Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: Yes, data is missing, but there is also ALOT of data available, too. Unfortunately, it is difficult to even agree on what the facts are! Like you mention, it's difficult even to agree on what the facts are. Certainly on this list. The situation creates a breeding ground for endless speculation. Here are some of the questions I've had trying to read the primary source material as well as commentaries on it: - Is the quality of the article or report any good? Sometimes there are potential sources of error in plain view (e.g., the initial heat spike in a gas loading experiment being counted as excess heat, or a long period of endotherm that is ignored). There are rarely error bars, and in some cases little evidence that the author is aware of error bars. - Is the article saying something new? Sometimes a researcher seems to recycle the same material over and over for years. - Has the author's own bias as to what is going on resulted in inadvertent self-censorship on what he or she reports? - Is a review turning a few, ambiguous or inchoate patterns into basic principles too quickly? (E.g., the importance of cracks.) - Has a pet experiment for idiosyncratic reasons been cast as one of fundamental importance? - What is going on with the NiH/NiD systems, anyway? For nickel we basically have Rossi, Piantelli, Mizuno, and, if you like, Thermacore, to look to, and for Rossi we don't have much of substance beyond the Elforsk report. Presumably the nickel people are doing much better than the palladium people right now; at least, this is what we're given to believe, without much to back up this impression. Hopefully Mizuno will help us out here, since I hear he's been seeing some promising things. Concerning the theorizing, both off and on this list: - What does a near-zero K temperature phenomenon have to do with LENR or the price of wheat? - How can you have something as delicate as a molecule both serve as a guide for the strong interaction and keep from breaking apart in a hot metal lattice, while keeping electrons and protons evenly spaced along it? - By what train of careful experimentation was it shown that magnetism has a huge effect on the fusion or fission cross sections in the kinds of contexts we're looking at? - How can one in humility put forward a theory to explain excess heat that simultaneously implies that the last 80 years of physics be wrong? Even Einstein was just tying together some loose ends that were already being discussed by others before he came along. - Why does such-and-such theory seem to ignore about 80 percent of the LENR research that has been done and focus on a possible mechanism involving neutrons? What we need are predictions from these theories, predictions that can be tested. Please make a post on each of the theories and what their predictions are. That would be helpful. A series of summaries is an excellent idea, perhaps sent to this list, perhaps compiled into a book. There could be two sections -- a summary written in such a way that the primary author or authors of the theory could agree with the wording, and a second section that highlights some of the non-tendentious implications of the theory (e.g., things that would make it falsifiable). The second section would pay little heed to the theorist's sensibilities and would just state things as the author of the summaries sees things. But it would also be written in with a certain minimalism and not involve complex and questionable trains of logic of the kind found in earlier efforts to do this type of thing. Rather than presenting claims about physics and chemistry in dogmatic, black and white terms -- this theory cannot be right because if this were happening you would see all kinds of gamma activity -- the second section for a theory being highlighted would say things like, in order to have 4He result from dd fusion, the theory has the burden of showing that there's a way for the energy of the gamma to thermalized somehow. I can think of few people already involved in LENR who have the background knowledge to get the concepts right and offer a rigorous description together with the detachment to describe the various theories in a neutral way. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Kivin-- My grasp is based on intuition--not existing theory. I happen to agree with Don Hodson’s concern about basic physics teachings that do not account for the energy associated with spin in the mass of the proton and other particles. Spin energy has always been neglected in my opinion in nuclear energy calculations. I think there is a lot of data that show spin energy is quantized and associated with angular momentum, and maybe linear momentum as well--I do not know. Plank’s constant connects spin angular momentum with linear momentum of a particle via the particles wave function frequency. Most people assume that momentum and kinetic energy are connected, even at relativistic conditions. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Kevin O'Malley Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:09 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob: I think you have a good grasp on what in the end will have been considered important to look at. Please see my comments embedded in your email as 3 asterisks***. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Axil, you are getting warm--changing spin energy--angular momentum--into EM and then heat energy is the key. ***This is a great concept to pursue. If the Nuclear Reaction of LENR turns out to be harnessing spin energy changes, then everyone wins. It wasn't fusion, so the hot-fusion boys save face. But it was nuclear, so ponsfleischmann were right after all. As we have discussed before, Cooper pairing is key to the reaction of changing spin energy to heat. ***I have been avoiding coming up to speed on Cooper pairing because I do not understand it. But you have changed my resolve. Bob Chemical effects to modify the spin of hydrogen is a doorway through which the LENR reaction must pass before the LENR reaction can occur. Hydrogen is NMR active, its nuclear spin is non zero. A chemical reaction must occur before hydrogen can undergo fusion. The spin of hydrogen must be reduced to 0. The transformation of hydrogen into Rydberg matter is how the spin of hydrogen is made 0. ***So, right here it would appear that you finally stepped off the curb and said something quite controversial. This is accomplished by the production of a hydrogen plasma and its subsequent cooling. ***I have been noticing some of this in the literature. For instance, it is possible that the first set of reactions of NiH are actually ENDOthermic, cooling things down, and possibly encouraging the formation of Luttinger Liquid 1Dimensional BECs. You state plainly that a plasma is present. Plasma physics change EVERYTHING. They are so complicated that basically no one understands it. I have never met a single person who can understand a flame to me, let alone the special case of a plasma flame. Now, another thing about cooling. Right here on Vortex, Ed Storms did not realize that KP Sinha was using lasers to COOL the environment rather than heat it up. Sinha was using laser cooling in a similar fashion as Dr. Hu, who was Obama's Science Advisor for several years after getting his Nobel Prize for creating the first BEC with laser cooling. It all sorta comes together once you put on the endothermic laser cooling glasses. A one dimensional crystal structure of hydrogen dust ***ONE dimensional! Crystal structure! Hydrogen! Sounds like my V1DLLBEC theory! will form in which the nuclear spin of hydrogen is reduced to zero through cooper pairing. ***Damn you, you're gonna make me come up to speed on Cooper pairing. It is cooper paired hydrogen that can be a reaction component in the LENR reaction. The LENR reaction will always accompany hydrogen plasma formation either through heat or arc discharge. ***Here's another blinking red light: Arc Discharge. What do you think of my associated theory? Posted elsewhere What do you think of my theory? To: *All; y'all; et al* Here’s my theory. On either side of a crack in the substrate material, you’ve got electrons moving at different speeds, creating a microscopically small differential capacitor. The vibrations push the differential charge “upward”, which is to say from the smallest separation of the crack to the largest. When the charge differential gets to a certain point, a spark is generated. This spark is what creates the Nuclear Active Environment. But it is not due to plasma physics, it is due to a force generated by a spark that goes across the anode cathode of a capacitor. In the below Quantum Potential article, a propulsive force was found that matches these conditions (except that we’re seeing it on a microscopic level). Asymmetric Capacitor Thruster http://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf An earlier SBIR study commissioned by the Air Force reported a propulsive force caused by a spark between ACT electrodes [3]. The
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
What does a near-zero K temperature phenomenon have to do with LENR or the price of wheat? You are talking about a BEC of Rydberg atoms. That BEC is very heavy and can only happen at low temperatures. A BEC of Zero mass or near zero mass bosons can exist at vey high temperatures. So your inbreed assumptions are not correct. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Kivin-- My grasp is based on intuition--not existing theory. I happen to agree with Don Hodson’s concern about basic physics teachings that do not account for the energy associated with spin in the mass of the proton and other particles. Spin energy has always been neglected in my opinion in nuclear energy calculations. I think there is a lot of data that show spin energy is quantized and associated with angular momentum, and maybe linear momentum as well--I do not know. Plank’s constant connects spin angular momentum with linear momentum of a particle via the particles wave function frequency. Most people assume that momentum and kinetic energy are connected, even at relativistic conditions. Bob Sent from Windows Mail *From:* Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com *Sent:* Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:09 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob: I think you have a good grasp on what in the end will have been considered important to look at. Please see my comments embedded in your email as 3 asterisks***. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Axil, you are getting warm--changing spin energy--angular momentum--into EM and then heat energy is the key. ***This is a great concept to pursue. If the Nuclear Reaction of LENR turns out to be harnessing spin energy changes, then everyone wins. It wasn't fusion, so the hot-fusion boys save face. But it was nuclear, so ponsfleischmann were right after all. As we have discussed before, Cooper pairing is key to the reaction of changing spin energy to heat. ***I have been avoiding coming up to speed on Cooper pairing because I do not understand it. But you have changed my resolve. Bob Chemical effects to modify the spin of hydrogen is a doorway through which the LENR reaction must pass before the LENR reaction can occur. Hydrogen is NMR active, its nuclear spin is non zero. A chemical reaction must occur before hydrogen can undergo fusion. The spin of hydrogen must be reduced to 0. The transformation of hydrogen into Rydberg matter is how the spin of hydrogen is made 0. ***So, right here it would appear that you finally stepped off the curb and said something quite controversial. This is accomplished by the production of a hydrogen plasma and its subsequent cooling. ***I have been noticing some of this in the literature. For instance, it is possible that the first set of reactions of NiH are actually ENDOthermic, cooling things down, and possibly encouraging the formation of Luttinger Liquid 1Dimensional BECs. You state plainly that a plasma is present. Plasma physics change EVERYTHING. They are so complicated that basically no one understands it. I have never met a single person who can understand a flame to me, let alone the special case of a plasma flame. Now, another thing about cooling. Right here on Vortex, Ed Storms did not realize that KP Sinha was using lasers to COOL the environment rather than heat it up. Sinha was using laser cooling in a similar fashion as Dr. Hu, who was Obama's Science Advisor for several years after getting his Nobel Prize for creating the first BEC with laser cooling. It all sorta comes together once you put on the endothermic laser cooling glasses. A one dimensional crystal structure of hydrogen dust ***ONE dimensional! Crystal structure! Hydrogen! Sounds like my V1DLLBEC theory! will form in which the nuclear spin of hydrogen is reduced to zero through cooper pairing. ***Damn you, you're gonna make me come up to speed on Cooper pairing. It is cooper paired hydrogen that can be a reaction component in the LENR reaction. The LENR reaction will always accompany hydrogen plasma formation either through heat or arc discharge. ***Here's another blinking red light: Arc Discharge. What do you think of my associated theory? Posted elsewhere What do you think of my theory? To: *All; y'all; et al* Here’s my theory. On either side of a crack in the substrate material, you’ve got electrons moving at different speeds, creating a microscopically small differential capacitor. The vibrations push the differential charge “upward”, which is to say from the smallest separation of the crack to the largest. When the charge differential gets to a certain point, a spark is generated. This spark is what creates the Nuclear Active Environment. But it is not due to plasma physics, it is due to a force generated by a spark that goes across the anode cathode of a
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What does a near-zero K temperature phenomenon have to do with LENR or the price of wheat? You are talking about a BEC of Rydberg atoms. That BEC is very heavy and can only happen at low temperatures. A BEC of Zero mass or near zero mass bosons can exist at vey high temperatures. So your inbreed assumptions are not correct. Although I'm skeptical about the BEC stuff, I'm not saying you're incorrect on this one. I do think you have the burden of showing that such a zero-mass or near-zero-mass BEC exists and is relevant to LENR. In order to be convincing, I think you would need to come up with a simple, cost-effective experiment that we can all agree is falsifiable and that will establish your claim. It would not be enough to point to promising articles on phys.org, as the starting points of such research are usually too far removed from the kinds of systems we're interested in. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
