RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones wrote: At the risk of becoming overly repetitious, at a time where repetition is not in favor here, Jones: If by some very remote chance :-), you are referring to my posts RE: a certain other person's voluminous postings on mostly the same ol' thing... personalities, then I would like to clarify things. My objections as to repetition ONLY apply to criticisms and 'suspicions' about personalities, NOT technical discussions. Nearly all of the 'dirty laundry' was uncovered within 3 to 4 months of last January's Demo, and NONE of which proves Rossi is/is not running a scam, so of what use is continual mention of 'suspicious' activities??? None. Unless some new hard evidence of a scam is uncovered, which I too would be most interested in, it's just a waste of everyone's time. One fact that is conveniently ignored by the ones casting suspicion on Rossi, is that he obtained his $ to finance all his work on e-Cat by selling his interest in the biofuel company, which IIRC, he was the inventor behind it. So, he has at least been successful as an inventor/businessman, and has produced something of considerable commercial value. Finally, posting repetitious suspicions about people and their business practices (not technical data) is being somewhat disrespectful about the purpose of this forum. For now, I'm taking the advice given and just ignoring the repetitious ranter... -Mark -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi? -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com snip, lots of technical discussion At the risk of becoming overly repetitious, at a time where repetition is not in favor here, the preponderance of evidence points Ni-H being a different beast than Pd-D, predominantly non-fusion, non-weak-force. The best evidence, going back to the early nineties (Thermacore) points to substantial thermal gain with few gammas, no neutrons, no neutron activation, no deuterium, tritium or helium ash, and very little 'real' transmutation. The copper and iron seen is easily explainable as electro-migration, a common phenomenon, since it is found in the natural isotopic ratios. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: One fact that is conveniently ignored by the ones casting suspicion on Rossi, is that he obtained his $ to finance all his work on e-Cat by selling his interest in the biofuel company, which IIRC, he was the inventor behind it. It's not a fact. It's a Rossi says like much of everything else about the E-cat. We do not know and have no way to know whether or not Rossi has investors, how many and for how much. So, he has at least been successful as an inventor/businessman, and has produced something of considerable commercial value. Really? What? When? How much? How do we know?
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com No positron - no H+H fusion. It is almost that simple. You appear to be neglecting H-H fusion by electron capture. This also happens in the Sun, but at a low rate. Hi Robin, If the EC reaction happens in the sun (at a low rate), given the high temperature of the sun, intense gamma radiation, and the massive gravity well... ... then why would anyone think that this route could be a significant contribution to gain in a cold environment, when all of the conditions for nuclear fusion or weak-force reactions are orders of magnitude less conducive to it? Realistically, in terms of known probabilities - one might be better off invoking proton decay than either WL or H-H fusion, or even Ni-H - Cu. I do not understand why so many vorticians seem so desirous to find a nuclear reaction here as the main source of excess heat, when good testing shows no gammas (not just low, but none) and the Swedes found no radioactive transmutation in the ash, and Rossi has proven to dishonest over and over again (his supposed belief in Ni transmutation is worthless). Plus no deuterium or neutrons are seen. It must be a holdover from years of following Pd-D - where there is ample transmutation, ample helium or tritium and moderate gammas. Were it not for our shared background in Pd-D, then it would be absurd to suggest any type of nuclear reaction is happening, based on the weight of evidence in the record. Yes, I do appreciate that Robin's angle (usually) is that Mills' shrinkage to a maximal state obviates many of the problems with EC. There is no huge problem with that, other than Mills' reputation. But if one tries to conflate the Mills modality with the known type of EC, thus to avoid the negativity of Mills to the fizzix mainstream, then if makes little sense to me- how that can help. At the risk of becoming overly repetitious, at a time where repetition is not in favor here, the preponderance of evidence points Ni-H being a different beast than Pd-D, predominantly non-fusion, non-weak-force. The best evidence, going back to the early nineties (Thermacore) points to substantial thermal gain with few gammas, no neutrons, no neutron activation, no deuterium, tritium or helium ash, and very little 'real' transmutation. The copper and iron seen is easily explainable as electro-migration, a common phenomenon, since it is found in the natural isotopic ratios. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:52:17 -0800: Hi Jones, Actually I largely agree with your position. I too think that fusion reactions are unlikely in this case (though not impossible). I'm trying to keep an open mind here. Note also that I think the H+H-D reaction is very unlikely because the reaction cross section is incredibly small. The only reason for my previous post was that you were so adamant that it was ruled out. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com No positron - no H+H fusion. It is almost that simple. You appear to be neglecting H-H fusion by electron capture. This also happens in the Sun, but at a low rate. Hi Robin, If the EC reaction happens in the sun (at a low rate), given the high temperature of the sun, intense gamma radiation, and the massive gravity well... ... then why would anyone think that this route could be a significant contribution to gain in a cold environment, when all of the conditions for nuclear fusion or weak-force reactions are orders of magnitude less conducive to it? You answer that here below yourself Realistically, in terms of known probabilities - one might be better off invoking proton decay than either WL or H-H fusion, or even Ni-H - Cu. I do not understand why so many vorticians seem so desirous to find a nuclear reaction here as the main source of excess heat, when good testing shows no gammas (not just low, but none) and the Swedes found no radioactive transmutation in the ash, and Rossi has proven to dishonest over and over again (his supposed belief in Ni transmutation is worthless). Plus no deuterium or neutrons are seen. It must be a holdover from years of following Pd-D - where there is ample transmutation, ample helium or tritium and moderate gammas. Were it not for our shared background in Pd-D, then it would be absurd to suggest any type of nuclear reaction is happening, based on the weight of evidence in the record. Yes, I do appreciate that Robin's angle (usually) is that Mills' shrinkage to a maximal state obviates many of the problems with EC. There is no huge problem with that, other than Mills' reputation. ...right here. But if one tries to conflate the Mills modality with the known type of EC, thus to avoid the negativity of Mills to the fizzix mainstream, then if makes little sense to me- how that can help. You appear to be confusing physics with politics. (Whether or not mainstream physicists accept a theory has nothing to do with whether or not nature uses it.) At the risk of becoming overly repetitious, at a time where repetition is not in favor here, the preponderance of evidence points Ni-H being a different beast than Pd-D, predominantly non-fusion, non-weak-force. The best evidence, going back to the early nineties (Thermacore) points to substantial thermal gain with few gammas, no neutrons, no neutron activation, no deuterium, tritium or helium ash, and very little 'real' transmutation. The copper and iron seen is easily explainable as electro-migration, a common phenomenon, since it is found in the natural isotopic ratios. Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:28:38 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] The monitor used by Rossi's team in January is specifically designed to detect positrons, which must be there if there is to be H+H fusion. None were detected. There is a bit of a problem with this. The detector in question had two juxtaposed detectors, and a discriminator. However if the positrons don't annihilate somewhere between the two detectors then the gammas won't register, because the discriminator will toss them out. Now positrons, like electrons, only travel short distances in solid matter (mm's at best), so if they were formed several cm or more away from the line joining the detectors, then they would not be seen. Rossi also said that he tried to place the holes where some would be detected, but not too many. It's easy to get the placement wrong. OTOH the overall lack of gammas detected generally, doesn't bode well for a fusion based reaction. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 30 Dec 2011 01:59:19 +0100: Hi, [snip] Well finding deuterium would be definitive proof of 'something anomalous' but not fusion, since they can absolutely rule out ALL varieties of hydrogen fusion now. You absolutely have to get rid of a positive charge somehow to get to deuterium, and no positron is seen in an instrument designed for that specific purpose. No positron - no H+H fusion. It is almost that simple. You appear to be neglecting H-H fusion by electron capture. This also happens in the Sun, but at a low rate. Nevertheless, the ratio might change significantly if either shrunken electrons are available, or if the electron is already present as in Horace's theory. Note e.c. fusion produces no positrons (because proton + electron - light neutron). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Reference: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSevidenceof.pdf *Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems* *Conclusion:* We have presented experimental results for photon emission observed in three different experiments performed during a preliminary preparation step of a Ni-H heat production system. In this section we briefly reconsider the main phenomena detected in all these experiments. *First experiment *A fast loading of hydrogen was observed (a typical loading is shown in Fig. 12) which involved large gas quantities. Radiation was emitted in an early time with peaks that showed low intensities for few days and extremely low intensity for 40 days. It disappeared before the beginning of energy production. No neutron emission was detected during this experiment. Moreover, excess heat was observed [11-13] that persisted for 22 days with a energy production of about 35 MJ. After the experiment, nickel samples were analysed with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) to investigate morphological and elemental difference from a blank sample. The measurements were performed by using an energy dispersive X-ray system for elemental analysis. The most interesting result is shown in Fig. 13: new elements (Cr and Mn) were detected in a wide region of a sample *Second experiment *A slow loading of hydrogen was observed (a typical loading is shown in Fig. 14) which involved small gas quantities. Radiation was emitted early in the run with peaks that showed high intensities for many days, they decreased slowly and persisted for 78 days (26 in H atmosphere). No neutron emission or excess heat production were detected during this experiment. No quantitative changes were detected in surface analysis. *Third experiment *A very slow loading of hydrogen was observed which involved very small gas quantities (few tens of mbar, characteristic time of weeks). Radiation was always present with peaks that showed low intensities. A thermal excitation provoked a transient increasing in radiation emitted. A spontaneous increasing persisted for weeks. No neutron emission or excess heat production was detected during this experiment. In our opinion, these experiments show the complexity of phenomena involved in the physics of the Ni –H. *This indicates to me that the emission of radiation is caused by a cold lattice.* * * *As conjectured by Dr. Kim, the lattice must be above the curie temperature of nickel indicating a magnetic connection associated with heat production: i.e the formation of proton coherence. * * * On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace ** ** Ø Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. ** ** How about the detection of gammas by Celani on start-up and shut down? Celani is credible. The gammas admittedly could be faked. ** ** Yes Celani is credible, but this is evidence of a startup device and nothing more. He admits as much. ** ** ** ** I seem to recall the gammas occurred at cool down too. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Yes I heard Celani saying that as well. AG On 12/30/2011 3:43 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace ØOnce again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. How about the detection of gammas by Celani on start-up and shut down? Celani is credible. The gammas admittedly could be faked. Yes Celani is credible, but this is evidence of a startup device and nothing more. He admits as much. I seem to recall the gammas occurred at cool down too. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
From: Jed Rothwell Big difference. There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. Really? The highest quality testing which was performed in Bologna was radiation monitoring. Top notch instrumentation and technique. Why is the lack of radiation above background no evidence for the proposition that hydrogen fusion cannot be involved? Sorry for the double negative but it is pretty obvious that radiation was checked for, and that radiation is a relic of fusion, and none was observed above background. In Pd-D fusion, gammas have been observed above background even in experiments in the one watt range - and this is claimed to be contributory evidence for fusion (along with transmutation). Rossi claimed many kilowatts of excess energy in January yet no radiation was observed, even through a gap in the shielding where the monitor was placed. The Swedes did isotopic analysis and found natural isotope ratios and no radioactivity. This is strong evidence against any kind of nuclear reaction having taken place. It bears repeating: There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Big difference. There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X I have to consider a reaction that only occurs in extreme relativistic warp induced by suppression of larger virtual particles - the resulting radiation would have to likewise translate from this extreme warp back to normal space before we could detect it and therefore be downshifted. Fran OK - but go deeper: even if that happens, there should exist remnant transmuted products of the reaction (isotopic ash) which is still radioactive for an extended period. None has been documented. At the very least there should be a shift in isotope ratio - none has been documented. The Reifenschweiler effect is a good example of the problem of suggesting that radiation can be substantially blocked. In fact in Reifenschweiler only about 25% of the expected radiation from tritium seems to be missing, and the rest is still evident, yet we suspect the same kind of confinement dynamics are at work. How could Rossi be completely different in shieldability, especially using a reaction that should have higher energy spectrum than tritium (if real fusion is the source)? Let's go back to the conservation of miracles. We do not want to be required to justify one miracle with another, and especially not if the second miracle is more difficult to defend. The implication of Reifenschweiler for Rossi is most likely that there CANNOT exist the kind of nuclear reaction (fusion or even beta decay) that produces significant gammas (primary, secondary or bremsstrahlung) since a substantial percentage would be documented. Remember that tritium has about the lowest energy spectrum of any radioactive isotope and still 3/4 of it shows up, despite the cavity confinement. Yes, it could be shielded by lead, but where is the proof of unshielded radiation in Rossi? Ask Bianchini - there is none. The conclusion: we must seek to identify, or in today's early stage: to suggest - the kind of reactions where the expected energy spectrum is at least in below beta decay range but with NO expected transmutation product. Thus the Mills' reaction is a candidate. All that I am seeking to do this year is to put another candidate reaction into the record. Perhaps by early next year, funding will allow researchers to eliminate the candidates- one-by-one. To be honest, a version of Mills' miracle (redundant ground states) may be more likely to be the best bet for now, especially with the addition of Casimir confinement - and with less down-side baggage than the one I am suggesting (tapping into non-quark nuclear mass) but the problem with Mills, for explaining Rossi's results, is that it seems to be not energetic enough. Mills specifically claims about a 200:1 ratio of usable excess energy per atom, compared to combustion of hydrogen. Rossi is an order of magnitude higher (at least). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
To clarify one point. Gammas are not always seen in Pd-D experiments - especially with simple Geiger type monitors. In the early days, gammas were even said to be absent. Then with better instrumentation - gammas started to show up - even in watt-level experiments. Rothwell was among the most vocal proponents of using gamma spectroscopy as proof of LENR, so it is a bit surprising that he seems to be backtracking a bit. Well, not backtracking so much as denying that absence of gammas from very high output experiments is indicative of no fusion. Here is a report of an experiment 12 years ago, where - although the experiment produced about 6,000 times less energy than Rossi claims - gammas showed up clearly enough to do convincing spectroscopy. This report from ICCF8 by Rothwell turned up in my files and there are many similar that can be found once the archive server comes back online: Mengoli also showed surprisingly strong evidence for transmutation of titanium into a radioactive scandium isotope, with what looked like unassailable evidence: gamma ray coincidence counting and determination that the half-life of the gamma decay was consistent with the radioactive isotope as identified by the energy of the gamma ray spectrum. END of quote. That was a 2 watt output experiment. Of course, the lack of gammas at massively more energy in Rossi's case does not prove that it cannot be due to hydrogen fusion, since we are trying to disprove a negative - BUT do we really want to cherry-pick past results to the degree that it puts convincing data into jeopardy? The most defensible position, relative to all of these past reports of gammas in the LENR library, is to accept that gamma radiation should show up to some degree when real fusion (or even beta decay) is happening and top rate instrumentation is used. Why compromise that position by offering the remote possibility that fusion can be occurring? At tens of thousands of watts output for many hours when with ZERO radiation over background - the most logical conclusion is NO FUSION. Makes no sense to argue otherwise. Bite the bullet. There is no evidence of hydrogen fusion in Rossi; and there are many hours of data showing that no radiation over background is occurring - and moreover it was done using a very capable monitoring device which was designed to detect positron emission specifically. Jones From: Jed Rothwell Big difference. There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. Really? The highest quality testing which was performed in Bologna was radiation monitoring. Top notch instrumentation and technique. Why is the lack of radiation above background no evidence for the proposition that hydrogen fusion cannot be involved? Sorry for the double negative but it is pretty obvious that radiation was checked for, and that radiation is a relic of fusion, and none was observed above background. In Pd-D fusion, gammas have been observed above background even in experiments in the one watt range - and this is claimed to be contributory evidence for fusion (along with transmutation). Rossi claimed many kilowatts of excess energy in January yet no radiation was observed, even through a gap in the shielding where the monitor was placed. The Swedes did isotopic analysis and found natural isotope ratios and no radioactivity. This is strong evidence against any kind of nuclear reaction having taken place. It bears repeating: There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. attachment: winmail.dat
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones, Nice argument regarding fusion - I thought a relativistic interpretation had to leave the possibility of fusion open but you are correct in citing the lack of nuclear ash to rule out fusion. I know there are some claims of transmuted elements being detected - Were you implying the amounts are too small to describe the reported excess heat or just that the specific isotopes were not from fusion but decay paths instead? I also agree with your statement [snip] The conclusion: we must seek to identify, or in today's early stage: to suggest - the kind of reactions where the expected energy spectrum is at least in below beta decay range but with NO expected transmutation product. Thus the Mills' reaction is a candidate. [/snip] As I have posited before, the Lyne and Moller model of endless chemical-zero point reactions is also at work in the Mill's reaction and the hydride paths are only poor cousin's to this relativistically warped oscillation between h1 and h2. Locally these gas atoms are unaware of any Rydberg, fractional, hydrino or other monikers. It is my belief that any nuclear reactions, be they fusion, decays or other are all dependent upon this initial process to occur -I'm not saying which is the primary contributor, only that the Moller type reaction has to come first. I disagree however with the logic of one of your supporting arguments [snip]The Reifenschweiler effect is a good example of the problem of suggesting that radiation can be substantially blocked. In fact in Reifenschweiler only about 25% of the expected radiation from tritium seems to be missing, and the rest is still evident, yet we suspect the same kind of confinement dynamics are at work. [/snip] Your argument pre-supposes A radioactive gas is loaded into confinement which we know only occurs to a certain percentage of the gas that actually migrates into confinement while the rest of the population continues to produce radiation at the normal rate. My posit as I mentioned in a previous thread is that the environment that allows these unlikely nuclear events, be it fusion or decay or other also results in warped radiation that is downshifted before we can detect it - I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion based on the lack of ash but just saying this sub argument wasn't a fair comparison. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X I have to consider a reaction that only occurs in extreme relativistic warp induced by suppression of larger virtual particles - the resulting radiation would have to likewise translate from this extreme warp back to normal space before we could detect it and therefore be downshifted. Fran OK - but go deeper: even if that happens, there should exist remnant transmuted products of the reaction (isotopic ash) which is still radioactive for an extended period. None has been documented. At the very least there should be a shift in isotope ratio - none has been documented. The Reifenschweiler effect is a good example of the problem of suggesting that radiation can be substantially blocked. In fact in Reifenschweiler only about 25% of the expected radiation from tritium seems to be missing, and the rest is still evident, yet we suspect the same kind of confinement dynamics are at work. How could Rossi be completely different in shieldability, especially using a reaction that should have higher energy spectrum than tritium (if real fusion is the source)? Let's go back to the conservation of miracles. We do not want to be required to justify one miracle with another, and especially not if the second miracle is more difficult to defend. The implication of Reifenschweiler for Rossi is most likely that there CANNOT exist the kind of nuclear reaction (fusion or even beta decay) that produces significant gammas (primary, secondary or bremsstrahlung) since a substantial percentage would be documented. Remember that tritium has about the lowest energy spectrum of any radioactive isotope and still 3/4 of it shows up, despite the cavity confinement. Yes, it could be shielded by lead, but where is the proof of unshielded radiation in Rossi? Ask Bianchini - there is none. The conclusion: we must seek to identify, or in today's early stage: to suggest - the kind of reactions where the expected energy spectrum is at least in below beta decay range but with NO expected transmutation product. Thus the Mills' reaction is a candidate. All that I am seeking to do this year is to put another candidate reaction into the record. Perhaps by early next year, funding will allow researchers to eliminate the candidates- one-by-one. To be honest, a version of Mills' miracle (redundant ground states) may be more likely to be the best bet for now, especially with the addition of Casimir confinement - and with less down-side baggage than the one I am suggesting (tapping into non-quark nuclear mass) but the problem with Mills, for
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Rothwell was among the most vocal proponents of using gamma spectroscopy as proof of LENR, so it is a bit surprising that he seems to be backtracking a bit. I am not backtracking. That's silly. Gamma rays have been seen, but never at levels commensurate with plasma fusion. They are sporadic and at millions of times below that, like the neutrons. They are easy to detect, which makes them useful. Iwamura detected them before he began looking for transmutations. I think he stopped trying to detect them after that. Many others have seen them, but always sporadically, even when the heat is stable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. Really? The highest quality testing which was performed in Bologna was radiation monitoring. You would not catch cold fusion Pd D+D reactions with this. They do not produce radiation. I presume H+H would also not produce radiation. I presume it forms deuterium, which is difficult to look for, because it is ubiquitous. I do not know anyone working with Ni+H who has looked for it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: Horace Heffner They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not realize that this reaction is strongly endothermic. This is false. Consider: H + H -- D + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV That is half the story. You neglect the threshold condition. IOW this reaction is meaningless to consider for any form of LENR or even Tokomak fusion, since it does NOT take into account the required threshold condition. Not to mention the neutrino carries away the bulk of energy, so it is endothermic in the sense of being able to sustain a continuing reaction. IOW this reaction cannot happen outside of massive gravity conditions (solar, or else and earthly accelerator that can never reach breakeven). The threshold temperature for protium fusion is on the order of 10,000,000 K (10 million degrees Kelvin). Rossi is getting excess heat at a threshold of about 500 K. Big difference. There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. Jones
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
At 11:31 AM 12/29/2011, Jones Beene wrote: Makes no sense to argue otherwise. Bite the bullet. There is no evidence of hydrogen fusion in Rossi; and there are many hours of data showing that no radiation over background is occurring - and moreover it was done using a very capable monitoring device which was designed to detect positron emission specifically. This was measured only in the January experiment. Celani noted that Focardi was surprised by their absence http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41536.html * It was assembled also a twin gamma ray detector in order to detect e+e- annihilation: this time almost no results. Focardi was confident that they will get large amounts of such signal, as in previous experiment. This time the counts were close to background for coincidences and only some uncorrelated signal were over background. This was the start up burst experiment : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42665.html Both showed what Celani considers normal background for Italy at that elevation. As he was waiting, suddenly, during a 1-second interval both detectors were saturated. That is to say, they both registered counts off the scale. The following seconds the NaI detector returned to nomal. The Geiger counter had to be switched off to delete overrange, which was 7.5 microsievert/hour, and later switched on again. About 1 to 2 minutes after this event, Rossi emerged from the other room and said the machine just turned on and the demonstration was underway. - - - - - I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from the lack of expected e-/e+ gammas AND the occurrence of an unexpected burst.
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not realize that this reaction is strongly endothermic. This is false. Consider: H + H -- D + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV That is half the story. You neglect the threshold condition. I certainly do not ignore the threshold condition. Did you even bother to read the reference? IOW this reaction is meaningless to consider for any form of LENR or even Tokomak fusion, since it does NOT take into account the required threshold condition. Not to mention the neutrino carries away the bulk of energy, so it is endothermic in the sense of being able to sustain a continuing reaction. It takes nominal energy to accommodate deflation fusion, and zero energy to form the deflated state. IOW this reaction cannot happen outside of massive gravity conditions (solar, or else and earthly accelerator that can never reach breakeven). The threshold temperature for protium fusion is on the order of 10,000,000 K (10 million degrees Kelvin). Rossi is getting excess heat at a threshold of about 500 K. In a gas or vacuum yes, in a lattice I would expect a very very small amount, as I noted in my article and repeated here. A very very small amount. A very very small amount. A very very small amount. A very very small amount. I also noted that ... this gamma producing reaction was not observed above background in the Rossi E-cats. Big difference. There is no evidence that hydrogen fusion is involved in Rossi. Jones Hydrogen fusion with hydrogen - yes. Hydrogen fusion with heavy elements - there is evidence, if it if Rossi's circus is not all boondoggle. You are merely making a straw man argument here. You make the straw man, you tear it down. You ignore the important issues. As explained in my article, I think these are the feasible reactions: 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV [-1.842] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV [-11.657] 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV [-8.777] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev [-3.560] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843] Ni28 + 2 p* --- Ni28 + 2 1H1 + 0 MeV [+6 Mev ZPE] and of these, the following are the primary energy producing reactions: 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918] It is not possible to tell at this point what proportion of the energy might come from the purely zero point energy fueled interaction. If it is the great majority, then little isotopic shift would be observed, especially for short experiments. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Complete nonsense. The monitor used by Rossi's team in January is specifically designed to detect positrons, which must be there if there is to be H+H fusion. None were detected. All other forms of fusion with nickel produce radioisotopes of varying half-lives - easy to detect - which Rossi himself claims are absent, and no test has found them either. Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. Jones From: Jed Rothwell There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. Really? The highest quality testing which was performed in Bologna was radiation monitoring. You would not catch cold fusion Pd D+D reactions with this. They do not produce radiation. I presume H+H would also not produce radiation. I presume it forms deuterium, which is difficult to look for, because it is ubiquitous. I do not know anyone working with Ni+H who has looked for it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Ah yes, I see. Are you then saying the FPE Alchemists used a Philosopher's stone to generate all the observed transmutations? AG On 12/30/2011 8:58 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 29, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Complete nonsense. I like your candor! 8^) The monitor used by Rossi's team in January is specifically designed to detect positrons, which must be there if there is to be H+H fusion. None were detected. Yes. I stated this in my article: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf All other forms of fusion with nickel produce radioisotopes of varying half-lives - easy to detect - which Rossi himself claims are absent, and no test has found them either. Not true. Did you see my reaction set and their justification? Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. Jones How about the detection of gammas by Celani on start-up and shut down? Celani is credible. The gammas admittedly could be faked. From: Jed Rothwell There is no evidence it isn't. No one has checked, as far as I know. Really? The highest quality testing which was performed in Bologna was radiation monitoring. You would not catch cold fusion Pd D+D reactions with this. They do not produce radiation. I presume H+H would also not produce radiation. I presume it forms deuterium, which is difficult to look for, because it is ubiquitous. I do not know anyone working with Ni +H who has looked for it. - Jed Metal + H can create heavy transmutations. These should be far more probable than hydrogen plus hydrogen reactions, provided the species of hydrogen involved have zero net charge, or less. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHreviewoftr.pdf and for some amusement on the side: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEalchemynig.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones Beene wrote: Complete nonsense. The monitor used by Rossi's team in January is specifically designed to detect positrons, which must be there if there is to be H+H fusion. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that like saying there must be neutrons if D+D fusion is occurring? It is definitely occurring with Pd-D. There is no doubt about the helium, pace Krivit. But there are a ~11 million times fewer neutrons than there should be, according to theory. Until they look for deuterium in a Ni-H cell, I do not think you can rule out hydrogen fusion. I do not think you can dictate what nature can do, or to what must be there. Only an experiment can determine this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Looks like the Philosopher's Stone was working overtime ;) AG On 12/30/2011 9:46 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: and for some amusement on the side: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEalchemynig.pdf
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Horace * Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. How about the detection of gammas by Celani on start-up and shut down? Celani is credible. The gammas admittedly could be faked. Yes Celani is credible, but this is evidence of a startup device and nothing more. He admits as much.
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Well finding deuterium would be definitive proof of 'something anomalous' but not fusion, since they can absolutely rule out ALL varieties of hydrogen fusion now. You absolutely have to get rid of a positive charge somehow to get to deuterium, and no positron is seen in an instrument designed for that specific purpose. No positron - no H+H fusion. It is almost that simple. But yes ! we all agree that experiment rules and there could be an unknown reaction going on here which also violates conservation of charge, in addition to everything else - and my arguments assume either known reactions or those that have a substantial theoretical basis. BUT . isn't violating conservation of charge adding yet another miracle to the one or two you are trying to salvage? From: Jed Rothwell * Until they look for deuterium in a Ni-H cell, I do not think you can rule out hydrogen fusion. I do not think you can dictate what nature can do, or to what must be there. Only an experiment can determine this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Could be an unknown reaction going on here??? You mean There is an unknown reaction going on here. As for salvaging, there is nothing to salvage. The experiment rules. Game, Set, Match. Should I again mention the observed transmutations? Yea I know, they can't be real as there are no nuclear reactions occurring here, even those that we may not understand. So what is it a Philosopher's Stone (ZPE powered per chance?) causing the observed transmutations, if they are not the result of a nuclear reaction, which you claim is not happening? Maybe simpler to admit there are nuclear reactions occurring and you can't explain them using existing knowledge. That said do you accept wide ranging transmutations are occurring in FPE devices, even though you have no idea how they are occurring? AG On 12/30/2011 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: But yes ! we all agree that “experiment rules” and there could be an unknown reaction going on here which also violates conservation of charge, in addition to everything else - and my arguments assume either known reactions or those that have a substantial theoretical basis. BUT … isn’t violating conservation of charge adding yet another miracle to the one or two you are trying to salvage?
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
I'm pretty sure you have not followed this thread very closely, or else you are a bit too trustworthy of Rossi. What observed transmutations are you speaking of? Please do not say this is what AR told me. BTW, nickel to copper is NOT an acceptable answer. There is no such thing as nickel to copper at tens of kilowatts of excess - without deadly levels of radiation... and, last time I check AR was still ticking, so to speak. Maybe radiation poisoning explains a few things. Jones From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Could be an unknown reaction going on here??? You mean There is an unknown reaction going on here. As for salvaging, there is nothing to salvage. The experiment rules. Game, Set, Match. Should I again mention the observed transmutations? Yea I know, they can't be real as there are no nuclear reactions occurring here, even those that we may not understand. So what is it a Philosopher's Stone (ZPE powered per chance?) causing the observed transmutations, if they are not the result of a nuclear reaction, which you claim is not happening? Maybe simpler to admit there are nuclear reactions occurring and you can't explain them using existing knowledge. That said do you accept wide ranging transmutations are occurring in FPE devices, even though you have no idea how they are occurring? AG On 12/30/2011 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: But yes ! we all agree that “experiment rules” and there could be an unknown reaction going on here which also violates conservation of charge, in addition to everything else - and my arguments assume either known reactions or those that have a substantial theoretical basis. BUT … isn’t violating conservation of charge adding yet another miracle to the one or two you are trying to salvage?
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
You must be joking? Right? Jed's archives are full of reports of transmutations. Even the high school kids reported transmutations. May I suggest you need to step outside your Standard Model mind set and actually read what other are reporting? Remember the Experiment Rules. There are transmutations occurring, going both ways. Time to accept the experimental evidence is real even though your understanding of physics can't explain it. So maybe stop trying to deny what is happening is not happening. Closing your eyes to the reality of transmutations will not help you to come to grips with the experimental evidence. So lets all say in one voice: *What is happening is happening. It is not explainable using current understanding of our world.* At least then we are ALL on common ground. AG On 12/30/2011 12:15 PM, Jones Beene wrote: I'm pretty sure you have not followed this thread very closely, or else you are a bit too trustworthy of Rossi. What observed transmutations are you speaking of? Please do not say this is what AR told me. BTW, nickel to copper is NOT an acceptable answer. There is no such thing as nickel to copper at tens of kilowatts of excess - without deadly levels of radiation... and, last time I check AR was still ticking, so to speak. Maybe radiation poisoning explains a few things. Jones *From:* Aussie Guy E-Cat Could be an unknown reaction going on here??? You mean There is an unknown reaction going on here. As for salvaging, there is nothing to salvage. The experiment rules. Game, Set, Match. Should I again mention the observed transmutations? Yea I know, they can't be real as there are no nuclear reactions occurring here, even those that we may not understand. So what is it a Philosopher's Stone (ZPE powered per chance?) causing the observed transmutations, if they are not the result of a nuclear reaction, which you claim is not happening? Maybe simpler to admit there are nuclear reactions occurring and you can't explain them using existing knowledge. That said do you accept wide ranging transmutations are occurring in FPE devices, even though you have no idea how they are occurring? AG On 12/30/2011 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: But yes ! we all agree that “experiment rules” and there could be an unknown reaction going on here which also violates conservation of charge, in addition to everything else - and my arguments assume either known reactions or those that have a substantial theoretical basis. BUT … isn’t violating conservation of charge adding yet another miracle to the one or two you are trying to salvage?
