DDL works by Maly Va'vra are outstanding inputs. I didn't derive the DDL solutions myself, nor, I suspect did you. You obtained your knowledge and opinions of their existence from reading the opinions of experts who studied the topic for years. Do not promote the delusion that just because someone has a different opinion that it is based on unsound synthesis of the facts and faith. I do consider Ed Storms an expert as he has an order of magnitude more hands on, true analytic experience with this technology than perhaps any of us. We should be grateful that he has shared his knowledge so willingly. I don't accept everything I read at face value, but instead weigh facts and expert opinions to synthesize my own view. Basically, your view has now become Mills-ian. Both you and Mills are convinced that all of the excess energy is coming from photon-less transitions below hydrogen ground state. I can see your point - it is just not my viewpoint because it doesn't fit all of the facts. As far as I can see, none of the Ni-H experiments have been analytic in the sense that the energy/ atomic event has been estimated based on the measurements of the system. This has been done for Pd-D and the results are far more consistent with fusion than they are with DDL transitions. That doesn't mean that DDL energy extraction wasn't happening, only it was swamped by a greater energy producing reaction. As far as a COP of 2 being supportive of DDL vs Fusion - that point is ridiculous. The COP of 2 includes the factor of the (number of events per second)(energy per event)/(Power in) +1. In most Ni-H cases we have zero data for the number of events per second and so the COP is completely useless as an indicator of what is happening. A COP of 2 (or anything) provides no clue to the value for (energy/event). A COP of 2 is incredibly valuable in pointing out new physics being involved, and may prove to have some commercial use. But it has nothing to do with elucidating the reaction mechanism. You also seem to gloss over your own miracles. The predictions for DDL are that it requires photon-less transitions. You throw out spin coupling as a mechanism without any additional chain of reaction that would lead to dissipating the large energy available from DDL transition [you might as well throw out ice cream sandwich]. Are you positing that, as per the Va'vra paper that the DDL states are many, and like Mills, you are only descending a few levels below the normal ground state? How are you proposing that coupling occurs? Spin coupling would be a short range event requiring close physical proximity of the descending atom to whatever you are proposed it is spin coupled to - closer than a gas phase statistical concentration [and it would have to work with the low pressure of Mizuno's experiments]. What is it that you are proposing as the concentrating mechanism? Are you proposing a BEC? A BEC cannot form at these temperatures, but some other nano-magnetically confined condensation may exist - only there is no real evidence for them, they are purely speculative (until proven they exist, they are just another form of miracle). You stated that Mizuno's experiment had no cracks. This is another absurd statement. Nano-cracks, as have been implicated by Storms as the NAE, would not be visible in an SEM at a scale 100x smaller than what is shown. With the processing that Mizuno described, I can guarantee that there are cracks. Surfaces that appear smooth and single crystalline are the ones unlikely to have significant numbers of cracks. The bubbly features in Mizuno's SEM are micron-scale features, not nano-scale features; and the features you see are *unlikely* to be those that are responsible for the effect. It is just noted that when Mizuno processed the wire this way, he got this morphology at the micron-scale and he got excess heat. We cannot expect to see the nano-scale features in the SEM and can only use these SEMs as signposts in trying to reproduce the experiment. Yeah, the Farnsworth fusor is a strange little device. It is useful as a thermal neutron source and novel light bulb. I don't see the connection to this discussion. Are you trying to say that production of He and T are similar novelties that are unrelated to LENR? I have been involved in helium leak testing of crystal packages before. I can tell
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Three additional points to add: * I'm still waiting for a careful writeup of Mizuno's latest NiH/NiD work. What we've seen are some slides. It seems premature at this point to draw too many conclusions. * We know relatively little about nickel systems compared to palladium systems. I assume that many of the PdD findings will carry over to nickel, and that some will not. I suspect, for instance, that helium will not. * With regard to power levels (and integrated energy) seen in experiments, it is always nice to see high power levels, in view of the potential for practical applications. But in terms of what is needed to draw conclusions about the nature of the process, all that is needed is power levels well above the measurement errors of the instruments being used. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
I believe the thinking is that the fusion of DDL atoms begins with the formation of a DDL pico-molecule. Meulenberg then proposes that the two electrons in combination (his Lochon) are involved in the fusion. When fusion would occur, the electrons are so close to the nucleus that they are highly coupled to the nucleus. So, an intermediate DDL He could form, but as part of the de-excitation of the nucleus, energy could be coupled from the nucleus to an electron to move it back to ground state (uses up ~511 keV) or completely ionize the atom by coupling more energy to the electron than is required to restore it to a ground state orbit. The fusion mechanics of such a pico-molecule are not very clear. Meulenberg has a paper entitled, From the Naught Orbit to the 4He Excited State that you might find interesting. This business of DDL atoms other than hydrogen seems kind of fishy. An electron would have to descend from an s orbital to a DDL state that would be in a new orbital. 2 electrons in an s orbital are synchronized - it seems like this would have to be lost when an electron descends into a DDL state in a closer orbital. Somehow in the process of the electron giving up energy to enter the DDL state, that energy would have to be given to the other electrons. That energy is so great as to completely ionize the atom for small atomic number. I can't quite wrap my head around how this can happen. Bob Higgins On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:30 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Also if two DDL hydrogens fuse is the product a DDL helium? If they do then the product would tend to look like tritium. Harry
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation of leptons. These reactions are forbidden. Not if a neutrino is involved. (Not that I'm at all persuaded by the proposed p-e-p reaction.) Mesons in your approach produce muons, which are leptons. This seems tangential to the matter of conservation of leptons. How does this avoid the issue? Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This is not correct. A polariton has a mass the is 10^-11 that of an electron. Because of this almost zero polariton mass, a polariton condensate are almost always produced at any temperature. Could you point us to something credible that says that a BEC can form at anything above a very low temperature? Also, something on the proposed relationship between species mass and BEC formation would be helpful. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
electrons cannot be converted to something that contain quarks. this violates the conservation of both lepton and baryon number. This reaction might therefore be forbidden as a violation of particle conservation laws. On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I believe the thinking is that the fusion of DDL atoms begins with the formation of a DDL pico-molecule. Meulenberg then proposes that the two electrons in combination (his Lochon) are involved in the fusion. When fusion would occur, the electrons are so close to the nucleus that they are highly coupled to the nucleus. So, an intermediate DDL He could form, but as part of the de-excitation of the nucleus, energy could be coupled from the nucleus to an electron to move it back to ground state (uses up ~511 keV) or completely ionize the atom by coupling more energy to the electron than is required to restore it to a ground state orbit. The fusion mechanics of such a pico-molecule are not very clear. Meulenberg has a paper entitled, From the Naught Orbit to the 4He Excited State that you might find interesting. This business of DDL atoms other than hydrogen seems kind of fishy. An electron would have to descend from an s orbital to a DDL state that would be in a new orbital. 2 electrons in an s orbital are synchronized - it seems like this would have to be lost when an electron descends into a DDL state in a closer orbital. Somehow in the process of the electron giving up energy to enter the DDL state, that energy would have to be given to the other electrons. That energy is so great as to completely ionize the atom for small atomic number. I can't quite wrap my head around how this can happen. Bob Higgins On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:30 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Also if two DDL hydrogens fuse is the product a DDL helium? If they do then the product would tend to look like tritium. Harry
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
A electron neutrino is produced. On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation of leptons. These reactions are forbidden. Not if a neutrino is involved. (Not that I'm at all persuaded by the proposed p-e-p reaction.) Mesons in your approach produce muons, which are leptons. This seems tangential to the matter of conservation of leptons. How does this avoid the issue? Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This is not correct. A polariton has a mass the is 10^-11 that of an electron. Because of this almost zero polariton mass, a polariton condensate are almost always produced at any temperature. Could you point us to something credible that says that a BEC can form at anything above a very low temperature? Also, something on the proposed relationship between species mass and BEC formation would be helpful. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
I just posted this the other day,,, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.1298v1.pdf On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This is not correct. A polariton has a mass the is 10^-11 that of an electron. Because of this almost zero polariton mass, a polariton condensate are almost always produced at any temperature. Could you point us to something credible that says that a BEC can form at anything above a very low temperature? Also, something on the proposed relationship between species mass and BEC formation would be helpful. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Correction: Muon neutrino On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: A electron neutrino is produced. On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation of leptons. These reactions are forbidden. Not if a neutrino is involved. (Not that I'm at all persuaded by the proposed p-e-p reaction.) Mesons in your approach produce muons, which are leptons. This seems tangential to the matter of conservation of leptons. How does this avoid the issue? Eric
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
So many egregious errors ... so little time to correct them all... Bob Higgins: This business of Rossi using a radioactive ingredient is a Bozo speculation based on absolutely nothing. And Rossi is not the only one to measure gamma from a LENR experiment ... Oh... Rossi measured gamma? News to me. Can we see your citation on that one, please. In the mean time, here is precisely what Focardi and Rossi have to say in print - about gamma radiation in the E-Cat: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf Focardi and Rossi: During experimental tests, continuous controls on the radioactivity levels in close proximity to the apparatus suitably lead shielded, were performed by using a gamma ray detector and three passive neutron bubble detectors, one of which for thermal neutrons: no radiation was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. As for the Bozo speculation apparently Higgins in unaware that numerous researchers, including Dennis Cravens, who he apparently admires - have used a radioactive ingredient to jump start the LENR reaction. This technique goes back a long way in LENR -all the way back to the first issue of Infinite Energy See I.E. # 1, p. 46, Cold Fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and Probability Enhancement by Boson Stimulation, by Nelson Ying and Charles W. Shults III. I presume that Cravens is not the Bozo, so who is? Celani? He was the first to mention this possibility. All of these guys, and probably Rossi as well found that a small radioactive source increased the reaction rate by many orders of magnitude at startup - way, way beyond its own physical contribution. Rusi Taleyarkhan and others in bubble fusion have also used a radioactive source as a trigger, which became a problem later on. It may not be S.O.P. but it is done. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf Following are the rough specs of the polaritons described in these slides: - Temperatures on the range of 0 - 16 K. - Photon energies (of the photons in the excitons) on the order of meV to eV (if I have read this detail correctly). - Sizes of the excitons on the order of 7 nm. - All of this taking place within semiconductors. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Well, as I went back and checked, it was the earlier paper Focardi wrote describing Piantelli's Ni-H experiments where Focardi reported substantial gamma. You talk about a Mizuno hero experiment where Mizuno reports 108 MJ, in this Focardi paper, Piantelli had one experiment over 900 MJ and another with 600 MJ, and gamma was detected both. There were no radioactive ingredients in these experiments. The paper is: - Overview of H-Ni Systems: Old Experiments and New Setup; E. Campari, S Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbanco, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi; ~2004 Also see this paper where the experimenters went to great length to protect themselves from previously detected radiation and measures the gamma spectrum: - Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems; S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi; 2004 In Focardi's 2010 paper with Rossi, Focardi describes the reactor as being suitably lead shielded. Obviously from Focardi's previous experience, the lead was added. It was not a desirable component, but deemed necessary. In this paper, Focardi describes one of the long tests of Rossi's early reactors as producing 4774 kWH of excess heat - approx. 17,000 MJ. Dwarfing what is done by Piantelli and Mizuno. There was no mention made of radioactive ingredients. That paper is: - A new energy source from nuclear fusion; S. Focardi and A. Rossi; 3/22/2010 I think there is still another paper, but I will have to dig deeper in my archives. Clearly, gamma HAS been detected coincident with huge (hero) excess heat in Ni-H systems. Yes, I am quite aware that some researchers have salted their experiments with radioactive isotopes. I also know that Dennis Cravens sometimes use thorium oxide for that purpose (he showed me his jar). That doesn't mean that Piantelli or Rossi did. In analysis of the Rossi ash by Kullander and Essen, a heavy radioisotope would absolutely have been detected - and it wasn't. I never said radioisotopes were never used by anyone. I just claimed it was Bozo speculation to say that Rossi uses a radioisotope. Maybe Bozo is mean, but I meant it to be because I believe it to be totally unfounded and defamatory to Rossi (it will affect the perception of what he has). Now you show me the reports and evidence that Rossi *does* use a radioisotope in his system. Time for dinner. :) Bob Higgins On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: So many egregious errors ... so little time to correct them all... Bob Higgins: This business of Rossi using a radioactive ingredient is a Bozo speculation based on absolutely nothing. And Rossi is not the only one to measure gamma from a LENR experiment ... Oh... Rossi measured gamma? News to me. Can we see your citation on that one, please. In the mean time, here is precisely what Focardi and Rossi have to say in print - about gamma radiation in the E-Cat: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf Focardi and Rossi: During experimental tests, continuous controls on the radioactivity levels in close proximity to the apparatus suitably lead shielded, were performed by using a gamma ray detector and three passive neutron bubble detectors, one of which for thermal neutrons: no radiation was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. As for the Bozo speculation apparently Higgins in unaware that numerous researchers, including Dennis Cravens, who he apparently admires - have used a radioactive ingredient to jump start the LENR reaction. This technique goes back a long way in LENR -all the way back to the first issue of Infinite Energy See I.E. # 1, p. 46, Cold Fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and Probability Enhancement by Boson Stimulation, by Nelson Ying and Charles W. Shults III. I presume that Cravens is not the Bozo, so who is? Celani? He was the first to mention this possibility. All of these guys, and probably Rossi as well found that a small radioactive source increased the reaction rate by many orders of magnitude at startup - way, way beyond its own physical contribution. Rusi Taleyarkhan and others in bubble fusion have also used a radioactive source as a trigger, which became a problem later on. It may not be S.O.P. but it is done. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Try this one http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.7086v1.pdf On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf Following are the rough specs of the polaritons described in these slides: - Temperatures on the range of 0 - 16 K. - Photon energies (of the photons in the excitons) on the order of meV to eV (if I have read this detail correctly). - Sizes of the excitons on the order of 7 nm. - All of this taking place within semiconductors. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Well, supper's done and I found the reference I was looking for. This is an interview with Sergio Focardi where he talks about the technology. He says radiation is present and that is why they have the lead. He talks about having a radiation detector outside the reactor to shut down the reactor if radiation is detected because the shielding has been damaged. The interviewer asks him if Rossi had added uranium to the reactor and he says no. He does not say that there are no radioisotopes, but that appears to be the intent of what he goes on to say. - A radio interview with Sergio Focardi, the father of 'Ni-H Cold Fusion'; Radio Citta del Capo - Bologna - Italy. You can get it off of my Google drive at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2VHhPQ0paM1dvME0/edit?usp=sharing Bob Higgins On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Well, as I went back and checked, it was the earlier paper Focardi wrote describing Piantelli's Ni-H experiments where Focardi reported substantial gamma. You talk about a Mizuno hero experiment where Mizuno reports 108 MJ, in this Focardi paper, Piantelli had one experiment over 900 MJ and another with 600 MJ, and gamma was detected both. There were no radioactive ingredients in these experiments. The paper is: - Overview of H-Ni Systems: Old Experiments and New Setup; E. Campari, S Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbanco, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi; ~2004 Also see this paper where the experimenters went to great length to protect themselves from previously detected radiation and measures the gamma spectrum: - Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems; S. Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi; 2004 In Focardi's 2010 paper with Rossi, Focardi describes the reactor as being suitably lead shielded. Obviously from Focardi's previous experience, the lead was added. It was not a desirable component, but deemed necessary. In this paper, Focardi describes one of the long tests of Rossi's early reactors as producing 4774 kWH of excess heat - approx. 17,000 MJ. Dwarfing what is done by Piantelli and Mizuno. There was no mention made of radioactive ingredients. That paper is: - A new energy source from nuclear fusion; S. Focardi and A. Rossi; 3/22/2010 I think there is still another paper, but I will have to dig deeper in my archives. Clearly, gamma HAS been detected coincident with huge (hero) excess heat in Ni-H systems. Yes, I am quite aware that some researchers have salted their experiments with radioactive isotopes. I also know that Dennis Cravens sometimes use thorium oxide for that purpose (he showed me his jar). That doesn't mean that Piantelli or Rossi did. In analysis of the Rossi ash by Kullander and Essen, a heavy radioisotope would absolutely have been detected - and it wasn't. I never said radioisotopes were never used by anyone. I just claimed it was Bozo speculation to say that Rossi uses a radioisotope. Maybe Bozo is mean, but I meant it to be because I believe it to be totally unfounded and defamatory to Rossi (it will affect the perception of what he has). Now you show me the reports and evidence that Rossi *does* use a radioisotope in his system. Time for dinner. :) Bob Higgins On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: So many egregious errors ... so little time to correct them all... Bob Higgins: This business of Rossi using a radioactive ingredient is a Bozo speculation based on absolutely nothing. And Rossi is not the only one to measure gamma from a LENR experiment ... Oh... Rossi measured gamma? News to me. Can we see your citation on that one, please. In the mean time, here is precisely what Focardi and Rossi have to say in print - about gamma radiation in the E-Cat: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf Focardi and Rossi: During experimental tests, continuous controls on the radioactivity levels in close proximity to the apparatus suitably lead shielded, were performed by using a gamma ray detector and three passive neutron bubble detectors, one of which for thermal neutrons: no radiation was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. As for the Bozo speculation apparently Higgins in unaware that numerous researchers, including Dennis Cravens, who he apparently admires - have used a radioactive ingredient to jump start the LENR reaction. This technique goes back a long way in LENR -all the way back to the first issue of Infinite Energy See I.E. # 1, p. 46, Cold Fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and Probability Enhancement by Boson Stimulation, by Nelson Ying and Charles W. Shults III. I presume that Cravens is not the Bozo, so who is? Celani? He was the first to mention this possibility. All of these guys, and probably
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Well, supper's done and I found the reference I was looking for ... - A radio interview with Sergio Focardi, the father of 'Ni-H Cold Fusion'; Radio Citta del Capo - Bologna - Italy. Excellent sources, Bob. I enjoyed reading all of them. Hopefully they will put to rest once and for all the question of whether Rossi and Focardi have or have not seen gammas. It is obviously not a response to reply that they haven't reported gammas in recent descriptions. In a different connection, there was this interesting tidbit from the interview concerning the catalyst used in the E-Cat: And the purpose of this secret compound is, I believe, to facilitate the formation of atomic hydrogen instead of molecular hydrogen, because hydrogen typically settles down in molecules, but if one has a molecule, it can not penetrate into the nucleus. So I think the additive is used to this purpose: it forms atomic hydrogen, which penetrates into the nucleus. This is yet another hint strengthening my suspicion that the catalyst is a material with a low work function. Eric
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: Bob Higgins * Yes, I am quite aware that some researchers have salted their experiments with radioactive isotopes. I also know that Dennis Cravens sometimes use thorium oxide for that purpose (he showed me his jar). That doesn't mean that Piantelli or Rossi did. Where did you get the idea that Rossi ever used a radioisotope for anything other than startup? I never said or implied that. It would have been easily seen. What I said was that Celani detected a burst of radioactivity on startup at the Bologna demo, behind closed doors, and he (or someone else who was present) suggested that the burst could have been from a radioisotope used for startup purposes – which was later removed. Rossi would never answer to what caused the burst – when asked. Obviously it was only used at startup. Jones
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: Bob Higgins * * Well, supper's done and I found the reference I was looking for. This is an interview with Sergio Focardi where he talks about the technology. The material from 2004 is irrelevant wrt Rossi * In Focardi's 2010 paper with Rossi, Focardi describes the reactor as being suitably lead shielded. Yes but you left out the important point in this document, which shoots down your premise. QUOTE: During experimental tests, continuous controls on the radioactivity levels in close proximity to the apparatus were performed by using a gamma ray detector and three passive neutron bubble detectors, one of which for thermal neutrons: no radiation was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The material from 2004 is irrelevant wrt Rossi Most obviously not. no radiation was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. Because of the lead shielding, no doubt. Eric
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
You must be joking right? Only a fool makes a gamma measurement outside the lead. Please read the Bianchini report. He is very clear about how the readings were taken: UNDER THE LEAD Jones From: Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: The material from 2004 is irrelevant wrt Rossi Most obviously not. no radiation was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. Because of the lead shielding, no doubt. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You must be joking right? Only a fool makes a gamma measurement outside the lead. Not true, even a little. There are very good reasons for taking gamma measurements outside of lead, the primary one being to ensure that the device can operate safely around humans. Please read the Bianchini report. He is very clear about how the readings were taken: UNDER THE LEAD I read it. I will repeat -- it is no reply to say that Rossi did not report in later descriptions, if he and predecessors have reported them on earlier occasions. Eric
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: Eric Walker You must be joking right Only a fool makes a gamma measurement outside the lead. Not true, even a little. There are very good reasons for taking gamma measurements outside of lead, the primary one being to ensure that the device can operate safely around humans. Nonsense. In fact within a month – at the very next test there was NO LEAD and there has been no lead since then. You do not do this if you think that there could be gammas. Please read the Bianchini report. He is very clear about how the readings were taken: UNDER THE LEAD I read it. I will repeat -- it is no reply to say that Rossi did not report in later descriptions, if he and predecessors have reported them on earlier occasions. You still have not shown that Rossi ever reported gamma radiation in an operating E-Cat ! Please – put up or shut up. In fact Rossi explicitly denies that he has seen gamma radiation. What Focardi may have done with someone else is irrelevant to Rossi, since we know it is incredibly easy to produce gammas when that is your aim. It is not Rossi’s aim. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You still have not shown that Rossi ever reported gamma radiation in an operating E-Cat ! Please – put up or shut up. Please read the interview. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Clearly Dr. Va'vra has not given up his belief in the existence of the DDL states, as his 2013 paper is proposing DDL as a possible explanation for the galactic 511keV signal. He says in this paper that the previous calculations were based on the QM formulations of the 1920's and that the problem should be solved using modern QED. For this, he refers to Dr. James Vary (Iowa State University) who is apparently continuing the DDL work with his graduate students. Apparently Dr. Vary also checked the DDL work done by Dr. Va'vra and found no errors. Here are some interesting points I have noted from reading these DDL papers: - The Shrodinger equation is not a relativistic model. It doesn't predict the DDL states and it is not entirely accurate even in the ground state due to relativistic effects not being included. The slower the electron is traveling (larger radius states), the more accurate its solution is. - The Klein-Gordon equation (KG) added special relativistic effects to the model, but not spin. The KG equation predicts a single DDL state that is very about 350 Fermi equivalent Bohr radius (the normal ground state hydrogen is 52,900 Fermi, and a muon orbit would be about 250 Fermi). - The Dirac equation includes both special relativity and spin. Dr. Va'vra's solutions to the Dirac equation predict many DDL levels. These levels are solutions to the S- portion of the equation normally discarded because conventional formulations predicts an infinity at r=0 because a point source is presumed for the nucleus. This is solved by re-formulating the problem with a distributed charge source model for the nucleus. The resulting solution predicts the normal hydrogen states more accurately than the Shrodinger and KG equations. The Dirac DDL solutions include states with orbits less than 300 Fermi. - None of these equations model the effects of the 2-body mass problem. It is well known that the Earth and the Sun orbit around the common center of mass and the Earth causes the Sun to wobble in its position. This effect is not accounted for in any of these equations. - These DDL states appear to not have enough angular momentum to create or absorb a photon [Meulenberg]. So, it becomes problematic for how energy is transferred into or out of an atom to change DDL states. With this being the case, an auxiliary atom or coupled system is needed that can exchange energy. This is a problem for detection of DDL states. - The DDL atom is also so small, it behaves more like a quasi-neutron and has a very low reaction cross-section. It will readily pass through containers. - Most agree that if two DDL hydrogen isotope atoms form a DDL molecule, they will fuse immediately (within 10's of picoseconds). Bob Higgins On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones-- Thanks for that repeat. I missed it the first time. Eric also identified the recent (2013) Va’vra paper, which is quite interesting including it reluctance to try to discuss theory, this being a change from his actions in the 1993 paper. I wonder what changed his mind about addressing theory?
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Bob, Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually) – which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter. These are accumulated meta-states in the sense that the 511 keV line comes not from a decay of any particle, but instead there are macro accumulations of coherent particles, which can be a condensate, which act together as a cohesive unit – over and above the particles involved. More on that in a subsequent post. From: Bob Higgins Clearly Dr. Va'vra has not given up his belief in the existence of the DDL states, as his 2013 paper is proposing DDL as a possible explanation for the galactic 511keV signal. He says in this paper that the previous calculations were based on the QM formulations of the 1920's and that the problem should be solved using modern QED. For this, he refers to Dr. James Vary (Iowa State University) who is apparently continuing the DDL work with his graduate students. Apparently Dr. Vary also checked the DDL work done by Dr. Va'vra and found no errors. Here are some interesting points I have noted from reading these DDL papers: * The Shrodinger equation is not a relativistic model. It doesn't predict the DDL states and it is not entirely accurate even in the ground state due to relativistic effects not being included. The slower the electron is traveling (larger radius states), the more accurate its solution is. * The Klein-Gordon equation (KG) added special relativistic effects to the model, but not spin. The KG equation predicts a single DDL state that is very about 350 Fermi equivalent Bohr radius (the normal ground state hydrogen is 52,900 Fermi, and a muon orbit would be about 250 Fermi). * The Dirac equation includes both special relativity and spin. Dr. Va'vra's solutions to the Dirac equation predict many DDL levels. These levels are solutions to the S- portion of the equation normally discarded because conventional formulations predicts an infinity at r=0 because a point source is presumed for the nucleus. This is solved by re-formulating the problem with a distributed charge source model for the nucleus. The resulting solution predicts the normal hydrogen states more accurately than the Shrodinger and KG equations. The Dirac DDL solutions include states with orbits less than 300 Fermi. * None of these equations model the effects of the 2-body mass problem. It is well known that the Earth and the Sun orbit around the common center of mass and the Earth causes the Sun to wobble in its position. This effect is not accounted for in any of these equations. * These DDL states appear to not have enough angular momentum to create or absorb a photon [Meulenberg]. So, it becomes problematic for how energy is transferred into or out of an atom to change DDL states. With this being the case, an auxiliary atom or coupled system is needed that can exchange energy. This is a problem for detection of DDL states. * The DDL atom is also so small, it behaves more like a quasi-neutron and has a very low reaction cross-section. It will readily pass through containers. * Most agree that if two DDL hydrogen isotope atoms form a DDL molecule, they will fuse immediately (within 10's of picoseconds). Bob Higgins Bob Cook wrote: Jones-- Thanks for that repeat. I missed it the first time. Eric also identified the recent (2013) Va’vra paper, which is quite interesting including it reluctance to try to discuss theory, this being a change from his actions in the 1993 paper. I wonder what changed his mind about addressing theory?
