Re: [Vo]:Renzo Mondaini electrolysis video

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Axil Axil wrote: I would like to see that ash that the experimenter is generating placed > inside a cloud chamber to see is any particles are produced. > I agree. That would be interesting to see. Eric

[Vo]:Wendt and Irion

A paper by Widom, Srivastava and Larsen [1] explores an old experiment that was reported in 1922 by Wendt and Irion, in which the two exploded tungsten wires by discharging a capacitor through them and afterwards saw spectral lines for helium show up. In addition to helium, lines for mercury and

Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov replication by Jeff Morriss

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: It appears that Parkhomov's seals began leaking at the peak pressure of > about 5 bar and continued to leak from there on. > Ingredients in the sealing compound itself might be important. There are many unknowns.

[Vo]:Renzo Mondaini electrolysis video

Renzo Mondaini has put together an interesting video that shows some of the things that can happen during electrolysis (courtesy of Peter's blog [1]): http://www.eurvi.com/cold-fusion-reactions-by-renzo-mondaini_a25eaf7dc.html Things do not get interesting until around minute 3:00. Mondaini

Re: [Vo]:Wendt and Irion

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:40 PM, wrote: While theoretically possible, consider that, if you are lucky, 1 in 1 > alphas > would produce a nuclear reaction. 186W is only 28% of W. The amount of > 190Os > produced would be completely swamped by the existing W atoms. The same

Re: [Vo]:Wendt and Irion

I wrote: Consider, then, the following scenario: > > [- +] [- +] [- +] > [- G1 +] [- G2 +] [- G3 +] > [- +] [- +] [- +] > > > Here G1, G2 and G3 refer to grains of tungsten in the wire, and the > electrons flow from left to right. > (In labelling

Re: [Vo]:Wendt and Irion

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 6:40 PM, wrote: I think you need to look for a more direct route that doesn't rely on a > chain of > rare events. > Consider, then, the following scenario: [- +] [- +] [- +] [- G1 +] [- G2 +] [- G3 +] [- +] [-

Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF & the Rossi effect

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Coincidentally, a similar procedure used by Lehigh to test the Thermacore > powder in the early nineties after a successful run. Lehigh was able to see > the signature emission line predicted by Mills at 55 eV instead of

Re: [Vo]:Re: Magnetic moment .vs motion as source of magnetic field

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:51 PM, wrote: If free electrons had a spin magnetic moment, then I would expect this to > also > happen for cyclotron radiation. > > If it does, then I'm obviously wrong about electron intrinsic spin. > It would be interesting to know about whether

Re: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is not to suggest that all experts are always right, but non-experts > are never right, and they cannot be right, even in principle. If they > happen to be right, it is a lucky guess. > This is complete nonsense.

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 3:17 PM, wrote: The implication being that as particles go slower, their De Broglie > wavelength increases, thus so does the distance at which the force reversal > applies. This looks a lot like the increase in cross section for slower > neutrons.

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: *From:* Eric Walker > > > > The nuclear force is very short range. > > > > Ø Here is where I'm inclined to part with conventional wisdom. > [...snip...] > This is arguable no

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

I wrote: About the matter of the Coulomb barrier -- I like your and Dave's argument > that the Coulomb barrier should be expected to work in one direction (and > this would also seem to be implied by the shell theorem). But Krane on > three or so occasions has written things that imply that the

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM, wrote: So I suspect that it's just the naming convention that is confusing you. > In oblong nuclei, there is an angular dependency on the alpha tunneling probability. Alpha particles are more likely to tunnel out of poles of such nuclei

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM, wrote: IOW the barrier does work in two directions (due to the two forces at > work), but > is never named accordingly. So I suspect that it's just the naming > convention > that is confusing you. > When calculating the tunneling probability

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:26 PM, wrote: 1) I'm curious as to how they know that tunneling from the poles is more > likely, > given that they can't actually see what's going on. (Perhaps the anisotropy > shows up in experiments done in a strong magnetic field?) > Yes -- this

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:06 PM, David Roberson wrote: Guys, what would you expect to happen if the identity of individual > nucleons is lost once they enter the nucleus? There is an assumption that the identity is lost, in a sense. Through meson exchange, neutrons are

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:00 PM, wrote: The nuclear force is very short range. Here is where I'm inclined to part with conventional wisdom. Consider that 1 barn is the approximate area of a medium-sized nucleus presented to an oncoming neutron, that nuclei such as 135Xe