By what train of careful experimentation was it shown that magnetism has a huge effect on the fusion or fission cross sections in the kinds of contexts we're looking at? ICF via lasers want to get to 6*10^23 electrons per cm-3 to achieve Hot fusion. See: https://news.slac.stanford.edu/announcement/siegfried-glenzer-exploring-physical-properties-matter-extreme-conditions-simes-seminar For example, Glenzer and colleagues have recently compressed aluminum up to a mass density of 7 g/cm3 (approaching three times solid density) with a *free-electron density of ne = 4.7 x 1023 cm-3* and a temperature of 35,000K. Electron density is a key parameter for fusion. Cold Fusion needs to get to that number too. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: Yes, data is missing, but there is also ALOT of data available, too. Unfortunately, it is difficult to even agree on what the facts are! Like you mention, it's difficult even to agree on what the facts are. Certainly on this list. The situation creates a breeding ground for endless speculation. Here are some of the questions I've had trying to read the primary source material as well as commentaries on it: - Is the quality of the article or report any good? Sometimes there are potential sources of error in plain view (e.g., the initial heat spike in a gas loading experiment being counted as excess heat, or a long period of endotherm that is ignored). There are rarely error bars, and in some cases little evidence that the author is aware of error bars. - Is the article saying something new? Sometimes a researcher seems to recycle the same material over and over for years. - Has the author's own bias as to what is going on resulted in inadvertent self-censorship on what he or she reports? - Is a review turning a few, ambiguous or inchoate patterns into basic principles too quickly? (E.g., the importance of cracks.) - Has a pet experiment for idiosyncratic reasons been cast as one of fundamental importance? - What is going on with the NiH/NiD systems, anyway? For nickel we basically have Rossi, Piantelli, Mizuno, and, if you like, Thermacore, to look to, and for Rossi we don't have much of substance beyond the Elforsk report. Presumably the nickel people are doing much better than the palladium people right now; at least, this is what we're given to believe, without much to back up this impression. Hopefully Mizuno will help us out here, since I hear he's been seeing some promising things. Concerning the theorizing, both off and on this list: - What does a near-zero K temperature phenomenon have to do with LENR or the price of wheat? - How can you have something as delicate as a molecule both serve as a guide for the strong interaction and keep from breaking apart in a hot metal lattice, while keeping electrons and protons evenly spaced along it? - By what train of careful experimentation was it shown that magnetism has a huge effect on the fusion or fission cross sections in the kinds of contexts we're looking at? - How can one in humility put forward a theory to explain excess heat that simultaneously implies that the last 80 years of physics be wrong? Even Einstein was just tying together some loose ends that were already being discussed by others before he came along. - Why does such-and-such theory seem to ignore about 80 percent of the LENR research that has been done and focus on a possible mechanism involving neutrons? What we need are predictions from these theories, predictions that can be tested. Please make a post on each of the theories and what their predictions are. That would be helpful. A series of summaries is an excellent idea, perhaps sent to this list, perhaps compiled into a book. There could be two sections -- a summary written in such a way that the primary author or authors of the theory could agree with the wording, and a second section that highlights some of the non-tendentious implications of the theory (e.g., things that would make it falsifiable). The second section would pay little heed to the theorist's sensibilities and would just state things as the author of the summaries sees things. But it would also be written in with a certain minimalism and not involve complex and questionable trains of logic of the kind found in earlier efforts to do this type of thing. Rather than presenting claims about physics and chemistry in dogmatic, black and white terms -- this theory cannot be right because if this were happening you would see all kinds of gamma activity -- the second section for a theory being highlighted would say things like, in order to have 4He result from dd fusion, the theory has the burden of showing that there's a way for the energy of the
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Such an experiment is not easily done. A fellow got a Nobel prize for that type of experiment not too long ago. If you want me to build a polariton laser, that is over my head. Since you don't want to read about it, we might need to wait for Rossi's big reveal. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What does a near-zero K temperature phenomenon have to do with LENR or the price of wheat? You are talking about a BEC of Rydberg atoms. That BEC is very heavy and can only happen at low temperatures. A BEC of Zero mass or near zero mass bosons can exist at vey high temperatures. So your inbreed assumptions are not correct. Although I'm skeptical about the BEC stuff, I'm not saying you're incorrect on this one. I do think you have the burden of showing that such a zero-mass or near-zero-mass BEC exists and is relevant to LENR. In order to be convincing, I think you would need to come up with a simple, cost-effective experiment that we can all agree is falsifiable and that will establish your claim. It would not be enough to point to promising articles on phys.org, as the starting points of such research are usually too far removed from the kinds of systems we're interested in. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Jones and Bob-- I like this line of thought. I think the current Mills theory and data indicate that a shrunken hydrogen molecule can also form. However, I would think it would be likely advance to a Cooper pair and a Boson as a result. This would make fusion possible. Shrunken H and D however would not form a Cooper pair. It may take 2 H and 2 D to get together in a Boson configuration (integral spin). The reaction may occur in small energy steps associated with the energy of spin quanta, and do away with the large gammas associated with strong force nuclear energy changes. Does anyone know what Kim has to say about the formation of BEC’s with respect to normal temperatures associated with LENR. I thinks he considers that more than one particle type can form BEC’s. Thus Cooper pairs of H and D could condense to a duplex BEC (maybe even adding Axil’s solitons) with overlapping wave functions and resulting in fusion (or fission) as the case may be on occasion. Who knows the statistics for the various fusion options in such a mix. The concept would be one super atom changing into various smaller ones--a fission of a BEC. I assume the balancing of the quarks and gluons making up the super atom BEC would be a necessary consideration. However a new separate particle with 1/2 integer spin could destroy the BEC and the conditions to allow additional reactions. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, Good point, and we did discuss some of this before. However, there are two differences which could be important. Not sure if they came up earlier. Deuterium is a nuclear boson. We do not need to invoke BEC at all for tunneling of one nuclear boson into another nuclear boson. Therefore the BEC state at elevated temps is NOT relevant for tunneling of bosons, we do not need it. That is a big plus. However, the BEC could be important for the other complex theories which try to avoid the 24 MeV gamma by suggesting that 4 deuterons fuse to 2 alphas (Takahashi). Anyway, let’s move on to protium. The highly shrunken neutral hydrogen atom would be a composite boson, which is not exactly a nuclear boson - in the sense that two half spins would including the electron make the species bosonic. However, for nuclear tunneling of one proton into another proton where we need the bosonic statistics at the nuclear level – Pauli exclusion would still apply, and thus tunneling is forbidden. However, it is an open question whether two DDL can form a BEC and do an end-run to avoid Pauli that way. Personally, I doubt that it can happen at high temperature. The second problem is that dropping all the way from ground state to DDL does not really release all that much energy, in advance. There is still MeV levels to dispose of after the fusion. So the mitigation of the gamma is not really accomplished by the Mills method. For those reasons, it seems to me that fusion can be justified as an explanation for bosons (deuterons); but as to whether the DDL, as a composite boson, would still qualify for nuclear tunneling, that is doubtful – and anyway, Ed has already invoked P-e-P - which is incompatible with the near field of the DDL. From: Bob Higgins Jones, You are positing that Ni-H fusion must be something completely different than a Pd-D fusion due to the fact that a hydrogen nucleus (proton) is a fermion and a deuterium nucleus (proton + neutron) is a boson. Integer spin particles, Bosons, are not subject to the Pauli exclusion principle and have a far easier time fusing in condensed matter, at high probability due to tunneling - especially since they have inherent coulomb screening from the neutron. Deuterons are Bosons. And even if Ed does not like tunneling, it is the only reason that his theory has a leg to stand on. LENR in the hydroton scenario is possible with Bosons and impossible with Fermions. It is as simple as that. That could be at least partly true and I would like to ask for some discussion. Isn't a neutral hydrogen atom (proton + electron) a boson? We have discussed on Vortex the concept that the energy from the hydrogen isotope must be released before fusion can occur (Ed's proposal). This is necessary to prevent (in advance) the high energy photon released after the LENR fusion occurs. If we do not reject summarily the Mills concept of inverse Rydberg states for the hydrogen atom (even if it turns out he doesn't have it quite right), then the advance energy being taken out of the atoms to be fused could be taken out by successive reduction in orbital size during the resonance process, with corresponding emitted lower energy photons. The result of resonance could be highly shrunken neutral hydrogen atoms which are still bosons. Ejected shrunken hydrogen would likely pass
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\
Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo. It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question: What is the essential difference between the classic LENR with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level? My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continous generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of the LENR+ progress. The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the metal, changes. I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please: http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858 Axil describes a part of the details- the coming LENR_ events will reveal a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites- with details that can help us to go from principles to theories. Peter On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: In all this talk about the NAE being a Nanowire, a nanotip, a nanoantenna, a nanomesh, a nanospike, a nano coating on a nano particle, a nano-this and a nano-that; people seems to be forgeting the fact that whatever nano structure the NAE is, it will not survive the temperatures we've seen being demonstrated; especially with Rossi's hotcat. Is it not obvious to anyone that whatever whatever the NAE is, it couldn't possibly be a nanostructure of Nickel. Nickel will be a homogenous blob of partly molten metal at the temperatures we are talking about. And it is known, that it will sinter and reshape itself even at temperatures significantly below its melting temp. In other words, GOODBYE NAE. At best, it is a one-use NAE. An NAE that is a nanostructure Nickel appears to be highly unlikely and improbable. That is why, I'm with Ed on this. People come up with theories that conveniently ignore the chemical environment. In this case, the physical melting or sintering point of Nickel. Axil's theory while sounding erudite and well-researched, has a big hole in the middle of it. Big enough to drive a Mack truck thru. Unless Axil can explain how his Nano antenna NAE can survive the temps, It is my opinion that his theory is dead. I broke my self-imposed exile just to say this. It seems that there are many theories being bandied around that simply breaks very important principles. Whatever you think of Ed's book, he makes a very important point, we should not simply ignore the chemical environment, or physical properties of metals, or thermodynamic principles, etc if they do not fit our theories. Jojo -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\
Peter, thank you for the kind words. Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction? Your NAE is dynamically created? Do you propose nano structures also for your NAE? If you are, you also have to explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps or be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels of heat. Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels. Jojo - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: VORTEX Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo. It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question: What is the essential difference between the classic LENR with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level? My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continous generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of the LENR+ progress. The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the metal, changes. I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please: http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858 Axil describes a part of the details- the coming LENR_ events will reveal a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites- with details that can help us to go from principles to theories. Peter On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: In all this talk about the NAE being a Nanowire, a nanotip, a nanoantenna, a nanomesh, a nanospike, a nano coating on a nano particle, a nano-this and a nano-that; people seems to be forgeting the fact that whatever nano structure the NAE is, it will not survive the temperatures we've seen being demonstrated; especially with Rossi's hotcat. Is it not obvious to anyone that whatever whatever the NAE is, it couldn't possibly be a nanostructure of Nickel. Nickel will be a homogenous blob of partly molten metal at the temperatures we are talking about. And it is known, that it will sinter and reshape itself even at temperatures significantly below its melting temp. In other words, GOODBYE NAE. At best, it is a one-use NAE. An NAE that is a nanostructure Nickel appears to be highly unlikely and improbable. That is why, I'm with Ed on this. People come up with theories that conveniently ignore the chemical environment. In this case, the physical melting or sintering point of Nickel. Axil's theory while sounding erudite and well-researched, has a big hole in the middle of it. Big enough to drive a Mack truck thru. Unless Axil can explain how his Nano antenna NAE can survive the temps, It is my opinion that his theory is dead. I broke my self-imposed exile just to say this. It seems that there are many theories being bandied around that simply breaks very important principles. Whatever you think of Ed's book, he makes a very important point, we should not simply ignore the chemical environment, or physical properties of metals, or thermodynamic principles, etc if they do not fit our theories. Jojo -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\
