On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion
device for pB11 fusion?
This is a different use of the term degenerate state. The more
specific term there is Fermi degeneracy as opposed to degenerate
quantum states,
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/32267/
Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43jv00l7pa0feature=player_embedded
In reply to Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:48:59
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Primarily for the theorists in the Collective.
This from the Ni-H yahoo group...
-Mark
I try to explain it:
All you have to do is, to put the electron from the H-atom nearer
Reference:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSevidenceof.pdf
*Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems*
*Conclusion:*
We have presented experimental results for photon emission observed in
three different experiments
performed during a preliminary preparation step
Anyway, your theory is somewhat similar to the stage III that of Takashi,
when the nucleons of the TSC are captured by the nuclear force. TSC is
really a deflated ground state, simply because electrons screen to the
extreme the proton charge. But, the destiny of the electrons is not clear.
Yes I heard Celani saying that as well.
AG
On 12/30/2011 3:43 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Horace
ØOnce again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter -
there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction.
How about the detection
On 2011-12-30 01:34, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
In Italian, and no transcript that I can see. Anything interesting?
As far as I know, there was nothing new or worth of particular attention
for informed people who have closely followed this since at least last
January, hence no transcripts.
Yes, it does makes sense. But I would suggest you to study Takahashi's
model. Your idea seems to work to explain what happens to the electrons in
Phase III of his theory, that is, when the tetrahedron collapses. It is not
clear to me what happens to the electrons. I pointed out Lerner's theory
Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM - Supergravitation
Unified Theory
Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev
Another model for LENR. This one makes an important prediction that should be
subject to rapid verification:
chromium should work in the same way as nickel
On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Yes, it does makes sense. But I would suggest you to study
Takahashi's model. Your idea seems to work to explain what happens
to the electrons in Phase III of his theory, that is, when the
tetrahedron collapses. It is not clear to me what
updated video December 5, 2011
remarkably efficient thermo electric conversion Sterling cycle
acoustic compression device, Etalim Inc.: Rich Murray 2011.12.30
Very high efficiency -- almost twice the efficiency of other small engines
Operation from any available heat source or fuel
Zero
Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go
to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy
that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people
reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going
On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I
didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot
know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did
independently. Several people reaching the same
I didn't understand this part from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in
small increments by a trapped electron.
2011/12/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go
to the
At 01:31 AM 12/30/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/32267/
http://www.technologyreview.com/files/53183/engine_x220.jpg
It's a DALEK!! Exterminate! Exterminate!
At 01:31 AM 12/30/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/32267/
But :
A second prototype that aims for 20 to 30 percent
efficiency at 500 °C is expected this spring.
To get from 40 percent to 50 percent, we need to
raise the temperature to 1,000 °C, and
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy.
It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the
hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice.
What part do you not understand:
a. the mechanism of trapping of the post fusion nuclear electron
b. the low energy state of the post fusion nuclear electron
c. the mechanism by which the trapped electron absorbs the
fusion energy
d. why the fusion energy is not sufficient to
Your theory is just too similar to what I imagine that should happen in
Phase III that I get confused. You are correct in your stuff, but you don't
use many equations, mostly your intuition. So, I get lost reading your
papers.
Right, to be clear. a-e. Just show me where I can find in your papers.
What is Takahashi analogue to the deflated electron?
On Dec 30, 2011, at 13:21, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Your theory is just too similar to what I imagine that should happen in Phase
III that I get confused. You are correct in your stuff, but you don't use
many equations,
1000C input temperature can achieve 50% Carnot efficiency with an exhaust
temperature of 362C
Not quite hot enough for input to MHD
;-)
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
At 01:31 AM 12/30/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
Phase II of his theory. The eigenvalue radius of the ground state
dynamically shrinks due to the screening of protons and electrons. It just
happen with a very specific tetrahedron configuration of protons/deuterons
and electrons.