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:18 PM, wrote: Note that with alpha fusion some extra energy is available, so I suppose > that in > theory that means you could start a little lower, however that would also > not be > spontaneous fission, but rather triggered fission. > Agreed. The

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

I had in mind atomic mass (i.e., nuclides in the neighborhood of zirconium). I got this tidbit from Wikipedia (second paragraph): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_fission I have now added a reference to this page in the paper. Wikipedia shows "(SF)" in some cases for isotopes in this

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: OTOH, if even one electron was placed in a deep Dirac level, would it > enhance the possibility of electron capture reactions? How would we even > know if happened? Chemically, it would behave like the electron

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

PDF. I am particularly happy with the appendix. Eric On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:07 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > > I guess there are some exceptions. :) >> > > For exothermic 4He +

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 2:33 PM, wrote: In short it should > fuse with almost anything stable, provided that the Coulomb barrier can be > overcome. > Do you have a sense of a lower bound? My impression so far has been that it would be hard to fuse a 4He with anything lighter

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 3:00 PM, wrote: BTW, If "shrunken Helium" should exist (along the same lines as Mills' > shrunken > Hydrogen), then it might provide a simple means of overcoming the Coulomb > barrier. > If there is shrunken hydrogen, it seems likely that there would

Re: Re; [Vo]:Climate And Nuclear Energy

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Chris Zell wrote: I've heard about them as very safe. I understand that Russia is going full > on with breeder reactors - as expensive but endless power. I would not be surprised if the focus on breeder reactors is due to the ability to

Re: [Vo]:Conservation of miracles

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Jones Beene wrote: The end result is that the only workable approach is to completely separate > the two– deuterium-based from protium-based, as being fundamentally > different. And why not? One question I've been mulling over is whether the

Re: [Vo]:Conservation of miracles

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Jones Beene wrote: The dense form of either hydrogen isotope would then catalyze the decay of > an atom like lithium or potassium via a glancing approach to the nucleus, > not close enough for fusion but disruptive. In this case, the decay I

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:07 PM, wrote: I guess there are some exceptions. :) > For exothermic 4He + Pd reactions with 1-3 daughters which also occur in nature, I get a count of 269 reactions. If one removes the limitation on unstable daughters, I get a count of 4556

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: As I remember from his papers, he actually tested in some tunnels to > improve his neutron detection S/N. What he found was that the neutrons > were always undetectable in his system, but the tritium measurement was 10

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

I wrote: Here Tom Claytor says that the ratio of neutrons to tritium is 1e-8, which > seems to imply that the tritium cannot come from the capture of free > neutrons by deuterium. > That should have been "3He," not deuterium. Eric

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

I wrote: I wrote: > > Here Tom Claytor says that the ratio of neutrons to tritium is 1e-8, which >> seems to imply that the tritium cannot come from the capture of free >> neutrons by deuterium. >> > > That should have been "3He," not deuterium. > Sorry -- false, false alarm. That should have

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:39 PM, wrote: For elements heavier than Fe/Ni, alpha capture is endothermic, which implies > that it could only happen if fast alphas are available. > Here is what my script is telling me about that: 4He + 110Pd => gamma + 114Cd + 4108 keV 4He +

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jones Beene wrote: FWIW … At the MIT Colloquium last summer, Claytor indicated he has switched > to Mu metal as giving significantly better results than palladium. Is this for excess heat, or for generating tritium? Eric

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > If the process was neutron capture, where are you proposing that the > neutrons are coming from? > The thought was that if the amount of tritium was on the order of the background count for neutrons, the tritium

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: Where would the 3He be coming from? 3He is only 7e-12 in the atmosphere. > It might be a daughter of another reaction. Because the tritium is in small (but detectable) amounts, not commensurate with heat (I've even

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: This is a clearly refutes the skeptic's position in his argument that the > Coulomb barrier cannot be overcome at low temperature. If that fundamental > argument is wrong, what else do they have wrong? > I like your

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson wrote: Robin, are you aware of any direct correlation between the energy emitted > by a particle and its decay rate? This is a well-established finding. Alpha decays in nature are between 4 and 9 MeV (approx.). The more

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:36 PM, wrote: The emphasis I think should be placed on the word "opposite". IOW one might > expect the result to be "opposite" as well. > True. I suspect it will be hard to get much further insight into the matter at the level of physical

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, wrote: Furthermore a specific arrangement of atoms in a molecule or lattice may > well create an asymmetric field. If what is needed is a field that is not spherical, that is also an interesting idea. Perhaps hydrogen and deuterium

