[Vo]:Fwd: A paper on German Energy which focus on LENR
I just found that paper cited on a facebook group... http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/79979 I've made a tiny article on that... http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/7-Papre-Energy-in-Germany-A-critical-review-of-current-issues-and-analysis-of-futu/ I don't expect high impact,and the content is a naive survey, but above average Maybe those guys just need the good contacts ...
[Vo]:STAP Co-author propose an updated method - hard to reproduce protocol as FP ?
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/09/stap-co-author-offers-yet-another-recipe-for-stem-cells.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews the usual story of vexed replicator who insult the discoverer because they cannot imagine they are unlucky, incompetent or ignored some key details...
RE: [Vo]:Fwd: A paper on German Energy which focus on LENR
I am surprised they did not mention Purratio AG - which is the one of the few German companies to be pushing forward with LENR http://www.purratio.ag/PurratioAG%20eng/html/news.html Does anyone have information on them? From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com I just found that paper cited on a facebook group... http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/79979 I've made a tiny article on that... http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/7-Papre-Energy-in-Germany-A-critical-review-of-current-issues-and-analysis-of-futu/ I don't expect high impact,and the content is a naive survey, but above average Maybe those guys just need the good contacts ...
Re: [Vo]:predictive analysis of the coming Rossi- independent Report
Jed, I think it hangs together with money or perhaps better greed. Many people in this group can see the big light in the end of the tunnel and I think it looks like $ Billion $. Then envy and greed makes for salty and sometimes downright insulting comments. I think it is a pity. As a group we could accomplish a lot. Share and you will receive. ( No, not a bible verse.) 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 Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Why can't free energy companies be like other companies? I feel that the amount of cloak and dagger and intrigue is overrepresented in this niche. Yup. I think there are two main reasons: 1. No patent protection. 2. Strange, secretive people. The field attracts strange people while it repels conventional people. That is my impression, but that may be partly my bias. We expect strange people in this field, so we take note of them. There might be just as many strange people in other professions, but we do not look for them. We may not notice them among CPAs, policemen, farmers or government bureaucrats. You did notice them among old school programmers, who tended to be flamboyant. In some groups, strange people hide their eccentricities while in other groups they advertise them. Old school professors used to emphasize odd behavior and strange clothing choices. It was charming. See this scene from the movie IQ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7stiKJsGjY He doesn't look like a scientist . . . Now this is a tie, to hold up your pants. - Jed
[Vo]:LENR gets big money, what then?
Dear Friends, My blog publication for today is; http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/09/what-if-lenr-gets-big-money-internet-is.html Please take it very seriously. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Splitting water with a Catalyst.
Thanks Jones, You are indeed correct they meant it only produces the hydrogen 30x faster, not using less energy. But after some further research, I have come to believe this breakthrough does have implications which will change the world eventually. 1. The increased yield is nice but it isn't the real breakthrough, the fact that it can now be done with low loads of electricity is the game changer. Normally high yield hydrogen production takes higher loads than wind/solar can provide. This changes that. The added benefit of using low temperature, no pressure is also a huge benefit, although not crucial. 2. The liquid sponge is Silicotungstic acid, not very exotic, and only is only needed as a storage container. Completely recyclable. 3. The platinum catalyst you mentioned is NOT used at all in electrolysis AT ALL, as is the case with current state of the art facilities. Huge production plants could run with not a shred of platinum in them. The paper in Science makes it clear that platinum is only needed as a catalyst when you want to remove the hydrogen from the silicotungstic acid. And the platinum releases the hydrogen 30x faster than the platinum used in state of the art electrolysis. Because it removes the hydrogen at such a fast rate, very little platinum is needed, and only needed where end use is intended. Current fuel cells need platinum anyway, it seems rather intuitive that a fuel cell could be devised that used the silicotungstic acid, and maybe less platinum could be used in the fuel cell than current hydrogen fuel cells. Even if not, only small amounts of platinum will be needed in spots where energy is needed on the fly. Like in each car. Combining that with a fuel storage medium (the liquid) that can be stored and transported at normal atmospheric pressure and temperatures, and suddenly a hydrogen economy which is powered by solar/wind is actually feasible. On Sep 12, 2014 5:28 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It’s actually not that surprising, and not really a breakthrough - since it is platinum catalyzed. Which is the same as saying “dead in the water.” Since only the production rate increases and not the electrical efficiency - the cost of electrical input per unit of H2 is the same. The overhead is lowered, but that cost component is relatively insignificant compared to electricity. As long as natural gas remains cheap, electrolysis of water makes little sense if it requires platinum or any rare element. The water-gas shift reaction, which is over 200 years old but could have been done in the bronze age, is almost an order of magnitude cheaper than any kind of electrolysis for producing hydrogen (with NG at the present rate). OTOH – natural gas will run out sometime in the future. From: Lane Davis Sounds crazy. But published in Science today. That lends credence. http://m.phys.org/news/2014-09-hydrogen-production-breakthrough-herald-cheap .html http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_358595_en.html You guys know anything about this? Thanks.
[Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat. http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/ Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:47 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
Re: [Vo]:predictive analysis of the coming Rossi- independent Report
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Then envy and greed makes for salty and sometimes downright insulting comments. I think it is a pity. As a group we could accomplish a lot. Share and you will receive. That is what patents are for. With a patent you share and yet your greed is satisfied. You can have your cake and eat it too. That is why the inability to get patents is causing secrecy. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
YES! Thanks for posting this, Harry. Epicatalysis is a good name for a more general phenomenon which can replace the idea that LENR must involve fusion. This does not mean that there cannot be some forms of LENR which do involve fusion, but it opens the door for another branch of LENR which definitely does not. This alt/alt form of energy (alternative to an alternative) which we have called “suprachemical” at one point in time, may include Ni-H, and may even involve mass-to-energy conversions which are non-fusion (via spin coupling). However, there are no gammas in this form, and thus no need to invent a flimsy rationalization for why there are none. Epicatalysis is far easier to defend theoretically, despite CoE objections, and probably is limited in COP - but my prediction is that this will likely be the predominant vehicle for funding RD in the near future and “cold fusion” will fade from view at about the same rate. There are simply too many experiments which show COP near or slightly less than 2, with no indicia of fusion, for this to be a coincidence. From: H Veeder The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat. http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/ Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
This result seems reasonable since a hot black body can emit IR radiation from its surface. This process is in effect changing internal thermal heat energy into radiation energy which can be harnessed to perform work. I have long pondered this apparent loophole. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 13, 2014 2:47 pm Subject: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 13 Sep 2014 01:29:48 -0400: Hi, [snip] Fusion is a two step process. The first step is the tunneling of the one or more He2 nuclei into the as yet to be realized resultant nucleus. This process may occur as a superposition of many separate nuclear events where multiple nuclei tunnel into the resultant nucleus and yet still be at a distance from that the future resultant nucleus. Many individual protons can be at many different places at the same point in time The instant of fusion is the de-entanglement of the these multiple incoming subordinate nuclei. This is the time of energy transfer of the binding energy over the EMF strong coupling. The time that the EMF strong coupling must remain in place begins when the first nuclei of all the tunneling of the multiple nuclei begins until the transfer of the liberated binding energy marks the de-entanglement(energy transfer) of the reaction via the EMF strong coupling. The point I was trying to make is that the actual nuclear reaction will only liberate energy once it happens. How long it took to get to that point is irrelevant. This energy release will create a disturbance in the field. That disturbance will travel outward at the speed of light. The first things to be affected by it will be local particles within the nucleus, and if the disruptive force is large enough, then one of more of these will be ejected long before the disruptive force has time to reach another atom. IOW superposition is irrelevant. Nature itself proves this al the time. Just look at real reactions that actually do occur. Superposition is how tunneling works. In other words, superposition of all the participating nuclei can buy enough time for the cluster fusion to occur. This superposition can exist for a very long time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition for a video see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E3QT-QU0bw On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:00 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 12 Sep 2014 20:33:47 -0400: Hi, If the reaction energy of 6 MeV is mostly transferred to the lattice (soliton) via EMF strong coupling, the second proton of the He2 pair can drift out of the reaction zone with a energy of just a few KeV. With strong EMF coupling, an expelled particle need not be the primary carrier of the binding energy excess. [snip] Consider distance. An EMF coupling is bound to the speed of light, and if the reaction happens in a time frame on the order of 1E-22 seconds, then the distance over which such an interaction could occur is limited to c*1E-22*sec = 16 fm. That means interactions with other parts of the nucleus are possible, but not with other atoms. This is why most nuclear reactions involve ejection of particles. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:predictive analysis of the coming Rossi- independent Report
Yes, you are correct Jed. Although, it is still a silly attitude as the ability to reach the goal is diminished - 25 years and counting. The other side of it is that it is my experience that patents are worth very little if you do not have deep pockets to defend it with. 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 Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Then envy and greed makes for salty and sometimes downright insulting comments. I think it is a pity. As a group we could accomplish a lot. Share and you will receive. That is what patents are for. With a patent you share and yet your greed is satisfied. You can have your cake and eat it too. That is why the inability to get patents is causing secrecy. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