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually) – which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter. These are accumulated meta-states in the sense that the 511 keV line comes not from a decay of any particle ... Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid angle, this will add up to 511 keV. Eric
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually) – which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter (as emitting entities). These are accumulated macro-states in the sense that the signature line comes not from a decay of any particle, but instead from accumulations of coherent particles, which can be a condensate, and which act together as a cohesive unit – over and above the particles involved. This possibility has come up in regard to fragmentation of a Bose-Einstein condensate, which can occur given repulsive inter-particle interactions and a non-uniform external potential. The paper is older: “Some Remarks on the Fragmentation of Bose Condensates” by Spekkens et al. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9802053.pdf If one starts with that paper, then adds this: http://web.mit.edu/physics/greytak-kleppner/publications/LT22_Talk.pdf which treats atomic hydrogen as a composite boson which can be condensed, all of it raises the remote possibility that the emitting species in question (which would correspond to “dark matter” in general) is not necessarily a single entity but is a relic of the breakup of larger accumulations of dark matter. If we were talking about a BEC of atomic hydrogen as being dark matter, then the radiation which has been seen in the 3.7 keV range for instance, could be attributed to the breakup of a larger condensate – except that it seems improbable at first that there would be a favored size… which would need to be the case if there was a single line, but maybe not. Fragmentation of a Bose-Einstein condensate, along with recombination and even a macro-level of oscillating coherence can occur given bosonic repulsive inter-particle interactions and a non-uniform external potential. To paraphrase: It is customary to approximate the ground state of a coherent system of particles (spin free bosons) by the Hartree-Fock state, and as a normalized single particle wavefunction. One can, also consider states where the form is normalized but orthogonal single-particle wavefunctions, where we distinguish the first as ‘single condensates’ and the second as ‘dual condensates’ … so that what we identify as a characteristic signature of dark matter is in fact a relic of shifting condensate orientation – possibly representing the passage of gravity waves within a cloud of dark matter. It gets curiouser and curiouser… From: Bob Higgins Clearly Dr. Va'vra has not given up his belief in the existence of the DDL states, as his 2013 paper is proposing DDL as a possible explanation for the galactic 511keV signal. He says in this paper that the previous calculations were based on the QM formulations of the 1920's and that the problem should be solved using modern QED. For this, he refers to Dr. James Vary (Iowa State University) who is apparently continuing the DDL work with his graduate students. Apparently Dr. Vary also checked the DDL work done by Dr. Va'vra and found no errors. Here are some interesting points I have noted from reading these DDL papers: * The Shrodinger equation is not a relativistic model. It doesn't predict the DDL states and it is not entirely accurate even in the ground state due to relativistic effects not being included. The slower the electron is traveling (larger radius states), the more accurate its solution is. * The Klein-Gordon equation (KG) added special relativistic effects to the model, but not spin. The KG equation predicts a single DDL state that is very about 350 Fermi equivalent Bohr radius (the normal ground state hydrogen is 52,900 Fermi, and a muon orbit would be about 250 Fermi). * The Dirac equation includes both special relativity and spin. Dr. Va'vra's solutions to the Dirac equation predict many DDL levels. These levels are solutions to the S- portion of the equation normally discarded because conventional formulations predicts an infinity at r=0 because a point source is presumed for the nucleus. This is solved by re-formulating the problem with a distributed charge source model for the nucleus. The resulting solution predicts the normal hydrogen states more accurately than the Shrodinger and KG equations. The Dirac DDL solutions include states with orbits less than 300 Fermi. * None of these equations model the effects of the 2-body mass problem. It is well known that the Earth and the Sun orbit around the common center of mass and the Earth causes the Sun to wobble in its position. This effect is not accounted for in any of these equations. * These DDL states appear to not have enough angular momentum to create or absorb a photon [Meulenberg]. So, it becomes problematic for how energy is transferred into or out of an atom to change DDL states. With this being the case, an auxiliary atom or coupled system is needed that can exchange energy. This is a problem for detection of DDL
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
This is in part because Va'vra hypothesizes that it may be possible to produce DDL transitions with multiple photons. If multiple photons are involved, there is nothing to insure that all photon components would come out in the same direction (like a laser). Hence, you would have to integrate all of the photon energies in 4pi solid angle in an instant and look to see if they added up to the 511keV. It is not clear how Va'vra envisions that these photons would be catalyzed out of the DDL atom, because as Meulenberg points out, the DDL electrons have insufficient angular momentum to absorb or emit a photon. Thus, to get multiple photons out, it would seem that multiple other atoms must be coupled to the DDL electron to extract energy from it and then those other atoms would emit the extracted energy as a photon. Starts to sound like Mills, doesn't it? Bob On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually) – which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter. These are accumulated meta-states in the sense that the 511 keV line comes not from a decay of any particle ... Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid angle, this will add up to 511 keV. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
I wrote: Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid angle, this will add up to 511 keV. Looking at the 2013 paper again, that is just one of two possibilities. One possibility is that the DDL gives off a 511 keV emission (explaining the signal in the cosmic background) and the other is that the DDL emissions sum up over a solid angle (not explaining the signal, presumably) [1]. He does something similar with the capture cross section of DDL hydrogen -- it might or might not be all that high (p. 6). Eric [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf, p. 5
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
There is a third possibility – that Va’vra is measuring something completely different… since as I recall, he is trying to explain a phenomenon of the Milky Way, and the others who see emissions from distant galaxies in the range of 3.5 keV are seeing a characteristic emission of dark matter which is far removed. The emission line which they see (5 or 6 different papers) is red-shifted, but is not clear if the originating radiation is 3.7 keV or not. At any rate it is NOT as Mills suggests, the 3.4 keV which he calculates, since the red-shift would lower that. So we know that Mills is wrong, if nothing else as his value is lower than what is actually seen, when it should be higher. The fourth possibility is the most likely. Va’vra is seeing positron annihilation, which he tries to marginalize as a possibility, but it is too coincidental to be otherwise. From: Eric Walker Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid angle, this will add up to 511 keV. Looking at the 2013 paper again, that is just one of two possibilities. One possibility is that the DDL gives off a 511 keV emission (explaining the signal in the cosmic background) and the other is that the DDL emissions sum up over a solid angle (not explaining the signal, presumably) [1]. He does something similar with the capture cross section of DDL hydrogen -- it might or might not be all that high (p. 6). Eric [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf, p. 5
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
It is worth mentioning in the context of: http://web.mit.edu/physics/greytak-kleppner/publications/LT22_Talk.pdf which treats atomic hydrogen as a composite boson … which can be (has been) condensed, all of it raises the remote possibility that the emitting species in question (which would correspond to “dark matter”) is not necessarily a single entity but is a relic of the transitory breakup of accumulations of dark matter. The DDL is notably a composite boson – and moreover, it is one which would possibly condense at a relatively high temperature, given that a parameter which controls ease of condensation is the limitation of freedom of movement. Thus, we can argue that dark matter is a strange kind of hydrogen condensate, which forms massive clouds which do not densify into stars. The reason for that is still a mystery, but the “placeholder” explanation is that within the cloud of dark matter there is a repulsive force which is greater than gravity. Magnetism is a good candidate, especially in the guise of rapidly alternating polarity, which itself can be defined as the virtual monopole state. If we were talking about a BEC of atomic hydrogen as being dark matter, then the radiation which has been seen in the 3.7 keV range for instance, could be attributed to the transitory breakup of a larger condensate… … so that what we identify as a characteristic signature of dark matter is in fact a relic of shifting condensate orientation – possibly representing the passage of gravity waves within a cloud of dark matter. It gets curiouser and curiouser… attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
One of the dark matter theories that has gained favor through the observation of many instances of circumstantial evidence for its existence is based on a soliton that is light years in size. The unexplained emission lines that are being observed could be that of the EMF single frequency which allows the soliton to maintain its quantum mechanical correlations between the ensemble members. A large entangled structure needs something to keep all the members correlated. That single frequency might be what is being detected. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: This is in part because Va'vra hypothesizes that it may be possible to produce DDL transitions with multiple photons. If multiple photons are involved, there is nothing to insure that all photon components would come out in the same direction (like a laser). Hence, you would have to integrate all of the photon energies in 4pi solid angle in an instant and look to see if they added up to the 511keV. It is not clear how Va'vra envisions that these photons would be catalyzed out of the DDL atom, because as Meulenberg points out, the DDL electrons have insufficient angular momentum to absorb or emit a photon. Thus, to get multiple photons out, it would seem that multiple other atoms must be coupled to the DDL electron to extract energy from it and then those other atoms would emit the extracted energy as a photon. Starts to sound like Mills, doesn't it? Bob On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually) – which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter. These are accumulated meta-states in the sense that the 511 keV line comes not from a decay of any particle ... Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid angle, this will add up to 511 keV. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
While Va'vra is recently trying to connect the 511 keV galactic signal with DDL hydrogen, his theory about multi-photon DDL transitions is older. He has been doing work with spark discharge in hydrogen and uses a large cylindrical scintillator with an axial hole to look for coincident detection of multiple photons, that he thought may add up to 511 keV. Of course, the 511 keV galactic signal is not Va'vra's observation. He was just citing that with a speculation that DDL hydrogen could be implicated. One of the things that QED analysis may provide a better handle on is how DDL transitions might occur. Meulenberg states that DDL state electrons do not have sufficient angular momentum for photon transactions, making it difficult to visualize how DDL state transitions occur. Shrodinger, KG, and Dirac really don't contain information about the photon interaction with the electron, but QED does. Bob On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is a third possibility – that Va’vra is measuring something completely different… since as I recall, he is trying to explain a phenomenon of the Milky Way, and the others who see emissions from distant galaxies in the range of 3.5 keV are seeing a characteristic emission of dark matter which is far removed. The emission line which they see (5 or 6 different papers) is red-shifted, but is not clear if the originating radiation is 3.7 keV or not. At any rate it is NOT as Mills suggests, the 3.4 keV which he calculates, since the red-shift would lower that. So we know that Mills is wrong, if nothing else as his value is lower than what is actually seen, when it should be higher. The fourth possibility is the most likely. Va’vra is seeing positron annihilation, which he tries to marginalize as a possibility, but it is too coincidental to be otherwise. *From:* Eric Walker Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid angle, this will add up to 511 keV. Looking at the 2013 paper again, that is just one of two possibilities. One possibility is that the DDL gives off a 511 keV emission (explaining the signal in the cosmic background) and the other is that the DDL emissions sum up over a solid angle (not explaining the signal, presumably) [1]. He does something similar with the capture cross section of DDL hydrogen -- it might or might not be all that high (p. 6). Eric [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf, p. 5
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in which a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of many protons. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: While Va'vra is recently trying to connect the 511 keV galactic signal with DDL hydrogen, his theory about multi-photon DDL transitions is older. He has been doing work with spark discharge in hydrogen and uses a large cylindrical scintillator with an axial hole to look for coincident detection of multiple photons, that he thought may add up to 511 keV. Of course, the 511 keV galactic signal is not Va'vra's observation. He was just citing that with a speculation that DDL hydrogen could be implicated. One of the things that QED analysis may provide a better handle on is how DDL transitions might occur. Meulenberg states that DDL state electrons do not have sufficient angular momentum for photon transactions, making it difficult to visualize how DDL state transitions occur. Shrodinger, KG, and Dirac really don't contain information about the photon interaction with the electron, but QED does. Bob On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is a third possibility – that Va’vra is measuring something completely different… since as I recall, he is trying to explain a phenomenon of the Milky Way, and the others who see emissions from distant galaxies in the range of 3.5 keV are seeing a characteristic emission of dark matter which is far removed. The emission line which they see (5 or 6 different papers) is red-shifted, but is not clear if the originating radiation is 3.7 keV or not. At any rate it is NOT as Mills suggests, the 3.4 keV which he calculates, since the red-shift would lower that. So we know that Mills is wrong, if nothing else as his value is lower than what is actually seen, when it should be higher. The fourth possibility is the most likely. Va’vra is seeing positron annihilation, which he tries to marginalize as a possibility, but it is too coincidental to be otherwise. *From:* Eric Walker Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid angle, this will add up to 511 keV. Looking at the 2013 paper again, that is just one of two possibilities. One possibility is that the DDL gives off a 511 keV emission (explaining the signal in the cosmic background) and the other is that the DDL emissions sum up over a solid angle (not explaining the signal, presumably) [1]. He does something similar with the capture cross section of DDL hydrogen -- it might or might not be all that high (p. 6). Eric [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf, p. 5
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in which a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of many protons. Sounds vaguely like a hydroton. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
the book of Ed Storms beside his theory put the finger on key weirness of LENr evidence. one is that Iwamura experiments shows a fusion of heavy nucleus with an even number of deuterons, precisely one that lead to a stable result... finding an explation for those two weirness is a key. the even number is explained by the hydroton, but the stable nucleus, as far as i understood does not. tritium is a key too... hydrogen fusion results is not known, and Ed propose some successive fusion to deuterium, tritium, helium, and why not more...(it is not clear for me) not far from the ladder of Brillouin. maybe Ni62/64/60/61 specificities in E-cat will lead to some new key facts to sort out the theories... many keys, but many more doors. 2014-08-31 20:51 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in which a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of many protons. Sounds vaguely like a hydroton. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
One more facet of the DDL connection is that chemically bound DDL molecules are entirely possible - such as D^D and D^D^. Meulenberg proposes that these pico-molecules will fuse in 10s of picoseconds. It is likely that pico-molecules could form inside of Ed Storms' hydroton. These pico-molecules could be responsible for fusion with heavy nuclei, and given the wierd-ness of the input to the heavy nucleus, it is not inconceivable that wierd-ness could result - for example the formation of a stable heavy nucleus. I don't think I entirely believe Meulenburg's lochon hypothesis (binding of 2 electrons), but his DDL papers are well worth reading for the context of LENR from DDL state hydrogen isotopes. Bob On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: the book of Ed Storms beside his theory put the finger on key weirness of LENr evidence. one is that Iwamura experiments shows a fusion of heavy nucleus with an even number of deuterons, precisely one that lead to a stable result... finding an explation for those two weirness is a key. the even number is explained by the hydroton, but the stable nucleus, as far as i understood does not. tritium is a key too... hydrogen fusion results is not known, and Ed propose some successive fusion to deuterium, tritium, helium, and why not more...(it is not clear for me) not far from the ladder of Brillouin. maybe Ni62/64/60/61 specificities in E-cat will lead to some new key facts to sort out the theories... many keys, but many more doors. 2014-08-31 20:51 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in which a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of many protons. Sounds vaguely like a hydroton. ;) Eric