The simplest answer to these question is YES. A bit longer one; - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of cracks can be ACTIVE - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion) - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity of the active sites- it is a captivating story Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete scenario. peter . On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, thank you for the kind words. Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction? Your NAE is dynamically created? Do you propose nano structures also for your NAE? If you are, you also have to explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps or be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels of heat. Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *To:* VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo. It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question: What is the essential difference between the classic LENR with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level? My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continous generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of the LENR+ progress. The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the metal, changes. I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please: http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858 Axil describes a part of the details- the coming LENR_ events will reveal a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites- with details that can help us to go from principles to theories. Peter On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: In all this talk about the NAE being a Nanowire, a nanotip, a nanoantenna, a nanomesh, a nanospike, a nano coating on a nano particle, a nano-this and a nano-that; people seems to be forgeting the fact that whatever nano structure the NAE is, it will not survive the temperatures we've seen being demonstrated; especially with Rossi's hotcat. Is it not obvious to anyone that whatever whatever the NAE is, it couldn't possibly be a nanostructure of Nickel. Nickel will be a homogenous blob of partly molten metal at the temperatures we are talking about. And it is known, that it will sinter and reshape itself even at temperatures significantly below its melting temp. In other words, GOODBYE NAE. At best, it is a one-use NAE. An NAE that is a nanostructure Nickel appears to be highly unlikely and improbable. That is why, I'm with Ed on this. People come up with theories that conveniently ignore the chemical environment. In this case, the physical melting or sintering point of Nickel. Axil's theory while sounding erudite and well-researched, has a big hole in the middle of it. Big enough to drive a Mack truck thru. Unless Axil can explain how his Nano antenna NAE can survive the temps, It is my opinion that his theory is dead. I broke my self-imposed exile just to say this. It seems that there are many theories being bandied around that simply breaks very important principles. Whatever you think of Ed's book, he makes a very important point, we should not simply ignore the chemical environment, or physical properties of metals, or thermodynamic
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Bob, This line of thought also brings back Lyne atomic oven and MAHG theory of operation where a shrunken molecules forms between the shrunken atoms… what happens to this molecular bond when the “shrinkage” factor changes.. if the disassociation threshold is reduced you have yet another route to excess energy. If Naudts is correct about these shrunken forms being relativistic then the basic principle would be similar to an elatic tether between 2 near C space craft traveling through areas where there are sudden shifts in gravity except we don’t need rocket fuel or deep gravity wells. IMHO Casimir confinement provides dynamic gravity HILLS / warps at the nano level which provide equivalent acceleration while at a smaller more local scale the atoms are still slaves to HUP for random gas motion between different regions / geometry [DCE]. I also believe this is the mechanism behind the shrunken / inverted Rydberg formation and that locally the hydrogen atoms are unaware of their shrunken state- it is a product of the longer vacuum wavelengths attempting to fit between the Casimir boundaries making the observation relativistic in the same fashion as the near C paradox twin would see the earth as greatly accelerated and shrunken from his perspective. Fran From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:49 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Jones and Bob-- I like this line of thought. I think the current Mills theory and data indicate that a shrunken hydrogen molecule can also form. However, I would think it would be likely advance to a Cooper pair and a Boson as a result. This would make fusion possible. Shrunken H and D however would not form a Cooper pair. It may take 2 H and 2 D to get together in a Boson configuration (integral spin). The reaction may occur in small energy steps associated with the energy of spin quanta, and do away with the large gammas associated with strong force nuclear energy changes. Does anyone know what Kim has to say about the formation of BEC’s with respect to normal temperatures associated with LENR. I thinks he considers that more than one particle type can form BEC’s. Thus Cooper pairs of H and D could condense to a duplex BEC (maybe even adding Axil’s solitons) with overlapping wave functions and resulting in fusion (or fission) as the case may be on occasion. Who knows the statistics for the various fusion options in such a mix. The concept would be one super atom changing into various smaller ones--a fission of a BEC. I assume the balancing of the quarks and gluons making up the super atom BEC would be a necessary consideration. However a new separate particle with 1/2 integer spin could destroy the BEC and the conditions to allow additional reactions. Bob Cook From: Jones Beenemailto:jone...@pacbell.net Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, Good point, and we did discuss some of this before. However, there are two differences which could be important. Not sure if they came up earlier. Deuterium is a nuclear boson. We do not need to invoke BEC at all for tunneling of one nuclear boson into another nuclear boson. Therefore the BEC state at elevated temps is NOT relevant for tunneling of bosons, we do not need it. That is a big plus. However, the BEC could be important for the other complex theories which try to avoid the 24 MeV gamma by suggesting that 4 deuterons fuse to 2 alphas (Takahashi). Anyway, let’s move on to protium. The highly shrunken neutral hydrogen atom would be a composite boson, which is not exactly a nuclear boson - in the sense that two half spins would including the electron make the species bosonic. However, for nuclear tunneling of one proton into another proton where we need the bosonic statistics at the nuclear level – Pauli exclusion would still apply, and thus tunneling is forbidden. However, it is an open question whether two DDL can form a BEC and do an end-run to avoid Pauli that way. Personally, I doubt that it can happen at high temperature. The second problem is that dropping all the way from ground state to DDL does not really release all that much energy, in advance. There is still MeV levels to dispose of after the fusion. So the mitigation of the gamma is not really accomplished by the Mills method. For those reasons, it seems to me that fusion can be justified as an explanation for bosons (deuterons); but as to whether the DDL, as a composite boson, would still qualify for nuclear tunneling, that is doubtful – and anyway, Ed has already invoked P-e-P - which is incompatible with the near field of the DDL. From: Bob Higgins Jones, You are positing that Ni-H fusion must be something completely different than a Pd-D fusion due
RE: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
From: Bob Cook Jones and Bob-- I like this line of thought. I think the current Mills theory and data indicate that a shrunken hydrogen molecule can also form. However, I would think it would be likely advance to a Cooper pair and a Boson as a result. This would make fusion possible. Shrunken H and D however would not form a Cooper pair. It may take 2 H and 2 D to get together in a Boson configuration (integral spin). The reaction may occur in small energy steps associated with the energy of spin quanta, and do away with the large gammas associated with strong force nuclear energy changes. This seems possible, Bob – and it explains the lack of tritium. I agree that the BEC is a fiction at elevated temperature, and that the Cooper pair solves that problem, but to return to the subject heading, if it happened this way, then it is outside of Ed’s hydroton model of an electron modulated reaction (P-e-P) which requires a heavy “deflated” electron. In fact both the electrons of f/H are locked and cannot participate in fusion. However, if there is found to be an alternative way(s) to harness large amounts of energy (way above chemical energy) then why add another “miracle” into the mix so as to claim the name “fusion”? Cannot another kind of nuclear reaction suffice? As I interpret what you are saying we have to have all of these things happen to get fusion of protium. 1) Hydrogen shrinks below ground state to a redundant ground state called fractional hydrogen (f/H). 2) Two f/H combine into a Cooper pair and the species is very compact 3) The pair migrate into a crack (NAE) Thus far everything looks promising, but then… 4) An extremely rare kind of fusion occurs. Note than on the sun, only one in every 10^20 proton collisions results in fusion, even with the intense heat and pressure, since it requires a spontaneous beta decay at the exact instance of the collision for the two to fuse and conserve spin. 5) The energy release of this fusion is lower than normal, since the f/H has given up mass in order to shrink, thus no gamma is seen. But since significant energy has already been released – why do we need this fusion reaction at all? I’m not saying that it cannot happen that way, and it does look better than P-e-P, but it seems to me that we are invoking extra miracles, merely to retain the name “fusion” when there are other ways to convert mass-to-energy which do not involved fusion. At any rate, if this applies to the Elforsk run of 6 months, then we should find that large amounts of hydrogen converted to deuterium. If that happens, then the puzzle is solved and we can move on. OTOH, if no anomalous deuterium is seen after a long run, which is my prediction, then your favorite suggestion – which you have sold me on – spin coupling of the proton to the electron (as it reduces its orbital) fits the bill perfectly without fusion. Yet, in contrast to Mills, the energy is still nuclear. Since the energy gain is nuclear – coming from reduced mass of the proton, or ultimately from spin coupling to a nickel isotope, there is no gamma from the start. It is all magnetic, in effect. Spin coupling is the key. No need to jump ship for the sake of using the name “fusion”. Why do many observers on this forum have a problem with the likelihood that energy can be extracted from a nucleus without fusion? (when in fact, the nucleus supplying the spin energy could be the nickel atoms or the protons or both, and no permanent change is required for spin coupling.) attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\
One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles. The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites will melt and be destroyed by the high heat. However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and produces a power output of a megawatt. During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate. *By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his collection of experimental results.* On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest answer to these question is YES. A bit longer one; - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of cracks can be ACTIVE - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion) - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity of the active sites- it is a captivating story Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete scenario. peter . On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, thank you for the kind words. Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction? Your NAE is dynamically created? Do you propose nano structures also for your NAE? If you are, you also have to explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps or be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels of heat. Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *To:* VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo. It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question: What is the essential difference between the classic LENR with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level? My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continous generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of the LENR+ progress. The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the metal, changes. I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please: http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858 Axil describes a part of the details- the coming LENR_ events will reveal a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites- with details that can help us to go from principles to theories. Peter On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: In all this talk about the NAE being a Nanowire, a nanotip, a nanoantenna, a nanomesh, a nanospike, a nano coating on a nano particle, a nano-this and a nano-that; people seems to be forgeting the fact that whatever nano structure the NAE is,
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\
Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of plasma in the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self destruction would bring the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does point to the continued run away reaction even after the geometry has melted. Like they say it gets worse before it gets better :_) Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles. The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites will melt and be destroyed by the high heat. However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and produces a power output of a megawatt. During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate. By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his collection of experimental results. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.commailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest answer to these question is YES. A bit longer one; - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of cracks can be ACTIVE - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion) - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity of the active sites- it is a captivating story Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete scenario. peter . On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.commailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, thank you for the kind words. Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction? Your NAE is dynamically created? Do you propose nano structures also for your NAE? If you are, you also have to explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps or be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels of heat. Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels. Jojo - Original Message - From: Peter Gluckmailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com To: VORTEXmailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo. It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question: What is the essential difference between the classic LENR with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level? My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continous generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of the LENR+ progress. The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the metal, changes. I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please:
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\
More... The nanowire sites are fixed and permanent and the nanoparticle sites are dynamic an possibly destroyed after the reaction but not necessarily(to be determined). On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles. The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites will melt and be destroyed by the high heat. However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and produces a power output of a megawatt. During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate. *By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his collection of experimental results.* On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest answer to these question is YES. A bit longer one; - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of cracks can be ACTIVE - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion) - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity of the active sites- it is a captivating story Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete scenario. peter . On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, thank you for the kind words. Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction? Your NAE is dynamically created? Do you propose nano structures also for your NAE? If you are, you also have to explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps or be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels of heat. Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *To:* VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo. It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question: What is the essential difference between the classic LENR with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level? My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continous generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of the LENR+ progress. The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the metal, changes. I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please: http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858 Axil describes a part of the details- the coming LENR_ events will reveal a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites- with details that can help us to go from principles to theories. Peter On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Jojo Iznart
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Jones and Bob, Jones, you said that: I agree that the BEC is a fiction at elevated temperature, I don't think Yeong Kim proposes a classical cold temperature BEC as the source of his fusion. He told me that the condensates he has postulated form in magnetic traps in the material. So, at elevated temperature, the atoms are coupled by the magnetic field that is trapping them. I cannot say that I understand the rigor of the trap that he proposes, or what it would take to make such a trap. However, I believe Rossi's nano-catalyst is nano-metric iron alloyed into the Ni particles. Such alloys can have extremely high permeability and in nanoscale Ni-Fe spots, who knows what kind of magnetic (trapping) properties could be found. I am not willing to rule out such magnetically trapped condensates as a possibility. Also, I am not sure the DDL H (H#) combining to D is that far off in energy. Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511 keV less than H in normal ground state. The mass energy difference between 2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV (if I calculated correctly). Now suppose we had this scenario: 1) H2 molecule within a resonant coupled string, coupling energy out of the H2 by evanescent coupling (perhaps within a crack) 2) Each of the atoms decrease in energy simultaneously and fractionally until reaching the DDL in each atom while still a molecule 3) The actual energy of each of the H atoms would have decreased by more than 2 x (511 keV) because of the Gibbs energy loss in the formation of the H#2 molecule. In fact, when the H atoms are in the DDL state, the Gibbs energy forming the H#2 molecule may be very large (guess 100 keV). So, now the H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the ground state D. Also, the H# is regarded as 50x smaller than a muonic H atom - and more much more likely to enter another nucleus. 4) Suppose now that the H#2 fuses to D. There would be 538 keV for the nucleus to release. However, remember that the electron is in tight DDL orbit and it will take 511 keV to get that electron back to the ground state. So, if the H#2 fuses and transfers its energy to the electron, most of it will go into getting the electron back to the ground state, and then the left over would be a high kinetic energy electron (22 keV in this example) that did NOT come from the nucleus, but as ionization energy of the left over electron after the fusion. 5) When this electron is captured it gives up its 22 keV of energy along with some minor Bremsstrahlung low energy x-rays. However, the total energy given off before fusion and after will be the 1.66 MeV with much of that going into the formation of the H#2 and only a little given off when the fusion occurs. 6) Sometimes a single H# or an H#2 gets ejected and becomes the strange radiation capable of activating materials external to the test apparatus that has been reported by Storms. As you say, if deuterium enrichment is found in analysis of Rossi's 6-month test (don't know if they will be allowed to test for this), then it would be a very insightful report. I could easily have bungled this proposition. Please set me straight. Bob Higgins
[Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Steven reported that massive amounts of info from the BLP demo is now online. I wish it was better organized. The most hyped up doc is here : http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons tration-Abbreviated.pdf I have not found time to wade through all of this yet, at least not with any confidence, but here are first impressions of what seems to be going on. These could be inaccurate. 1) There is good evidence of Pout exceeding Pin by a significant margin 2) COP of 5 has been mentioned as the net gain from photocell conversion 3) COP of 100-200 is claimed as the reaction gain, less catalyst rejuvenation and loses 4) Titanium seems to be the preferred catalyst (but knowing Mills he has a better one under wraps) 5) He says but does not prove that the catalyst can be rejuvenated in line with the reaction. This is the key. Anyone can burn Ti for gain, it is a great fuel. 6) In short, everything hinges on rejuvenation of the catalyst, which is still under wraps, or else I missed it. 7) Even if the gain is substantial, this is basically oxidation (combustion) of a catalyst, but with gain over and above the chemical gain. Even a gain of 200:1 does not insure commercialization! (except for Military uses) To be explained. 8) Ferro-titanium is not expensive, but nano-titanium powder is. The difference is 5000:1 since ingots go for $5 pound but pure powder costs much more. 9) Titanium is expensive to rejuvenate (reduce), but there is probably a secret catalyst which is easier and which is a trade secret. There is no doubt it is oxidized in the 10) Bottom line - this technology could be great - or a bust for the general public, depending on the cost of catalyst rejuvenation. I am not impressed with the level of openness here. 11) If the best catalyst is nano-titanium, then this stage show is basically a delusion for the alternative energy crowd - economically . This turned up on one of the forums. Past public claims by Mills/BLP: 1999: Will commercialize a hydrino power generator within a year. 1000 W, within 4 months. 2005: Only months away from commercialization. 2008: 5 W, within 12 to 18 months. 2009: Commercialization within 1 year to 18 months. 2012: 100 W by the end of 2012, 1500 W 2013 2014: 10 W in 16 to 18 weeks. If history is an indicator, this was little more than a horse-and-pony show put on to raise capital but done so that investors would not notice how contrived the whole thing is. However, there could be significant military aerospace uses which will carry the project. This is not an answer to the energy crisis as it stands now. The most interest should come from NASA and the Pentagon. I could see this as a fabulous solid fuel rocket engine. I hope all of those investors can stand a loss, because this technology is most likely not ready for prime time in the commercial arena, and there could be allegations of actual fraud this time around, if Mills does not have a commercial device in 2015. If his ace-in-the-hole is the Pentagon, then he will dodge a bullet by that tactic. IMO - there is no chance of a commercial device in 2015 for the general public or for Grid usage, if nano-titanium is required. This is not what we have been looking for as an affordable alternative to fossil fuel. Yet in the end - power could cost 10 times more than fossil fuel - and yet it would be great for weaponry. Admitting that from the start, however, does not bring enough investors to the table. attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:the fly in the ointment
Ed Storms just gives us one out of a potential million LENR reaction results that have been seen in LENR experimentation. Ed never wanted to consider transmutation as a valid consequence of the LENR reaction. By embracing transmutation, Ed would need to explain countless variations and permutations of the way protons and neutrons could come together as a result of a LENR reaction. The Mizuno results showing an endothermic reaction is not possible in Ed Storms theory. The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and neutrons coming back together. This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. But the Mizuno results still must be explained by a global theory of LENR.
RE: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Bob, I agree with most of what you say. The devil is in the details and we are short on details. My great hope is that we will get the data we need from the Swedes this time around. Jones From: Bob Higgins Jones and Bob, Jones, you said that: I agree that the BEC is a fiction at elevated temperature, I don't think Yeong Kim proposes a classical cold temperature BEC as the source of his fusion. He told me that the condensates he has postulated form in magnetic traps in the material. So, at elevated temperature, the atoms are coupled by the magnetic field that is trapping them. I cannot say that I understand the rigor of the trap that he proposes, or what it would take to make such a trap. However, I believe Rossi's nano-catalyst is nano-metric iron alloyed into the Ni particles. Such alloys can have extremely high permeability and in nanoscale Ni-Fe spots, who knows what kind of magnetic (trapping) properties could be found. I am not willing to rule out such magnetically trapped condensates as a possibility. Also, I am not sure the DDL H (H#) combining to D is that far off in energy. Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511 keV less than H in normal ground state. The mass energy difference between 2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV (if I calculated correctly). Now suppose we had this scenario: 1) H2 molecule within a resonant coupled string, coupling energy out of the H2 by evanescent coupling (perhaps within a crack) 2) Each of the atoms decrease in energy simultaneously and fractionally until reaching the DDL in each atom while still a molecule 3) The actual energy of each of the H atoms would have decreased by more than 2 x (511 keV) because of the Gibbs energy loss in the formation of the H#2 molecule. In fact, when the H atoms are in the DDL state, the Gibbs energy forming the H#2 molecule may be very large (guess 100 keV). So, now the H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the ground state D. Also, the H# is regarded as 50x smaller than a muonic H atom - and more much more likely to enter another nucleus. 4) Suppose now that the H#2 fuses to D. There would be 538 keV for the nucleus to release. However, remember that the electron is in tight DDL orbit and it will take 511 keV to get that electron back to the ground state. So, if the H#2 fuses and transfers its energy to the electron, most of it will go into getting the electron back to the ground state, and then the left over would be a high kinetic energy electron (22 keV in this example) that did NOT come from the nucleus, but as ionization energy of the left over electron after the fusion. 5) When this electron is captured it gives up its 22 keV of energy along with some minor Bremsstrahlung low energy x-rays. However, the total energy given off before fusion and after will be the 1.66 MeV with much of that going into the formation of the H#2 and only a little given off when the fusion occurs. 6) Sometimes a single H# or an H#2 gets ejected and becomes the strange radiation capable of activating materials external to the test apparatus that has been reported by Storms. As you say, if deuterium enrichment is found in analysis of Rossi's 6-month test (don't know if they will be allowed to test for this), then it would be a very insightful report. I could easily have bungled this proposition. Please set me straight. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
Axil and all, This theory would explain the claimed transmutation when carbon is microwaved. Does carbon in a microwave transmute or not? I can't seem to find a real answer, yet it seems like a simple question and experiment, given the availability of very pure carbon (and kitchen appliances.) - Brad On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed Storms just gives us one out of a potential million LENR reaction results that have been seen in LENR experimentation. Ed never wanted to consider transmutation as a valid consequence of the LENR reaction. By embracing transmutation, Ed would need to explain countless variations and permutations of the way protons and neutrons could come together as a result of a LENR reaction. The Mizuno results showing an endothermic reaction is not possible in Ed Storms theory. The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and neutrons coming back together. This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. But the Mizuno results still must be explained by a global theory of LENR.