2011/12/30 Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com
What is
Robin:
If one looks at it macroscopically, then your criticism is understandable,
however, one must keep in mind the environment of the H or D loaded lattice
at the dimensions of a few atoms. When you get ALL magnetic domains aligned
in a small region (a few 10s, 100s of atoms), magnetic fields
On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:15 AM, Charles HOPE wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Horace Heffner
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state
energy. It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever
state the hydrogen
Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
dogmatists ironic.
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011
Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
Perhaps some relic of
I started with stage 2 of negation and went to 1...
2011/12/30 pagnu...@htdconnect.com
Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
dogmatists ironic.
Daniel, you may be correct.
I do not know.
However, both Akito Takahashi and Hideo Kozima may regard W-L viable.
See -- Second Cold Fusion Theorist Cites Widom-Larsen Theory
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/23/second-cold-fusion-theorist-cites-widom-larsen-theory/
Takahashi appears to
No, Takashi used the weak force in the sense of finding a cross section
for the reaction electron proton, but he laid a very harsh criticism on WL
theory and make it clear the difference between the approaches. In fact,
he didn't take WL seriously.
2011/12/30 pagnu...@htdconnect.com
Daniel,
Krivit finally convinced me : LENR Researcher Refuses to Abandon Fusion Term
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/29/lenr-researcher-refuses-to-abandon-fusion-term/
that neutron capture (and subsequent decay to a proton) is NOT
fusion, per wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_capture
Again, I am not sure.
Looking at the slide on p.105 at JCF12 Abstracts at--
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2011/JCF12/JCF12ExtendedAbstracts.pdf
-- I see the reaction 59Ni + e- 59Co + v + Q
I cannot read Japanese, but this looks like a heavy electron capture,
but that is just a
You can find it here, a google translation, which is what I used:
http://www.ecatplanet.net/content.php?142-Frontiers-of-Cold-Fusion-Eng
2011/12/30 pagnu...@htdconnect.com
Again, I am not sure.
Looking at the slide on p.105 at JCF12 Abstracts at--
See:
http://randyhekman2012.com/_blog/Blog/post/Energy_America's_Next_'Space_Race'_/
This web site was linked from a press release, as follows:
*Energy: America's Next 'Space Race'*
Grand Rapids, Michigan - December 30, 2011. Could a new form of virtually
limitless energy that promises national security, economic strength and
environmental sustainability be in our future?
In reply to Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:08:00
-0800:
Hi Mark,
[snip]
Horace's calculation has nothing to do with alignment of magnetic fields in
clusters, which can't produce such huge fields anyway. (Consider that in an
ordinary magnet many (most?) of the atomic
WOW! He can make 2 basketball teams with his sons
His political instances are diametrically opposed to mine. He has neocon
views of things.
2011/12/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
This web site was linked from a press release, as follows:
*Energy: America's Next 'Space Race'*
I am told by cold fusioneers (as WL calles them) that the WL theory
makes many wrong predictions. You will only hear from WL the correct
predictions.
harry
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
It is unfortunate that WL refuses to acknowledge the many difficulties
associated with their own theory.
harry
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
I am told by cold fusioneers (as WL calles them) that the WL theory
makes many wrong predictions. You will
FYI: just a heads-up for the theorists in the group.
-Mark
Collaboration Resolves Century-Long Debate Over How to Describe
Electromagnetic Momentum Density in Matter
December 28, 2011
Researchers from the NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology and
the University of British
On 2011-12-30 22:05, Jed Rothwell wrote:
See:
http://randyhekman2012.com/_blog/Blog/post/Energy_America's_Next_'Space_Race'_/
From the link above:
[...] It took a man I met at a conference in France five years ago to discover
the answer. Lewis Larsen, now CEO of Lattice Energy LLC in
vote for me
-Original Message-
From: RenewableEnergyWorld.com no-re...@web.renewableenergyworld.com
To: Frank Znidarsic Website Contact fznidar...@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2011 11:35 am
Subject: Last Chance - Submit Your Nominations NOW
Having trouble viewing this email - Click
Notice this was all resolved using calculations and computers.