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
OK - I see that you are conflating prior LENR with Rossi. That is easy to do, but complicates everything. We are in agreement that LENR is very strange if you try to distill knowledge from the full range, since it covers too much territory to make easy generalizations. Deuterium experiments are very different from hydrogen, and transmutation is common in deuterium. There are many proved anomalies in either field, but it is too easy to conflate the two. But it is a huge mistake to try to justify Ni-H with Pd-D. The two are very different. Look at the elements as they are seen in reactions: H compared to D. The mass difference alone is a staggering ratio of ~2:1. Imagine Uranium with an isotope at 170 g Are we in agreement so far? From: Aussie Guy E-Cat You must be joking? Right? Jed's archives are full of reports of transmutations. Even the high school kids reported transmutations. May I suggest you need to step outside your Standard Model mind set and actually read what other are reporting? Remember the Experiment Rules. There are transmutations occurring, going both ways. Time to accept the experimental evidence is real even though your understanding of physics can't explain it. So maybe stop trying to deny what is happening is not happening. Closing your eyes to the reality of transmutations will not help you to come to grips with the experimental evidence. So lets all say in one voice: *What is happening is happening. It is not explainable using current understanding of our world.* At least then we are ALL on common ground. AG On 12/30/2011 12:15 PM, Jones Beene wrote: I'm pretty sure you have not followed this thread very closely, or else you are a bit too trustworthy of Rossi. What observed transmutations are you speaking of? Please do not say this is what AR told me. BTW, nickel to copper is NOT an acceptable answer. There is no such thing as nickel to copper at tens of kilowatts of excess - without deadly levels of radiation... and, last time I check AR was still ticking, so to speak. Maybe radiation poisoning explains a few things. Jones *From:* Aussie Guy E-Cat Could be an unknown reaction going on here??? You mean There is an unknown reaction going on here. As for salvaging, there is nothing to salvage. The experiment rules. Game, Set, Match. Should I again mention the observed transmutations? Yea I know, they can't be real as there are no nuclear reactions occurring here, even those that we may not understand. So what is it a Philosopher's Stone (ZPE powered per chance?) causing the observed transmutations, if they are not the result of a nuclear reaction, which you claim is not happening? Maybe simpler to admit there are nuclear reactions occurring and you can't explain them using existing knowledge. That said do you accept wide ranging transmutations are occurring in FPE devices, even though you have no idea how they are occurring? AG On 12/30/2011 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: But yes ! we all agree that “experiment rules” and there could be an unknown reaction going on here which also violates conservation of charge, in addition to everything else - and my arguments assume either known reactions or those that have a substantial theoretical basis. BUT … isn’t violating conservation of charge adding yet another miracle to the one or two you are trying to salvage?
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
Transmutations are observed in both Palladium and Nickel based systems. Excess heat is observed in both Palladium and Nickel based systems. Lack of radiation is observed in both Palladium and Nickel based systems. Heat after Death is observed in both Palladium and Nickel based systems. DDSLA (Different Dog, Same Leg Action). Maybe zoom out a bit and look at the macro observed effects as from where I sit, then sure seem to be the same. AG On 12/30/2011 12:47 PM, Jones Beene wrote: OK - I see that you are conflating prior LENR with Rossi. That is easy to do, but complicates everything. We are in agreement that LENR is very strange if you try to distill knowledge from the full range, since it covers too much territory to make easy generalizations. Deuterium experiments are very different from hydrogen, and transmutation is common in deuterium. There are many proved anomalies in either field, but it is too easy to conflate the two. But it is a huge mistake to try to justify Ni-H with Pd-D. The two are very different. Look at the elements as they are seen in reactions: H compared to D. The mass difference alone is a staggering ratio of ~2:1. Imagine Uranium with an isotope at 170 g Are we in agreement so far? *From:* Aussie Guy E-Cat You must be joking? Right? Jed's archives are full of reports of transmutations. Even the high school kids reported transmutations. May I suggest you need to step outside your Standard Model mind set and actually read what other are reporting? Remember the Experiment Rules. There are transmutations occurring, going both ways. Time to accept the experimental evidence is real even though your understanding of physics can't explain it. So maybe stop trying to deny what is happening is not happening. Closing your eyes to the reality of transmutations will not help you to come to grips with the experimental evidence. So lets all say in one voice: *What is happening is happening. It is not explainable using current understanding of our world.* At least then we are ALL on common ground. AG On 12/30/2011 12:15 PM, Jones Beene wrote: I'm pretty sure you have not followed this thread very closely, or else you are a bit too trustworthy of Rossi. What observed transmutations are you speaking of? Please do not say this is what AR told me. BTW, nickel to copper is NOT an acceptable answer. There is no such thing as nickel to copper at tens of kilowatts of excess - without deadly levels of radiation... and, last time I check AR was still ticking, so to speak. Maybe radiation poisoning explains a few things. Jones *From:* Aussie Guy E-Cat Could be an unknown reaction going on here??? You mean There is an unknown reaction going on here. As for salvaging, there is nothing to salvage. The experiment rules. Game, Set, Match. Should I again mention the observed transmutations? Yea I know, they can't be real as there are no nuclear reactions occurring here, even those that we may not understand. So what is it a Philosopher's Stone (ZPE powered per chance?) causing the observed transmutations, if they are not the result of a nuclear reaction, which you claim is not happening? Maybe simpler to admit there are nuclear reactions occurring and you can't explain them using existing knowledge. That said do you accept wide ranging transmutations are occurring in FPE devices, even though you have no idea how they are occurring? AG On 12/30/2011 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: But yes ! we all agree that “experiment rules” and there could be an unknown reaction going on here which also violates conservation of charge, in addition to everything else - and my arguments assume either known reactions or those that have a substantial theoretical basis. BUT … isn’t violating conservation of charge adding yet another miracle to the one or two you are trying to salvage?
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters its stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace Ø Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. How about the detection of gammas by Celani on start-up and shut down? Celani is credible. The gammas admittedly could be faked. Yes Celani is credible, but this is evidence of a startup device and nothing more. He admits as much. I seem to recall the gammas occurred at cool down too. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