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: Bob Higgins One more facet of the DDL connection is that chemically bound DDL molecules are entirely possible - such as D^D and D^D^. Meulenberg proposes that these pico-molecules will fuse in 10s of picoseconds. The problem with this hypothesis is simple. Mizuno presented the most robust experiment in the history of LENR – a full 600% more gain than the next best experiment (Roulette/Pons) and guess what – no sign of fusion. No mass-4. No gammas. But plenty of excess heat. If there was a route to fusion via DDDL - then it should have shown up in the thirty days of the Mizuno experiment. Since there was no evidence of fusion in the most important experiment since 1989, it is fair to say that we should focus elsewhere. Why invent a fusion pathway when you do not need one to show gain? Going to the DDL is sufficient to explain thermal gain. If we stop there, then we do not need Storm’s brain-dead explanation for lack of gammas. The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is lack of fusion. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is lack of fusion. I'm sooo tempted to collect statements from you along these lines for future gloating. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Magnetic action upon the nucleus is responsible for LENR. A MNR inactive nucleus (a zero nuclear spin) is required to optimize the effect of the magnetic field on the nucleus. There, no magnetic energy is wasted. A NMR active nucleus (a non zero nuclear spin) will dissipate the energy of the magnetic field by converting magnetic energy into RF energy thereby weakening the effect of the magnetic field. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: the book of Ed Storms beside his theory put the finger on key weirness of LENr evidence. one is that Iwamura experiments shows a fusion of heavy nucleus with an even number of deuterons, precisely one that lead to a stable result... finding an explation for those two weirness is a key. the even number is explained by the hydroton, but the stable nucleus, as far as i understood does not. tritium is a key too... hydrogen fusion results is not known, and Ed propose some successive fusion to deuterium, tritium, helium, and why not more...(it is not clear for me) not far from the ladder of Brillouin. maybe Ni62/64/60/61 specificities in E-cat will lead to some new key facts to sort out the theories... many keys, but many more doors. 2014-08-31 20:51 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in which a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of many protons. Sounds vaguely like a hydroton. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Lack of gamma is a result of superabsorbsion in a coherent system of SPPs. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is lack of fusion. I'm sooo tempted to collect statements from you along these lines for future gloating. ;) Eric
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Eric, These statements are in the archive so there is no need to collect them. There are many of them over the years, so there will be plenty to gloat over - if gammaless fusion is proved. My only excuse will be to say that if nuclear fusion - at low input energy, without gammas - is proved then it will consist of two simultaneous miracles. These are actually two completely separated miracles –not one which includes a subset. The first is the fusion itself, which is a strong miracle if the probability is high - and the second is a previously unknown channel for shedding the immense energy of fusion events. That second one is actually a stronger miracle then the first one. Nuclear tunneling via QM is known to happen at low probability but it always involves a gamma channel. Actually – it would be fabulous to be wrong on this point, but I am not worried in the least about that happening. Yet in November, if Mizuno backtracks and sez… oops... we had a bad meter earlier - and there really was helium, then mea culpa. From: Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is lack of fusion. I'm sooo tempted to collect statements from you along these lines for future gloating. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Nanoplasmonic experiments can be performed that evoke nuclear reactions through the use of laser irradiation of metallic nanoparticles. The nanoparticles amplify, concentrate, focus and convert the photons from the lasers into magnetic energy as described in my previous posts, for example see this experiment: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0830.pdf Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water. In this nanoplasmonic experiment, tritium can be increased or reduced or both simultaneously based on the parameters manipulated by the experimenter. The metal used is sensitive to the degree of reflection of the laser light. More reflection produces more reactivity. The duration of the laser pulse also is a factor. I believe that tritium production in Deuterium systems is a matter of timing related to an incomplete reaction cycle. In a system that flickers magnetically, and/or does not sustain a state of Bose Einstein condensation will produce nuclear products. A good example of this is the cavitation system that Mark LeClair has developed. The experimenter in the referenced paper remarks as follows: “The efficiency of nuclear processes occurring during the course of heavy water electrolysis can depend on the character of roughness of the electrode surfaces on a nanometer scale, the “spikiness” parameters [17, 18] in particular. Indeed, it is precisely in the regions of the sharpest surface relief alterations that high electric field strengths making for the acceleration of electrons and high mechanical stresses depressing the activation barriers for electrochemical processes can both get realized. This parameter is out of control in most experiments with electrolysis of heavy water. On the contrary, laser ablation of metallic targets by sub-nanosecond laser pulses leads to formation of self-organized nanostructures (NS) on the target. The average size and density of NS depends on laser fluence on the target and target material. Typical view of such NS on Ti and Au target ablated in water with 10 ps laser pulses are presented in Fig. 1.” The paper is reflecting the rationale I gave for the formation of static and dynamic nuclear active environments. Clearly, uncontrolled creation of NAE is consistent with what happens in many uncontrolled LENR systems using electrolysis. By the way to avoid chance in NAE formation, in recent Misuno reactor experiments, Mizuno preconditions his electrodes to form metal spikes to enable the static NAE in the nanoplasmonic LENR process. The authors of this paper has their own theory of what is going on, my agreement will the author will vary on certain issues. At the end of the day, uncontrolled random effects can increase and/or decrease the creation and/or destruction of tritium. Tritium is not an indicator of a hot fusion like reaction but instead shows that a marginal system is flickering in terms of sustaining a nanoplasmonic LENR reaction. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Eric, These statements are in the archive so there is no need to collect them. There are many of them over the years, so there will be plenty to gloat over - if gammaless fusion is proved. My only excuse will be to say that if nuclear fusion - at low input energy, without gammas - is proved then it will consist of two simultaneous miracles. These are actually two completely separated miracles –not one which includes a subset. The first is the fusion itself, which is a strong miracle if the probability is high - and the second is a previously unknown channel for shedding the immense energy of fusion events. That second one is actually a stronger miracle then the first one. Nuclear tunneling via QM is known to happen at low probability but it always involves a gamma channel. Actually – it would be fabulous to be wrong on this point, but I am not worried in the least about that happening. Yet in November, if Mizuno backtracks and sez… oops... we had a bad meter earlier - and there really was helium, then mea culpa. *From:* Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is lack of fusion. I'm sooo tempted to collect statements from you along these lines for future gloating. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: My only excuse will be to say that if nuclear fusion ... is proved then it will consist of two simultaneous miracles. Yes -- agreed. Yet in November, if Mizuno backtracks and sez… oops... we had a bad meter earlier - and there really was helium, then mea culpa. I don't think we need to detect helium to have fusion (in a manner of speaking) -- we could have a nucleon capture of some kind as well, leading to spallation and so on. Helium is relevant to PdD systems (and possibly NiD systems, I suppose). Eric
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: My only excuse will be to say that if nuclear fusion ... is proved then it will consist of two simultaneous miracles. Yes -- agreed. Yet in November, if Mizuno backtracks and sez… oops... we had a bad meter earlier - and there really was helium, then mea culpa. I don't think we need to detect helium to have fusion (in a manner of speaking) -- we could have a nucleon capture of some kind as well, leading to spallation and so on. Spallation events would have been detectable before now, if they were happening. The major “blind spot” in prior radiation testing has been the x-ray range below 10 keV. Spallation and the O-P effect involve much higher energy than the blind spot. Helium is relevant to PdD systems (and possibly NiD systems, I suppose). Curiously, helium can technically result from a non-fusion event in either system. Alpha decay is the best example of that. Therefore helium alone does not signal fusion. If we were to find that LENR involves a new form of alpha decay from an element like nickel, not known to be in that category, then that is NOT gammaless fusion. As an example - it has been mentioned before that iron has two stable isotopes that are exactly an alpha particle of mass-energy removed from two corresponding nickel isotopes. How this could be accomplished is anyone’s guess, but it is a physical certainty that it would not be fusion; and… cough, cough … there is the claim of finding iron in the ash of the Rossi reactor. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Lack of fusion cannot be claimed over all of the LENR experiments. He, Tritium, gamma, and transmutation have all been reliably reported. You cannot simply brush away these good, and in many cases replicated, experiments simply because you find the Mizuno results personally satisfying. I find the Mizuno results to be compelling in the case of excess heat. The Ni-D system is also where Dennis Cravens is reporting excess heat, and with a similar COP. The Mizuno gas composition data is refutable (by similarity to control) and has not been replicated. It is interesting to speculate that DDL and fusion may both contribute heat in more or less proportion depending on the conditions. We know that early on Rossi had problems with gamma emission in his Ni-H (D?) system. Later it seemed that gammas showed up only in the startup and shutdown of his reactor. Could it be that the gamma was present when the conditions were right for fusion and the excess heat during the main output was simply from sending H/D into the DDL state? It is an interesting, ironic conjecture. If such is the case, then H should work as well as D, because it is unlikely that the extra neutron in the D will have much affect on the DDL states or the ability of the electron to transition into them. To relegate Storms' theory to being brain-dead is the pot calling the kettle black. You have not proposed anything that suggests how energy that is coupled out of an atom to take it into a DDL state is dissipated. There is so much energy in sending the H/D atom into a DDL state [if not, then you have no argument that the excess heat is from DDL] that it must somehow be split among many atoms all at once or taken out serially by some mechanism. Those that are close to the DDL solution math insist that photons cannot be used to transition in the DDL states (inadequate angular momentum in DDL electrons - Meulenberg). I think Ed Storms provides a mechanism for serially removing the energy from the atom that is a match made in heaven. The hydroton is a multi-atom coupled resonant system - just the kind of evanescent coupling needed to move H atoms into DDL states. Even if fusion is rare, the hydroton may be the mechanism for shrinking the H/D into the deep DDL state. If hydroton DDL shrinkage is happening, then it is likely that the hydroton is going to shrink multiple atoms in unison, making the pico-molecules of Meulenberg a highly likely result, and fusion likely to occur. Why invent a fusion pathway when you do not need one to show gain? Going to the DDL is sufficient to explain thermal gain. Heat / mole of He produced suggests much greater heat per event than DDL can explain by itself, so DDL is not sufficient to explain the thermal gain. The heat-He correlates to nearly the 24MeV of a D-D fusion event in a Pd-D system. Even if the 24MeV per event were off by an order of magnitude, it would still be 3 times what is achievable via DDL. So we know that DDL cannot be responsible for the Pd-D data. It doesn't mean that DDL is not a part of the puzzle, just not the whole puzzle. Maybe it is a bigger part of the puzzle in Ni-H(D). Jones, you are standing on a stool with only 1 leg - you have more juggling to do to substantiate your position. Bob Higgins On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Higgins One more facet of the DDL connection is that chemically bound DDL molecules are entirely possible - such as D^D and D^D^. Meulenberg proposes that these pico-molecules will fuse in 10s of picoseconds. The problem with this hypothesis is simple. Mizuno presented the most robust experiment in the history of LENR – a full 600% more gain than the next best experiment (Roulette/Pons) and guess what – no sign of fusion. No mass-4. No gammas. But plenty of excess heat. If there was a route to fusion via DDDL - then it should have shown up in the thirty days of the Mizuno experiment. Since there was no evidence of fusion in the most important experiment since 1989, it is fair to say that we should focus elsewhere. Why invent a fusion pathway when you do not need one to show gain? Going to the DDL is sufficient to explain thermal gain. If we stop there, then we do not need Storm’s brain-dead explanation for lack of gammas. The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is lack of fusion. Jones
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: Bob Higgins * Lack of fusion cannot be claimed over all of the LENR experiments. He, Tritium, gamma, and transmutation have all been reliably reported. You cannot simply brush away these good, and in many cases replicated, experiments simply because you find the Mizuno results personally satisfying. First of all – we all agree that the Farnsworth Fusor produces nuclear fusion on a very small scale at very low energy. We have a clear boundary condition for understanding LENR - where at a sufficient voltage (which translates into acceleration gradient) there will be fusion, but it is far from breakeven and it shows that almost no He4 comes from deuterium fusion at low power, at least in that kind of design. The Fusor ash is tritium and He3 (equal proportions) and it has exactly the expected amount of gamma radiation. The Fusor gives clear and unambiguous results of fusion with a few hundred Watts of input. Understanding this difference is of extreme importance as LENR moves past this power level toward the kW level but many observers want to write the Fusor off as “hot fusion” since it does not meet their expectations for what “cold fusion” should be. In fact, there could be no such beast as cold fusion, and this is a semantics issue. Yet the Fusor is clearly fusion at 100 watts - and that is LENR by definition - unless you are trying to hide something – like the fact that there is almost no helium 4 produced with its distinctive signature gamma. Most of the experiments where helium-4 is seen in “cold fusion” have been subwatt to watt. The helium could be incidental or due to contamination, or a QM relic, in the sense of low probability – and with reverse economy of scale. The attempts to solve the disproportion problem via gettering deuterium can introduce huge errors. The only two large power experiments in cold fusion- Roulette and Mizuno – did not show helium, and they may account for more net gain in megajoules (hundreds) - than all the others which purport to show helium, combined ! Claytor produces tritium, but is a tiny amount, like the Fusor - and he uses relatively high voltage. No one doubts that with sufficient voltage, fusion can happen but it is far from breakeven. Claytor admits he is thousands of times below breakeven. It almost imperative in pursuit of accuracy, after 25 years to completely marginalize all claims that helium is proportional to excess heat when we are dealing with watt level systems, and especially using gettering to solve the disproportion problem. (not to mention that Pyrex is porous to helium and the background levels of helium in many labs is enormous, compared to normal atmosphere. * I find the Mizuno results to be compelling in the case of excess heat. The Ni-D system is also where Dennis Cravens is reporting excess heat, and with a similar COP. The Mizuno gas composition data is refutable (by similarity to control) and has not been replicated. Because this experiment stands head and shoulders above everything prior in deuterium LENR, and because of the Cravens similarity of result – it is disingenuous to suggest that this experiment does not represent the state of the art in the field. It should be given benefit of doubt until someone tries and fails to replicate. It is more convincing than anything from Rossi in my mind, but that could change with the TIP2. * It is interesting to speculate that DDL and fusion may both contribute heat in more or less proportion depending on the conditions. We know that early on Rossi had problems with gamma emission in his Ni-H (D?) system. Later it seemed that gammas showed up only in the startup and shutdown of his reactor. Could it be that the gamma was present when the conditions were right for fusion and the excess heat during the main output was simply from sending H/D into the DDL state? Rossi was using a radioactive emitter to start the reaction at one time - but there is no evidence of gamma from the reaction now or ever, and he no longer uses lead shielding, even with the HotCat. * To relegate Storms' theory to being brain-dead is the pot calling the kettle black. You have not proposed anything that suggests how energy that is coupled out of an atom to take it into a DDL state is dissipated. Well, let’s be clear that I am not heavily promoting a book that claims, but fails, to explain LENR; and moreover – a book that conveniently overlooks the hero experiment in the field. Cannot that rejection by Storms, almost without comment - of the most robust experiment in 25 years of deuterium fusion (by a factor of 600%), and rejecting it ostensibly because it nullifies one’s own conclusion … hmm… isn’t that troublesome to you? It is extremely troublesome to me. And by the way, there are no “cracks” in the images of active nickel from Mizuno, which is the crux of the problem – essentially adding
