Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end
On 12/6/2011 6:02 PM, Alain dit le Cycliste wrote: from your experience, what are the relative merit/domain of - piston/rotative steam engine (like the one people talk here) Simple, low cost, easy to repair / maintain and can work with the steam pressure generated by the primary circuit of the Hyperion unit (can handle 150 Bar in the primary circuit). Rossi has not yet revealed the steam pressure capability of his 10 kW unit. As the Rossi 1 MW plant has 3 Bar pressure release on each module output, the steam pressure available is probably too low for even piston steam engines. At least those that I have found. - steam/gaz turbine (with water or volatile fluids) ORC is expensive and large compared to a piston steam engine. There are no systems available in the 5 - 7.5 kW range. - Stirling engine I know of no Stirling engines of 5 - 7.5 Ac kW capacity. All that is available now seems to be piston steam engines. assuming the temperature proposed by Hyperion small and medium, working alone or in farm like e-cat 1MW, what are your opinion on best solution fr each. by the way, for CHP generator on the grid, Not interested. With 7.5 Ac kW generation capacity, why go on grid? what is your opinion on using asynchronous generator automatically matching grid frequency ? NA in our domestic business model but in the power range we are talking about, using a grid connect inverter would be the only economical method. I doubt any government will pay a feed-in tariff for LENR generated Ac kWhs so why pump back excess power? do you know classic method to switch from async on grid, to sync off grid ? We propose to use an appropriate selected manually operated switch to power the load / your home from either the grid or the LENR system. do you know classic method for asynchronous generators, to restore a good phase (ie: absorb reactive power, restore good cos phi...) There are many VAR corrector system on the market. 2011/12/6 Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com Based on the lowest LENR
[Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies...
Leif Holmlid Precision bond lengths for Rydberg Matter clusters Kn (N = 19, 37, 61 and 91) in excitation levels n = 4 - 8 from rotational radio-frequency emission spectra The Rf frequencies involved are less than 100Mhz. certainly within the realm of the RF generator used in one of Rossi's demos. Is there a connection? Who knows. If anyone wants the entire PDF, just send me your email. - Mark
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
I never said it was 'exotic'. And I never attempted to explain something as simply claiming it was a resonant phenomenon. Stop putting words in my mouth. This whole discussion started with your statement: Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics. In what way? Explain. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:56 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The simple fact is, that given the SAME amount of 'push' at regular intervals, a resonant system will achieve what appears to be extreme amplitudes whereas the non-resonant push of the SAME amount of force, can NEVER achieve any lasting, That's what I said. I didn't say resonance was not important, only that it is not exotic, and in fact is elementary, and you can't just explain something you don't understand by saying: Oh, it's a resonant phenomenon. And by the way, those big particle accelerators rely on resonance too.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I never said it was ‘exotic’… And I never attempted to explain something as simply claiming it was a resonant phenomenon… Stop putting words in my mouth. This whole discussion started with your statement: “Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics.” ** ** In what way? Explain… Semantic discussions are rarely useful, but I took the meaning of brute force from the context in which you used it, when you said: You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. If all that nuclear physicists know is brute force physics, then resonance is very much a part of brute force physics, because all nuclear physicists are intimately familiar with resonance. It's an elementary phenomenon taught in freshman physics, and permeates all branches of physics, including nuclear physics, in phenomena such as resonant gamma ray absorption or emission (in the Mossbauer effect, as one of many examples). To move beyond the semantics of brute force, your argument was that resonant phenomena made the concentration of thermal energy a millionfold in nickel powder absolutely possible (in caps), and that this was something nuclear physicists would not think of because it is outside their knowledge (which is where I got exotic from).
Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end
As someone who has worked on, and has a number of patents on Z-Crank type engines I would not recommend buying one of these green steam engines. The design/construction appears to emphasise appearance over function and doesn't look like it will operate reliably for more than 10-100 hours. In particular the open unlubricated design is not sensible - unlubricated spherical bearings do not work reliably in wrist joints over extended periods of running with the high loads that such engines have, they are extremely likely to be a big ongoing maintenance hassle. Also very large bearing overhangs on thin shafts in an open space frame that lacks diagonal bracing is not good for bearings, and the torque reaction method (to stop the spider spinning) does not look at all durable either. To me the engineering all appears rather amateur, and while probably fine to run as a demonstrator for a few hours I would not be relying on it to run for any length of time. A normal crank mechanism steam engine might not look as cool, but it is far more likely to give you long term reliable running. On 6 December 2011 03:34, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: This piston based steam engine looks very doable and market ready for a home CHP plant: http://www.greensteamengine.**comhttp://www.greensteamengine.com1,500 rpm. 10 HP (~6.5 kW.e) at 125 psi steam or 4 HP at 50 psi steam. $1,995 for the commercial 2 cylinder unit without a generator. Ok needs a control system to hold Ac cycles at 50 / 60 Hz but that will not be hard to build.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Of course resonance is simple physics, and is the foundation for all 'flavors' of spectroscopies, however, that is NOT what I was referring to when I used resonance in this statement, You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. I would have thought with my clear statements about using extremely intense magnetic fields and smashing particles head on at extremely high velocities, it would have been obvious that I was referring to something specific, and not a 'general' concept of resonance. Why does nuclear physics use (BRUTE FORCE) particle accelerators? Because they are boxed in by the thought that the ONLY way to overcome the coulomb barrier is extreme force. Well, ya, that certainly is one way, but my point is that one could achieve the same end using much more modest energies if the device used resonance. That's all. it's certainly not meant to be a full blown explanation of exactly how to achieve that. So how do particle accelerators use resonance to overcome electrostatic repulsion? -mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 12:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I never said it was 'exotic'. And I never attempted to explain something as simply claiming it was a resonant phenomenon. Stop putting words in my mouth. This whole discussion started with your statement: Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics. In what way? Explain. Semantic discussions are rarely useful, but I took the meaning of brute force from the context in which you used it, when you said: You are reasoning from the physics of brute force, which is all that nuclear physicists know. The physics of resonance can achieve the extreme energy levels required with very small, but properly timed/oriented, inputs. If all that nuclear physicists know is brute force physics, then resonance is very much a part of brute force physics, because all nuclear physicists are intimately familiar with resonance. It's an elementary phenomenon taught in freshman physics, and permeates all branches of physics, including nuclear physics, in phenomena such as resonant gamma ray absorption or emission (in the Mossbauer effect, as one of many examples). To move beyond the semantics of brute force, your argument was that resonant phenomena made the concentration of thermal energy a millionfold in nickel powder absolutely possible (in caps), and that this was something nuclear physicists would not think of because it is outside their knowledge (which is where I got exotic from).
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I would have thought with my clear statements about using extremely intense magnetic fields and smashing particles head on at extremely high velocities, it would have been obvious that I was referring to something specific, What specific, exactly? and not a ‘general’ concept of resonance. Why does nuclear physics use (BRUTE FORCE) particle accelerators? Because they are boxed in by the thought that the ONLY way to overcome the coulomb barrier is extreme force. You know, you don't need much energy (on the scale of accelerators) to overcome the Coulomb barrier; that's why you can buy bench top neutron sources that use ordinary fusion produced by accelerating deuterons through a simple electric field. The energy in big accelerators is needed to produce more exotic reactions and particles that don't exist in nature (except in stars or supernovae). Well, ya, that certainly is one way, but my point is that one could achieve the same end using much more modest energies if the device used resonance. The device does use resonance. But if you've got a way to look for the Higg's boson without big accelerators, you're a shoo-in for a nobel prize. I'm honored to have argued with you. But, as I said before, just saying resonance doesn't make something possible. You're going to have to be specific, or there's no cigar. That’s all… it’s certainly not meant to be a full blown explanation of exactly how to achieve that… No. It's not an explanation at all. It's just a vague wish. It's like saying we'll use zero-point energy, or pink unicorns, without any concept of how exactly. ** ** So how do particle accelerators use resonance to overcome electrostatic repulsion? Again, accelerators are many orders of magnitude beyond breaching the Coulomb barrier. But, as one example, from the first sentence in wikipedia on cyclotrons: *Ion cyclotron resonance* is a phenomenon related to the movement of ionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ions in a magnetic field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field. It is used for accelerating ions in a cyclotronhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron ,... Or in the article on particle accelerators: As the particles approach the speed of light the switching rate of the electric fields becomes so high that they operate at microwave frequencies, and so RF cavity resonators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_resonator are used in higher energy machines instead of simple plates. Basically, in any cyclic accelerator, the acceleration has to be in sync (resonance) with the particle motion. Otherwise there's interference and dissipation.
Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end
We have asked them for their FEA stress analysis data and for how long they have had an engine running continuously at max load. This company appears to have licensed the 6 cylinder / 25 HP engine, and have a few interesting videos: www.steamenginepower.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdikr5nBLxAfeature=mfu_in_orderlist=UL There doesn't seem to be much cylinder movement with this arrangement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jk3yU_iUfsfeature=mfu_in_orderlist=UL Maintenance video that lets you get a good idea of the size of the unit. The hardened / anodized aluminum cylinders with a simple O ring seal piston doesn't impress me but then I have not seen the specs and what reliability tests they have done. On 12/6/2011 7:37 PM, Robert Lynn wrote: As someone who has worked on, and has a number of patents on Z-Crank type engines I would not recommend buying one of these green steam engines. The design/construction appears to emphasise appearance over function and doesn't look like it will operate reliably for more than 10-100 hours. In particular the open unlubricated design is not sensible - unlubricated spherical bearings do not work reliably in wrist joints over extended periods of running with the high loads that such engines have, they are extremely likely to be a big ongoing maintenance hassle. Also very large bearing overhangs on thin shafts in an open space frame that lacks diagonal bracing is not good for bearings, and the torque reaction method (to stop the spider spinning) does not look at all durable either. To me the engineering all appears rather amateur, and while probably fine to run as a demonstrator for a few hours I would not be relying on it to run for any length of time. A normal crank mechanism steam engine might not look as cool, but it is far more likely to give you long term reliable running. On 6 December 2011 03:34, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: This piston based steam engine looks very doable and market ready for a home CHP plant: http://www.greensteamengine.com 1,500 rpm. 10 HP (~6.5 kW.e) at 125 psi steam or 4 HP at 50 psi steam. $1,995 for the commercial 2 cylinder unit without a generator. Ok needs a control system to hold Ac cycles at 50 / 60 Hz but that will not be hard to build.
Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end
Could you have a problem with the 30kWH of excess heat. It seems a bit much to get rid of for space heating and hot water especially in a suburban situation. I was also looking a FIT rate in Australia and it seems you can get money back from the power company. Could you do this for ecat power? On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Based on the lowest LENR / kW price so far quoted ($7,700 (this the quoted retail installed price) / 45 kW thermal), the LCOE / kWh thermal is then $0.004 / kWh thermal. Assuming a 25% conversion efficiency, the cost is then $0.016 / Ac kWh for 24/7/365 for 30 years of electricity plus you have 30 kWh of thermal heat to be use for space and water heating. What will that cost your for the petrol based generator running 24/7/365 for 30 years? Then add in the cost of space and water heating. BTW we can source a good quality 7.5 kW single / 3 phase alternator (with voltage control) from China for around $300 and a good quality 10 HP steam engine (with RPM control) for around $250. We expect to be able to offer a LENR driven off grid CHP system for less than $8,000 with more than enough electrical, hot water and space heat output to run a large domestic home with only connections to the water and storm water sewage grid. Of course there are off the shelf systems to do those functions off the grid as well. On 12/6/2011 5:02 PM, David Roberson wrote: I found a generator driven by a 4 cycle gasoline engine that puts out 5500 watts of AC for $648 US dollars(Lowes USA). This price includes everything you need except the gasoline. I understand that the LENR powered devices that we are looking at do not require refueling except for twice a year, but the cost of the bare unit gets my attention. A 4 cycle gas engine is pretty complicated and does the conversion of heat into rotary motion as a steam engine would. Why should we not expect the price of a comparable LENR device to be more in line with this? I understand that they deserve a portion of the fuel savings, but why try to take so much of the money? Maybe the ECAT type price will be more comparable to the generator I found when production numbers and competition kicks in. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 5, 2011 11:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end I've emailed Robert Green and asked for more data and if what I get looks good, I will buy one of the 2 cylinder 10 Hp unit to have a play. From what I can find this is my front runner steam engine to use as the torque source for a domestic LENR CHP unit. With 24/7 LENR primary heat source and CHP with electricity generation at around 5 - 6 Ac kWs, who needs to worry about grid tie? On 12/6/2011 2:36 PM, ecat builder wrote: Hi Aussie, I posted that and a few other steam engines earlier that got a bunch of thoughtful replies. http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53254.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53254.html However, maybe a discussion of grid-tie in using existing solar/wind systems would be interesting. Some of the new tie-in controllers tell you how much carbon you're not using. (!?) - Brad p.s. Aussie, or any other Vortex person.. The Nelson slides mention someone from Quantum Energy Technologies being at the Rossi demo... Do you know if this company is one and the same? http://www.quantumenergy.com.**au/ http://www.quantumenergy.com.au/
[Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapsehttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On 2011-12-06 14:44, Peter Gluck wrote: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 This is yet another skeptical paper which assumes that what takes place in cold fusion processes is as conventional nuclear fusion occurring in vacuum and naturally in stars, and therefore cannot be possible in tabletop devices due to several reasons. I feel this is becoming a typical straw man argument for skeptics. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
A few good demos could make the skeptics to swallow their poisonous words and to shut up. I hope eventually these demos will happen. Now I hope they will happen at Defkalion. Peter On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapsehttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Skeptics? Can we please stop calling these people skeptics. I am a skeptic. This is not skepticism. This is dogmatism. We are the skeptics. We are skeptical of official dogma that says that hundreds of scientists are incompetent, frauds or self-deluded and that you can't produce energy from CF/LENR/CANR/whatever it turns out to be. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
there are interesting theoretical arguments. If they are right it means that all Ni+H experiments are fraud, not only e-cat and hyperions. this is an all or nothing argument, for NiH reactions. about their (seems good) stellar argument, that nickel cannot transmute to copper in star for billions years, so cannot on earths in minutes... I can add few excuse. -first of all the current isotopic ration of Ni might be the consequence of an equlibrium reaction, in a very hot system, under neutron flux... -second, it seems that the shape of the metal lattice (surface, temperature), and some other factor (catalysts, the CA- factor of defkalion) is important to accelerate the reaction. maybe the condition, high temperature, strong pressure, ionization is not good for the strange quantum effect to happens... the nucleus of a star may not be the best place to observe a super-fluid/superconductor, or transistor effect. so anyway, those arguments against NiH LENR are global. when we know if it is true or false, there will be a big discovery in physic or social science. I won't be so surprised by either case. 2011/12/6 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapsehttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Tuesday 12/6/11 Alain wrote [snip] I can add few excuse. -first of all the current isotopic ration of Ni might be the consequence of an equlibrium reaction, in a very hot system, under neutron flux...-second, it seems that the shape of the metal lattice (surface, temperature), and some other factor (catalysts, the CA- factor of defkalion) is important to accelerate the reaction. maybe the condition, high temperature, strong pressure, ionization is not good for the strange quantum effect to happens... the nucleus of a star may not be the best place to observe a super-fluid/superconductor, or transistor effect. [/snip] Alain, Great point regarding the shape of the metal lattice under high pressure and gravity in a star as opposed to here on earth. The critical geometry required to create this effect would be both crushed and melted. My ZPE perspective is that the opposition of these geometries to longer vacuum wavelengths lowers the vacuum energy density [a warp] as opposed to the crushing gravity [well] of a star. Any dilation factor in a star slows reactions while in a warp accelerates them making these low probability reactions more probable. Fran From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain dit le Cycliste Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 9:59 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat there are interesting theoretical arguments. If they are right it means that all Ni+H experiments are fraud, not only e-cat and hyperions. this is an all or nothing argument, for NiH reactions. about their (seems good) stellar argument, that nickel cannot transmute to copper in star for billions years, so cannot on earths in minutes... I can add few excuse. -first of all the current isotopic ration of Ni might be the consequence of an equlibrium reaction, in a very hot system, under neutron flux... -second, it seems that the shape of the metal lattice (surface, temperature), and some other factor (catalysts, the CA- factor of defkalion) is important to accelerate the reaction. maybe the condition, high temperature, strong pressure, ionization is not good for the strange quantum effect to happens... the nucleus of a star may not be the best place to observe a super-fluid/superconductor, or transistor effect. so anyway, those arguments against NiH LENR are global. when we know if it is true or false, there will be a big discovery in physic or social science. I won't be so surprised by either case. 2011/12/6 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.commailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapsehttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: A few good demos could make the skeptics to swallow their poisonous words and to shut up. I hope eventually these demos will happen. Now I hope they will happen at Defkalion. Peter One can be, at the same time, agnostic about cold fusion/LENR and very skeptical about Rossi. It's hardly poisonous. It's simply good observation.Characterizing that as poisonous makes no sense.
Re: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies...
Is there a connection? There is a connection. The purpose of the RF generator is to maintain Rydberg Matter excitation for as long as possible during the self-sustain mode when the internal heater is shut down. During self-sustain mode no additional Rydberg matter is produced by the internal heater; and what has already been generated during startup must be maintained in its full potency for as long as possible. Without this magnetic excitation, the Rydberg matter would eventually decay and disintegrate. This would remove the source of the ultra-strong dipole moment coulomb barrier masking needed for the protons from atomic hydrogen to penetrate the nuclei of the heavy atoms of nickel. Since the stainless steel reaction vessels are at a high enough temperature above their curie point, the magnetic radiation produced by the RF generator will penetrate these metal shells to stimulate and maintain the excitation levels of the Rydberg matter within. Rydberg matter is very responsive to both magnetic and electrostatic excitation. The development of this module by Defkalion, tells me that Defkalion understands in detail what reaction processes make the E-Cat go. When Rossi uses this RF generator, Rossi infers that Defkalion knows more than he does. So Rossi must understand that Defkalion is a powerful and knowledgeable competitor whose detailed technical understanding of the E-Cat reaction processes goes well beyond his own. This sort of obscure technical inference which goes well beyond what a scammer would ever think is needed to pull off his con, encourages me in my faith that the E-Cat technology is real. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Mark Iverson mark2...@charter.net wrote: Leif Holmlid ** ** “Precision bond lengths for Rydberg Matter clusters Kn (N = 19, 37, 61 and 91) in excitation levels n = 4 - 8 from rotational radio-frequency emission spectra” ** ** The Rf frequencies involved are less than 100Mhz… certainly within the realm of the RF generator used in one of Rossi’s demos. ** ** Is there a connection? Who knows… ** ** If anyone wants the entire PDF, just send me your email… ** ** - Mark ** **
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
I was speaking specifically about the article, its logic is poisonous, typical post-logical thinking and mixing points of view. Influential skeptics, on other hand are poisoning the funding sources of New Energy. But if you wish, I can retract 'poisonous' I am just writing an essay about Rossi. Not black or white dualistic thinking. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: A few good demos could make the skeptics to swallow their poisonous words and to shut up. I hope eventually these demos will happen. Now I hope they will happen at Defkalion. Peter One can be, at the same time, agnostic about cold fusion/LENR and very skeptical about Rossi. It's hardly poisonous. It's simply good observation.Characterizing that as poisonous makes no sense. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:MSNBC reports on Rossi visit to Massachusetts
Idea of a cold fusion plant in Massachusetts explored Italian investor meets with scientists, state officials to pitch controversial technology http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45557227/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/idea-cold-fusion-plant-massachusetts-explored/#.Tt3c0lbbDRQ harry
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Ethan Siegel is suggesting a rigged power cord to explain the self sustained heat observation: In fact, the entire observed effect of having your system continue to generate heat even after it's been turned off is remarkably simple to rig. Possible? rigged power cord: http://db.tt/RFOa0EAa On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapsehttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: But if you wish, I can retract 'poisonous' Well, it's just that it doesn't fit most skeptical criticism of Rossi any more than does snake or clown with which Rossi is so fond of labeling people. I am just writing an essay about Rossi. Not black or white dualistic thinking. I'll be interested to read that but don't you think it may be premature? Rossi has not revealed his hand yet. Is there really much to say about him at this point other than that? By the way, the article has an interesting way of cheating the power-in measurement. See the last figure. I don't think Rossi does this but I can't rule it out. In the photos, the line cord is taken apart and the wire being measured looks like it's a single cable. I suppose Rossi could have made a special line cord with doubled conductors in each wire but that's a bit far fetched though certainly not impossible. But while I don't think Rossi used that particular magic cheating method, I think it's important to note that it's one that most of us didn't think of, probably including Jed Rothwell. Which reinforces my issue that it's not possible to think of an anticipate every method by which Rossi could cheat. That's the main and overwhelming reason why testing has to be independent and not involve Rossi's venue, his power supply, his coolant supply and most of all his enthalphy measurement methods. It's the issue Jed seems to resist the most. Jed challenges me to make the issue of whether or not Rossi is cheating falsifiable -- using any method including sleight of hand magic. Of course, the theory that Rossi is faking (by *any* method) *is* falsified if Rossi's device is proven to work independently of Rossi for long enough in a properly calibrated set up. Somehow that logic seems to slip by. This (the altered line cord) is an example of a faking method that, although it's an unlikely method in Rossi's case, would have been missed by K E, Lewan and most likely everyone else.
Re: [Vo]:Codeposition of Ni/H
There are three basic things that must be accomplished to make an E-Cat design successful. - High hydrogen packing into nickel nano-powder. - Strong Coulomb barrier masking. - Gamma Radiation thermalization, mitigation, and prevention. Industry standard electrodeposition of Ni does none of these key things. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:57 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Since codeposition of Pd/D seems to be one of the better ways to get reproducible PF effects, and there has been a lot of work done in electrodeposition of Ni, with the inevitable result of Ni/H codeposition, where are the reports of anomalous heat in the world of Ni electrolysis?
Re: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies...
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a connection? There is a connection. The purpose of the RF generator is to maintain Rydberg Matter excitation for as long as possible during the self-sustain mode when the internal heater is shut down. Wouldn't it be simpler to route some heat from the thermal output back to the input -- maybe through some sort of heat exchanger? Instead of doing like Rossi did during his first set of experiments -- dumping it in a bucket or into a wall.
RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
No, that simple scenario is not possible. If you ran the circuit backwards, the current would not change; if you switched wires the ammeter would read zero, which it never has (it always showed the current for the controls and/or radio frequency generator). Unfortunately, the input power is only spot-checked and can be varied when noone is looking. The double-lead theory is completely unnecessary if Rossi just kicks up the power when you're in the other room. The fraud arguments are exhausting and futile. A good number of Vortexans have spent a great deal of effort describing a very simple scenario to record total power in and total power out, in order to get a conclusive demonstration. I personally laid out the simple evidence required prior to the October 6th demo; I know that Mr. Rothwell forwarded many concerns directly to Rossi prior to the test. It didn't happen. Rossi does not seem interested in conclusive tests. I'm anxiously awaiting more Defkalion and Piantelli information. As for Rossi, I am no longer holding my breath. Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:28:07 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: ashot...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Ethan Siegel is suggesting a rigged power cord to explain the self sustained heat observation: In fact, the entire observed effect of having your system continue to generate heat even after it's been turned off is remarkably simple to rig. Possible? rigged power cord: http://db.tt/RFOa0EAa On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: No, that simple scenario is not possible. If you ran the circuit backwards, the current would not change; if you switched wires the ammeter would read zero, which it never has (it always showed the current for the controls and/or radio frequency generator). That (getting power to the control circuits) would only require a very thin third wire inside the multiple conductor -- very doable though I agree, unlikely. One of the things non-magicians don't recognize is the length and complexity of many illusions and the amount of work required to do good stage magic. Rossi may have been inspired by that. But I agree, this particular scenario is unlikely. So how many others has nobody thought of... yet?