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Fran-- The fact that particles are relativistic in many cosmic reactions and two particles may be traveling side by side suggests that either gravity or maybe static (relative to the particles) magnetic fields can cause the shrinking and fusion to a lower dark state, and this is responsible for dark matter and maybe dark energy. What is the controlling mechanism--nature trying to reduce angular momentum to zero or the temperature and associated kinetic energy and its momentum or both? As I have suggested before, I think that angular momentum and linear momentum must be connected at a Planck scale. Bob Sent from Windows Mailh? From: Roarty, Francis X Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, This line of thought also brings back Lyne atomic oven and MAHG theory of operation where a shrunken molecules forms between the shrunken atoms… what happens to this molecular bond when the “shrinkage” factor changes.. if the disassociation threshold is reduced you have yet another route to excess energy. If Naudts is correct about these shrunken forms being relativistic then the basic principle would be similar to an elatic tether between 2 near C space craft traveling through areas where there are sudden shifts in gravity except we don’t need rocket fuel or deep gravity wells. IMHO Casimir confinement provides dynamic gravity HILLS / warps at the nano level which provide equivalent acceleration while at a smaller more local scale the atoms are still slaves to HUP for random gas motion between different regions / geometry [DCE]. I also believe this is the mechanism behind the shrunken / inverted Rydberg formation and that locally the hydrogen atoms are unaware of their shrunken state- it is a product of the longer vacuum wavelengths attempting to fit between the Casimir boundaries making the observation relativistic in the same fashion as the near C paradox twin would see the earth as greatly accelerated and shrunken from his perspective. Fran From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:49 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Jones and Bob-- I like this line of thought. I think the current Mills theory and data indicate that a shrunken hydrogen molecule can also form. However, I would think it would be likely advance to a Cooper pair and a Boson as a result. This would make fusion possible. Shrunken H and D however would not form a Cooper pair. It may take 2 H and 2 D to get together in a Boson configuration (integral spin). The reaction may occur in small energy steps associated with the energy of spin quanta, and do away with the large gammas associated with strong force nuclear energy changes. Does anyone know what Kim has to say about the formation of BEC’s with respect to normal temperatures associated with LENR. I thinks he considers that more than one particle type can form BEC’s. Thus Cooper pairs of H and D could condense to a duplex BEC (maybe even adding Axil’s solitons) with overlapping wave functions and resulting in fusion (or fission) as the case may be on occasion. Who knows the statistics for the various fusion options in such a mix. The concept would be one super atom changing into various smaller ones--a fission of a BEC. I assume the balancing of the quarks and gluons making up the super atom BEC would be a necessary consideration. However a new separate particle with 1/2 integer spin could destroy the BEC and the conditions to allow additional reactions. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, Good point, and we did discuss some of this before. However, there are two differences which could be important. Not sure if they came up earlier. Deuterium is a nuclear boson. We do not need to invoke BEC at all for tunneling of one nuclear boson into another nuclear boson. Therefore the BEC state at elevated temps is NOT relevant for tunneling of bosons, we do not need it. That is a big plus. However, the BEC could be important for the other complex theories which try to avoid the 24 MeV gamma by suggesting that 4 deuterons fuse to 2 alphas (Takahashi). Anyway, let’s move on to protium. The highly shrunken neutral hydrogen atom would be a composite boson, which is not exactly a nuclear boson - in the sense that two half spins would including the electron make the species bosonic. However, for nuclear tunneling of one proton into another proton where we need the bosonic statistics at the nuclear level – Pauli exclusion would still apply, and thus tunneling is forbidden. However, it is an open question whether two DDL can form a BEC and do an end-run to avoid Pauli that way. Personally, I doubt that it can happen at high
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
Hello Axel, I do understand that there are good theories and not so good dittos. Why so adamant? It seems to me that there is a myriad of theories, some of them have similarities, some of them exclude each other. Very little is won by finding holes in the other theories. Problems are many and the lack of experimental data is the main issue. Therefore it is hard to have any theory confirmed. The well established experiments (BLP, Rossi, etc). are protecting there investment and let very little out about their findings. I realize that it is expensive and difficult to make experiments. However, I think that just now we need to to stop producing more theoretical formats and concentrate on verifying one theory one step at the time. I think Ed Storms have done that and that is what brings credibility to his theory. It does not make it right but very few hypothesis are better substantiated with actual test data. My suggestion is just that. Suggest or do experiments to be done to support your own theories instead of finding holes in others ideas. I think Brad is on the right track. I am happy to provide the microwave:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed Storms just gives us one out of a potential million LENR reaction results that have been seen in LENR experimentation. Ed never wanted to consider transmutation as a valid consequence of the LENR reaction. By embracing transmutation, Ed would need to explain countless variations and permutations of the way protons and neutrons could come together as a result of a LENR reaction. The Mizuno results showing an endothermic reaction is not possible in Ed Storms theory. The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and neutrons coming back together. This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. But the Mizuno results still must be explained by a global theory of LENR.
RE: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
From: Bob Higgins Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511 keV less than H in normal ground state. The mass energy difference between 2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV… So, now the H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the ground state D. Agreed. This 538 keV is still too large to go unnoticed without a step-down process but it does bring to mind the other possibility which itself is the downshifting mechanism itself – especially if the this DDL state is, in essence – dark matter. Mills and others believe this to be true. The reason that is important for LENR is that there is this emerging meme in mainstream cosmology - that dark matter emits (possibly as a decay) at 3.5 keV. This signal is picked up all over the cosmos as a mystery line, and the emerging view is that it comes from dark matter. If you google [“3.5 keV” “dark matter” ] you will be amazed at the mainline articles out there, not to mention the fringe - or at least I was amazed because of the cross connection to DDL. Of course, almost no one in cosmology has yet made that precise connection. You heard it first on vortex :-) If we consider that a bound pair of DDLs with 538 keV excess can decay by emitting x-rays at 3.5 keV, then either fuse or something else - our problem is solved. Actually the spectra is probably higher energy in condensed matter, higher due to red shift of what is seen in cosmology. But in any case, radiation abound 4 keV is not going to be seen with typical meters, whereas 538 keV would be obvious. Thus the 3.5-4 keV x-ray could be the signature of the Rossi effect, and no one yet realizes it. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:A mystery emission line from intergalactic space
Previously in this thread and another related thread related to hydrogen isomers being “dark matter” and the emerging possibility that the Rossi reactor is a DDL/ Dark-Matter device… .. this [3.5 keV] seems to be near a Rydberg emission line, and possibly already associated with deep level orbital redundancy. To wit: There are 137 steps in the progression of ground state hydrogen to DDL according to CQM. There are other ways to compute this as well. If DDL is dark matter, or a subset of dark matter, then perhaps it is not completely dark in a cosmological environment, and will emit with a signature. The final photon in that range is within the same spectral range as what was seen in the numerous papers – (which are interpreted as dark matter emission) especially if they have been red-shifted. For instance 136 * 27.2eV = 3.99 keV. This would tend to add some relevance to the need to search for x-rays in this range, in a working Rossi reactor. There are ways to do this. The payoff would be twofold if this emission line is seen. We could simultaneously explain the what dark matter consists of (basically it is DDL hydrogen) and also, explain the proximate cause of LENR producing lots of heat without a gamma signature. Jones
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-297/aflb297m329.pdf *Low Energy Induced Nuclear Fusion Via Coherence* *Of The Quantum Vacuum, Zero-Point Energy* *Through Ultra Close Range Casimir Effects* Page 1119 The analysis of the carbon residue is tabulated below for the four samples collected as described earlier. The last column is one set of typical DC Arc Spectroscopy results provided for comparison that were reported by Singh, et al of B.A.R.C in their 1994 carbon arc in water experiment reported in *Fusion Technology*. 18 elements were transmuted from pure carbon and pure water via an electric arc. See table. Any theory of LENR must explain any experiment result ever performed and account for any of those experimental results. This criticism is part of the peer review process. The person who produced the theory might well consider the criticism as a service and amend his theory for the better. This is not an EMOTIONAL process involving loyalty, or politics, but one of science in the quest to arrive at perfect truth. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hello Axel, I do understand that there are good theories and not so good dittos. Why so adamant? It seems to me that there is a myriad of theories, some of them have similarities, some of them exclude each other. Very little is won by finding holes in the other theories. Problems are many and the lack of experimental data is the main issue. Therefore it is hard to have any theory confirmed. The well established experiments (BLP, Rossi, etc). are protecting there investment and let very little out about their findings. I realize that it is expensive and difficult to make experiments. However, I think that just now we need to to stop producing more theoretical formats and concentrate on verifying one theory one step at the time. I think Ed Storms have done that and that is what brings credibility to his theory. It does not make it right but very few hypothesis are better substantiated with actual test data. My suggestion is just that. Suggest or do experiments to be done to support your own theories instead of finding holes in others ideas. I think Brad is on the right track. I am happy to provide the microwave:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed Storms just gives us one out of a potential million LENR reaction results that have been seen in LENR experimentation. Ed never wanted to consider transmutation as a valid consequence of the LENR reaction. By embracing transmutation, Ed would need to explain countless variations and permutations of the way protons and neutrons could come together as a result of a LENR reaction. The Mizuno results showing an endothermic reaction is not possible in Ed Storms theory. The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and neutrons coming back together. This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. But the Mizuno results still must be explained by a global theory of LENR.