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Higgins and Jones- Dr. Va’Vra Identified QED as being the correct theory to consider spin energy and coupling to many-body systems. (He or Dr. Vary may have an informed opinion on the issue of spin energy dissipation in LENR.) I think Bob Higgins pointed this out in his nice evaluation of the Va’Vra papers. If I get time I intend to follow up on this question with one or both of them. However, feel free to beat me to a possible conclusion on this issue based on some recognized analysis, if not accepted theory Bob Cook PS Jones--I do not know you apparently as well as Eric does. I would only gloat to myself. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 6:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Bob Higgins * Lack of fusion cannot be claimed over all of the LENR experiments. He, Tritium, gamma, and transmutation have all been reliably reported. You cannot simply brush away these good, and in many cases replicated, experiments simply because you find the Mizuno results personally satisfying. First of all – we all agree that the Farnsworth Fusor produces nuclear fusion on a very small scale at very low energy. We have a clear boundary condition for understanding LENR - where at a sufficient voltage (which translates into acceleration gradient) there will be fusion, but it is far from breakeven and it shows that almost no He4 comes from deuterium fusion at low power, at least in that kind of design. The Fusor ash is tritium and He3 (equal proportions) and it has exactly the expected amount of gamma radiation. The Fusor gives clear and unambiguous results of fusion with a few hundred Watts of input. Understanding this difference is of extreme importance as LENR moves past this power level toward the kW level but many observers want to write the Fusor off as “hot fusion” since it does not meet their expectations for what “cold fusion” should be. In fact, there could be no such beast as cold fusion, and this is a semantics issue. Yet the Fusor is clearly fusion at 100 watts - and that is LENR by definition - unless you are trying to hide something – like the fact that there is almost no helium 4 produced with its distinctive signature gamma. Most of the experiments where helium-4 is seen in “cold fusion” have been subwatt to watt. The helium could be incidental or due to contamination, or a QM relic, in the sense of low probability – and with reverse economy of scale. The attempts to solve the disproportion problem via gettering deuterium can introduce huge errors. The only two large power experiments in cold fusion- Roulette and Mizuno – did not show helium, and they may account for more net gain in megajoules (hundreds) - than all the others which purport to show helium, combined ! Claytor produces tritium, but is a tiny amount, like the Fusor - and he uses relatively high voltage. No one doubts that with sufficient voltage, fusion can happen but it is far from breakeven. Claytor admits he is thousands of times below breakeven. It almost imperative in pursuit of accuracy, after 25 years to completely marginalize all claims that helium is proportional to excess heat when we are dealing with watt level systems, and especially using gettering to solve the disproportion problem. (not to mention that Pyrex is porous to helium and the background levels of helium in many labs is enormous, compared to normal atmosphere. * I find the Mizuno results to be compelling in the case of excess heat. The Ni-D system is also where Dennis Cravens is reporting excess heat, and with a similar COP. The Mizuno gas composition data is refutable (by similarity to control) and has not been replicated. Because this experiment stands head and shoulders above everything prior in deuterium LENR, and because of the Cravens similarity of result – it is disingenuous to suggest that this experiment does not represent the state of the art in the field. It should be given benefit of doubt until someone tries and fails to replicate. It is more convincing than anything from Rossi in my mind, but that could change with the TIP2. * It is interesting to speculate that DDL and fusion may both contribute heat in more or less proportion depending on the conditions. We know that early on Rossi had problems with gamma emission in his Ni-H (D?) system. Later it seemed that gammas showed up only in the startup and shutdown of his reactor. Could it be that the gamma was present when the conditions were right for fusion and the excess heat during the main output was simply from sending H/D into the DDL state? Rossi was using a radioactive emitter to start the reaction at one time - but there is no evidence of gamma from the reaction now or ever, and he no longer uses lead shielding, even with the HotCat. * To relegate Storms' theory to being
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Jones-- After reviewing this thread I do not think I made the following observation stemming from the theory of relativistic DDL discussed by Vavra etal in their 1993 paper. It notes that the strongest repulsion of the lower electronic levels is not the lowest energy level, but about level 10. This suggests that there is a potential well attracting enectrons to the lower levels with only a relatively little kinetic energy to get there. This may work to cause fusion much like muon catalyzed fusion is though to proceed. I do not know if Vavra etal has disavowed this part of their theory since 1993. I do not have his/their later papers. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 1:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From prior post: The characteristic interaction of monopoles with each other is strong mutual attraction up to a fairly substantial distance (cm range perhaps) and then strong mutual repulsion thereafter, leaving a large gap which prohibits any dense aggregation of DDL, but yet encourages large diffuse clouds of dark matter having substantial net mass which cannot densify due to gravity, since the magnetic forces is so much stronger. For those who do not have an understanding of the phenomenon of attract/repel, with a large gap in between - here is a visual demo of poly-magnets in spring mode, which precisely simulate in 2D the characteristic of monopoles in 3D. http://www.youtube.com/embed/J8w6gwSm_ak/?autoplay=1
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Bob - There were substantial changes made by Va’vra in moving to QED which confuse the overall situation - but when we look at the big picture – and consider all the theorists who have looked at the DDL, there is still an excellent fit for the 3.7 keV species of Naudts fitting the mold of dark-matter, virtual monopole, DDL, deep hydrino and most of the gain seen in LENR. That was basically the intent of this post. https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg96638.html As you know, the possibility of real fusion has been marginalized in this view, since it is no longer needed with the DDL, and it requires the “second miracle” of lack of gammas. From: Bob Cook Jones-- After reviewing this thread I do not think I made the following observation stemming from the theory of relativistic DDL discussed by Vavra etal in their 1993 paper. It notes that the strongest repulsion of the lower electronic levels is not the lowest energy level, but about level 10. This suggests that there is a potential well attracting enectrons to the lower levels with only a relatively little kinetic energy to get there. This may work to cause fusion much like muon catalyzed fusion is though to proceed. I do not know if Vavra etal has disavowed this part of their theory since 1993. I do not have his/their later papers. From prior post: The characteristic interaction of monopoles with each other is strong mutual attraction up to a fairly substantial distance (cm range perhaps) and then strong mutual repulsion thereafter, leaving a large gap which prohibits any dense aggregation of DDL, but yet encourages large diffuse clouds of dark matter having substantial net mass which cannot densify due to gravity, since the magnetic forces is so much stronger. For those who do not have an understanding of the phenomenon of attract/repel, with a large gap in between - here is a visual demo of poly-magnets in spring mode, which precisely simulate in 2D the characteristic of monopoles in 3D. http://www.youtube.com/embed/J8w6gwSm_ak/?autoplay=1 attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Jones-- Thanks for that repeat. I missed it the first time. Eric also identified the recent (2013) Va’vra paper, which is quite interesting including it reluctance to try to discuss theory, this being a change from his actions in the 1993 paper. I wonder what changed his mind about addressing theory? Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 4:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob - There were substantial changes made by Va’vra in moving to QED which confuse the overall situation - but when we look at the big picture – and consider all the theorists who have looked at the DDL, there is still an excellent fit for the 3.7 keV species of Naudts fitting the mold of dark-matter, virtual monopole, DDL, deep hydrino and most of the gain seen in LENR. That was basically the intent of this post. https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg96638.html As you know, the possibility of real fusion has been marginalized in this view, since it is no longer needed with the DDL, and it requires the “second miracle” of lack of gammas. From: Bob Cook Jones-- After reviewing this thread I do not think I made the following observation stemming from the theory of relativistic DDL discussed by Vavra etal in their 1993 paper. It notes that the strongest repulsion of the lower electronic levels is not the lowest energy level, but about level 10. This suggests that there is a potential well attracting enectrons to the lower levels with only a relatively little kinetic energy to get there. This may work to cause fusion much like muon catalyzed fusion is though to proceed. I do not know if Vavra etal has disavowed this part of their theory since 1993. I do not have his/their later papers. From prior post: The characteristic interaction of monopoles with each other is strong mutual attraction up to a fairly substantial distance (cm range perhaps) and then strong mutual repulsion thereafter, leaving a large gap which prohibits any dense aggregation of DDL, but yet encourages large diffuse clouds of dark matter having substantial net mass which cannot densify due to gravity, since the magnetic forces is so much stronger. For those who do not have an understanding of the phenomenon of attract/repel, with a large gap in between - here is a visual demo of poly-magnets in spring mode, which precisely simulate in 2D the characteristic of monopoles in 3D. http://www.youtube.com/embed/J8w6gwSm_ak/?autoplay=1
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
This latest Va’vra paper could be an extremely important stimulus for and evolving LENR version of the DDL. It is chock full of detail that bears reading and rereading. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf Although the DDL transition is at 511 keV is the focus this paper, which is ostensibly ruled out for LENR (looked for and not found) … the discussion of the lower x-ray ranges from 2.5-4 keV are still in play, although it is not certain how they would be evidenced in a working reactor. In short, the DDL of Naudts at 3.7 keV is definitely still a player for an emerging theory, as mentioned in this paper. Given the similarity of this higher 511 keV value to positron annihilation, it would be interesting to try to fit this into Don Hotson’s theory. Too bad Don is not around to do that but others may take up the cause. It almost seems possible that some of what passes for Wheeler’s “quantum foam” in not virtual positronium, per se, but DDL hydrogen. From: Bob Higgins * I did some additional research to find Dr. Va'vra. I found his email and asked him about the latter 3 papers. Here was his interesting response: However, there is a problem with all these types of calculations. They use a 1920-1930 quantum mechanics. The correct treatment must use QED. There were attempts to do that, and I mention that in my more recent ArXiv paper: 1304.0833v3. Mills used fractional quantum numbers. That is a no no for the classical quantum mechanics. So, I consider his method wrong. Regards, Jerry * Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread. If someone else already cited this, I apologize for the duplication. Bob Higgins attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
The easiest way to reconcile the latest Va’vra paper (and the 511 keV line which comes from the center of the Milky Way galaxy) with the predicted Naudts x-ray spectral value for DDL can be rather simple (hopefully not naïve). The DDL reaches a plateau of electron orbital stability at 3.7 keV. Dark matter accumulates having this bond strength. There is no lower plateau for a stable orbital. The rapidly alternating magnetic field of the DDL is indistinguishable from a monopole. (in fact, a monopole is most easily defined as rapidly alternating polar magnetism where only a intense but nonpolar field is felt). The characteristic interaction of monopoles with each other is strong mutual attraction up to a fairly substantial distance (cm range perhaps) and then strong mutual repulsion thereafter, prohibiting any dense aggregation of DDL, but yet large diffuse clouds of dark matter having substantial net mass are possible. The DDL are only subject to attraction from the extreme gravitomagnetic field of a dense object like a black hole. The emission line which is seen in the center of our galaxy is related to the total disappearance of electrons from an adjacent cloud of dark matter into a black hole, and not to DDL formation ab initio. The dark matter had been there for a very long time in DDL form. _ This latest Va’vra paper could be an extremely important stimulus for and evolving LENR version of the DDL. It is chock full of detail that bears reading and rereading. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf Although the DDL transition is at 511 keV is the focus this paper, which is ostensibly ruled out for LENR (looked for and not found) … the discussion of the lower x-ray ranges from 2.5-4 keV are still in play, although it is not certain how they would be evidenced in a working reactor. In short, the DDL of Naudts at 3.7 keV is definitely still a player for an emerging theory, as mentioned in this paper. Given the similarity of this higher 511 keV value to positron annihilation, it would be interesting to try to fit this into Don Hotson’s theory. Too bad Don is not around to do that but others may take up the cause. It almost seems possible that some of what passes for Wheeler’s “quantum foam” in not virtual positronium, per se, but DDL hydrogen. From: Bob Higgins * I did some additional research to find Dr. Va'vra. I found his email and asked him about the latter 3 papers. Here was his interesting response: However, there is a problem with all these types of calculations. They use a 1920-1930 quantum mechanics. The correct treatment must use QED. There were attempts to do that, and I mention that in my more recent ArXiv paper: 1304.0833v3. Mills used fractional quantum numbers. That is a no no for the classical quantum mechanics. So, I consider his method wrong. Regards, Jerry * Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread. If someone else already cited this, I apologize for the duplication. Bob Higgins attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From prior post: The characteristic interaction of monopoles with each other is strong mutual attraction up to a fairly substantial distance (cm range perhaps) and then strong mutual repulsion thereafter, leaving a large gap which prohibits any dense aggregation of DDL, but yet encourages large diffuse clouds of dark matter having substantial net mass which cannot densify due to gravity, since the magnetic forces is so much stronger. For those who do not have an understanding of the phenomenon of attract/repel, with a large gap in between - here is a visual demo of poly-magnets in spring mode, which precisely simulate in 2D the characteristic of monopoles in 3D. http://www.youtube.com/embed/J8w6gwSm_ak/?autoplay=1 attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread. If someone else already cited this, I apologize for the duplication. I had a moment to read this paper. Va'vra identifies his DDL hydrogen with dark matter. He suggests, for example, going down into the Gran Sasso lab to better detect the signals which he proposes should add up to 511 keV (when measured across a full solid angle). I get the impression he understands the DDL hydrogen to be passing *through* the earth, as one would expect of dark matter. This move raises a challenge to be addressed. A DDL hydrogen atom is baryonic matter and can reasonably be expected to approach the behavior of a neutron. I would expect the significant amount of DDL hydrogen dark matter passing through the earth to be equivalent to a high neutron flux, causing all kinds of capture events. Va'vra mentions in passing that maybe such capture events would be unlikely because of a small dipole moment. But I think this is just a way to have things both ways. Even if we suppose that the DDL hydrogen-capture cross section is smaller than that for a neutron, one presumes it would still be nontrivial. (Mills's theory must also address this challenge.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
I believe that hydrogen in space will form spontaneously into solid crystal chains comprised of many atoms with the protons concentrated in the interior of these one dimensional particles and many of the electrons orbiting on the outside zone of these nanoparticles. It is in these types of nanoparticles that cosmological LENR will occur. On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread. If someone else already cited this, I apologize for the duplication. I had a moment to read this paper. Va'vra identifies his DDL hydrogen with dark matter. He suggests, for example, going down into the Gran Sasso lab to better detect the signals which he proposes should add up to 511 keV (when measured across a full solid angle). I get the impression he understands the DDL hydrogen to be passing *through* the earth, as one would expect of dark matter. This move raises a challenge to be addressed. A DDL hydrogen atom is baryonic matter and can reasonably be expected to approach the behavior of a neutron. I would expect the significant amount of DDL hydrogen dark matter passing through the earth to be equivalent to a high neutron flux, causing all kinds of capture events. Va'vra mentions in passing that maybe such capture events would be unlikely because of a small dipole moment. But I think this is just a way to have things both ways. Even if we suppose that the DDL hydrogen-capture cross section is smaller than that for a neutron, one presumes it would still be nontrivial. (Mills's theory must also address this challenge.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