Re: [Vo]:MSNBC reports on Rossi visit to Massachusetts
At 08:17 AM 12/6/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Idea of a cold fusion plant in Massachusetts explored http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45557227/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/idea-cold-fusion-plant-massachusetts-explored/#.Tt3c0lbbDRQ Life's little mysteries has been covering Rossi intermittently, from the start. (Mainly, seems to summarize other people articles.) But at the bottom of the page there's THIS link !!! Burning Deceased Baby Boomers Could Generate Electricity http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/corpses-crematorium-electricity-2214/ In Durham, England, corpses will soon be used to generate electricity. A crematorium is installing turbines in its burners that will convert waste heat from the combustion of each corpse into as much as 150 kilowatt-hours of juice enough to power 1,500 televisions for an hour. The facility plans to sell the electricity to local power companies. Some might find this concept creepy. Others might be pleased to learn that the process makes cremation much greener by utilizing its by-products, in the words of cremation engineer Steve Looker, owner and chief executive officer of the Florida-based company BL Cremation Systems, which is unaffiliated with the Durham enterprise.
Re: [Vo]:MSNBC reports on Rossi visit to Massachusetts
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Some might find this concept creepy. More like silly -- unless they burn corpses day and night for years, they're not going to recover very much energy and there are better, cleaner sources. They shouldn't burn the bodies -- better to make Soylent Green. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
Re: [Vo]:MSNBC reports on Rossi visit to Massachusetts
At 09:26 AM 12/6/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:They shouldn't burn the bodies -- better to make Soylent Green. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green The same article also links to : Eat the Old: Could Mass Cannibalism Solve a Future Food Shortage? http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/soylent-green-real-life-cannibalism-2129/
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
At 08:37 AM 12/6/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: By the way, the article has an interesting way of cheating the power-in measurement. See the last figure. I don't think Rossi does this but I can't rule it out. In the photos, the line cord is taken apart and the wire being measured looks like it's a single cable. I suppose Rossi could have made a special line cord with doubled conductors in each wire but that's a bit far fetched though certainly not impossible. The January test also used a wattmeter (similar to US kilawatt). I'll note it in my fakes paper, though.
Re: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies...
Your suggestion may be possible when a automated fail safe control system is developed (maybe by National instruments) to provide some sort of negative feedback control on heat output. IMHO, until such controls are put in place, a runaway meltdown using the strategy you suggest is likely at some juncture. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a connection? There is a connection. The purpose of the RF generator is to maintain Rydberg Matter excitation for as long as possible during the self-sustain mode when the internal heater is shut down. Wouldn't it be simpler to route some heat from the thermal output back to the input -- maybe through some sort of heat exchanger? Instead of doing like Rossi did during his first set of experiments -- dumping it in a bucket or into a wall.
Re: [Vo]:MSNBC reports on Rossi visit to Massachusetts
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: More like silly -- unless they burn corpses day and night for years, they're not going to recover very much energy and there are better, cleaner sources. They shouldn't burn the bodies -- better to make Soylent Green. And if you feel guilty later, we can dig a hole and you can throw up in it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWWg5shNWR4 T
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
JC: Thx for the explanations, relevant or not, however, I still think that the discussion wandered from my initial point, which was, given proper conditions, one can disrupt the natural balance within a nucleus and cause unexpected results using much lower levels of energy by using resonance rather than brute force. I have to spend time on paid work so let's just agree to disagree. Aside from that, your comment that the large accelerators go way beyond the energy necessary for overcoming the Coulomb Barrier seems to be only partially right. In the following article, the physicist states: In other words, even the most massive stars, at the incredible pressures and temperatures found at their cores, cannot fuse nickel and hydrogen nuclei together. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_w e.php?utm_source=feedburner http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_ we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+Sciencebl ogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 utm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28Sci enceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 So, even the most powerful accelerator built cannot overcome the CB for the vast majority of atomic elements. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 2:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I would have thought with my clear statements about using extremely intense magnetic fields and smashing particles head on at extremely high velocities, it would have been obvious that I was referring to something specific, What specific, exactly? and not a 'general' concept of resonance. Why does nuclear physics use (BRUTE FORCE) particle accelerators? Because they are boxed in by the thought that the ONLY way to overcome the coulomb barrier is extreme force. You know, you don't need much energy (on the scale of accelerators) to overcome the Coulomb barrier; that's why you can buy bench top neutron sources that use ordinary fusion produced by accelerating deuterons through a simple electric field. The energy in big accelerators is needed to produce more exotic reactions and particles that don't exist in nature (except in stars or supernovae). Well, ya, that certainly is one way, but my point is that one could achieve the same end using much more modest energies if the device used resonance. The device does use resonance. But if you've got a way to look for the Higg's boson without big accelerators, you're a shoo-in for a nobel prize. I'm honored to have argued with you. But, as I said before, just saying resonance doesn't make something possible. You're going to have to be specific, or there's no cigar. That's all. it's certainly not meant to be a full blown explanation of exactly how to achieve that. No. It's not an explanation at all. It's just a vague wish. It's like saying we'll use zero-point energy, or pink unicorns, without any concept of how exactly. So how do particle accelerators use resonance to overcome electrostatic repulsion? Again, accelerators are many orders of magnitude beyond breaching the Coulomb barrier. But, as one example, from the first sentence in wikipedia on cyclotrons: Ion cyclotron resonance is a phenomenon related to the movement of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ions ions in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field magnetic field. It is used for accelerating ions in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron cyclotron,... Or in the article on particle accelerators: As the particles approach the speed of light the switching rate of the electric fields becomes so high that they operate at microwave frequencies, and so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_resonator RF cavity resonators are used in higher energy machines instead of simple plates. Basically, in any cyclic accelerator, the acceleration has to be in sync (resonance) with the particle motion. Otherwise there's interference and dissipation.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
At 08:44 AM 12/6/2011, Peter Gluck wrote: The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsChannelEnvironment+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Environment%29 The article is a great example of hubris. Well-written for a lay person, does explain the so-called mainstream view of cold fusion. My interest is, of course, LENR and the evidence regarding its existence. Ni-H and Rossi is a recent claim, about which there is way too little evidence to come to much of any conclusions other than the obvious: Rossi looks like a con man. Now, if we could make judgments about nuclear physics based on how people look, ordinary people would be experts on nuclear physics, eh? Here is where the article starts to jump off the cliff of reasoning from outcomes, of assuming the conclusion: All of our successful attempts at generating nuclear fusion here on Earth require similarly high pressures and/or temperatures to those found at the core of each and every fusion-powered star. In mainstream physics, there are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_confinement_fusionthree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_fusiontypes of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetized_target_fusionsetups verified to create nuclear fusion, all of which are working towards the (metaphorical) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holy%20grailholy grail goal of the breakeven point. If you can reach and go beyond that point, you'll produce more usable energy from your setup than you put into it in order to create the fusion reaction. But recently, attempts to create nuclear fusion with a relatively low-pressure, low-temperature experiment -- what's commonly known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusioncold fusion -- have been making a lot of noise. Notice the word all. Anyone who knows science should have alarms going off when they come across that word. There is another word in there, successful. What does that mean? Here, I'm guessing, success might mean break-even. However, the three verified setups haven't reached that goal, not in a verified way, at least. Further, the context is that they are talking about attempts to achieve fusion, and even one fusion reaction verified would be success, even if it's far below breakeven. Bottom line, what they say is just plain wrong. The clearest and least controversial example is muon-catalyzed fusion. The controversy, then, is over whether or not fusion catalyzed or arranged by other than muons is possible. What they are not disclosing is the existence of a controversy, and, in particular, they may not even be aware of it. There is a gap between what most scientists believe on the matter of fusion, and what is being published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, not to mention in other places. The extreme skepticism on cold fusion has disappeared from the mainstream peer-reviewed literature. It is still found in tertiary sources, in articles that do not actually investigate the topic, that just repeat the conventional wisdom as if that had anything to do with the real state of science. Storms, Status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften, October, 2010, stands. I'm not aware of any more recent review of the field of the same stature as to detailed consideration of the evidence. There is now a substantial body of work confirming that there is a reaction (covered by the rubrik, Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect) that produces heat and helium from deuterium, and if you can figure out a way to produce helium from deuterium without fusion, well, you might get a Nobel Prize just for that. The heat is correlated with the helium at, within experimental error, the right value for deuterium fusion, but that doesn't mean that the reaction is d+d - He-4. It just means that the fuel is likely deuterium and the ash is helium, any intermediary reaction starting from deuterium and ending with helium will produce that ratio. Some people quibble about whether or not, say, a series of reactions that start with producing neutrons, which are then absorbed to transmute elements, that might end up with helium, are fusion or not. But that's not relevant here. The authors are really denying LENR, low-energy nuclear reactions, but ignoring the massive evidence, and they just focus on Rossi. They state that Rossi is claiming nuclear fusion. No, he doesn't. It's not clear what he claims. Mostly he's claiming heat. This is a shallow article, ultimately. [...] you've got to overcome the tremendous Coulomb barrier (the electrical repulsion between nickel and hydrogen nuclei), which -- according to our knowledge of nuclear physics -- requires temperatures and pressures not found naturally anywhere in the Universe. Not in the Sun, not in the cores of the most massive stars, and
RE: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies...
In addition, the RF would have a near instantaneous effect, whereas Mary's suggestion would have a very significant time-lag. thus, as Axil pointed out, a much greater likelihood of runaway. From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 9:36 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies... Your suggestion may be possible when a automated fail safe control system is developed (maybe by National instruments) to provide some sort of negative feedback control on heat output. IMHO, until such controls are put in place, a runaway meltdown using the strategy you suggest is likely at some juncture. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a connection? There is a connection. The purpose of the RF generator is to maintain Rydberg Matter excitation for as long as possible during the self-sustain mode when the internal heater is shut down. Wouldn't it be simpler to route some heat from the thermal output back to the input -- maybe through some sort of heat exchanger? Instead of doing like Rossi did during his first set of experiments -- dumping it in a bucket or into a wall.
Re: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies...