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Bob and Jones-- Rossi has designed his reactor tubes to avoid departure from nucleate boiling and thus melting of the jacket. The internal nickel has a high heat tolerance and can stand high temperatures. Gas formation is apparently not a problem for him and has suggested to me that He is not formed in his reaction. (I use my long time experience in the development of fission reactors as a basis for this conclusion. ) The engineering knowhow for temperature control is well known and easy if there is little or no internal pressure developed during the reaction. This would be a design objective for me in any reactor design. I would think that Rossi is now working on a 100 kw reactor that is merely a tube 10x longer. Higher water flows would be necessary to avoid dnb, departure from nucleate boiling. A little increase in steam pressure may be desirable to avoid such a condition. In fact the control of pressure and hence temperature of the reactor may be a useful control mechanism. If there is a negative temperature coeff. for the reactor, i.e., higher temperature lower power, the feed back mechanism that Axil has worried about could be resolved. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Bob Higgins Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Jones and Bob, Jones, you said that: I agree that the BEC is a fiction at elevated temperature, I don't think Yeong Kim proposes a classical cold temperature BEC as the source of his fusion. He told me that the condensates he has postulated form in magnetic traps in the material. So, at elevated temperature, the atoms are coupled by the magnetic field that is trapping them. I cannot say that I understand the rigor of the trap that he proposes, or what it would take to make such a trap. However, I believe Rossi's nano-catalyst is nano-metric iron alloyed into the Ni particles. Such alloys can have extremely high permeability and in nanoscale Ni-Fe spots, who knows what kind of magnetic (trapping) properties could be found. I am not willing to rule out such magnetically trapped condensates as a possibility. Also, I am not sure the DDL H (H#) combining to D is that far off in energy. Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511 keV less than H in normal ground state. The mass energy difference between 2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV (if I calculated correctly). Now suppose we had this scenario: 1) H2 molecule within a resonant coupled string, coupling energy out of the H2 by evanescent coupling (perhaps within a crack) 2) Each of the atoms decrease in energy simultaneously and fractionally until reaching the DDL in each atom while still a molecule 3) The actual energy of each of the H atoms would have decreased by more than 2 x (511 keV) because of the Gibbs energy loss in the formation of the H#2 molecule. In fact, when the H atoms are in the DDL state, the Gibbs energy forming the H#2 molecule may be very large (guess 100 keV). So, now the H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the ground state D. Also, the H# is regarded as 50x smaller than a muonic H atom - and more much more likely to enter another nucleus. 4) Suppose now that the H#2 fuses to D. There would be 538 keV for the nucleus to release. However, remember that the electron is in tight DDL orbit and it will take 511 keV to get that electron back to the ground state. So, if the H#2 fuses and transfers its energy to the electron, most of it will go into getting the electron back to the ground state, and then the left over would be a high kinetic energy electron (22 keV in this example) that did NOT come from the nucleus, but as ionization energy of the left over electron after the fusion. 5) When this electron is captured it gives up its 22 keV of energy along with some minor Bremsstrahlung low energy x-rays. However, the total energy given off before fusion and after will be the 1.66 MeV with much of that going into the formation of the H#2 and only a little given off when the fusion occurs. 6) Sometimes a single H# or an H#2 gets ejected and becomes the strange radiation capable of activating materials external to the test apparatus that has been reported by Storms. As you say, if deuterium enrichment is found in analysis of Rossi's 6-month test (don't know if they will be allowed to test for this), then it would be a very insightful report. I could easily have bungled this proposition. Please set me straight. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
More... Going from carbon and water to nickel is a LENR reaction that requires the injection of a good deal of energy to occur. Since carbon are water are low Z elements that transmute to high Z elements, just about all the elements produced require external energy for the reaction to occur. Mizuno is not the only experiments to show endothermic energy input. In this experiment the possible source of the energy is the electric arc. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-297/aflb297m329.pdf *Low Energy Induced Nuclear Fusion Via Coherence* *Of The Quantum Vacuum, Zero-Point Energy* *Through Ultra Close Range Casimir Effects* Page 1119 The analysis of the carbon residue is tabulated below for the four samples collected as described earlier. The last column is one set of typical DC Arc Spectroscopy results provided for comparison that were reported by Singh, et al of B.A.R.C in their 1994 carbon arc in water experiment reported in *Fusion Technology*. 18 elements were transmuted from pure carbon and pure water via an electric arc. See table. Any theory of LENR must explain any experiment result ever performed and account for any of those experimental results. This criticism is part of the peer review process. The person who produced the theory might well consider the criticism as a service and amend his theory for the better. This is not an EMOTIONAL process involving loyalty, or politics, but one of science in the quest to arrive at perfect truth. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hello Axel, I do understand that there are good theories and not so good dittos. Why so adamant? It seems to me that there is a myriad of theories, some of them have similarities, some of them exclude each other. Very little is won by finding holes in the other theories. Problems are many and the lack of experimental data is the main issue. Therefore it is hard to have any theory confirmed. The well established experiments (BLP, Rossi, etc). are protecting there investment and let very little out about their findings. I realize that it is expensive and difficult to make experiments. However, I think that just now we need to to stop producing more theoretical formats and concentrate on verifying one theory one step at the time. I think Ed Storms have done that and that is what brings credibility to his theory. It does not make it right but very few hypothesis are better substantiated with actual test data. My suggestion is just that. Suggest or do experiments to be done to support your own theories instead of finding holes in others ideas. I think Brad is on the right track. I am happy to provide the microwave:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed Storms just gives us one out of a potential million LENR reaction results that have been seen in LENR experimentation. Ed never wanted to consider transmutation as a valid consequence of the LENR reaction. By embracing transmutation, Ed would need to explain countless variations and permutations of the way protons and neutrons could come together as a result of a LENR reaction. The Mizuno results showing an endothermic reaction is not possible in Ed Storms theory. The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and neutrons coming back together. This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. But the Mizuno results still must be explained by a global theory of LENR.
[Vo]:Microwave Transmutation/Blue Eagle Refiners
I asked Axil and Vortex whether Carbon in a Microwave transmutes. Axil's answer was a link to a paper from 1994 showing that it could. http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-297/aflb297m329.pdf Given: Nano powder LENR experiments appear difficult to recreate. And: Carbon in a microwave is said to produce transmutations within minutes. Why doesn't the open source community take up some basic experiments. Which elements transmute? How? Into? Under what conditions? Byproducts? Isn't gamma-free transmutation the holy grail of LENR research? This company, Blue Eagle claims to be producing gold by microwaving crushed recycled glass bottles. http://www.kitco.com/ind/Albrecht/2014-06-04-Gold-Created-Through-Advanced-Metallurgy.html Video: https://vimeo.com/90037448 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=277243 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Blue-Eagle-Refiners-Inc/208191665995809 Yes, they are seeking investors. Yes it is probably crazy. But.. If carbon transmutes into myriad elements, why is this preposterous? To me, it seems like a series of experiments could be carried out dirt cheap, assuming you have access to some kind of before/after analysis. With each transmutation success, parameters can be altered and recorded. By the way, just sticking carbon in the microwave will produce hot plasma capable of destroying pyrex glassware. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q176cmHGywo Next time I'll try a ChemGlass pressure vessel. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Jones, I think you did not understand or agree with what I said previously in bullet 4). On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Higgins Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511 keV less than H in normal ground state. The mass energy difference between 2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV… So, now the H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the ground state D. Agreed. This 538 keV is still too large to go unnoticed without a step-down process but it does bring to mind the other possibility which itself is the downshifting mechanism itself – especially if the this DDL state is, in essence – dark matter. Mills and others believe this to be true. What I previously explained in 4) was that when the H#2 fuses, one electron ends up becoming part of a neutron (inverse beta) and the other electron is still in a fractional DDL orbital. When the nucleus gives off its residual 538 keV, it does so by giving it to the electron in that degenerate orbital. It will take 511 keV of the 538 keV to elevate the electron back to the ground state, so at that point, there is only 27 keV left in electron kinetic energy (in my previous post I made a stupid mental subtraction error and came out with 22 keV, but in this example, it is 27 keV). Since it only takes about 16 eV to ionize the atom, the electron continues on its way with essentially 27 keV of energy and the deuterium ion is left. I am not sure how and when the kinetic energy will be divided between the deuterium nucleus and the electron [Would the two only divide the 27 keV?]. Even still, this is much closer to the 3.5 keV x-ray in the dark matter. Bob H.
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and neutrons coming back together. ... This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. ... LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. This is a detail worth thinking about, since the transmutations are all over the map. If nuclear reactions are the main show, as is my guess, the strong force is no doubt involved. When the strong force is involved, it is difficult to contemplate an pathway that does not end in an abrupt tunneling of some kind, even if you miraculously step things down significantly beforehand. In a nuclear reaction, there's going to be an abrupt transition. So my guess is that there's good old-fashioned beam collisions occurring, with every ambient species getting mixed into the beam pathway, and the environment is different from a plasma in some important way: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png The blue is a current of protons from one electrically insulated metal grain to another, undergoing z-pinch, which focuses it. I read a few days ago that a photon will not interact with a free electron; in order for a scattering to occur, there has to be an electromagnetic field present. I'm guessing that a strong electromagnetic field alters the usual branches dramatically. (I suppose there may be something nonnuclear going on along the lines that Jones suggests, which results in prompt emissions as a minor side channel. Less likely, perhaps years of transmutation studies are all in error and due to contamination. But I would not place my bets on these explanations.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
I completely disagree Axil, the Mizuno endothermic (or Ahern endothermic) observation is not at all catastrophic. You said: This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. Once you have a coupled resonant structure, such as Ed's hydroton, and if you include the concept that within the hydroton could exist fractional Rydberg state H (like Mills), then you have a structure that can also absorb energy. Resonant structures make great receivers as well as transmitters. The resonant structure provides the evanescent coupling to the fractional state H atoms. These atoms can be elevated from their fractional state by evanescent coupling as well as being lowered in fractional state through the same evanescent coupling. Depending on the state of the system, it seems plausible that such resonant structures could absorb a significant amount of energy and elevate fractional state hydrogen atoms to a state closer to ground state. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
I seriously doubt that Ed Storms would permit the blatant violation of the strictures of thermodynamics to embrace your scenario. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I completely disagree Axil, the Mizuno endothermic (or Ahern endothermic) observation is not at all catastrophic. You said: This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. Once you have a coupled resonant structure, such as Ed's hydroton, and if you include the concept that within the hydroton could exist fractional Rydberg state H (like Mills), then you have a structure that can also absorb energy. Resonant structures make great receivers as well as transmitters. The resonant structure provides the evanescent coupling to the fractional state H atoms. These atoms can be elevated from their fractional state by evanescent coupling as well as being lowered in fractional state through the same evanescent coupling. Depending on the state of the system, it seems plausible that such resonant structures could absorb a significant amount of energy and elevate fractional state hydrogen atoms to a state closer to ground state. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
This is not a violation of thermodynamics, but a failure to identify the true starting total energy state which must include the fractional Rydberg states of the atoms if such states exist. Yeong Kim's paper describes his solution to the wave equation for sub-ground states and his solution says they don't exist at deep levels. Such analyses begin with assumptions and Yeong's could be wrong (or not). He presumed that the general solution would have to be continuous, but it is possible that the solution is discontinuous. I have not read what I consider to be the final word on the (non)existence of the f/R and DDL hydrogen states. If I recall correctly, in Ed's first book, he did not completely dismiss Mills' work. Bob On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I seriously doubt that Ed Storms would permit the blatant violation of the strictures of thermodynamics to embrace your scenario. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I completely disagree Axil, the Mizuno endothermic (or Ahern endothermic) observation is not at all catastrophic. You said: This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. Once you have a coupled resonant structure, such as Ed's hydroton, and if you include the concept that within the hydroton could exist fractional Rydberg state H (like Mills), then you have a structure that can also absorb energy. Resonant structures make great receivers as well as transmitters. The resonant structure provides the evanescent coupling to the fractional state H atoms. These atoms can be elevated from their fractional state by evanescent coupling as well as being lowered in fractional state through the same evanescent coupling. Depending on the state of the system, it seems plausible that such resonant structures could absorb a significant amount of energy and elevate fractional state hydrogen atoms to a state closer to ground state. Bob Higgins
RE: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Bob, I do not necessarily disagree so much as am presenting another option. Since the electron antineutrino has been overlooked in your hypothesis, there could be a more accurate way for this to unfold. The half integer spin would be a problem, as would the source of the antineutrino. It the fusion of two protons is to be symmetrical with the photofission of deuterium, then the neutrino should be included or accounted for otherwise. For radiation energy - I see the dividing line about what “would have been noticed” in the past 24 years of study as being in the range of 10 keV. Higher would have shown up, especially with glass electrolysis cells – lower than 10 keV could have been overlooked. From: Bob Higgins Jones, I think you did not understand or agree with what I said previously in bullet 4). On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Higgins Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511 keV less than H in normal ground state. The mass energy difference between 2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV… So, now the H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the ground state D. Agreed. This 538 keV is still too large to go unnoticed without a step-down process but it does bring to mind the other possibility which itself is the downshifting mechanism itself – especially if the this DDL state is, in essence – dark matter. Mills and others believe this to be true. What I previously explained in 4) was that when the H#2 fuses, one electron ends up becoming part of a neutron (inverse beta) and the other electron is still in a fractional DDL orbital. When the nucleus gives off its residual 538 keV, it does so by giving it to the electron in that degenerate orbital. It will take 511 keV of the 538 keV to elevate the electron back to the ground state, so at that point, there is only 27 keV left in electron kinetic energy (in my previous post I made a stupid mental subtraction error and came out with 22 keV, but in this example, it is 27 keV). Since it only takes about 16 eV to ionize the atom, the electron continues on its way with essentially 27 keV of energy and the deuterium ion is left. I am not sure how and when the kinetic energy will be divided between the deuterium nucleus and the electron [Would the two only divide the 27 keV?]. Even still, this is much closer to the 3.5 keV x-ray in the dark matter. Bob H.
Re: [Vo]:A mystery emission line from intergalactic space
Jones and Axil-- I agree with Jones. It looks like there is a lot of emissions in the 2 to 6 Kev range. Is there any normal explanation of this range of emissions associated with normal electron obit energies associated with H2 or He or D2 or H or D? I wonder about the source of the energy levels that Jones has assumed to be about 3.5 Kev. I wonder if the model--theory--assumes that the electrons gain any weight as they approach a shrunken H nucleus or couple to one? (Electron capture in Ni may be associated with a “heavy” inner shell electron.) Maybe the electrons pair up to form a di-electron and an atom with a Cooper pair of protons--a DCPA--di-Cooper Pair Atom--spin zero except for the di-electron orbital J spin. Giving up orbital spin energy by the DCPA to the lattice may be more probable than other coupling mechanisms. Note that the ash associated with DCPA would be A=2. We need a good theorist on spin coupling to pipe up. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 7:27 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Axil, your cut-and-paste somehow distorted the article’s intent. The .03 keV is the error bar. Here are some better plots and commentary. https://inspirehep.net/record/1298698/plots The actual mystery emission line is centered at ~3.5 keV but optical distortion means it could be different at the source. The authors offer several possibilities but end up interpreting it as “dark matter” tentatively – while at the same time admitting that it could be noise, since the bump is so small. It looks like noise to me. BTW – we are all familiar with stepped down radiation in this spectrum as it is typical of Cerenkov Radiation, as seen in the eerie glow of spent-fuel pins in a holding tank. Yet – if not noise, this is interesting in the context of LENR in that this could be a cosmological emission line for dark matter, and dark matter could be the end-product of hydrogen shrinkage - aka the DDL. Think about “them apples”… but catch-22, dark matter is not supposed to emit, thus the “dark”. Anyway there is a direct-connect to LENR, if this emission turns out not to be noise. They also mention neutrino mass as a possibility and others, so it is wrong to get too excited over this… OTOH… The best thing about it – and the reason to keep it in mind is if LENR does eventually turn up a signal in the 3-4 keV range then we have some cosmological connection to dark matter AND, this is an emission range which could easily have gone undetected in the past 25 years of LENR research, since the photon is shielded by a steel reactor, and also could account for the glow of some electrolysis cells. PLUS.. this seems to be near a Rydberg emission line, and possibly already associated with deep level orbital redundancy. There are many hits on a google search for “3.5 keV” and other key words of interest, most behind paywalls. I hope these paywalls are not the death of a final GUT for LENR…. From: Axil Axil http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.2301v2.pdf DETECTION OF AN UNIDENTIFIED EMISSION LINE IN THE STACKED X-RAY SPECTRUM OF GALAXY CLUSTERS (new - 6/2014) The referenced article records the detection of a weak unidentified emission line at E = 0:03 keV in a stacked XMM-Newton spectrum of 73 galaxy clusters spanning a redshift range 0:01 to 0:35. The origin of this emission is the intracluster/intergalactic medium (ICM). Galaxy clusters are the largest aggregations of hot intergalactic gas and dark matter.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\
Rossi claims that he uses nano-nickel particles. I have no idea what the sintering and melting temperatures of those structures. We know that carbon nano structures have very good high temperature properties. A Ni-H nano structure may even be better at high temperatures. I would not give up on Ni even in the hot cat performance. Something Rossi introduced say white hot conditions. Of course it may be a fake. I think he has been honest with what he has said. He may withhold information also, however. I learned much in reactor design due to early failures. The new designs after failure generally allowed for higher temperature operations and greater power output. I would bet Rossi is not beyond learning from his failures. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Roarty, Francis X Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:51 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of plasma in the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self destruction would bring the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does point to the continued run away reaction even after the geometry has melted. Like they say it gets worse before it gets better :_) Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles. The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites will melt and be destroyed by the high heat. However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and produces a power output of a megawatt. During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate. By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his collection of experimental results. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest answer to these question is YES. A bit longer one; - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of cracks can be ACTIVE - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion) - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity of the active sites- it is a captivating story Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete scenario. peter . On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, thank you for the kind words. Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction? Your NAE is dynamically created? Do you propose nano structures also for your NAE? If you are, you also have to explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps or be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels of heat. Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels. Jojo - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: VORTEX Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo. It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question: What is the essential difference between the classic LENR with
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\
Bob, This is a common misconception. Rossi does NOT use nano-Ni. Rossi uses Ni particles (from the carbonyl process) that have a high external area and particle diameter of 4-8 microns. Rossi adds a catalyst, that is believed to be a nanopowder, to the carbonyl Ni particles and then grows features on the Ni. Bob Higgins On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Rossi claims that he uses nano-nickel particles. I have no idea what the sintering and melting temperatures of those structures. We know that carbon nano structures have very good high temperature properties. A Ni-H nano structure may even be better at high temperatures. I would not give up on Ni even in the hot cat performance. Something Rossi introduced say white hot conditions. Of course it may be a fake. I think he has been honest with what he has said. He may withhold information also, however. I learned much in reactor design due to early failures. The new designs after failure generally allowed for higher temperature operations and greater power output. I would bet Rossi is not beyond learning from his failures. Bob Sent from Windows Mail *From:* Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:51 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of plasma in the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self destruction would bring the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does point to the continued run away reaction even after the geometry has melted. Like they say it gets worse before it gets better :_) Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles. The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites will melt and be destroyed by the high heat. However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and produces a power output of a megawatt. During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate. *By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his collection of experimental results.* On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest answer to these question is YES. A bit longer one; - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of cracks can be ACTIVE - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion) - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity of the active sites- it is a captivating story Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete scenario. peter . On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, thank you for the kind words. Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction? Your NAE is dynamically created? Do you propose nano structures also for your NAE? If you are, you also have to explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps or be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels of heat. Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Jones and Bob-- The di-proton I suggested might be real. Check out CERN below for evidence of what is called a dibaryon with a short lifetime. Intense magnetic fields may improve the lifetime. The “new” dibaryon seems like it could be a Cooper pair to me. http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/57836 Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:24 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, I do not necessarily disagree so much as am presenting another option. Since the electron antineutrino has been overlooked in your hypothesis, there could be a more accurate way for this to unfold. The half integer spin would be a problem, as would the source of the antineutrino. It the fusion of two protons is to be symmetrical with the photofission of deuterium, then the neutrino should be included or accounted for otherwise. For radiation energy - I see the dividing line about what “would have been noticed” in the past 24 years of study as being in the range of 10 keV. Higher would have shown up, especially with glass electrolysis cells – lower than 10 keV could have been overlooked. From: Bob Higgins Jones, I think you did not understand or agree with what I said previously in bullet 4). On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Higgins Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511 keV less than H in normal ground state. The mass energy difference between 2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV… So, now the H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the ground state D. Agreed. This 538 keV is still too large to go unnoticed without a step-down process but it does bring to mind the other possibility which itself is the downshifting mechanism itself – especially if the this DDL state is, in essence – dark matter. Mills and others believe this to be true. What I previously explained in 4) was that when the H#2 fuses, one electron ends up becoming part of a neutron (inverse beta) and the other electron is still in a fractional DDL orbital. When the nucleus gives off its residual 538 keV, it does so by giving it to the electron in that degenerate orbital. It will take 511 keV of the 538 keV to elevate the electron back to the ground state, so at that point, there is only 27 keV left in electron kinetic energy (in my previous post I made a stupid mental subtraction error and came out with 22 keV, but in this example, it is 27 keV). Since it only takes about 16 eV to ionize the atom, the electron continues on its way with essentially 27 keV of energy and the deuterium ion is left. I am not sure how and when the kinetic energy will be divided between the deuterium nucleus and the electron [Would the two only divide the 27 keV?]. Even still, this is much closer to the 3.5 keV x-ray in the dark matter. Bob H.