Now we need not worry making materials that do not conform to physical law. ;-)
Harry
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
FYI: just a heads-up for the theorists in the group…
-Mark
There have been many disputes in the history of cold fusion. They have been
about theory, experimental results, and in some cases politics and
personality. In my opinion, this dispute, as carried on by Larsen and
Krivit, is the most absurd. It is the most pointless. I do not mean that
theory is
Robin:
Thanks for the comments, and I see your chicken-n-egg argument...
As I prefaced my comment about Horace's calcs, I'm not sure if this is
relevant either...
Please note that in many cases I am just doing a brain-dump in the hopes of
triggering some creative thinking. :-)
OTOH, I'm not so
There is no Chicken and egg problem with my theory for the following
reasons:
1. The electron is periodically close to the nucleus. When the
electron is close to the nucleus, at the range indicated, the
magnetic fields are super intense, and spin coupling occurs.
2. An external magnetic
Another FYI:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-graphene-intense-laser-pulses.html
The researcher said:
We found from ultrafast spectroscopy measurements that dispersed graphene
sheets switch their behavior from induced optical transparency which is
well-known, to induced optical
I wrote: However, if they are in orbitals, they align with opposed
spin, like so:
N S
| |
S N
which is still an attracting mode.
I should note that should say opposed poles, not opposed spin. A
nucleus with negative mu has spin reversed with respect to the poles.
I explained this on
Larsen has a website with slide presentations at:
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen
He provides a lot of hypotheses which could be tested for what seems
modest expense. Most would involve looking for transmutations - which
would be a lot less contentious than calorimetry results.
Many have
The problem it is that merely adding neutrons do not much. You cannot even
make He4 out of D.
2011/12/30 pagnu...@htdconnect.com
Larsen has a website with slide presentations at:
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen
He provides a lot of hypotheses which could be tested for what seems
From Jed:
...
The researcher quoted here has it right:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/29/lenr-researcher-refuses-to-abandon
-fusion-term/
I feel it would be much better to allow people to use the terms
they are comfortable with. Let people use dozens of terms if they
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 8:42 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
As far as I’m
concerned the war against the fusion word is nothing more than a petty
self-serving theoretical product placement war.
It's all quite absurd actually. SK appears to be
Well said. It is what it is, the FPE which:
1) Generates excess heat.
2) Generates very little radiation.
3) Transmutes elements up and down the scale.
Maybe call it the PSE (Philosopher's Stone Effect)? Nah calling it the
FPE is good enough. BTW pass another box of hot buttered popcorn
The war against the phrase cold fusion seems to derive from some sort
of attempt at spin control on the whole affair. At some level, if the
phrase cold fusion can be debunked then the physics establishment can
save face in the eyes of the vast majority of the population. It is that
concern that
Bout time for some to wake up and stop claiming as fact what is
obviously not fact. What is fact is we do not know what is happening and
until we do know what is happening there is no point in claiming what is
and is not fact.
What we know as fact:
1) It is called the Fleischmann and Ponds
Horace:
The reference to the chicken-n-egg was not with your theory... sorry for the
misunderstanding.
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 4:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance
SVJ wrote:
As far as I'm concerned the war against the fusion word is nothing more
than a petty self-serving theoretical product placement war. WTF cares.
I wholeheartedly agree Steven, but it's not you and I that needed convincing
these past 20+ years; it's the physics establishment. I
On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:58 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
Horace:
The reference to the chicken-n-egg was not with your theory...
sorry for the
misunderstanding.
My mistake. Sorry. Any excuse to post on my theory. 8^)
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Hi Frank,
Nomination categories are: Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal and
Hydropower.
No free energy or nuclear energy categories.
On Dec 30, 2011, at 1:16 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
vote for me
-Original Message-
From: RenewableEnergyWorld.com
57 matches
Mail list logo