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: In addition, the RF would have a near instantaneous effect, whereas Mary’s suggestion would have a very significant time-lag… thus, as Axil pointed out, a much greater likelihood of runaway. It's doubtful that Rossi exhibited anything that would have enough RF power to melt down the core in all the E-cats in the megawatt plant at once. Where would he store that much power? Anyway, wouldn't stopping the coolant flow be the best way to melt down a runaway core? The more one looks at the concept of a safety heater, especially one that runs at appreciable power levels during most supposedly exothermic runs, the worse it smells.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater elements was measured also eliminates this kind of magic. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 11:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: But if you wish, I can retract 'poisonous' Well, it's just that it doesn't fit most skeptical criticism of Rossi any more than does snake or clown with which Rossi is so fond of labeling people. I am just writing an essay about Rossi. Not black or white dualistic thinking. I'll be interested to read that but don't you think it may be premature? Rossi has not revealed his hand yet. Is there really much to say about him at this point other than that? By the way, the article has an interesting way of cheating the power-in measurement. See the last figure. I don't think Rossi does this but I can't rule it out. In the photos, the line cord is taken apart and the wire being measured looks like it's a single cable. I suppose Rossi could have made a special line cord with doubled conductors in each wire but that's a bit far fetched though certainly not impossible. But while I don't think Rossi used that particular magic cheating method, I think it's important to note that it's one that most of us didn't think of, probably including Jed Rothwell. Which reinforces my issue that it's not possible to think of an anticipate every method by which Rossi could cheat. That's the main and overwhelming reason why testing has to be independent and not involve Rossi's venue, his power supply, his coolant supply and most of all his enthalphy measurement methods. It's the issue Jed seems to resist the most. Jed challenges me to make the issue of whether or not Rossi is cheating falsifiable -- using any method including sleight of hand magic. Of course, the theory that Rossi is faking (by *any* method) *is* falsified if Rossi's device is proven to work independently of Rossi for long enough in a properly calibrated set up. Somehow that logic seems to slip by. This (the altered line cord) is an example of a faking method that, although it's an unlikely method in Rossi's case, would have been missed by K E, Lewan and most likely everyone else.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Authors of the article The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse : *Ethan Siegel http://www.facebook.com/people/Ethan-Siegel/1207789153 is a theoretical astrophysicisthttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=ASTdb_key=PHYdb_key=PREqform=ASTarxiv_sel=astro-pharxiv_sel=cond-matarxiv_sel=csarxiv_sel=gr-qcarxiv_sel=hep-exarxiv_sel=hep-latarxiv_sel=hep-pharxiv_sel=hep-tharxiv_sel=matharxiv_sel=math-pharxiv_sel=nlinarxiv_sel=nucl-exarxiv_sel=nucl-tharxiv_sel=physicsarxiv_sel=quant-pharxiv_sel=q-biosim_query=YESned_query=YESadsobj_query=YESaut_logic=ORobj_logic=ORauthor=siegel%2C+Ethan+Robject=start_mon=start_year=2003end_mon=end_year=2009ttl_logic=ORtitle=txt_logic=ORtext=nr_to_return=200start_nr=1jou_pick=ALLref_stems=data_and=ALLgroup_and=ALLstart_entry_day=start_entry_mon=start_entry_year=end_entry_day=end_entry_mon=end_entry_year=min_score=sort=SCOREdata_type=SHORTaut_syn=YESttl_syn=YEStxt_syn=YESaut_wt=1.0obj_wt=1.0ttl_wt=0.3txt_wt=3.0aut_wgt=YESobj_wgt=YESttl_wgt=YEStxt_wgt=YESttl_sco=YEStxt_sco=YESversion=1 * *(article) post is coauthored by Dr. Peter Thieberger, Senior Physicist at Brookhaven National Laboratory http://www.bnl.gov/world/.)* Perhaps anyone who has not worked on LENR is considered as a lay person? On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 08:44 AM 12/6/2011, Peter Gluck wrote: The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse The article is a great example of hubris. Well-written for a lay person, does explain the so-called mainstream view of cold fusion. My interest is, of course, LENR and the evidence regarding its existence.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC: Thx for the explanations, relevant or not, however, I still think that the discussion wandered from my initial point, which was, given proper conditions, one can disrupt the natural balance within a nucleus and cause unexpected results using much lower levels of energy by using resonance rather than brute force. And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless. ** ** ** Aside from that, your comment that the large accelerators go way beyond the energy necessary for overcoming the Coulomb Barrier seems to be only partially right. In the following article, the physicist states: “In other words, even the most massive stars, at the incredible pressures and temperatures found at their cores, cannot fuse nickel and hydrogen nuclei together.” ** ** So, even the most powerful accelerator built cannot overcome the CB for the vast majority of atomic elements… The *temperatures* and *pressures* in stars are not enough. An accelerator does not give energy to particles by heating them up, but by accelerating them in electromagnetic fields. You need to think outside the box, and consider the power of resonance, and not just brute force heating. You can fire a proton from a small cyclotron at 50 MeV to produce Cu from Ni, no problem. And in the LHC, protons collide at multi-TeV energies, and even for fixed targets, you can get protons close to 1 TeV. The temperature corresponding to 1 TeV would be more than a quadrillion kelvins (10^16 K). There are no stars that hot. Even 50 MeV corresponds to a trillion degrees, far above star temperatures. So, yes, accelerators go way way way beyond the energy needed to breach any Coulomb barrier in nature.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater elements was measured also eliminates this kind of magic. I don't believe that was ever done. It probably doesn't matter but if anyone knows of it being done, I'd sure like to see it.
Re: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies...
“It's doubtful that Rossi exhibited anything that would have enough RF power to melt down the core in all the E-cats in the megawatt plant at once. Where would he store that much power?” I humbly submit in a simplified example, the RF generator is like an antenna connected to a radio, but not as sensitive. The minuscule current produced by an antenna can control the output of a radio. So to relatively speaking, not much RF generator power is required to stoke up the Rydberg matter. “Anyway, wouldn't stopping the coolant flow be the best way to melt down a runaway core?” In order to adjust things based on reactor temperature, a fast reacting control system is required. In such a control system, a temperature probe is sampled rapidly, and a micro-processor controls a flow valve regulating the coolant flow based on the analog value of the temperature probe. Without such a automated control system, Rossi must do all this manually without letup when running in self-sustain mode. He must be a man with great stamina. If I where him, I would keep these demos down to a bare minimum to avoid a nervous breakdown. “The more one looks at the concept of a safety heater, especially one that runs at appreciable power levels during most supposedly exothermic runs, the worse it smells.” I agree, the Rossi E-Cat is a very crude product. When you buy one, you are buying a pain in the neck. The customer should know that going in. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: In addition, the RF would have a near instantaneous effect, whereas Mary’s suggestion would have a very significant time-lag… thus, as Axil pointed out, a much greater likelihood of runaway. It's doubtful that Rossi exhibited anything that would have enough RF power to melt down the core in all the E-cats in the megawatt plant at once. Where would he store that much power? Anyway, wouldn't stopping the coolant flow be the best way to melt down a runaway core? The more one looks at the concept of a safety heater, especially one that runs at appreciable power levels during most supposedly exothermic runs, the worse it smells.
RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
For the simple wire-swap to have occurred, you would really need binary power states of on and off. In the September and early October tests, as the power was never zero, you would have to get more creative to explain the non-zero amperage observed for the power controller and frequency generator when self sustain mode began. By no strech-of-the-imagination am I saying that Rossi's tests were conclusive. I'm just stating that, no matter how simple and elegant, this method of fraud, as described, was not used. Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:35:21 -0800 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater elements was measured also eliminates this kind of magic. I don't believe that was ever done. It probably doesn't matter but if anyone knows of it being done, I'd sure like to see it.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary, there are measurements conducted throughout the test of October 6. See the attached: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 1:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:24 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater elements was measured also eliminates this kind of magic. I don't believe that was ever done. It probably doesn't matter but if anyone knows of it being done, I'd sure like to see it.
RE: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies...
Mary, I seriously doubt that the RF generator is being used for inductive heating. We obviously don't have an explanation as to the exact effect the RFG is having, but if it is having an effect, then it's likely not for direct heating. a few possibilities are, the 'breathing' that McKubre refers to in the recently posted video (i.e., forced, oscillatory mass movement of protons into and out of the metal lattice to achieve high loading ratios), OR, to generate very high E-fields between the Ni tubercles. or ?. -m From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:07 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Of Rydberg and Radiofrequencies... On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: In addition, the RF would have a near instantaneous effect, whereas Mary's suggestion would have a very significant time-lag. thus, as Axil pointed out, a much greater likelihood of runaway. It's doubtful that Rossi exhibited anything that would have enough RF power to melt down the core in all the E-cats in the megawatt plant at once. Where would he store that much power? Anyway, wouldn't stopping the coolant flow be the best way to melt down a runaway core? The more one looks at the concept of a safety heater, especially one that runs at appreciable power levels during most supposedly exothermic runs, the worse it smells.
Re: [Vo]:Codeposition of Ni/H
Uh, I'm not talking about the E-Cat. I'm talking about a huge industry with a long history. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There are three basic things that must be accomplished to make an E-Cat design successful. - High hydrogen packing into nickel nano-powder. - Strong Coulomb barrier masking. - Gamma Radiation thermalization, mitigation, and prevention. Industry standard electrodeposition of Ni does none of these key things. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:57 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Since codeposition of Pd/D seems to be one of the better ways to get reproducible PF effects, and there has been a lot of work done in electrodeposition of Ni, with the inevitable result of Ni/H codeposition, where are the reports of anomalous heat in the world of Ni electrolysis?
Re: [Vo]:Codeposition of Ni/H
A Google search for nickel plating comes up with nearly 3 millions hitshttps://www.google.com/search?gcx=csourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=nickel+plating . There is going to be a LOT of codeposition of hydrogen with nickel going on in the enormous RD base of this enormous industry. Why hasn't anyone notice excess heat? On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:58 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Uh, I'm not talking about the E-Cat. I'm talking about a huge industry with a long history. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There are three basic things that must be accomplished to make an E-Cat design successful. - High hydrogen packing into nickel nano-powder. - Strong Coulomb barrier masking. - Gamma Radiation thermalization, mitigation, and prevention. Industry standard electrodeposition of Ni does none of these key things. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:57 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Since codeposition of Pd/D seems to be one of the better ways to get reproducible PF effects, and there has been a lot of work done in electrodeposition of Ni, with the inevitable result of Ni/H codeposition, where are the reports of anomalous heat in the world of Ni electrolysis?
[Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the excellent http://lenr-canr.org library. These are really just bookmarks to myself of papers that are worth reading properly. I restricted myself to about 2005+ ... mainly to weed out first impressions. I've tagged most of them with a date and a few keywords (for myself). I've also included a few non-theory papers that caught my eye. The VERY short answer is that there are PLENTY of ways for LENR to defy laws of physics and the Coulomb Barrier in particular. Almost all of them are concerned with D/Pd, not Hydrogen/Nickel .. but most say their theory could be used for Rossi. Kim's BEC preprint is first out of the gate with a Rossi-specific comment. --- Widom-Larsen http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf 2005 weak force p+e - neutrino+n - n + lenr This one isn't in the library downloads. None of the other papers pick up on WL -- but I think it has some merit -- in concept, rather than details of how to make heavy electrons. I suspect that arguments against coulomb barrier also apply here. And see Lochons, below. The main themes I noticed are : SUPERPOSITION : there is no CB, because wave functions overlap, and nuclei are superimposed. This includes Bose Einstein Condensates (BEC) COULOMB LOWERED : electron screening PLUS positive charge screening means that CB is lowered. COULOMB NARROWED : even if CB remains high, it is narrowed, so tunneling is effective. RESONANCE : a lot of these paper consider resonance, plasmons, phonons so WL isn''t alone. HYDRINO/HYDREX : De/hydrogen atom is shrunk -- For Hydrex it's just another H-state. LOCHONS : two electrons form a composite boson. This could work with WL equation 3 -- the 2.4 mass requirement could be reduced to a 1.2 if we have a p+LOCHON penetration. SIMULATIONS : some of these papers take a theory and simulate the results. ODDBALL : ZPE, Casimir ... RELATED : Nuclear Physics ain't done yet .. see paper on Lattice model of nucleus. See Cook. Future work : I need to pick out a few papers as representative of these -- essential reading before you declare it to be impossible. If anyone want to ... reply, with the best papers. Disclaimer : this isn't my field. --- Brown : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BrownJenhancedlo.pdf resonant tunnelling , coulomb narrowing, simulations Chubb : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiblochions.pdf 2004 D2 = Bloch Ions = superposed, not coulomb-separated http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiiinhibite.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiiiblochnu.pdf Also ties in with Kim / BEC III : Maxwell' demon http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAovercoming.pdf 2008 : superposed waves, Feschbak resonance, no Coulomb barrier, cf BEC Cook : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CookNthefccstru.pdf Lattice Nuclear Structure vs Water-drop, Shell models Czerski : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CzerskiKthehdphrea.pdf electron, +positive cohesive screening, coulomb, reaction rates Dardik : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf COP=6 for 24 hrs Dufour : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DufourJexperiment.pdf Hydrex/shrunken hydrogen Duncan : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DuncanRanoutsider.pdf review -- cf recent proposal for national action Engvild : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EngvildKCtripledeut.pdf 2003 : Triple-Deuterium Evans : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EvansABspacedirac.pdf 4-space-dirac Fisher : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FisherJCoutlineofp.pdf polyneutrons Fleischman : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanbackground.pdf Theories 2003 Fou : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FouCinvestigat.pdf neutron-deuterium Frisone : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FrisoneFthecoulomb.pdf Coulomb barrier not static Hagelstein http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinunifiedpho.pdf phonon-coupled 2008 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteininputtothe.pdf Hora/Miley : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HoraHlowenergyna.pdf 2004 hydrinos Jiang : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JiangXanomalousn.pdf 2006 ZPE Kasagi http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KasagiJcountryhis.pdf 2009 Japan review http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KasagiJscreeningp.pdf (screening) Kim YE http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KimYEreactionbaa.pdf coulomb http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KimYEexperiment.pdf BEC http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KimYEboseeinste.pdf 2009