RE: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
Interesting, but the mass-energy is too high at 2380 MeV. We would be looking for something around 2000 MeV From: Bob Cook Jones and Bob-- The di-proton I suggested might be real. Check out CERN below for evidence of what is called a dibaryon with a short lifetime. Intense magnetic fields may improve the lifetime. The “new” dibaryon seems like it could be a Cooper pair to me. http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/57836 Bob
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\
Thanks for the clarification. Bob Cook Sent from Windows Mail From: Bob Higgins Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, This is a common misconception. Rossi does NOT use nano-Ni. Rossi uses Ni particles (from the carbonyl process) that have a high external area and particle diameter of 4-8 microns. Rossi adds a catalyst, that is believed to be a nanopowder, to the carbonyl Ni particles and then grows features on the Ni. Bob Higgins On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Rossi claims that he uses nano-nickel particles. I have no idea what the sintering and melting temperatures of those structures. We know that carbon nano structures have very good high temperature properties. A Ni-H nano structure may even be better at high temperatures. I would not give up on Ni even in the hot cat performance. Something Rossi introduced say white hot conditions. Of course it may be a fake. I think he has been honest with what he has said. He may withhold information also, however. I learned much in reactor design due to early failures. The new designs after failure generally allowed for higher temperature operations and greater power output. I would bet Rossi is not beyond learning from his failures. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Roarty, Francis X Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:51 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of plasma in the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self destruction would bring the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does point to the continued run away reaction even after the geometry has melted. Like they say it gets worse before it gets better :_) Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles. The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites will melt and be destroyed by the high heat. However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and produces a power output of a megawatt. During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate. By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his collection of experimental results. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest answer to these question is YES. A bit longer one; - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of cracks can be ACTIVE - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion) - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity of the active sites- it is a captivating story Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete scenario. peter . On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, thank you for the kind words. Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction? Your NAE is dynamically created? Do you propose nano structures also for your NAE? If you are, you also have to explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\
Bob, The smaller the material, the lower its sintering temperature - significantly lower than the melting temp of the bulk material. If you google sintering nickel, you will find out that this is true. Even at the lower operating temps of the original ecat (not the hotcat), nanosturctures of nickel would have been destroyed. There has got to be a different NAE than what Axil theorizes. I doubt nickel nanowires is the NAE. CNTs on the other hand are better NAEs. Jojo - Original Message - From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:54 AM Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ Rossi claims that he uses nano-nickel particles. I have no idea what the sintering and melting temperatures of those structures. We know that carbon nano structures have very good high temperature properties. A Ni-H nano structure may even be better at high temperatures. I would not give up on Ni even in the hot cat performance. Something Rossi introduced say white hot conditions. Of course it may be a fake. I think he has been honest with what he has said. He may withhold information also, however. I learned much in reactor design due to early failures. The new designs after failure generally allowed for higher temperature operations and greater power output. I would bet Rossi is not beyond learning from his failures. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Roarty, Francis X Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:51 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of plasma in the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self destruction would bring the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does point to the continued run away reaction even after the geometry has melted. Like they say it gets worse before it gets better :_) Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles. The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites will melt and be destroyed by the high heat. However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and produces a power output of a megawatt. During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate. By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his collection of experimental results. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest answer to these question is YES. A bit longer one; - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of cracks can be ACTIVE - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion) - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity of the active sites- it is a captivating story Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete scenario. peter . On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, thank you for the kind words. Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction? Your NAE is dynamically created? Do you
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
HI Jones, Regarding the July 22, 2014, PDF documents: http://tinyurl.com/poj7ga5 - 215 megabytes, with embedded video. http://tinyurl.com/q28bn4w - Abbreviated version, no video. I am less cynical in my perception of BLP's chances of pulling the magic rabbit out of the hat than you appear to be. Granted, when we take into account Mills' past prediction record it is perfectly understandable to me why you might remain considerably more cynical. Regarding item 10, you state: Bottom line - this technology could be great - or a bust for the general public, depending on the cost of catalyst rejuvenation. ... I agree with you on this point. I think much of BLP's SunCell success hinges on whether the company has figured out how to recycle the undisclosed metal powder substance repeatedly - ad infinitum. All I can go on is what Mills has previously stated. Mills states their labs have figure out how to recycle the process. They claim they have tested the recycling process repeatedly, and that it is easy to do. According to page 57, the fuel composition consists of: Ti, Cu, or Ag + ZnCL2 or MGCl2 hydrate powder. Sounds like they can use several variations. Another concern of mine hinges on the crucial use of solar cells to convert the SunCell generated light into electricity. Other Vorts have raised legitimate concerns that the cells could be destroyed in short order by continuous close exposure to the SunCell catalyzation process. BLP claims they will ramp up the explosion process to 2000 / sec. That's a lot of explosions. Again, Mills claims this is not an issue, even at 2000 explosions per second. Nevertheless, at face value, it's seems like a bold claim to make. Mills, on the other hand, retorts that designing a jet engine so that it will burn fuel continuously is far more difficult to do. So, do we take Mills at his word, or is he saying under his breath, move along. Move along. Nothing to see here. My position is to remain agnostic for now. Got a question for you: Mills claims their experimental evidence clearly shows not only the generation of light (which apparently closely matches the spectrum of sunlight), the SunCell process also purports to generate heat, UV, and soft X-Rays. See pages 24 through 28 for information on BLP detecting soft X-Rays. What I find interesting is that according to Mills there is no known chemical reaction that is capable of generating soft X-Rays. Are you aware of any chemical reaction that can? If so, we should document what kind of chemical compositions could be capable of doing this and compare it with the data BLP has published. The obvious implication Mills is claiming here is that the proprietary SunCell process is manipulating the exploitation of a new energy resource, presumably collected from the conversion of hydrogen into hydrinos. Regarding your speculation on: ... The most interest should come from NASA and the Pentagon. I could see this as a fabulous solid fuel rocket engine. You might want to review the previous videos from the June 25 demos. You can view them from the What's New menu. VIew Part 1: http://youtu.be/zGTUd68hu5M Of particular interest, I believe, is something Mills claims fairly close to the beginning of this video. Mills made the comment that the explosion expansion ratio was measured to be a mere 10%. This appears to be an exceedingly small expansion quotient for an observed explosion. I don't see how such a process could ever be exploited effectively as a new and exotic solid rocket fuel as you have speculated. According to Mills, the SunCell explosion doesn't generate lots of additional very hot moving molecules during the oxidation process, as what happens when one explodes gasoline in a controlled format to drive a piston... i.e.: water, carbon dioxide. According to Mills, the catalyzation process isn't an oxidation process at all. According to BLP's experimental evidence the energy released appears to be released primarily in the form of EM, as heat, visible light (the spectrum of sunlight to be more precise), UV, and soft X-Rays. But very little physical 3D volumetric expansion is generated. Apparently, this was a surprise to the BLP team. Final thoughts: BLP has requested from one of the outside engineering firms working with them that a first generation prototype be delivered to their labs within 16 - 18 weeks... with the caveat that the current management estimate, [is] subject to change. (See page 76 from the PDF document.) I interpret this as implying that the prototype will be capable of self running. If so, and if we're lucky BLP's ultimate DOG and PONY show may transpire sometime within the month of December or soon afterwards, assuming Mr. Murphy doesn't make too many unscheduled visits. I think a 4 to 4.5 month wait is a much more realistic time schedule as compared to Mills' previous prediction - in two months which he made back in the June 25 demos. All I know is that if I was
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\
Jojo-- I did a little review and agree that most nano sized particles do not like to much temperature becoming unstable relative to bulk temperature integrity. Thanks for that correction of my previous comments regarding Ni nano particles. As noted by Bob Higgins, Rossi does not start with nano sized nickel. It remains a important piece of information to determine what Rossi’s starting material is with its crystalline nature and impurities. Bulk heat conductivity would be nice to know. This would allow the determination of max temperatures in the reactor assuming some even distribution of energy production in the form of heat. Bob Cook Sent from Windows Mail From: Jojo Iznart Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, The smaller the material, the lower its sintering temperature - significantly lower than the melting temp of the bulk material. If you google sintering nickel, you will find out that this is true. Even at the lower operating temps of the original ecat (not the hotcat), nanosturctures of nickel would have been destroyed. There has got to be a different NAE than what Axil theorizes. I doubt nickel nanowires is the NAE. CNTs on the other hand are better NAEs. Jojo - Original Message - From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:54 AM Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ Rossi claims that he uses nano-nickel particles. I have no idea what the sintering and melting temperatures of those structures. We know that carbon nano structures have very good high temperature properties. A Ni-H nano structure may even be better at high temperatures. I would not give up on Ni even in the hot cat performance. Something Rossi introduced say white hot conditions. Of course it may be a fake. I think he has been honest with what he has said. He may withhold information also, however. I learned much in reactor design due to early failures. The new designs after failure generally allowed for higher temperature operations and greater power output. I would bet Rossi is not beyond learning from his failures. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Roarty, Francis X Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:51 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of plasma in the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self destruction would bring the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does point to the continued run away reaction even after the geometry has melted. Like they say it gets worse before it gets better :_) Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\ One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles. The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites will melt and be destroyed by the high heat. However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and produces a power output of a megawatt. During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate. By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his collection of experimental results. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest answer to these question is YES. A bit longer one; - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of cracks can be ACTIVE - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to learn the
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson What I find interesting is that according to Mills there is no known chemical reaction that is capable of generating soft X-Rays. Are you aware of any chemical reaction that can? X-rays show up in electrochemistry but not normal redox. Photoactivated chlorine is reported to produce x-rays. Arc welding is capable of soft x-rays. Mills is running an electrochemical reaction through and arc welder and one of his catalysts is chlorinated. The anomaly, if there is one, would depend on the details. Soft x-rays are shielded by glass or even plastic. Since observers at the demo are not being protected, we can assume the radiation is being shielded by transparent materials. I have not yet seen firm data for net power-in versus net power-out from the solar cells. If anyone has that datum, please post it. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