In the earlier Sheehan paper abstract, I was struck by the fact that this would be possible to achieve perpetual motion, if one could find an almost perfect mirror reflector of IR (gold works well to 1.5 microns). Does anyone have the full paper? Funny thing - they mention a Crookes radiometer with alternating blades of Rh and W - but was the spinner inside a mirrored sphere with a partial vacuum of hydrogen gas? The Rh would heat the W by conduction at the axis, and the vanes would spin because of the differential emission. The loss is manageable with a good reflector, and hydrogen bond asymmetry provides the gain - but since they did not mention it - apparently they did not get that far. Perpetual motion would be the result, but did they actually see it? From: David Roberson This result seems reasonable since a hot black body can emit IR radiation from its surface. This process is in effect changing internal thermal heat energy into radiation energy which can be harnessed to perform work. I have long pondered this apparent loophole. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
The COP measure by itself is inadequate for evaluating the productivity of such systems. Carnot efficiency (which will exceed 100%) should be included in the measure somehow. harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: YES! Thanks for posting this, Harry. Epicatalysis is a good name for a more general phenomenon which can replace the idea that LENR must involve fusion. This does not mean that there cannot be some forms of LENR which do involve fusion, but it opens the door for another branch of LENR which definitely does not. This alt/alt form of energy (alternative to an alternative) which we have called “suprachemical” at one point in time, may include Ni-H, and may even involve mass-to-energy conversions which are non-fusion (via spin coupling). However, there are no gammas in this form, and thus no need to invent a flimsy rationalization for why there are none. Epicatalysis is far easier to defend theoretically, despite CoE objections, and probably is limited in COP - but my prediction is that this will likely be the predominant vehicle for funding RD in the near future and “cold fusion” will fade from view at about the same rate. There are simply too many experiments which show COP near or slightly less than 2, with no indicia of fusion, for this to be a coincidence. *From:* H Veeder The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat. http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/ Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
I do not have a problem with low apparent COP at this early stage. BTW – we should step back and relook at the Cravens NI-Week demo in the context of Epicatalysis, and as an example of something similar but more robust than Sheehan. Cravens was getting much higher COP, at modest temps. There is no apparent reason to drop all the way back to ambient. The gain could be due to hydrogen bond asymmetry only – meaning that there is an asymmetry in hydrogen catalysis using some metal combinations which is actually gainful. That would be in the sense of allowing the chemical bond to be split with slightly less energy than it gives up on re-bonding. This could define Craven’s system as well, no? From: H Veeder The COP measure by itself is inadequate for evaluating the productivity of such systems. Carnot efficiency (which will exceed 100%) should be included in the measure somehow. harry
RE: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
While we are on the subject of Second Law violators - Ken Rauen published an interesting article in Infinite Energy magazine which discusses the history of the Second Law and some known exceptions and comes to the final conclusion that what has been known about the behavior of heat and entropy, as embodied in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is incomplete. Here is the complete article: http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Rauen%2355.pdf Maybe he should have called it a “rule of thumb” :-) BTW – we should step back and relook at the Cravens NI-Week demo in the context of Epicatalysis, and as an example of something similar but more robust than Sheehan. Cravens was getting much higher COP, at modest temps. There is no apparent reason to drop all the way back to ambient. The gain could be due to hydrogen bond asymmetry only – meaning that there is an asymmetry in hydrogen catalysis using some metal combinations which is actually gainful. That would be in the sense of allowing the chemical bond to be split with slightly less energy than it gives up on re-bonding. This could define Craven’s system as well, no? From: H Veeder The COP measure by itself is inadequate for evaluating the productivity of such systems. Carnot efficiency (which will exceed 100%) should be included in the measure somehow. harry
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
My son (doing a theoretical physics PhD) tends to quote Pirates of the Caribbean on this and say that it is not so much a rule as more what you'd call guidelines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6kgS_AwuH0 Nigel On 13/09/2014 19:47, H Veeder wrote: Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion X Prize
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: *Thinking Big Is The Easy Part: My Weekend Dreaming Up The Next XPrize* http://www.fastcoexist.com/3030775/thinking-big-is-the-easy-part-my-weekend-dreaming-up-the-next- xprize On E-Cat World there is a post about the Forbidden Energy XPrize that was discussed sometime back: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/13/xprize-offers-20-million-for-forbidden-energy/ A video of the pitch to the audience at the Visioneering conference is included. The prize will pay 20 million to the winner if the conditions are met. I find it encouraging that this prize was put together. It suggests to me that there is some receptivity to cold fusion in the larger public beyond the people who follow the usual sites and lists. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
Interesting how similar the description is to the Casimir effect.