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
On 2011-12-06 20:15, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the excellent http://lenr-canr.org http://lenr-canr.org/ library. Good job, but I'll play the devil's advocate by saying that many of them are not peer reviewed papers and because of this hard skeptics would reject them at once. By the way, have you checked if this archive contains things not included in lenr-canr.org ? http://www.iscmns.org/library.htm For Jed Rothwell: a quick suggestion. I think it would be useful a more detailed indexing/search system for lenr-canr.org, for example: - Sorting the archive by the original document date (not publication date on lenr-canr.org) - Options for filtering document type (peer reviewed papers, news articles, books, presentations, patents, other, etc) - Broad scope tags for narrowing for filtering the document content (theory research paper, research paper, etc) - A tag denoting when documents have been edited - Using more than one of the above filters at the same time - etc. This would probably need a website revamp (it's completely all in static html right now), access to more advanced server-side features (database, php) and a complete cataloguing work on the existing documents. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
In the W.L. case, I'd like to know where the value for the effective mass of the electron, above ~2.6, is calculated to be enough for catalyzed fusion. Also, why does breaking Born Oppenheimer approximation means that using a perturbative expansion around the W bosons is allowed, given that its mass is so big that its range is bellow a 1/1000 the radius of a proton. 2011/12/6 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the excellent http://lenr-canr.org library. These are really just bookmarks to myself of papers that are worth reading properly. I restricted myself to about 2005+ ... mainly to weed out first impressions. I've tagged most of them with a date and a few keywords (for myself). I've also included a few non-theory papers that caught my eye. The VERY short answer is that there are PLENTY of ways for LENR to defy laws of physics and the Coulomb Barrier in particular. Almost all of them are concerned with D/Pd, not Hydrogen/Nickel .. but most say their theory could be used for Rossi. Kim's BEC preprint is first out of the gate with a Rossi-specific comment. --- Widom-Larsen http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf 2005 weak force p+e - neutrino+n - n + lenr This one isn't in the library downloads. None of the other papers pick up on WL -- but I think it has some merit -- in concept, rather than details of how to make heavy electrons. I suspect that arguments against coulomb barrier also apply here. And see Lochons, below. The main themes I noticed are : SUPERPOSITION : there is no CB, because wave functions overlap, and nuclei are superimposed. This includes Bose Einstein Condensates (BEC) COULOMB LOWERED : electron screening PLUS positive charge screening means that CB is lowered. COULOMB NARROWED : even if CB remains high, it is narrowed, so tunneling is effective. RESONANCE : a lot of these paper consider resonance, plasmons, phonons so WL isn''t alone. HYDRINO/HYDREX : De/hydrogen atom is shrunk -- For Hydrex it's just another H-state. LOCHONS : two electrons form a composite boson. This could work with WL equation 3 -- the 2.4 mass requirement could be reduced to a 1.2 if we have a p+LOCHON penetration. SIMULATIONS : some of these papers take a theory and simulate the results. ODDBALL : ZPE, Casimir ... RELATED : Nuclear Physics ain't done yet .. see paper on Lattice model of nucleus. See Cook. Future work : I need to pick out a few papers as representative of these -- essential reading before you declare it to be impossible. If anyone want to ... reply, with the best papers. Disclaimer : this isn't my field. --- Brown : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BrownJenhancedlo.pdf resonant tunnelling , coulomb narrowing, simulations Chubb : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiblochions.pdf 2004 D2 = Bloch Ions = superposed, not coulomb-separated http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiiinhibite.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiiiblochnu.pdf Also ties in with Kim / BEC III : Maxwell' demon http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAovercoming.pdf 2008 : superposed waves, Feschbak resonance, no Coulomb barrier, cf BEC Cook : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CookNthefccstru.pdf Lattice Nuclear Structure vs Water-drop, Shell models Czerski : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CzerskiKthehdphrea.pdf electron, +positive cohesive screening, coulomb, reaction rates Dardik : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf COP=6 for 24 hrs Dufour : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DufourJexperiment.pdfHydrex/shrunken hydrogen Duncan : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DuncanRanoutsider.pdf review -- cf recent proposal for national action Engvild : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EngvildKCtripledeut.pdf 2003 : Triple-Deuterium Evans : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EvansABspacedirac.pdf 4-space-dirac Fisher : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FisherJCoutlineofp.pdf polyneutrons Fleischman : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanbackground.pdf Theories 2003 Fou : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FouCinvestigat.pdf neutron-deuterium Frisone : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FrisoneFthecoulomb.pdf Coulomb barrier not static Hagelstein http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinunifiedpho.pdfphonon-coupled 2008
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
Something interesting regarding these papers, it is that the researchers that propose the theories that apparently fits better the experiments rarely cites each other. It seems there is no serious attempt to come up with a common basis for the LENR phenomena. 2011/12/6 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com In the W.L. case, I'd like to know where the value for the effective mass of the electron, above ~2.6, is calculated to be enough for catalyzed fusion. Also, why does breaking Born Oppenheimer approximation means that using a perturbative expansion around the W bosons is allowed, given that its mass is so big that its range is bellow a 1/1000 the radius of a proton. 2011/12/6 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the excellent http://lenr-canr.org library. These are really just bookmarks to myself of papers that are worth reading properly. I restricted myself to about 2005+ ... mainly to weed out first impressions. I've tagged most of them with a date and a few keywords (for myself). I've also included a few non-theory papers that caught my eye. The VERY short answer is that there are PLENTY of ways for LENR to defy laws of physics and the Coulomb Barrier in particular. Almost all of them are concerned with D/Pd, not Hydrogen/Nickel .. but most say their theory could be used for Rossi. Kim's BEC preprint is first out of the gate with a Rossi-specific comment. --- Widom-Larsen http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf 2005 weak force p+e - neutrino+n - n + lenr This one isn't in the library downloads. None of the other papers pick up on WL -- but I think it has some merit -- in concept, rather than details of how to make heavy electrons. I suspect that arguments against coulomb barrier also apply here. And see Lochons, below. The main themes I noticed are : SUPERPOSITION : there is no CB, because wave functions overlap, and nuclei are superimposed. This includes Bose Einstein Condensates (BEC) COULOMB LOWERED : electron screening PLUS positive charge screening means that CB is lowered. COULOMB NARROWED : even if CB remains high, it is narrowed, so tunneling is effective. RESONANCE : a lot of these paper consider resonance, plasmons, phonons so WL isn''t alone. HYDRINO/HYDREX : De/hydrogen atom is shrunk -- For Hydrex it's just another H-state. LOCHONS : two electrons form a composite boson. This could work with WL equation 3 -- the 2.4 mass requirement could be reduced to a 1.2 if we have a p+LOCHON penetration. SIMULATIONS : some of these papers take a theory and simulate the results. ODDBALL : ZPE, Casimir ... RELATED : Nuclear Physics ain't done yet .. see paper on Lattice model of nucleus. See Cook. Future work : I need to pick out a few papers as representative of these -- essential reading before you declare it to be impossible. If anyone want to ... reply, with the best papers. Disclaimer : this isn't my field. --- Brown : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BrownJenhancedlo.pdf resonant tunnelling , coulomb narrowing, simulations Chubb : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiblochions.pdf 2004 D2 = Bloch Ions = superposed, not coulomb-separated http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiiinhibite.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiiiblochnu.pdf Also ties in with Kim / BEC III : Maxwell' demon http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAovercoming.pdf 2008 : superposed waves, Feschbak resonance, no Coulomb barrier, cf BEC Cook : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CookNthefccstru.pdf Lattice Nuclear Structure vs Water-drop, Shell models Czerski : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CzerskiKthehdphrea.pdf electron, +positive cohesive screening, coulomb, reaction rates Dardik : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf COP=6 for 24 hrs Dufour : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DufourJexperiment.pdfHydrex/shrunken hydrogen Duncan : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DuncanRanoutsider.pdf review -- cf recent proposal for national action Engvild : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EngvildKCtripledeut.pdf 2003 : Triple-Deuterium Evans : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EvansABspacedirac.pdf 4-space-dirac Fisher : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FisherJCoutlineofp.pdf polyneutrons Fleischman : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanbackground.pdf
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
At 11:47 AM 12/6/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-12-06 20:15, Alan J Fletcher wrote: By the way, have you checked if this archive contains things not included in lenr-canr.org ? http://www.iscmns.org/library.htm I didn't have that list. There do seem to be papers not in Jed's lenr-canr was hard to navigate -- but the tagging with basic categories was important ( I found it easier just to jump to a page and then use the browser's find to go to theory papers, than to go off the major category list) http://lenr-canr.org/LibFrame3.html For Jed Rothwell: a quick suggestion. I think it would be useful a more detailed indexing/search system for lenr-canr.org, for example: This would probably need a website revamp (it's completely all in static html right now), access to more advanced server-side features (database, php) and a complete cataloguing work on the existing documents.
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
At 11:47 AM 12/6/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Good job, but I'll play the devil's advocate by saying that many of them are not peer reviewed papers and because of this hard skeptics would reject them at once. I was just building a reading list (thanks anyway) ... and did a coupla-minute skim of each paper. But I think there are at least 10 hard core papers in there.
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
JC: You continue to claim that accelerators use resonance, and therefore that my comment, Why does nuclear physics use (BRUTE FORCE) particle accelerators? Because they are boxed in by the thought that the ONLY way to overcome the coulomb barrier is extreme force. is somehow faulty. You continue to make irrelevant points. Sure, application of the energy used to accelerate the particles must be applied in a resonant manner to reach the velocities in the most efficient manner, so a form of resonance is used in accelerator design. That is irrelevant. The END RESULT is brute force smashing things together. there is NO resonance in that! That is, and always has been, my point. The actual interaction of the particles is by brute force, NOT RESONANCE. JC writes: And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless. To answer this sad excuse for a rebuttal, the specifics comes from proposing a hypothesis, and then following that hypothesis to see where it leads and whether it could be reasonable from a physics perspective; and then conducting experiments to test the hypothesis. That is the scientific process. Your attitude reeks of closed-minded, theoretically-impossible-so-why-bother-even-thinking-about-it. We'd all be living in caves and throwing spears with that attitude. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: JC: Thx for the explanations, relevant or not, however, I still think that the discussion wandered from my initial point, which was, given proper conditions, one can disrupt the natural balance within a nucleus and cause unexpected results using much lower levels of energy by using resonance rather than brute force. And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless. Aside from that, your comment that the large accelerators go way beyond the energy necessary for overcoming the Coulomb Barrier seems to be only partially right. In the following article, the physicist states: In other words, even the most massive stars, at the incredible pressures and temperatures found at their cores, cannot fuse nickel and hydrogen nuclei together. So, even the most powerful accelerator built cannot overcome the CB for the vast majority of atomic elements. The *temperatures* and *pressures* in stars are not enough. An accelerator does not give energy to particles by heating them up, but by accelerating them in electromagnetic fields. You need to think outside the box, and consider the power of resonance, and not just brute force heating. You can fire a proton from a small cyclotron at 50 MeV to produce Cu from Ni, no problem. And in the LHC, protons collide at multi-TeV energies, and even for fixed targets, you can get protons close to 1 TeV. The temperature corresponding to 1 TeV would be more than a quadrillion kelvins (10^16 K). There are no stars that hot. Even 50 MeV corresponds to a trillion degrees, far above star temperatures. So, yes, accelerators go way way way beyond the energy needed to breach any Coulomb barrier in nature.