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, wrote: No, I'm saying it does both. When the alpha particle is far away it > enhances it, > but when it get close to a target nucleus it works against it. I'm not > sure what > the net result would be. > If the volume of the surplus negative

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, wrote: No, I'm saying it does both. When the alpha particle is far away it > enhances it, > but when it get close to a target nucleus it works against it. I'm not > sure what > the net result would be. > More to the point, it might be

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 7:09 PM, wrote: > As the particle gets > closer to the target, the screening electrons get fewer, and the effect > eventually reverses, with there being more behind the particle than in > front of > it. > Just so I am clear on what you're arguing --

Re: [Vo]:Dynamic NAE

I wrote: Btw, I found evidence that samarium, rhenium and/or hafnium might have been > present in the fuel used in the Lugano test. Each of these is an alpha > emitter. > I've tried to quantify this a little more. The result can be seen here: https://goo.gl/NiGa7u I'm learning basic

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:47 AM, wrote: Yes, I know, but the presence of more negative charge close to the nucleus > increases the energy of the positively charged alpha particle because, not > only > is it leaving the positively charged nucleus behind, but it now also has >

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:44 PM, wrote: >At any rate, in this case, we > >seem to have an example of a single environmental factor that would > >increase the rate alpha emission and increase the alpha capture cross > >section. > > ...and exactly how would it do the latter?

Re: [Vo]:Blast from the past -

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > SPREAD THIS TECHNOLOGY - IT IS FREE!! > > PRINT THIS BEFORE IT IS DELETED FROM THE NET! > > MY CODE FOR FUTURE IDENTIFICATION IS PANGURBAN > I laughed a lot with this whole email. This part was especially fun. Eric

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:10 PM, wrote: > For alpha emission it is actually a nuclear force barrier, since the > Coulomb > force actually helps in escaping, rather than hindering. > This may be true. But the calculation of the tunneling probability of an alpha particle to

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:44 PM, wrote: In order to overcome the repulsion, they need to strike another nucleus at > high > energy. The need for high energy implies that they must get lucky, and hit > another nucleus before they lose too much energy to ionization. > Even if

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:29 PM, wrote: Note that the Coulomb barrier width is a function of the particle's energy. Not only do we have a simple theoretical argument that the Coulomb barrier width can be lessened by electron screening, precisely as one might imagine it

Re: [Vo]:Dynamic NAE

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Axil Axil wrote: This NAE produces hundreds of thousands of charged particles as it floats > upward out of the cell. This reaction most probably produces alpha > particles as the NAE rises on the vapor currents upward out of the cell. This

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s engineer: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe’

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Mats Lewan wrote: Interview with Rossi’s closest technician and engineer since 2012, Fulvio > Fabiani: > > http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/ > The sentence in the title

Re: [Vo]:Attacking website

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: This is what Kuhn call incommensurability of paradigm, what feyerabend > explains to justify "scientific anarchism". > You might be right about the applicability of Kuhn's idea of incommensurability of paradigm here.

Re: [Vo]:Attacking website

This is what insecure people do. They seek out people they think are vulnerable to some kind of attack in order to make them look bad. Eric On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 7:41 PM, H Ucar wrote: > > Soon after my corresponce has been put on the blog ( >

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:16 AM, David Roberson wrote: Good point. As long as it takes a very tiny amount of precious metal the > cost could be contained. It would be much better to use one of the high > mass elements that is lower cost if you have any choice. > I suspect

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:12 AM, David Roberson wrote: I find it difficult to compare the Papp engine with a Rossi ECAT. They are > very different in structure and behavior. They are definitely different in operation, but I would not be surprised to learn that they work

Re: [Vo]:An experiment by Klimov

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:16 PM, David Roberson wrote: You mention that gamma radiation is thermalized in some common manner. I > still find it difficult to believe that any high energy gammas are > generated during these reactions. How would all of these be captured?