The indication that muons are produces in the Ni/H reactor are based on the ash assay that shows heavy production of Lithium, Boron, and beryllium as produced by the Proton Proton reaction. I admit that it is an open quest of how those muons are produced. Be advised that the magnetic field in the Ni/H system is powered in part by the energy from fusion reactions.. However, the Ni/H reactor produces at best only moderate magnetic fields. It is a moderate system suitable for home instantiation. On the other hand still assuming magnetic field causation is the fundamental LENR causation, LeClair's system produces transuranic elements. To do that, the magnetic fields in that system are high enough to produce a gluon/quark condensate. This cavitation system produces the highest field strength generated so far. In the near future, I will explain how the LeClair system is based on the same principles as the Ni/H reactor but more powerful. By the way, LeClair's system is a LENR system; not hot fusion as some have suggested. LeClair: The more sensitive LA-ICP-MS detected a total of 78 elements ranging from lithium to californium and 108 isotopes ranging from 7Li to 249Cf, a standard detection set that does not include all the possible isotopes, but including most of the stable isotopes and many short and long lived radioactive isotopes. The only way that this type of transmutation can be done from water and aluminum is through a breakdown of matter into a quark/gluon plasma. Magnetic fields in excess of 10^^16 tesla are needed to accomplish such a feat. This involves a twilight zone level field strength. On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf The paper you cite talks about the changing masses of ⍴ and A mesons under strong magnetic fields. It does not talk about meson condensation. It does mention some interesting points, however: - It is known that cosmic space objects called magnetars or neutron stars possess magnetic field in their cores equal to ∼ 1 MeV. [sic] - The values of magnetic fields in non-central heavy-ion collisions can reach up to ... ~ 290 MeV^2 Another paper indicates that in the cores of neutron stars [2], where the magnetic field is ~ 10^15 Tesla, ⍴- mesons *might* condense (the ⍴ meson is only slightly heavier than the π- meson, which is what we need for muons). We have a number of degrees of freedom to pin down to get any closer to our meson condensation: - What is the strength of the local magnetic field in a small volume in DGT's reactor? Is it in the twilight zone? Is it actually pretty small? - What is the effect of an extreme magnetic field on the condensation of π mesons? Does it enhance it? Does it inhibit it? I get the sense it could go either way. - How does the environment in a small volume in DGT's reactor compare to that in the core of a neutron star? Is it as extreme? Is it perhaps less extreme? I'm going to guess that we don't even have a prima facie case to become interested in the possibility of meson condensation at this point. Eric [1] http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf (see p. 3). [2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0139.pdf (see the second half of p. 4).
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: Dave How does the pin move if not confined by the tube? Does it move from the center region and stick to another spot? From: Bob How is the ferrite conditioned? Is it magnetized? Have you reproduced this effect? What happens to the hat pin when there is no tube? Soft iron needles easily become magnetized. What is seen in the photo could easily be reproduced with a ferrite magnet slab and an [inadvertently] magnetized pin. Of course, what you described with the levitation happening when the pin is inverted 180 degrees doesn't make sense with that simple explanation - I am asking if you personally verified that the ferrite slab was not permanently magnetized and that flipping the pin still caused it to levitate. Guys, There is no anomaly if the pin becomes magnetized and is in repel alignment. That should go without saying. Actually, it is not a hat-pin per se, but a shorter ladies lapel pin. It never becomes magnetized from the modest field of a ferrite, but possibly could from a stronger NIB magnet. It was never magnetized during this test and was un-magnetized after the test. This is an anomaly ! and that is the reason it is shown. The pin stays in the same place when it is rotated 180 degree and put back in the tube - and/or - get this: the pin stays in the same place when the entire system is turned 180 degree (the pin does not drop away due to gravity in either of the two upside down alignments) The are four possibilities for levitating alignment and the pin stays in the same spot for all 4 of them. Brian Ahern actually has 4 images of the four possibilities - to prove this. The pin has no lateral/vertical stability - thus lateral support is needed to keep it stable. It flies over to any one of the four corners otherwise. This billet has been conditioned in a manner which was based on the work of Floyd Sweet. The conditioning involves huger burst of power though solenoid coils place in different areas around the edges of the magnet. There is information online about this. Yes I have such a billet and have seen the effect, but my billet is thinner (1/4) and the levitation distance is less, and I must use a light sewing pin. A nail is too heavy. Sadly, I have not been able to reproduce the energy gain but believe it is there and that this magnet and the circuit is the key to it. This levitating pin effect can, and has been, simulated with two magnets - one toroid and one ring speaker magnet, axially magnetized. That should tell you something. Place a clear tube with a pin inside a toroid which will hold the tube, and place that assembly inside, near the top, of a woofer speaker magnet, and the effect can be seen. The pin is locked in space, and levitated no matter what alignment it is in. From: Bob Higgins Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferrite magnet? - probably. The long thin hat pin is magnetized and the plastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet from flipping and is thus able to levitate. I don't see anything mysterious here. It is just showing that the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized. Not exactly. The pin is iron and will be attracted as a soft ferromagnet. With a normal ferrite, the pin will touch the surface, not levitate since the opposite field is induced. With the type of conditioning in this ferrite, the pin seeks equilibrium in the highest concentration of magnetic field lines, which is in the space above the billet, not touching it. You can flip the pin over and it stays levitated where it is.
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Thanks for the input, Jones. The pin stays in the same place when it is rotated 180 degree and put back in the tube - and/or – get this: the pin stays in the same place when the entire system is turned 180 degree (the pin does not drop away due to gravity in either of the two upside down alignments) The are four possibilities for levitating alignment and the pin stays in the same spot for all 4 of them. Brian Ahern actually has 4 images of the four possibilities - to prove this. The pin has no lateral/vertical stability – thus lateral support is needed to keep it stable. It flies over to any one of the four corners otherwise. If the pin is just a lightweight soft reluctor, then it would tend to stay aligned to magnetic field lines and a symmetric divergence of the field could hold it in place. OK, I can buy that. I don't buy that there is a continuous oscillation of the magnetic field. What evidence is there of any oscillation? Obviously if there were oscillations, it would be possible to extract energy. This billet has been conditioned in a manner which was based on the work of Floyd Sweet. There is an old technology called magnetic amplifiers which could be related to this effect. See the wikipedia page: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier* . I would look closely at this old technology to hypothesize how the Sweet device works. The conditioning involves huger burst of power though solenoid coils place in different areas around the edges of the magnet. There is information online about this. This is the classic description of how an uncharged magnet gets charged - with a burst of current through a solenoid. It appears that this ferrite magnet material gets charged in multiple domains at the same time to produce a prescribed field pattern. Yes I have such a billet and have seen the effect, but my billet is thinner (1/4”) and the levitation distance is less, and I must use a light sewing pin. A nail is too heavy. Sadly, I have not been able to reproduce the energy gain but believe it is there and that this magnet and the circuit is the key to it. This “levitating pin effect” can, and has been, simulated with two magnets – one toroid and one ring speaker magnet, axially magnetized. That should tell you something. Place a clear tube with a pin inside a toroid which will hold the tube, and place that assembly inside, near the top, of a woofer speaker magnet, and the effect can be seen. The pin is “locked” in space, and levitated no matter what alignment it is in. It would seem important to create a field axis normal to the slab, but also create a second domain near the surface to cancel the field there, so that above the slab is a field divergence to hold the pin in place. This levitation demonstration seems to be just spectacle and I cannot see how it would be related to energy production. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Also see: *http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-news/subminiature-magnetic-amplifiers-dec-1957-radio-tv-news.htm http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-news/subminiature-magnetic-amplifiers-dec-1957-radio-tv-news.htm* Bob On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the input, Jones. The pin stays in the same place when it is rotated 180 degree and put back in the tube - and/or – get this: the pin stays in the same place when the entire system is turned 180 degree (the pin does not drop away due to gravity in either of the two upside down alignments) The are four possibilities for levitating alignment and the pin stays in the same spot for all 4 of them. Brian Ahern actually has 4 images of the four possibilities - to prove this. The pin has no lateral/vertical stability – thus lateral support is needed to keep it stable. It flies over to any one of the four corners otherwise. If the pin is just a lightweight soft reluctor, then it would tend to stay aligned to magnetic field lines and a symmetric divergence of the field could hold it in place. OK, I can buy that. I don't buy that there is a continuous oscillation of the magnetic field. What evidence is there of any oscillation? Obviously if there were oscillations, it would be possible to extract energy. This billet has been conditioned in a manner which was based on the work of Floyd Sweet. There is an old technology called magnetic amplifiers which could be related to this effect. See the wikipedia page: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier* . I would look closely at this old technology to hypothesize how the Sweet device works. The conditioning involves huger burst of power though solenoid coils place in different areas around the edges of the magnet. There is information online about this. This is the classic description of how an uncharged magnet gets charged - with a burst of current through a solenoid. It appears that this ferrite magnet material gets charged in multiple domains at the same time to produce a prescribed field pattern. Yes I have such a billet and have seen the effect, but my billet is thinner (1/4”) and the levitation distance is less, and I must use a light sewing pin. A nail is too heavy. Sadly, I have not been able to reproduce the energy gain but believe it is there and that this magnet and the circuit is the key to it. This “levitating pin effect” can, and has been, simulated with two magnets – one toroid and one ring speaker magnet, axially magnetized. That should tell you something. Place a clear tube with a pin inside a toroid which will hold the tube, and place that assembly inside, near the top, of a woofer speaker magnet, and the effect can be seen. The pin is “locked” in space, and levitated no matter what alignment it is in. It would seem important to create a field axis normal to the slab, but also create a second domain near the surface to cancel the field there, so that above the slab is a field divergence to hold the pin in place. This levitation demonstration seems to be just spectacle and I cannot see how it would be related to energy production. Bob Higgins
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: Bob Higgins * Also see: http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-news/subminiature-magnetic-amplifiers -dec-1957-radio-tv-news.htm Very good, Bob. Brian and I actually spent several hundred hours a few years ago researching mag-amps – thinking that the old technology could be applicable to this device. Kind of a “lost art”- mag-amps, but there is a connection. Our conclusion… a definite “maybe”… * This levitation demonstration seems to be just spectacle and I cannot see how it would be related to energy production. It is possible that it is not related and coincidental, but there is also a way that it could be related. As stated earlier - I could not reproduce the gain in the device or else I would be more enthusiastic. If there is an anomaly, it probably relates to field lines in the large billet which move “on their own” or with less input stimulation than the secondary effects which they can induce in wires. The better known analogy to an interlocked balance of superparamagnetism and superferromagnetism is “negative resistance” which is actually only “negative differential resistance” and not useful for gain, since the differential zone is small. However, superparamagnetism is probably useful for gain, but that is not yet proved. I am convinced of this connection: if one can document a cooling effect in a transformer core which should be heating up (but instead is significantly below ambient during operation) then that physical property is strong indication of electrical gain. This was documented in the Manelas device. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
There is also such a thing as a thermomagnetic heat pump. It is usually envisioned with moving magnets. However, just as one can imagine a moving magnetic field from a 3-phase drive producing a linear magnetic motor, one can envision a motion-less thermomagnetic heat pump in a ferrite. There may be a thermomagnetic heat pumping effect involved in the cooling effect of the core. Bob On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Higgins I am convinced of this connection: if one can document a cooling effect in a transformer core which should be heating up (but instead is significantly below ambient during operation) then that physical property is strong indication of electrical gain. This was documented in the Manelas device. Jones
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Yes the magneto-caloric effect. This precisely what we think is happening (rather could be happening if there was actual gain) where the moving magnetic field creates EMF in the windings and cooling in the core BUT where the cooling loss balances the EM gain. Best of both. BTW – the windings around the billet are on x,y and z axes and the effect happens at what turns out to be the Larmor frequency of the ferrite. We did not know that initially. I should add – for the benefit of others who may wonder why this project was stopped… that Arthur Manelas suffered a severe stroke and is still bedridden but alive. It is one of those stories that I hate to repeat, since it sounds too much like the typical “OU cop-out” where the men-in-black arrived, or the inventor was poisoned, or the antigravity device broke through the roof, or in the case of Gene Mallove – murdered in a purely coincidental tragedy. There are some coincidences in life. BTW – Gene knew Arthur, and all of this is taking place in southern New Hampshire within a short radius of where Les Case also died unexpectedly and Rossi’s lab was located and several other alternative energy “coincidences”. From: Bob Higgins There is also such a thing as a thermomagnetic heat pump. It is usually envisioned with moving magnets. However, just as one can imagine a moving magnetic field from a 3-phase drive producing a linear magnetic motor, one can envision a motion-less thermomagnetic heat pump in a ferrite. There may be a thermomagnetic heat pumping effect involved in the cooling effect of the core. Bob On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Higgins I am convinced of this connection: if one can document a cooling effect in a transformer core which should be heating up (but instead is significantly below ambient during operation) then that physical property is strong indication of electrical gain. This was documented in the Manelas device. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Something similar wrt a non-stationary magnetic field happens with another anomalous device – which is called the Manelas/Sweet device, mentioned here before. There may be a non-obvious connection to LENR. A visual image of levitation of a hat pin, above the magnet of this device, is seen in slide-6, here: http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/ I have one of these conditioned billets. The field strength on the surface is not high, typical for a ferrite and it alternates in polarity across the surface, and is fluid - in the sense of self-moving in certain areas where the poles change. There is a focal point of highest field strength purposely located above the center region, which is significantly away (removed) from the surface. This magnet was the impetus which has pushed Ahern towards a theory of “nanomagnetism” which is seen in both LENR and in exotic electronic devices. BTW, in operation the Manelas magnet drops in temperature by several degrees below ambient, even though it is operating as the core of 50-watt transformer! From: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/MIT2014Colloq.pdf Following a few years of collaboration with Yoshiaki Arata and Akito Takahashi and discovery of the 5 to 10 nanometer “sweet spot” in which the materials behave “cooperatively,” in 2011 Ahern conducted high voltage experiments using magnetic nanopowders. During this time, he was visited by New Hampshire inventor Arthur Manelas, also interested in high voltage pulses through magnetic nanoparticle systems. In September 2011, Ahern visited Manelas’ home and tested a barium ferrite power supply that was running a 1997 Solectria; the ferrite billet had high voltage pulses traveling through it, creating excess electricity. They drove the car for 25 miles with four passengers, then stored the car for one week. The battery capacity increased from 69.6% after the trip to 89.4%. Ahern stated, “I believe in the measurements as much as anything that I have ever done, but I don’t know why it worked.” Ahern noted, “I think LENR is something extraordinary that we have yet to figure out...We can anticipate new and exciting properties from these kind of magnetic interactions that may be the root cause of what we see in LENR.” end p.18 (p.6 of the article) Manelas also had a piece of a solar energy company in Dracut, MA in the late 70s, Solectro Thermo, Inc.
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of the bosenova because that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam. I will answer my own question. There's little reason to think that a 1 Tesla field was localized to within a few nanometers. Even more -- we don't have (much) reason to believe that there was a 1 Tesla field. Maybe there was; maybe there wasn't. It's hearsay at this point. I will postulate a first rule in getting to the heart of a matter -- obtain reliable data. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
You have the word and reputation of Dr Kim, as good a researcher as exists in the field of LENR experimentation. When there is an explosion, how do you know the size of the reaction at time zero? On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of the bosenova because that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam. I will answer my own question. There's little reason to think that a 1 Tesla field was localized to within a few nanometers. Even more -- we don't have (much) reason to believe that there was a 1 Tesla field. Maybe there was; maybe there wasn't. It's hearsay at this point. I will postulate a first rule in getting to the heart of a matter -- obtain reliable data. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You have the word and reputation of Dr Kim, as good a researcher as exists in the field of LENR experimentation. When there is an explosion, how do you know the size of the reaction at time zero? Perhaps you're referring to these slides? [1] (I was unable to find the Kim-Hadjichristos paper.) Yes, that brings the 0.6-1.6 Tesla DGT claim out of the realm of hearsay and into the realm of slideware (which is about as good as one can expect in this field). Eric [1] https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf?sequence=1
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
The inverse cube law is normally seen when a two pole magnet is observed at a dimension that is relatively large compared to the spacing between those poles. If you monitor the field variation when close to one of the poles you get the second order behavior. The actual internal structure of the magnetic field generation is not known so it is highly speculative to assume that the external magnetic field originates from one tiny region within the reactor. I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources. The time rate of change of the field becomes important as one attempts to understand the penetration of that field through the structure. A rapidly changing field is attenuated strongly by conductive material while a steady field has a free pass. It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since that is one of the guiding principles, but we must always realize that most of these ideas will turn out to be false once the true nature of the beast is revealed. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 1:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- DGT says that about 1 tesla is produced at 20 CMs intheir reactor. This 20CM location must be outside of the reactor. Thereaction zone is located inside a 200 micron nickel foam filled with 5 micronparticles. The magnetic activity is observed in localize magnetictraps (LMT). Because the 5 micron particles are not destroyed by thebosenova , the magnetic reaction must be centered is atthe tips of or just beyond the nanostructures that are associated with the 5micron particles. The dimensionality of the magnetic bosenova must be on thenanometer scale and nondestructive to micron level structures. The reactor is double faraday shielded. Was this magneticmeasurements done on an unshielded reactor. Let us assume the worst case thatthe magnetic measurements were done on an unshielded reactor. But the magneticfield must have penetrated the stainless steel pressure vessel and the metalreactor wall(s?). The tesla level field was detected at multiple points aroundthe reactor and the bosenova was depicted to occur inside the 200 micron nickelfoam. There are 20,000,000 million nanometers in 20CMs. But to thedistance of the bosenova must be added the radius of the hydrogen pressurevessel and the distance of the pressure vessel to the outside metal wall of thereactor; so 20 CMs is a worst case. There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of thebosenova because that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam. By the inverse square law, the power of a nanometer sized reactionis reckoned as the square of 20,000,000 with the dimension of tesla. Thatcomes to a MINIMUM of 10^^14 tesla which is correct for the creation of aquark/gluon plasma. I thought that the inverse cube law was the correct law to use but that would but the strength of the magnetic reaction into the twilight zone. I welcome opinion on this point.
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: David Roberson The inverse cube law is normally seen when a two pole magnet is observed at a dimension that is relatively large compared to the spacing between those poles. If you monitor the field variation when close to one of the poles you get the second order behavior. The actual internal structure of the magnetic field generation is not known so it is highly speculative to assume that the external magnetic field originates from one tiny region within the reactor. I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources. The time rate of change of the field becomes important as one attempts to understand the penetration of that field through the structure. A rapidly changing field is attenuated strongly by conductive material while a steady field has a free pass. It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since that is one of the guiding principles, but we must always realize that most of these ideas will turn out to be false once the true nature of the beast is revealed. Dave Good post. Something similar wrt a non-stationary magnetic field happens with another anomalous device - which is called the Manelas/Sweet device, mentioned here before. There may be a non-obvious connection to LENR. A visual image of levitation of a hat pin, above the magnet of this device, is seen in slide-6, here: http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/ I have one of these conditioned billets. The field strength on the surface is not high, typical for a ferrite and it alternates in polarity across the surface, and is fluid - in the sense of self-moving in certain areas where the poles change. There is a focal point of highest field strength purposely located above the center region, which is significantly away (removed) from the surface. This magnet was the impetus which has pushed Ahern towards a theory of nanomagnetism which is seen in both LENR and in exotic electronic devices. BTW, in operation the Manelas magnet drops in temperature by several degrees below ambient, even though it is operating as the core of 50-watt transformer! Go figure.
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Thank you Dave for the response to my post, It is a pod to more deductive speculation about the nature of the magnetic field in the Ni/H reactor. I notice that there is a disbelief associated with this magnetic field observation that is similar to the disbelief that naysayers demonstrate when they say that LENR is impossible in principle because it is just unbelievable counter indicative of observational reality. A worst case number is useful as a systems engineering rule of thumb as a guide to estimation. There are 200,000 microns in 20 Cms. In the worst case estimate, the magnetic field has to have come from the volume of the 200 micron nickel foam. That is 1000 inverse squared or 1,000,000 tesla. If an anapole field is involved when the field acts within a few nanometers of the source, applying second order effects might be warranted. The inverse cube might be valid to use. Therefore, 1000 cubed or 1,000,000,000 or 10^^9 tesla is the worst case originating from the 200 micron nickel foam. Dave: *I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources.* If this is the case, the field is ferromagnetic A ferromagnetic field applies only if *all* of its magnetic ions add a positive contribution to the net magnetization. The spins of all the unit field contributors must be aligned. If some of the magnetic ions *subtract* from the net magnetization (if they are partially *anti*-aligned), then the material is ferrimagnetic In materials that exhibit antiferromagnetism, the magnetic moments of atoms or molecules, usually related to the spins of electrons, align in a regular pattern with neighboring spins (on different sublattices) pointing in opposite directions If the field is ferromagnetic, what is producing the alignment of the individual magnetic contributions? The electron for example is a dipole with a north and South Pole. Any anti alignment in a dipolar system would negate the ferromagnetic effect. One important clue to the nature of the magnetic field inside the reactor as determined by experimental observations is that the eternal magnetic field is basically the same all around the outside of the reactor. This is not indicative of a ferromagnetic field. Such a field would produce a strong north pole and a strong anti-aligned south pole field with little field strength in between. If the magnetic units were anapole, any misalignment would not diminish the strength of the composite combined field. An antiferromagnetic anapole field would project equal field strength in all directions whose field strength at an arbitrary distance would be a non-additive refection of each individual’s source generators field strengths. The individual unit magnetic sources would not be additive because of their random aliments. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The inverse cube law is normally seen when a two pole magnet is observed at a dimension that is relatively large compared to the spacing between those poles. If you monitor the field variation when close to one of the poles you get the second order behavior. The actual internal structure of the magnetic field generation is not known so it is highly speculative to assume that the external magnetic field originates from one tiny region within the reactor. I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources. The time rate of change of the field becomes important as one attempts to understand the penetration of that field through the structure. A rapidly changing field is attenuated strongly by conductive material while a steady field has a free pass. It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since that is one of the guiding principles, but we must always realize that most of these ideas will turn out to be false once the true nature of the beast is revealed. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 1:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- *DGT says that about 1 tesla is produced at 20 CMs in their reactor.* This 20CM location must be outside of the reactor. The reaction zone is located inside a 200 micron nickel foam filled with 5 micron particles. The magnetic activity is observed in localize magnetic traps (LMT). Because the 5 micron particles are not destroyed by the bosenova , the magnetic reaction must be centered is at the tips of or just beyond the nanostructures that are associated with the 5 micron particles. The dimensionality of the magnetic bosenova must be on the nanometer scale and nondestructive to micron level structures. The reactor is double faraday
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
The magnetic field distribution can be quite complex and depends upon how the various component fields combine. One thing that I feel comfortable in saying is that the external field must behave in such a manner that the total normal flux through any external volume element must add to zero at any particular time. The discovery of a monopole has not been established so far and that would be necessary if this were not the case. Flux must arise from some regions of the metal box and then return through others. This type of distribution would not be consistent with a constant steady state flux at every point around the device. Of course, if they are finding that the magnetic flux varies with space and time as the reaction proceeds, then perhaps it is possible for the average to work out. That would appear to be a major observation with interesting implications. If I recall, there remains a highly conductive shield surrounding the unit which would make a strong effort to slow down outside observations of the internally rapid magnetic fluctuations. The conductive metal behaves somewhat analogous to a low pass filter in electronics since it attempts to keep the magnetic flux passing through it constant. Some have suggested that the large external magnetic field is a measurement error. We must await release of additional data before anyone can draw that conclusion. Also, the interaction of an electromagnetic field and LENR has many attributes that we have been discussing. An interesting case to speculate upon would be that the observed field is due to the combination of a very large multitude of individual active areas that are battling for supremacy. The fact that such a large net field is seen would indicate that each of the smaller elements might have truly enormous local fields as suggested by Axil. This might further indicate that the low pass nature of the conductive shield ultimately dominates the external field distribution and time domain characteristics. Think of this effect as somewhat comparable to the way an oscilloscope views the impulse response of an electronic low pass filter. What you see is so strongly influenced by the filter that the output signal no longer closely resembles its original shape prior to filtering. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 12:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- Thank you Dave for the response to my post, It is a pod tomore deductive speculation about the nature of the magnetic field in the Ni/Hreactor. I notice that there is a disbelief associated with thismagnetic field observation that is similar to the disbelief that naysayers demonstratewhen they say that LENR is impossible in principle because it is just unbelievablecounter indicative of observational reality. A worst case number is useful as a systems engineering ruleof thumb as a guide to estimation. There are 200,000 microns in 20 Cms. In the worst caseestimate, the magnetic field has to have come from the volume of the 200 micronnickel foam. That is 1000 inverse squared or 1,000,000 tesla. If an anapole field is involved when thefield acts within a few nanometers of the source, applying second ordereffects might be warranted. The inverse cube might be valid to use. Therefore,1000 cubed or 1,000,000,000 or 10^^9 tesla is the worst case originating fromthe 200 micron nickel foam. Dave: I personally think that the field is the net vectorsum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large asis suggested as we close in on those individual sources. If this is the case, the field isferromagnetic A ferromagnetic field applies only if allof its magnetic ions add a positive contribution to the net magnetization. Thespins of all the unit field contributors must be aligned. If some of the magnetic ions subtract from the netmagnetization (if they are partially anti-aligned), then the material isferrimagnetic In materials thatexhibit antiferromagnetism, the magnetic moments of atoms or molecules,usually related to the spins of electrons, align in a regular pattern withneighboring spins (on different sublattices) pointing in opposite directions If the field is ferromagnetic, what is producing the alignmentof the individual magnetic contributions? The electron for example is a dipole with a north and SouthPole. Any anti alignment in a dipolar system would negate the ferromagneticeffect. One important clue to the nature of the magnetic fieldinside the reactor as determined by experimental observations is that the eternalmagnetic field is basically the same all around the outside of the reactor.This is not indicative of a ferromagnetic field. Such a field would produce a strong north poleand a strong anti-aligned south pole fieldwith little field strength in between. If the magnetic units