[Vo]:Re: LENR-CANR Theory Papers
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol4.pdf#page=40 2011 has some good papers ... many follow-ons, eg A. Meulenberg and K.P. Sinha / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 4 (2011) 241255 expands on lochons : and p+e in particular.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The END RESULT is brute force smashing things together… there is NO resonance in that! That is, and always has been, my point. The actual interaction of the particles is by brute force, NOT RESONANCE. Collisions can be resonant too, but the goal of the experiments is energetic collisions, so accelerators use resonance to achieve the goal. And again, if you have an idea of how to produce exotic particles or probe the subatomic world in another way, I'm sure you'd find an audience. But if you just say use resonance, you're gonna get ignored. ** ** JC writes: “And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless.” ** ** To answer this sad excuse for a rebuttal, the specifics comes from proposing a hypothesis, and then following that hypothesis to see where it leads and whether it could be reasonable from a physics perspective; and then conducting experiments to test the hypothesis. So, you've got nothin'. Your attitude reeks of closed-minded, theoretically-impossible-so-why-bother-even-thinking-about-it. We’d all be living in caves and throwing spears with that attitude… No. You have this the wrong way round. It's the cold fusion experiments that haven't changed significantly in 20 years. The rest of physics has moved on. I'm no more skeptical of cold fusion than the vast majority of scientists, and progress in science has kept pace since 1989. On the other hand, all the scientists who are not appropriately skeptical have made no progress at all. They're spinning their wheels. Zawodny's slides are an indication. He can't find a single definitive thing to say about the field. It's all sporadic detection of this and energy needed for that. Nothing is ever measured or identified consistently. The way science progresses is that knowledge already established is used as a guide. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. QM and relativity could not have been developed without carefully cataloged and reproduced experimental results, just as Newton needed Kepler and Braha. Skepticism is a critical filter in science. Planck himself made great contributions to physics, but it took him a decade to accept the idea of photons, a concept his ideas led to. Cold fusion advocates just throw everything out and say resonance glorp chumble spuzz and hope something works out. Systematic is not in their vocabulary. Nothing should be regarded as impossible, but if you give every idea equal probability of being right, you will get nowhere. Which is where cold fusion has gotten.
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
At the end of the day, it is quantum mechanics that is the operative principle behind LENR. For laymen, quantum mechanics (QM) is very hard to understand; even Einstein had trouble with it. Experimenting with QM is even more difficult. If you look at results, they go away or become invalid. Workers in the field have spent decades repeatedly redoing the double slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment, each trying to glean some new revelation into how the world of the small works. There are even two major QM theories competing with each other; each having its own lists of acolytes; and each with differing implications for the view of the cosmos. Most people will not accept LENR in principle because they cannot accept QM as meaningful in their everyday experience: it is just too weird. So don’t think you will convince anyone based on theory. When the common man has a LENR boiler in this basement, he will assume that something neat is making it work, but few will really understand it. http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf Kim states that you can know what is happening inside any given LENR reactor by looking at the many possible allowed exit reaction channels and their associated cross sections. When I do this, I see the probability that more than one QM mechanism is at play; may be as many as a handful. No one paper will tell the tail because the story is too complicated. When you have up to 40 elements transmuted, some very complicated and hard to understand QM processes are going on. PS: IMHO, many workers explore LENR in their research under the guise of QM research. Of course, I could just be looking at the world through QM colored glasses. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I've just finished a marathon multi-day session of skimming through the excellent http://lenr-canr.org library. These are really just bookmarks to myself of papers that are worth reading properly. I restricted myself to about 2005+ ... mainly to weed out first impressions. I've tagged most of them with a date and a few keywords (for myself). I've also included a few non-theory papers that caught my eye. The VERY short answer is that there are PLENTY of ways for LENR to defy laws of physics and the Coulomb Barrier in particular. Almost all of them are concerned with D/Pd, not Hydrogen/Nickel .. but most say their theory could be used for Rossi. Kim's BEC preprint is first out of the gate with a Rossi-specific comment. --- Widom-Larsen http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026v1.pdf 2005 weak force p+e - neutrino+n - n + lenr This one isn't in the library downloads. None of the other papers pick up on WL -- but I think it has some merit -- in concept, rather than details of how to make heavy electrons. I suspect that arguments against coulomb barrier also apply here. And see Lochons, below. The main themes I noticed are : SUPERPOSITION : there is no CB, because wave functions overlap, and nuclei are superimposed. This includes Bose Einstein Condensates (BEC) COULOMB LOWERED : electron screening PLUS positive charge screening means that CB is lowered. COULOMB NARROWED : even if CB remains high, it is narrowed, so tunneling is effective. RESONANCE : a lot of these paper consider resonance, plasmons, phonons so WL isn''t alone. HYDRINO/HYDREX : De/hydrogen atom is shrunk -- For Hydrex it's just another H-state. LOCHONS : two electrons form a composite boson. This could work with WL equation 3 -- the 2.4 mass requirement could be reduced to a 1.2 if we have a p+LOCHON penetration. SIMULATIONS : some of these papers take a theory and simulate the results. ODDBALL : ZPE, Casimir ... RELATED : Nuclear Physics ain't done yet .. see paper on Lattice model of nucleus. See Cook. Future work : I need to pick out a few papers as representative of these -- essential reading before you declare it to be impossible. If anyone want to ... reply, with the best papers. Disclaimer : this isn't my field. --- Brown : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BrownJenhancedlo.pdf resonant tunnelling , coulomb narrowing, simulations Chubb : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAiblochions.pdf 2004 D2 = Bloch Ions = superposed, not coulomb-separated
[Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away?
A. Casali December 6th, 2011 at 7:09 AM 5) Considering the importance of university RD for the acceptance of your technology in terms of certification and authorisations, not to speek about the performance improvements that they may bring to your great invention, why are you still holding on instead of letting the RD start? Andrea Rossi December 6th, 2011 at 3:55 PM 5- I am holding nothing, we are already making our RD with all our Consultants, and our Customers are accepting our technology already. They don’t care too much who is testing our plants, they care the plants work properly, that’s all they want. Thank you for your direct and useful questons, Warm Regards, A.R. That’s all folks!
[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Rich twits smash cars in Yamaguchi
This just in from the Institute of Schadenfreude Studies: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/eight-ferraris-crash-at-gathering-of-narcissists-in-japan/2011/12/05/gIQAmyS9XO_story.html Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Eight Ferraris and a Lamborghini were part of a 14-car crash in Japan yesterday that wrecked more than a million dollars worth of vehicles. [Update: $4 million] “The accident occurred when the driver of a red Ferrari was switching from the right lane to the left and skidded,” said Mitsuyoshi Isejima, executive officer for Yamaguchi Prefecture’s Expressway Traffic Police unit. “It was a gathering of narcissists.” The drivers were aged between 37 and 60 years old, he said. Fortunately, no one was seriously hurt. Or it wouldn't be funny. Video in Japanese: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe0d3adb4bI - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away?
Why do you think the university project has been cancelled? I do not see that in Rossi's response. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Here is a comment from Lewan Mats about this topic: Hi Mary and Ahsoka, Saw your discussion about power cords on Vortex. You can rule them out. I made my own connection cord which I put in series, both at the main power supply and between the blue control box and the resistor in the Ecat. The connection cord was a standard 2 phase + ground, with the three single wires uncovered to be able to use the clamps ampere meter. I measured the current through all three wires regularly. Another scam suggestion is having a hidden rectifier and using whole wave rectified current, which would then be measured as lower than it really was by a clamps ampere meter in AC position. The idea would be to use this at a moment when you pretend to decrease the input current, but in reality you don’t. To rule that out I measured both current and tension in both AC and DC position, regularly throughout the experiment. To put it short – there’s no cheating at the input. Feel free to share this on Vortex. Mats
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: For laymen, quantum mechanics (QM) is very hard to understand; even Einstein had trouble with it. Einstein had objections to its implications and apparent incompleteness. He was completely comfortable with how it was used to make successful predictions. Experimenting with QM is even more difficult. If you look at results, they go away or become invalid. QM is the most predictive theory over the widest range of dimensions in history. It has certain odd implications, but in its simple application as tool to predict the outcome of experiments, it is perfectly well understood and completely unambiguous, even if statistical in nature. Workers in the field have spent decades repeatedly redoing the double slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment, each trying to glean some new revelation into how the world of the small works. Investigation of entanglement keeps a lot of people fascinated. That's true. But that doesn't make the theory less useful. There are even two major QM theories competing with each other; each having its own lists of acolytes; and each with differing implications for the view of the cosmos. Not sure what you're referring to here. Surely not the heisenberg and schrodinger formulations, since they have been shown to be mathematically equivalent. And if you're referring to more philosophical interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation, it's important to understand that these are more for peace of mind. In the applications of the theory to interactions, the predictions are not ambiguous. Most people will not accept LENR in principle because they cannot accept QM as meaningful in their everyday experience: it is just too weird. That's nonsense. Everything around us depends on QM, and most people accept everything around us. People won't accept LENR because the evidence sucks. Light a match and they'll agree there's heat. Plug in an ecat, and wait 2 hours for a cup of tea, and no one's gonna think it's a big deal. And as for scientists, especially physicists, quantum weirdness has never been a barrier to accepting phenomena. They are skeptical of LENR for the same reason: the paucity of good evidence.
Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away?
The is some finite chance that the inner workings of the Rossi reactor are now classified as SERET by the US military and not subject to review. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you think the university project has been cancelled? I do not see that in Rossi's response. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Rossi] University RD has gone away?
Obvisuly Univerty RD is not a priority for Rossi. Since it’s not a priority at all, i expect more delays. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away? Why do you think the university project has been cancelled? I do not see that in Rossi's response. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Collisions can be resonant too. Please explain. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The END RESULT is brute force smashing things together. there is NO resonance in that! That is, and always has been, my point. The actual interaction of the particles is by brute force, NOT RESONANCE. Collisions can be resonant too, but the goal of the experiments is energetic collisions, so accelerators use resonance to achieve the goal. And again, if you have an idea of how to produce exotic particles or probe the subatomic world in another way, I'm sure you'd find an audience. But if you just say use resonance, you're gonna get ignored.
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** ** “Collisions can be resonant too…” ** ** Please explain… ** Here's an abstract from PRL, which I found with 10 seconds of google. Have you heard of it? Resonant collisional energy transfer between atoms with small relative velocity is shown to have such long collision times, ∼0.17 μs, or equivalently such narrow linewidths, 6 MHz, that it may be used to make spectroscopic measurements. Specifically, we report the use of the sharply resonant collisional energy transfer ns+(n-2)d→np +(n-1)p, between velocity-selected K atoms to determine an improved value, 1.711?5(5), and the K np-state quantum defect.
Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away?
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The is some finite chance that the inner workings of the Rossi reactor are now classified as SERET by the US military and not subject to review. The U.S. military has no authority in Europe. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away?
US is not the world. 2011/12/6 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com The is some finite chance that the inner workings of the Rossi reactor are now classified as SERET by the US military and not subject to review. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Why do you think the university project has been cancelled? I do not see that in Rossi's response. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: For Jed Rothwell: a quick suggestion. I think it would be useful a more detailed indexing/search system for lenr-canr.org, for example: - Sorting the archive by the original document date (not publication date on lenr-canr.org) - Options for filtering document type (peer reviewed papers, news articles, books, presentations, patents, other, etc) - Broad scope tags for narrowing for filtering the document content (theory research paper, research paper, etc) . . . I have thought about modernizing. Most readers use Google these days for searching. It does not seem worth changing the index system since it is hardly used. Here is full index in text format, which is handy: http://lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR-CANR Theory Papers JCMNS Vol 4
At 12:42 PM 12/6/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol4.pdf#page=40 2011 has some good papers ... many follow-ons, eg A. Meulenberg and K.P. Sinha / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 4 (2011) 241255 expands on lochons : and p+e in particular. Adding -- also Vol 4 : Many of these are latest versions of papers I already had David J. Nagel / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 4 (2011) 116 Hot and Cold Fusion for Energy Generation (has the napoleon energy diagram) Edmund Storms and Brian Scanlan / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 4 (2011) 1731 What is Real about Cold Fusion and What Explanations are Plausible? d-clusters form, then enter a target nucleus Mahadeva Srinivasan / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 4 (2011) 161172 Neutron Emission in Bursts and Hot Spots: Signature of Micro-Nuclear Explosions? Update of 2009 in my list Y.E. Kim / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 4 (2011) 188201 BoseEinstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal (I already had that from his Purdue site .. but not in this list) S.R. Chubb / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 4 (2011) 213224 Concerning the Role of Electromagnetism in Low-energy Nuclear Reactions Time-dependent QED, Coulomb (NOT static), EMI impact, constructive interference, debroglie R. Johnson and M. Melich / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 4 (2011) 225240 Weight of Evidence for the FleischmannPons Effect (Elaborates on Cravin/Letts Bayesian analysis --- special note because on my home site I have a bayesian expert!) A. Takahashi / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 4 (2011) 269281 Progress in Condensed Cluster Fusion Theory clusters, time-dependent screening, fusion rates
Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR-CANR Theory Papers
Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol4.pdf#page=40 2011 has some good papers ... many follow-ons, eg A. Meulenberg and K.P. Sinha / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 4 (2011) 241--255 There is a copy here, in case you have trouble downloading the ISCMNS copy from Italy: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedc.pdf - Jed
[Vo]:Re: LENR-CANR Theory Papers JCMNS 5
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol5.pdf Pretty much a special issue on : P.L. Hagelstein and I.U. Chaudhary / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 5 (2011) 52-71 Energy Exchange In The Lossy Spin-Boson Model (and their reviewer wanted more!)
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
Nope, let me look into it... thx. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: “Collisions can be resonant too…” Please explain… Here's an abstract from PRL, which I found with 10 seconds of google. Have you heard of it? Resonant collisional energy transfer between atoms with small relative velocity is shown to have such long collision times, ∼0.17 μs, or equivalently such narrow linewidths, 6 MHz, that it may be used to make spectroscopic measurements. Specifically, we report the use of the sharply resonant collisional energy transfer ns+(n-2)d→np +(n-1)p, between velocity-selected K atoms to determine an improved value, 1.711?5(5), and the K np-state quantum defect.
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Darn. Between the vagaries of the gmail system and Vortex, half the time I can end up responding to the wrong people. Seems I did respond only to Mats to what was a personal email to me and a few others and which Jed posted on Vort. OK. So here is my reply, now public (sorry I got confused -- my serum caffeine may be too low). Reply to Mats Lewan: Good job! Thanks. Mats, I didn't think that the cheating method with the power line was very likely because it would be very risky. I'm thinking Rossi may have a way of storing some of the preheat energy and maybe also a way of generating energy other than LENR. That and planned mis-measurement of the output energy.Obviously, I don't know how he does it if he does it. An ongoing argument here is about the adequacy of the inspection done on the device of October 6.If you read this, Mats, your opinion on that would be appreciated along with a description of what was seen inside. Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the test, using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before hydrogen was added to the E-cat. Wouldn't that rule out such issues as thermocouple placement? And about the possibility of running much longer and why that was apparently not asked of Rossi. Thanks!
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the test, using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before hydrogen was added to the E-cat. Wouldn't that rule out such issues as thermocouple placement? The best way to rule out problems with the thermocouple placement is to use additional thermocouples placed elsewhere. That is what I urged Rossi to do, before the test. He did not want to. There was actually no problem with the placement, as shown by Houkes and by the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement. But Rossi should have proved there was no problem, by using multiple instruments at various different locations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Nope, let me look into it... thx. I meant google. Have you heard of google. Don't bother looking in to the particular resonant collisions. It's just an example of where collision energy can be tailored to match energy levels in inelastic collisions. Nothing particularly relevant beyond that.
Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end
On 12/6/2011 10:22 PM, Colin Hercus wrote: Could you have a problem with the 30kWH of excess heat. It seems a bit much to get rid of for space heating and hot water especially in a suburban situation. The Hyperion unit has 9 cores and can dynamically stage them as required by the load. 30 kWs of heat would be the worst case assuming max 10 kW electricity demand and no hot water or space heating requirements. I was also looking a FIT rate in Australia and it seems you can get money back from the power company. Could you do this for ecat power? Aussie FITs require the grid to be fed via a grid connect inverter and the inverter fed by a Renewable energy source. I doubt LENR would qualify. No reason to generate DC and then feed the grid and the home from an expensive solid state inverter. Plain old simple PM based Ac alternator delivering 50 Hz at 240 Vac will do nicely.
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
“Einstein had objections to its implications and apparent incompleteness. He was completely comfortable with how it was used to make successful predictions.” I mean “Einstein had trouble with it” in the following sense: Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature that QM implied. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly. Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and cannot know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to God being an inveterate gambler, who always throws the dice. “QM is the most predictive theory over the widest range of dimensions in history. It has certain odd implications, but in its simple application as tool to predict the outcome of experiments, it is perfectly well understood and completely unambiguous, even if statistical in nature.” How do you explain all the brouhaha over “spooky action at a distance”(a.k.a non-locality) This implies infinite parallel universes and tells you that you are just a 3D hologram projected from information laying on the 2D surface of the edge of the universe. String theory requires non-locality as per the pilot wave quantum theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle. A detailed QM study of LENR might resolve some of these theories and is worth the effort on this account alone. “Investigation of entanglement keeps a lot of people fascinated. That's true. But that doesn't make the theory less useful.” It is my contention that LENR requires non locality and entanglement to explain the lack of radioactive by-products derived from the reaction. “Not sure what you're referring to here. Surely not the heisenberg and schrodinger formulations, since they have been shown to be mathematically equivalent. And if you're referring to more philosophical interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation, it's important to understand that these are more for peace of mind. In the applications of the theory to interactions, the predictions are not ambiguous.” I am referring to the pilot wave theory that will explain a lot of what is going on in LENR. “That's nonsense. Everything around us depends on QM, and most people accept everything around us. People won't accept LENR because the evidence sucks. Light a match and they'll agree there's heat. Plug in an ecat, and wait 2 hours for a cup of tea, and no one's gonna think it's a big deal.” IMHO in terms of QM, evidence of transmutation has been conclusively demonstrated in LENR(via Miley and Arata). For me transmutation and cold fusion is synonymous. If there is transmutation, there is cold fusion. Excess heat is just a red herring. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: For laymen, quantum mechanics (QM) is very hard to understand; even Einstein had trouble with it. Einstein had objections to its implications and apparent incompleteness. He was completely comfortable with how it was used to make successful predictions. Experimenting with QM is even more difficult. If you look at results, they go away or become invalid. QM is the most predictive theory over the widest range of dimensions in history. It has certain odd implications, but in its simple application as tool to predict the outcome of experiments, it is perfectly well understood and completely unambiguous, even if statistical in nature. Workers in the field have spent decades repeatedly redoing the double slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment, each trying to glean some new revelation into how the world of the small works. Investigation of entanglement keeps a lot of people fascinated. That's true. But that doesn't make the theory less useful. There are even two major QM theories competing with each other; each having its own lists of acolytes; and each with differing
RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx I cannot open this file. I get a zip with dissociated .xml's. I know that I'd quickly discounted it in the past, as it seemed to ignore the conductivity between the probe and the nut and the hot air pocket formed underneath the foil insulation. Maybe I'd discounted it too quickly. Alan Fletcher's SPICE models were interesting, and showed that the thermocouple placement WAS important. I assumed that you ignored those results because they were detrimental to Rossi. Alas, he's announced that he's given up the model; the result was very sensitive to the coupling between water and copper -- and he could get any value he wanted for a delta-T error between zero and +10 (and beyond) : twice the value of delta-T itself. So, let's review Haukes analysis if you have it in a useable form... Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:14:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the test, using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before hydrogen was added to the E-cat. Wouldn't that rule out such issues as thermocouple placement? The best way to rule out problems with the thermocouple placement is to use additional thermocouples placed elsewhere. That is what I urged Rossi to do, before the test. He did not want to. There was actually no problem with the placement, as shown by Houkes and by the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement. But Rossi should have proved there was no problem, by using multiple instruments at various different locations. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
An ongoing argument here is about the adequacy of the inspection done on the device of October 6. Another good question: why was used so little water flux? Why not redurece the water flux and get 30-40 degrees Celsiusof difference instead of 4-5 degrees? From: Mary Yugo Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 11:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat Darn. Between the vagaries of the gmail system and Vortex, half the time I can end up responding to the wrong people. Seems I did respond only to Mats to what was a personal email to me and a few others and which Jed posted on Vort. OK. So here is my reply, now public (sorry I got confused -- my serum caffeine may be too low). Reply to Mats Lewan: Good job! Thanks. Mats, I didn't think that the cheating method with the power line was very likely because it would be very risky. I'm thinking Rossi may have a way of storing some of the preheat energy and maybe also a way of generating energy other than LENR. That and planned mis-measurement of the output energy.Obviously, I don't know how he does it if he does it. An ongoing argument here is about the adequacy of the inspection done on the device of October 6.If you read this, Mats, your opinion on that would be appreciated along with a description of what was seen inside.Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the test, using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before hydrogen was added to the E-cat. Wouldn't that rule out such issues as thermocouple placement? And about the possibility of running much longer and why that was apparently not asked of Rossi. Thanks!
RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
But, I must say that your allusion to the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement is just hogwash. The secondary calorimetric observations cited previously were entirely contingent upon the acceptance of the first. This is a circular argument. From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 16:51:40 -0600 This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx I cannot open this file. I get a zip with dissociated .xml's. I know that I'd quickly discounted it in the past, as it seemed to ignore the conductivity between the probe and the nut and the hot air pocket formed underneath the foil insulation. Maybe I'd discounted it too quickly. Alan Fletcher's SPICE models were interesting, and showed that the thermocouple placement WAS important. I assumed that you ignored those results because they were detrimental to Rossi. Alas, he's announced that he's given up the model; the result was very sensitive to the coupling between water and copper -- and he could get any value he wanted for a delta-T error between zero and +10 (and beyond) : twice the value of delta-T itself. So, let's review Haukes analysis if you have it in a useable form... Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:14:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the test, using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before hydrogen was added to the E-cat. Wouldn't that rule out such issues as thermocouple placement? The best way to rule out problems with the thermocouple placement is to use additional thermocouples placed elsewhere. That is what I urged Rossi to do, before the test. He did not want to. There was actually no problem with the placement, as shown by Houkes and by the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement. But Rossi should have proved there was no problem, by using multiple instruments at various different locations. - Jed
Fw: [Vo]:Re: a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Correction: why was used so much water flux. From: Mattia Rizzi Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 11:51 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat An ongoing argument here is about the adequacy of the inspection done on the device of October 6. Another good question: why was used so little water flux? Why not redurece the water flux and get 30-40 degrees Celsiusof difference instead of 4-5 degrees?
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx I cannot open this file. I get a zip with dissociated .xml's. I know that I'd quickly discounted it in the past . . . That is in Microsoft Excel format. I will try converting it to Acrobat. But, I must say that your allusion to the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement is just hogwash. The secondary calorimetric observations cited previously were entirely contingent upon the acceptance of the first. This is a circular argument. I do not see what you mean. Method 1 is the flow rate and temperature difference in the cooling loop. Method 2 is the flow rate of the fluid coming from the reactor, with the assumption that the fluid was all vaporized, which is reasonable given the temperature. I do not see how one can be dependent or contingent on the other. Method 1 would work just as well even if the fluid coming from the reactor was not vaporized, or not close to boiling. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Here is a version of Houkes in Acrobat format. This has some problems: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.pdf The original in Excel format is better: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Another good question: why was used so [high] water flux? Why not reduce the water flux and get 30-40 degrees Celsiusof difference instead of 4-5 degrees? Two reasons, I think: 1. Safety. You want to be sure the heat will be removed even if it increases a great deal, the way it did on Feb. 10. 2. Most people I know who do a lot of calorimetry prefer a smaller Delta T, between 5 and 10°C. They prefer to keep the absolute high temperature below ~30°C. Above that you get problems with the fluid characteristics changing, and the conversion rate of 4.12 J = 1 cal. starts to change a little. There is no difficulty measuring a difference of 5 and 10°C. There is no chance of a mistake. With modern instruments you can measure a difference 100 times smaller (0.1°C) with absolute confidence. The signal-to-noise ratio is not enhanced much by going to a 30°C difference. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR Theory Papers
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: “QM is the most predictive theory over the widest range of dimensions in history. It has certain odd implications, but in its simple application as tool to predict the outcome of experiments, it is perfectly well understood and completely unambiguous, even if statistical in nature.” How do you explain all the brouhaha over “spooky action at a distance”(a.k.a non-locality) Spooky action at a distance is mainly mental gymnastics. It's difficult to observe manifestations of entanglement, which is why it took so long to prove Bell's theorem, and even now it is controversial. There seems to be some progress toward exploiting it in quantum computing. But what I meant was the application of QM to calculation of energy levels, scattering amplitudes, stable configurations, etc etc in physics is spectacularly successful, *and* unambiguous, if tractable. It's got spooky implications, and yet straightforward (in principle) application to systems of particles. A detailed QM study of LENR might resolve some of these theories and is worth the effort on this account alone. 22 years of detailed QM studies of LENR don't hint at that. And that could be said about any phenomenon someone proposes, hopes for, but can't prove. It's clearly not worth the effort for every such possibility, or nothing else would get done. It is my contention that LENR requires non locality and entanglement to explain the lack of radioactive by-products derived from the reaction. Sure, but that's based on a vague dream and nothing more. Science is evidence based. The lack of radioactive byproducts is most easily explained by the lack of nuclear reactions. I am referring to the pilot wave theory that will explain a lot of what is going on in LENR. Again, I think that's wishful thinking. It is more or less accepted that these sorts of extensions of quantum mechanics, whether they involve hidden variables or not, do not provide a more accurate description (or better explanation) of experimental outcomes. This year someone claims to have published a proof of that, but I imagine that will be controversial too. IMHO in terms of QM, evidence of transmutation has been conclusively demonstrated in LENR(via Miley and Arata). Then they should be able to nail down the reactions definitively, but they can't. If transmutations were conclusive in general, you couldn't keep scientists away. But of course, in the humble opinion of most scientists, there is no proof of transmutation. Just like heat, the results are always kind of marginal. It's a field that has more different ways to find marginal evidence than one would think possible. Just by chance, you might think one of those results would stand out.
[Vo]:Re: a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
. Safety. You want to be sure the heat will be removed even if it increases a great deal, the way it did on Feb. 10. Please, Jed, dont’t kidding. Rossi used steam for heat removing in January,March,etc and you know that steam carry out very little heat compared with liquid water. You cannot claim on “Safety” for this. And in Oct 6 water was not used in the reactor, but steam. If only steam was OK for heat removing in Jan, March, etc, steam + secondary was at least equal, independently of how much water was flowing throught secondary. Most people I know who do a lot of calorimetry prefer a smaller Delta T, between 5 and 10°C. They prefer to keep the absolute high temperature below ~30°C. Above that you get problems with the fluid characteristics changing, and the conversion rate of 4.12 J = 1 cal. starts to change a little. Most people don’t measure “black-boxes”. If Rossi provided a 30-40 degrees difference, everybody can feel it simply touching water in exit. With 4-5 degrees not. Again, Rossi missed a very simple step, suggested many many times from a lot of people. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 12:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Another good question: why was used so [high] water flux? Why not reduce the water flux and get 30-40 degrees Celsiusof difference instead of 4-5 degrees? Two reasons, I think: 1. Safety. You want to be sure the heat will be removed even if it increases a great deal, the way it did on Feb. 10. 2. Most people I know who do a lot of calorimetry prefer a smaller Delta T, between 5 and 10°C. They prefer to keep the absolute high temperature below ~30°C. Above that you get problems with the fluid characteristics changing, and the conversion rate of 4.12 J = 1 cal. starts to change a little. There is no difficulty measuring a difference of 5 and 10°C. There is no chance of a mistake. With modern instruments you can measure a difference 100 times smaller (0.1°C) with absolute confidence. The signal-to-noise ratio is not enhanced much by going to a 30°C difference. - Jed
[Vo]:Fw: a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Most people don’t measure “black-boxes”. Correction: Most people don’t measure “black-boxes” with instrumentation by the invetor, placed by the inventor. From: Mattia Rizzi Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 12:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat . Safety. You want to be sure the heat will be removed even if it increases a great deal, the way it did on Feb. 10. Please, Jed, dont’t kidding. Rossi used steam for heat removing in January,March,etc and you know that steam carry out very little heat compared with liquid water. You cannot claim on “Safety” for this. And in Oct 6 water was not used in the reactor, but steam. If only steam was OK for heat removing in Jan, March, etc, steam + secondary was at least equal, independently of how much water was flowing throught secondary. Most people I know who do a lot of calorimetry prefer a smaller Delta T, between 5 and 10°C. They prefer to keep the absolute high temperature below ~30°C. Above that you get problems with the fluid characteristics changing, and the conversion rate of 4.12 J = 1 cal. starts to change a little. Most people don’t measure “black-boxes”. If Rossi provided a 30-40 degrees difference, everybody can feel it simply touching water in exit. With 4-5 degrees not. Again, Rossi missed a very simple step, suggested many many times from a lot of people. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 12:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Another good question: why was used so [high] water flux? Why not reduce the water flux and get 30-40 degrees Celsiusof difference instead of 4-5 degrees? Two reasons, I think: 1. Safety. You want to be sure the heat will be removed even if it increases a great deal, the way it did on Feb. 10. 2. Most people I know who do a lot of calorimetry prefer a smaller Delta T, between 5 and 10°C. They prefer to keep the absolute high temperature below ~30°C. Above that you get problems with the fluid characteristics changing, and the conversion rate of 4.12 J = 1 cal. starts to change a little. There is no difficulty measuring a difference of 5 and 10°C. There is no chance of a mistake. With modern instruments you can measure a difference 100 times smaller (0.1°C) with absolute confidence. The signal-to-noise ratio is not enhanced much by going to a 30°C difference. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Safety. You want to be sure the heat will be removed even if it increases a great deal, the way it did on Feb. 10. Ah. The favorite excuse, second only to secret sauce. But the heat exchanger had no effect on the heat removed from the ecat. The condensed steam went down the drain after the exchanger, and only the primary fluid affects the cooling in the ecat. Non-starter. 2. Most people I know who do a lot of calorimetry prefer a smaller Delta T, between 5 and 10°C. They prefer to keep the absolute high temperature below ~30°C. Above that you get problems with the fluid characteristics changing, and the conversion rate of 4.12 J = 1 cal. starts to change a little. Come on. Now you're worrying about a fraction of a per cent. Totally bogus. It may be easy to measure 5 - 10 degrees if you put the probes in the right place. But where they were, the temperature jumped around by a few degrees. The most obvious scenario is that the probes were placed to exaggerate the heat and to give fluctuations to make it hard to measure. The high flux was used to make it even more uncertain. Nobody does uncertainty like Rossi.
RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Thanks for converting the file. It may have been saved in Excel 2007 without compatible mode. As to the methods you discuss: Method 1 is great if you can trust the power in, secondary flow rate, and the thermocouple readings. - Even though the power in was only spot-checked, I feel good about it. The secondary flowmeter was fine, but should have been recorded regularly (not a deal-breaker). The secondary thermocouple placement was awful, not in contact with the water, placed somewhere (we only have Rossi's finger) close to the center of the manifold, in the same air cavity as the hot side, where supposedly dry steam is condensing. This is a HUGE power difference over a span of inches. Methos 2 is great if you can trust the water flow rate in, which is not recorded, and is neccessarily lower than Rossi has claimed. But you also would have to know that all of the incoming water is vaporized. This is not possibly with the data provided, without accepting the information from the secondary. You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually contradicts full vaporization. All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do not ask for any details on it Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:02:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx I cannot open this file. I get a zip with dissociated .xml's. I know that I'd quickly discounted it in the past . . . That is in Microsoft Excel format. I will try converting it to Acrobat. But, I must say that your allusion to the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement is just hogwash. The secondary calorimetric observations cited previously were entirely contingent upon the acceptance of the first. This is a circular argument. I do not see what you mean. Method 1 is the flow rate and temperature difference in the cooling loop. Method 2 is the flow rate of the fluid coming from the reactor, with the assumption that the fluid was all vaporized, which is reasonable given the temperature. I do not see how one can be dependent or contingent on the other. Method 1 would work just as well even if the fluid coming from the reactor was not vaporized, or not close to boiling. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit
I bet you crack yourself up, don't you. Darn, I've already wasted the time. but fortunately I've already found some interesting abstracts that mention drastic changes in branching ratios and enhanced energy transfer in resonant or near-resonant systems. which was my point. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 2:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley Research Center Edit On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Nope, let me look into it... thx. I meant google. Have you heard of google. Don't bother looking in to the particular resonant collisions. It's just an example of where collision energy can be tailored to match energy levels in inelastic collisions. Nothing particularly relevant beyond that.
Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR-CANR Theory Papers ISIS sumamry
There's a summary (2007) at : http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HowColdFusionWorks.php Covers some of the (ideas in) papers in my list.
[Vo]:Off topic: Food rights to be trampled in NZ
I can not believe this, the loss of food growing rights, is happening in a democracy: http://nzfoodsecurity.org/ The only ways to end this kind of thing I know of is a single term limit, government funded elections, and eliminating lobbyists. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Most people don’t measure “black-boxes”. If Rossi provided a 30-40 degrees difference, everybody can feel it simply touching water in exit. With 4-5 degrees not. Everyone present at the demo could -- and did -- feel the reactor itself, which remained quite hot for 4 hours. There was no need to feel the heat in the heat exchanger cooling loop outlet. There were many other ways to confirm the reaction by feel and by sound. Again, Rossi missed a very simple step, suggested many many times from a lot of people. I do not know anyone who recommended a lower flow rate to Rossi. I would not recommend that, and neither would anyone I know who has done a lot of flow calorimetry. As I said, it is best to keep the high temperature around 30 deg C. - Jed
[Vo]:Brian Ahern Will Not Be Presenting on December 7, 2011
From NextBigFuture: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/brian-ahern-will-not-be-presenting-on.html This is unexpected. Does anybody know why Dr. Brian Ahern won't be presenting his findings on LENR tomorrow as originally planned? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR-CANR Theory Papers ISIS Cook, lattice models
Cook's Lattice model of the nucleus seems to be getting a bit of traction (what, 35 years on?) another pdf ... http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S8_O2_Cook.pdf Essay : http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Cook_FQXiEssayNDCook_2.pdf (Or maybe if you google nucleus drop,shell,lattice it's self-selecting). But here's a weird one .. combines lattice, hydrinos, casimir, zpe . etc etc http://www.lnhatom.com/index.html Mark Porringa
Re: [Vo]:Brian Ahern Will Not Be Presenting on December 7, 2011
At 04:43 PM 12/6/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: This is unexpected. Does anybody know why Dr. Brian Ahern won't be presenting his findings on LENR tomorrow as originally planned? A comment on that page -- nextbigfuture (site owner) Apparently the organizer has said things and posted articles about aliens and conspiracies and Ahern did not want to be associated with them in any way
RE: [Vo]:Brian Ahern Will Not Be Presenting on December 7, 2011
His work was done under an EPRI contract. AFAIK - the funders have not released it to the public yet. -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa From NextBigFuture: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/brian-ahern-will-not-be-presenting-on.html This is unexpected. Does anybody know why Dr. Brian Ahern won't be presenting his findings on LENR tomorrow as originally planned? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Domestic LENR steam/electricity front end
In reply to Aussie Guy E-Cat's message of Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:20:00 +1030: Hi, [snip] Aussie FITs require the grid to be fed via a grid connect inverter and the inverter fed by a Renewable energy source. I doubt LENR would qualify. If you get a system working, then I think you should request that LENR be accepted as Renewable, since it is green, and will last longer than the Earth itself (literally; the Sun will turn into a red giant and fry the Earth before all the hydrogen is exhausted.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Codeposition of Ni/H
In reply to James Bowery's message of Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:01:10 -0600: Hi, [snip] Why hasn't anyone notice excess heat? At a guess I would say there are two reasons. 1) There isn't much. 2) No one measures it, they just get rid of it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Lewis Larsen interviewed on CF and WL theory
Larsen starts talking at 3:20: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVRLcC21F14
Re: [Vo]:Off topic: Food rights to be trampled in NZ
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 15:27 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: The only ways to end this kind of thing I know of is a single term limit, government funded elections, and eliminating lobbyists. So you want the government to fund only its own authorized candidates in its own election? And you don't see any problem with this? :) Craig