Re: [Vo]:An experiment by Klimov

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Axil Axil wrote: http://newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf > > This experiment by Klimov is a wonderful proof that all the LENR theories > based on hydrogen are invalid. > In order for this to be true, we must assume that Klimov et al. are

Re: [Vo]:Direct electricity production from LENR

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote: This line of thinking also might open up the possibility that might lead to > a optical based chain reaction. > This is an interesting idea. If XUV is triggering LENR in some cases, and the resulting LENR reaction produces

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote: This means that the palladium chloride envelope is the active LENR factor > and not the hydrogen deposited on the electrode. This sounds likely to me, although hydrogen may help out. As Rossi has done on the E-Cat X,

Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: Still want to know what is not logical in the 'electrical universe'. I know > I am in over my paygrade so I am Ok to take a hit or two. Just curious why > the idea has not become more accepted. So let me have it.:) >

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: Rossi has never mentioned palladium use within his reactors Axil. That is > your thought as far as I am aware. > I don't know whether Rossi is now using or has used palladium in the past. But one detail in the Lugano

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:21 PM, David Roberson wrote: The counts for elements of that m value appear quite small when compared to > the other elements. Also, why on earth would anyone use such an expensive > element if a dirt cheap one can substitute? My suspicion is that

Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: I have been hearing about the 'electrical universe' since long time. Hannes > Alfven was a Swedish scientist and an entertaining person and this > 'gravity' is so not intuitive to me. > There's an interesting

Re: [Vo]:Where is the Clarity?

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Honda is introducing its first hydrogen-fueled FCEV in Japan: the Honda > Clarity, which uses an advanced Fuel Cell and stores hydrogen as compressed > gas. It uses hydrogen and air to create electricity, leaving water

Re: [Vo]:Where is the Clarity?

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Almost all commercial hydrogen is derived from the highly efficient “steam > reforming” reaction aka the water-gas shift reaction (WGSR). It is one of > the most efficient reactions in all of petro-chemistry, especially

Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

I wrote: On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:40 AM, wrote: > > yes, but energy = force * distance. If the distance is zero, then so it the >> energy. >> > > The distance is large, as the magnet is accelerated along an arc as the > earth rotates. > Even if this is true, it's probably

Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:40 AM, wrote: yes, but energy = force * distance. If the distance is zero, then so it the > energy. > The distance is large, as the magnet is accelerated along an arc as the earth rotates. Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:31 PM, wrote: It doesn't actually perform any *work* to keep it from happening, it > provides an > opposing *force*. Neither the magnet nor gravity do any work, since there > is no > component of the motion vector that is *parallel* to the force

Re: [Vo]:Re: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

> On Nov 16, 2015, at 5:28, Stephen Cooke wrote: > > With spin at least I suppose the current numbering system has the advantage > of easily distinguishing fermions and Bosons. If we reindexed spin to be only integer multiples, fermions would have odd spin and

Re: [Vo]:How much heat can be derived from nucleon distintegration?

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Jones Beene wrote: In short, it is conceivable to reject the past findings of helium in cold > fusion, for the reasons Krivit has argued. There's yet another possible take on this. There can be a helium surplus and a correlation with

Re: [Vo]:Re: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Bob Cook wrote: The question is whether the fractional charge that is associated with some > quarks actually exists as a separate entity in nature? > Instead of fractional charge, it's possible the "1/3," "2/3," etc., are an artifact of

Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

Hi Bob, On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Eric and Dave-- > > I agree with David’s assessment. > Just to be clear, I don't disagree with Dave. His point is a good one. > In addition, since angular momentum must be conserved, the effective >

Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Bob Cook wrote: This question has to do with coupling gravitational and magnetic fields. > They do not seem to be coupled, although they may be way down deep in the > dimensional scale. > I was thinking of the magnetic field as the

Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 11:07 AM, David Roberson wrote: The reason that the flywheel is slowing down in rotation is due to > frictional loss at the bearing. Also, the stored angular momentum is > slowly dissipating. Here I have in mind a transfer of the kinetic energy of

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: The loss in the current carrying magnet is due to series resistance and if > that resistance is eliminated it would not require any additional power > once the current is set up. > Consider this video:

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 4:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: So, I would expect to see the falling velocity of the magnet to become less > and less as the conductor used for the pipe become less resistive. But, > the geometry is also going to enter into the equation. Let's

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: When you introduce the magnet to the presence of the superconductor, > currents are induced in the superconductor that cause the magnetic field to > exactly cancel at the surface of the superconductor such that there

Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 5:13 PM, David Roberson wrote: Overall, this appears to be an example of a torque being applied to a > flywheel that causes its angular momentum and angular energy to change with > time. I do not see the analogy with the permanent magnet since that

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

Some of this thread has gotten to some of the basics relating to magnetism, which is a bit of a mystery to me. There's the dynamic magnetism that arises through a moving current. And there's the static magnetism that is created through the formation of magnetic domains in a ferromagnetic

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: I consider electrons in orbits as being equivalent to a superconductor > current since the orbits do not collapse with time. No power is radiated > by an electron orbital and hence no work is required to keep it in the