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Poser: can there be an operative cross-connection between ferrite magnet anomalies and LENR thermal anomalies involving protons and the DDL ? The two seem completely unrelated at first. First, consider magnet composition, but dispense with prior assumptions that there is no embedded hydrogen in ferrites - since there are various ways to manufacture them. One way, which is preferred for hard magnets (using strontium or barium, or a mix of the two) and which will introduce hydrogen into the magnet composition even after firing at high temperature - is called the wet process. A water slurry of powdered ferrite material is pressed and then calcined. Most, but not all of the hydrogen from the water content is driven off. Even so, the final hydrogen content of wet processed ferrite magnets can be as high as 1-2 % (atomic ratio). There is a patent for a process using ammonia wetting, allowing 10% hydrogen in ferrites (atomic). Even without ammonia, a one pound billet made from the wet process could contain a gram of protons... and consequently, up to a gram of HDDL if optimally processed and conditioned. An atom of HDDL (hydrogen deep Dirac level), at least on paper, has a rather enormous magnetic field strength. The HDDL is also highly mobile, unlike the iron oxides - which is important in the context of superparamagnetism and superferromagnetism. There can be a rapid self-oscillation between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic alignments due to the mobility of the species. Therefore, the connection of dark matter to LENR and also to magnetic anomalies - can be tentatively defined as a DDL hydrogen connection (with an IP of ~3.7 keV and an orbital near 100 fm) - and this can serve to explain thermo-magnetic anomalies in two disparate systems. But the big surprise is that the thermal anomalies can be exothermic or endothermic (or absent) depending on circumstances. Endothermic anomalies are more interesting in a way since they are easier to document reliably. Thermal endotherm could be related to motional field-lines and thereby to direct conversion of that motion into electricity - and thermal endotherm has been documented. This does not violate CoE since thermal loss is balanced by electrical gain. Jones From: David Roberson The inverse cube law is normally seen when a two pole magnet is observed at a dimension that is relatively large compared to the spacing between those poles. If you monitor the field variation when close to one of the poles you get the second order behavior. The actual internal structure of the magnetic field generation is not known so it is highly speculative to assume that the external magnetic field originates from one tiny region within the reactor. I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources. The time rate of change of the field becomes important as one attempts to understand the penetration of that field through the structure. A rapidly changing field is attenuated strongly by conductive material while a steady field has a free pass. It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since that is one of the guiding principles, but we must always realize that most of these ideas will turn out to be false once the true nature of the beast is revealed. Dave Good post. Something similar wrt a non-stationary magnetic field happens with another anomalous device - which is called the Manelas/Sweet device, mentioned here before. There may be a non-obvious connection to LENR. A visual image of levitation of a hat pin, above the magnet of this device, is seen in slide-6, here: http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/ I have one of these conditioned billets. The field strength on the surface is not high, typical for a ferrite and it alternates in polarity across the surface, and is fluid - in the sense of self-moving in certain areas where the poles change. There is a focal point of highest field strength purposely located above the center region, which is significantly away (removed) from the surface. This magnet was the impetus which has pushed Ahern towards a theory of nanomagnetism which is seen in both LENR and in exotic electronic devices. BTW, in operation the Manelas magnet drops in temperature by several degrees below ambient, even though it is operating as the core of 50-watt transformer! Go figure. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
After reading the Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels II by Dr.s Maly and Va'vra, I was intrigued to find the other papers. I did not find a copy of ... I, or any of the III, IV, and V versions that Dr. Va'vra indicated were submitted [note: if any of you have a copy of Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels I, could you please share a copy with me?]. When I researched the ANS publication Fusion Technology, I found in their listing the ... I and ... II papers, but none of the others. So, I did some additional research to find Dr. Va'vra. I found his email and asked him about the latter 3 papers. Here was his interesting response: The papers III,IV and V do exist, but they were not published. I think the editor of the Fusion Technology had enough at that time. However, there is a problem with all these types of calculations. They use a 1920-1930 quantum mechanics. The correct treatment must use QED. There were attempts to do that, and I mention that in my more recent ArXiv paper: 1304.0833v3. Mills used fractional quantum numbers. That is a no no for the classical quantum mechanics. So, I consider his method wrong. Regards, Jerry Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread. If someone else already cited this, I apologize for the duplication. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Ferrites encompass a large body of magnetic materials. Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferrite magnet? - probably. The long thin hat pin is magnetized and the plastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet from flipping and is thus able to levitate. I don't see anything mysterious here. It is just showing that the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized. However, if a permanent magnet is used as a transformer core, I am not sure what the result would be. It would certainly be nonlinear. In a passive device reciprocity is not guaranteed if a DC magnetic field is present. Bob Higgins On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Something similar wrt a non-stationary magnetic field happens with another anomalous device – which is called the Manelas/Sweet device, mentioned here before. There may be a non-obvious connection to LENR. A visual image of levitation of a hat pin, above the magnet of this device, is seen in slide-6, here: http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/ I have one of these conditioned billets. The field strength on the surface is not high, typical for a ferrite and it alternates in polarity across the surface, and is fluid - in the sense of self-moving in certain areas where the poles change. There is a focal point of highest field strength purposely located above the center region, which is significantly away (removed) from the surface. This magnet was the impetus which has pushed Ahern towards a theory of “nanomagnetism” which is seen in both LENR and in exotic electronic devices.
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: An interesting case to speculate upon would be that the observed field is due to the combination of a very large multitude of individual active areas that are battling for supremacy. The fact that such a large net field is seen would indicate that each of the smaller elements might have truly enormous local fields as suggested by Axil. A relevant question here is whether the enormous local fields are strong enough to summon forth muons from the internal structure of the nucleons (~ 140 MeV per muon worth). My working assumption is that they are not. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources. If we accept at face value Kim's repeating of DGT's claim of 0.6 - 1.6 Tesla (in this regard I suspect he's simply taking DGT's data on faith, as a good-natured theorist), I would also assume that it is the result of a vector sum of a large number of small magnetic moments. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf The P and A mesons in strong abelian magnetic field in SU(2) lattice gauge theory. What we are after is negitive mesons. Just like positron and electon pairs, the production of mesons from the vacume is produced by a magnetic field somewhere under 10^^16 tesla. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: An interesting case to speculate upon would be that the observed field is due to the combination of a very large multitude of individual active areas that are battling for supremacy. The fact that such a large net field is seen would indicate that each of the smaller elements might have truly enormous local fields as suggested by Axil. A relevant question here is whether the enormous local fields are strong enough to summon forth muons from the internal structure of the nucleons (~ 140 MeV per muon worth). My working assumption is that they are not. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
If you put your name on a paper and present it at a conference before your piers making such are extraordinary claim, would you not verify the data? On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources. If we accept at face value Kim's repeating of DGT's claim of 0.6 - 1.6 Tesla (in this regard I suspect he's simply taking DGT's data on faith, as a good-natured theorist), I would also assume that it is the result of a vector sum of a large number of small magnetic moments. Eric
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
And what would cause a change in these? Two things, increased alignment and/or am increase in spin momentum. Where might a greater spin momentum originate? Spin transfer? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone - Reply message - From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 11:01 PM On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I would also assume that it is the result of a vector sum of a large number of small magnetic moments. Eric
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Bob, Thanks for following up on this. Unfortunately for elucidating the basis of LENR, if Va’vra is correct, then 511 keV is not going to solve any open questions. In fact, this spectrum has been specifically looked for and not seen. Jones From: Bob Higgins After reading the Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels II by Dr.s Maly and Va'vra, I was intrigued to find the other papers. I did not find a copy of ... I, or any of the III, IV, and V versions that Dr. Va'vra indicated were submitted [note: if any of you have a copy of Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels I, could you please share a copy with me?]. When I researched the ANS publication Fusion Technology, I found in their listing the ... I and ... II papers, but none of the others. So, I did some additional research to find Dr. Va'vra. I found his email and asked him about the latter 3 papers. Here was his interesting response: The papers III,IV and V do exist, but they were not published. I think the editor of the Fusion Technology had enough at that time. However, there is a problem with all these types of calculations. They use a 1920-1930 quantum mechanics. The correct treatment must use QED. There were attempts to do that, and I mention that in my more recent ArXiv paper: 1304.0833v3. Mills used fractional quantum numbers. That is a no no for the classical quantum mechanics. So, I consider his method wrong. Regards, Jerry Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread. If someone else already cited this, I apologize for the duplication. Bob Higgins
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: Bob Higgins Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferrite magnet? - probably. The long thin hat pin is magnetized and the plastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet from flipping and is thus able to levitate. I don't see anything mysterious here. It is just showing that the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized. Not exactly. The pin is iron and will be attracted as a soft ferromagnet. With a normal ferrite, the pin will touch the surface, not levitate since the opposite field is induced. With the type of conditioning in this ferrite, the pin seeks equilibrium in the highest concentration of magnetic field lines, which is in the space above the billet, not touching it. You can flip the pin over and it stays levitated where it is.
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
How does the pin move if not confined by the tube? Does it move from the center region and stick to another spot? Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 22, 2014 12:29 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- From:Bob Higgins Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferritemagnet? - probably. The long thin hat pin is magnetized and theplastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet from flipping and is thus able tolevitate. I don't see anything mysterious here. It is just showingthat the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized. Not exactly. The pin is ironand will be attracted as a soft ferromagnet. With a normal ferrite, the pin willtouch the surface, not levitate since the opposite field is induced. With the typeof conditioning in this ferrite, the pin seeks equilibrium in the highestconcentration of magnetic field lines, which is in the space above the billet,not touching it. You can flip the pin over and it stays levitated where it is.
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
How is the ferrite conditioned? Is it magnetized? Have you reproduced this effect? What happens to the hat pin when there is no tube? Soft iron needles easily become magnetized. What is seen in the photo could easily be reproduced with a ferrite magnet slab and an [inadvertently] magnetized pin. Of course, what you described with the levitation happening when the pin is inverted 180 degrees doesn't make sense with that simple explanation - I am asking if you personally verified that the ferrite slab was not permanently magnetized and that flipping the pin still caused it to levitate. Bob Sent with AquaMail for Android http://www.aqua-mail.com On August 21, 2014 10:29:27 PM Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Higgins Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferrite magnet? - probably. The long thin hat pin is magnetized and the plastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet from flipping and is thus able to levitate. I don't see anything mysterious here. It is just showing that the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized. Not exactly. The pin is iron and will be attracted as a soft ferromagnet. With a normal ferrite, the pin will touch the surface, not levitate since the opposite field is induced. With the type of conditioning in this ferrite, the pin seeks equilibrium in the highest concentration of magnetic field lines, which is in the space above the billet, not touching it. You can flip the pin over and it stays levitated where it is.
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf The paper you cite talks about the changing masses of ⍴ and A mesons under strong magnetic fields. It does not talk about meson condensation. It does mention some interesting points, however: - It is known that cosmic space objects called magnetars or neutron stars possess magnetic field in their cores equal to ∼ 1 MeV. [sic] - The values of magnetic fields in non-central heavy-ion collisions can reach up to ... ~ 290 MeV^2 Another paper indicates that in the cores of neutron stars [2], where the magnetic field is ~ 10^15 Tesla, ⍴- mesons *might* condense (the ⍴ meson is only slightly heavier than the π- meson, which is what we need for muons). We have a number of degrees of freedom to pin down to get any closer to our meson condensation: - What is the strength of the local magnetic field in a small volume in DGT's reactor? Is it in the twilight zone? Is it actually pretty small? - What is the effect of an extreme magnetic field on the condensation of π mesons? Does it enhance it? Does it inhibit it? I get the sense it could go either way. - How does the environment in a small volume in DGT's reactor compare to that in the core of a neutron star? Is it as extreme? Is it perhaps less extreme? I'm going to guess that we don't even have a prima facie case to become interested in the possibility of meson condensation at this point. Eric [1] http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf (see p. 3). [2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0139.pdf (see the second half of p. 4).
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Still above my paygrade. I don't see Muons mentioned. They're implied. I get it. Abstract, like an artist. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: DGT says that about 1 tesla is produced at 20 CMs in their reactor. If the source of that field is localized to a few nanometers, that means that by the inverse square law or the cube law if you like, the power at a few nanometers is 20,000,000 to the second or third power tesla. Now that is a strong magnetic field. On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Axil. Cool Explanation. Unfortunately, about par for the course in your theorizings I cannot understand it. I do not see a single reference to muons nor how much power is required for them to do their thing. Perhaps it is implied... heavily implied. This isn't a connecting of the dots, it is a drawing a detailed picture with dots that artists think EVERYONE should be able to see. But not everyone sees it, and the more abstract the dot construction, the fewer people who see it. Once you get to a certain level of abstraction, anonymous email experts use their puppets to try to get you kicked off the board because even those anonymous famous experts probably don't understand what you're saying and they're too intimidated to confront you. Well, anyways, thanks for the response. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The SPP's not only focus magnetic photons, it also focuses virtual photons. Virtual photons create the magnetic field that define the rate of nuclear decay. Usually, the vacuum produces a fixed average rate of virtual photon production. So the rate of radioactive decay is stable. When the SPP focuses virtual photons into a small volume, the rate of radioactive decay increases a lot. This answers why there is no radioactive byproducts produced in LENR. The Rate of photon production is increased in the same way through focusing, so the chance that a meson is produced by magnetic interaction with the proton goes up a lot. The two photon reactions both real and virtual are directly proportional. So if radioactive half-life in reduced though virtual particle production, the rate(probability) of meson production is increased proportionally as demonstrated by the same concurrent photon focusing mechanism. There is always a chance that a meson is created from the vacuum. Magnetic focusing also increases the chance of seeing a whopper of a virtual energy increase in the proton so meson production goes way up too. This increased chance of a large virtual energy contribution per unit time also increases the chances for meson creation.