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: The loss in the current carrying magnet is due to series resistance and if > that resistance is eliminated it would not require any additional power > once the current is set up. > I was thinking about that. But let's

Re: [Vo]:Re: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Thanks for making that interesting paper available. I have always assumed > that angular momentum of particles and systems can only change in discrete > small amounts. > This reminds me (somewhat off on a tangent to the

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy hosts information session at U.S. Capital

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: But at the same time in China, India, people will decide to embrace LENR, > invest trillion$, to take supremacy over the West. It's difficult to see into the future beyond having a vague sense of "big change will

Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Optical Tornadoes with specific values for resonance

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Stephen Cooke wrote: I just read this article in Space Daily: > > > http://www.spacedaily.com/m/reports/UMD_discovery_could_enable_portable_particle_accelerators_999.html > I read the following detail with interest: We have

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy hosts information session at U.S. Capital

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote: However, the Ni-H device sounds similar enough to the HotCat that we can > probably expect patent litigation at some point. Given the so-far succesful challenge on the part of Rossi's legal team of one of Piantelli's

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:20 PM, John Berry wrote: Well this has to be testable. > It looks like there are ways to do this at home, including using a home-built scintillation counter or cloud chamber: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnpNb4Plt1Q

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:07 AM, John Berry wrote: It still seems to happen, but yeah you're right, way less energetic. > > But still an explosion: https://youtu.be/vRKK6pliejs?t=43 > You're right. I didn't let it play long enough. But yes, much less energetic. A

Re: [Vo]:Ethan Siegel in Forbes: bashing E-cat, LENr and EmDrive ins a love declaration to theory

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: The usual ranting of Ethan Siegel against anomalies that don't respect > theory. > Ethan Siegel's argument in this instance is essentially an argument from authority -- the authorities are right, so the cold fusion

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

I wrote: Thermite has aluminum in it, so the above reaction for aluminum could > apply. That makes lithium the party crasher. > It did occur to me, however, that lithium does not violently explode in water in the same way that the others do. It just kind of sets on fire and burns. This could

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:01 AM, John Berry wrote: Eric, if that's your theory, it should probably account for all the metals > doing this though. > > Under the right circumstances Aluminium, Iron (or thermite) all the > alkaline metals at the very minimum explode with

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:35 AM, John Berry wrote: I wonder if Rossi style LENR is based on a sub-critical level of this same > effect? > I do not think beta decay could account for much of what was seen in the Lugano test. It could not explain the shift in the ratio

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:24 PM, John Berry wrote: Perhaps because of this breakthrough? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmlAYnFF_s8 > The narrator identifies the explosion that occurs as sodium is dropped in water as being due to a Coulomb explosion. I was

Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: RM forms from many atomic species, not just hydrogen isotopes. This RM is > NOT dense, and even sodium RM particles are detected in the Earth's upper > atmosphere, some 80 km high. > I'm not surprised. I would be

Re: [Vo]:ARPA-E appears to offer funding for cold fusion

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Jones Beene wrote: If this first ARPA grant for LENR is successful, and does lead to anything > important for future energy, however, it will open the flood gates, but > that will be more than a year away from now. I suspect there will have

Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Bob Cook wrote: This item suggests that the fine constant varies with time. It may be that > relativistic conditions and time contraction cause small changes in the > constant effective for any coherent system. > If the fine structure

Re: [Vo]:Would Rydberg Matter in Cosmic Radiation.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Holmlid says that he sees 10 billion kions produced by that condensate. > You've said this in different forms several times. I'm curious where this is stated. Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Would Rydberg Matter in Cosmic Radiation.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Bob Cook wrote: It may also mean that the testing that looked at the Pd-D system and muon > flux did not include the correct magnetic field and resonant conditions > that were present in the P-F testing. If we're talking about Holmlid,

Re: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

I wrote: Unless Holmlid is proposing Rydberg excitation that is fundamentally > different than that seen elsewhere, the orbitals of the electrons are those > of the usual spherical harmonics (e.g., an s- or p-orbitals), but with > large angular momentum, which leads them to be deformed and

Re: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: In Rydberg matter the electron is in a very large circular orbit (and by > circular, I mean that the orbital is planar). > My understanding is that the proposed clusters of varying sizes with sixfold symmetry rotate

Re: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: Only, he was doing it for much smaller molecules and the spectrum is in the > microwave bands ... > Yes -- it makes sense that he's talking about molecules and not monatomic hydrogen. If you had monatomic hydrogen

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >