[Vo]:Radiation Screening and Charge Accumulation
Axil, In you proposed theory of Charge Accumulation on 1 dimensional SWNTs, you propose screening of Coulomb barrier that will result in fusion of H+ with H+ or Ni with H+. In both of these cases, I believe gammas will be produced in abundance. Ed Storms' cracks will shield gammas because the reaction is way deep in the crevice of the crack. However if SWNT are the NAE, the fusion will be out in the open where the walls will not shield or thermalize the radiation. In you proposed theory, how is radiation being shielded or should we expect copious amounts of hard gammas with SWNT NAE? Jojo
[Vo]:Free Shipping
No, not an Amazon ad; but, an old idea made new again: Ireland-based B9 Shipping has started work on a full-scale demonstration vessel as part of its goal to design the modern world’s first 100 percent fossil fuel-free cargo sailing ships. Unlike most conventional large cargo vessels, which are powered by bunker fuel, B9 Shipping’s cargo ship would employ a Dyna-rig sail propulsion system combined with an off-the-shelf Rolls-Royce engine powered by liquid biomethane derived from municipal waste. http://www.gizmag.com/b9-shipping-cargo-sailing-ships/23059/ Piccys vids. T
RE: [Vo]:Radiation Screening and Charge Accumulation
Axil, You said [snip] the reaction is way deep in the crevice of the crack. However if SWNT are the NAE, the fusion will be out in the open where the walls will not shield or thermalize the radiation. [/snip] The deeper into the crack you go the more suppression increases at the inverse of distance^4 , Suppression does much more than shield and thermalize - it changes the rate of spontaneous emissions, radioactive decay and is responsible for the odd spectrum shifts reported in the Mills plasma. IMHO the isotropy that is normally only broken at the quantum foam level is segregated and accumulated into the macro scale regions we refer to as Casimir which can be exploited by a 3rd body such as hydrogen gas being selectively more exposed to one type of segregated region as opposed to the other type of region. Regions with different suppression levels experience different time dilations exactly the same as spaceships traveling at different high fractions of C without the need for spatial displacement - the spatial displacement of a spaceship approaching C is normally in a Pythagorean relationship with C itself but this is a function of the ether - a constant isotropic value from OUR perspective BUT if you could change C you would have a really cheap way to manage to time dilation without the need for displacement. and this is what is occurring inside a lattice and moreso in a Casimir cavity -not that you are getting something for nothing..it's only segregation and is harnessing matter and geometry to accomplish this nano scale corralling of different space times - We still have to select a 3rd body with the appropriate dimensions to selectively favor one type of corral over the other in order to harvest this differential - I am also of the opinion that covalent bonds formed at one suppression level are less stable and may disassociate and reform when changing suppression levels which is responsible for the claims of Lyne and Moller and may explain why some reported decay anomalies delay radioactive decay while others accelerate it. Fran From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 6:28 AM To: Vortex Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Radiation Screening and Charge Accumulation Axil, In you proposed theory of Charge Accumulation on 1 dimensional SWNTs, you propose screening of Coulomb barrier that will result in fusion of H+ with H+ or Ni with H+. In both of these cases, I believe gammas will be produced in abundance. Ed Storms' cracks will shield gammas because the reaction is way deep in the crevice of the crack. However if SWNT are the NAE, the fusion will be out in the open where the walls will not shield or thermalize the radiation. In you proposed theory, how is radiation being shielded or should we expect copious amounts of hard gammas with SWNT NAE? Jojo
Re: [Vo]:test
From Terry. Post it in docs.google.com I finally posted my scribblings under the subject thread: Groking CoAM, Kepler and Rossi as a txt file. Nothing appears to have gotten terribly garbled. BTW, I noticed that Google is upgrading docs.google.com to drive.google.com Under new management. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]: Dave’s Demon and Radiation Free LENR
I have been pondering the energy release mechanisms associated with LENR reactions extensively. For a long time I experienced mental block regarding locating where the energy went that was required to overcome the coulomb barrier during the addition of a proton to a nickel nucleus in a reaction of the nature that Rossi has suggested for the ECAT. I think that I have found a resolution to that block, but there are still issues to settle. I have found a little helper that is in the form of a demon that reveals some interesting insight. My helper demon consists of a very tiny micrometer that has instrumentation attached that can accurately measure distance moved and forces applied between a single proton and a nickel nucleus. Energy can be applied or extracted by means of the adjusting screw and it can operate at a very slow rate including static movements and measurements. Since both the nucleus and the proton are firmly connected to my device, there is no free motion allowed among them that cannot be controlled. This prevents the nucleus or proton from bounding away when the forces become extreme between the two. Behavior of my mental experimental device begins with a proton removed a long distance from the nucleus such that the force measured on my demon is virtually zero. As I turn the screw the proton approaches the nucleus and the force measured between is mostly coulomb since it operates over vast distances as compared to the strong force. Very tiny amounts of electromagnetic energy are released since the motion is extremely slow for the test. The energy applied by me to the screw is ramping up according to the integrated product of the force and distance as the proton is forced toward the nucleus. The force is proportional to the inverse second power of the distance so that I get the usual voltage reading versus displacement as the distance is reduced toward zero. The force begins to increase strongly as the two elements approach each other and thus the voltage rapidly increases. This process is continued as the force becomes ever stronger resisting the motion and I continue to apply energy to the system until a point is reached where the strong force equals the magnitude of the electric coulomb force and a static no force point is reached. From this point forth the force reverses and my demon now must resist a force that draws the two parts together ever stronger with distance. Under this condition, energy must be absorbed by my screw action and a point will soon be reached where all of the coulomb energy I entered earlier has been returned. Now, I find that I must take energy from the system at an ever more rapid gradient with distance due to the overpowering strong force pulling on the proton. Eventually the proton reaches a stable position within the nickel nucleus and the force action upon it is reduced to zero and my demon can relax. Now when the net energy associated with the above movements is determined I hypothesize that the value is the calculated reduction in mass of the system consisting of the nickel atom, a proton and an electron that makes the new copper atom complete. When nickel 62 is subjected to this action I arrive at copper 63 which is a stable element and 6.12232 MeV of energy have been absorbed by the demon. The most important aspect of this procedure is that all of the energy can be released in the form of mechanical energy and there is no release of gamma radiation whatsoever. The mass loss associated with binding energy is converted entirely into a safe form that cannot be detected by a radiation detection device. I contend that this might explain why LENR reactions of some types behave in this manner. Of course a demon of this nature is not going to be available, but perhaps the implication is that all we require is a strong coupling mechanism that retards the motion of the proton as it makes it path into the nucleus of the target atom. The electric fields associated with the electron cloud could be a factor, as could other electromagnetic couplings. Of course, the nucleus itself would tend to slow down any proton heading in its direction until the strong force intervenes. There is theory of strong interactions among electrons that result in heavy electrons, why not give consideration to the same type of activity related to protons? A heavy proton would most likely radiate energy at a much lower rate than a lone proton as it is accelerated by the strong force. I have been searching for any type of mechanism that would reduce the high energy radiation associated with nuclear reactions and maybe this can be achieved since my demon suggests that a retardation effect would allow the exact same amount of energy to be released over a longer period of time and thus at lower frequencies. The demon also works on neutrons as they are sucked in by a nearby nucleus. The main problem is to locate a
Re: [Vo]:Free Shipping
Maybe it will work out, but only with subsidies of some sort. To me and most others who have looked hard at this idea in the past it is a publicity exercise lacking a sound economic basis. (I have been involved in analysing sailing ships professionally, and have another friends who worked on this for a German company who shares my skepticism). The problems being that: -container ships have high aero drag (as well as water resistance) that limits sailing speed, winds are seldom strong enough and from the right direction to contribute significantly to the required ship speed at typical 20kts ship speed you might get useful wind 5% of the time. -there is a very large time cost to slow transport, on a big ship the capital tied up in the ship and freight can easily be $0.5 billion. That represents about $100k per day. Half the speed more than doubles the cost (wages, insurance and maintenance costs to pay too). -you need more crew, and generally highly paid/skilled crew to manage and maintain the sails. -you have to have a predictable schedule, so if you are using an unreliable motive force you need to plan in some expensive contingency time on every voyage. -the sailing rigs or kites will have high maintenance costs in the high vibration marine environment (soft sail materials don't last more than a few 1000 hours so they need to be rigid materials to be economic) and there are potential safety problems with large permanently erect sails in hurricane conditions. -masts/rigs can interfere with loading and unloading speed (which is critical given high port costs). -even with today's relatively high prices a big ship only uses about $150k/day of bunker oil. If they convert to LNG (as is starting to happen in some places) it would be even cheaper. Wind turbines on the ship would probably make more sense, as at least they will work in any wind direction (even travelling straight into the wind), as well as in port. Another possibility that might work well is Makani's rigid kite sails. http://www.makanipower.com/ as they behave like wind turbines and yet they can pack away reasonably compactly and can get up into much stronger wind without trying to tip the boat over like a tall rig does. On 25 June 2012 12:50, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: No, not an Amazon ad; but, an old idea made new again: Ireland-based B9 Shipping has started work on a full-scale demonstration vessel as part of its goal to design the modern world’s first 100 percent fossil fuel-free cargo sailing ships. Unlike most conventional large cargo vessels, which are powered by bunker fuel, B9 Shipping’s cargo ship would employ a Dyna-rig sail propulsion system combined with an off-the-shelf Rolls-Royce engine powered by liquid biomethane derived from municipal waste. http://www.gizmag.com/b9-shipping-cargo-sailing-ships/23059/ Piccys vids. T
Re: [Vo]:US government patents LENR
It looks to me me like our Navy guy is doing The Right Thing: getting a ground floor patent that covers /everything/ that hasn't been done yet in LENR. Necessarily he ties it to a theory; the one he's got, or that he thinks has the best chance. I wouldn't be surprised if he repeats the whole thing, but with a different theory, to cover more eventualities. Ol' Bab, who was an engineer... On 6/24/2012 5:28 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:57:24 -0400 (EDT): Hi, In private email with someone not from this list, someone suggested to me that the WL theory was the beast candidate so far for an explanation of CF. I would suggest rather that it is the theory most easily accepted by the mainstream because it requires that they make the least adjustment to their current way of thinking. God forbid that they should have been totally wrong their entire lives. The dent to their egos would be just too much to bear. ;) [snip] This is an interesting patent that I hope is important to LENR power production [snip] Dave
Re: [Vo]:test
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:01 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: BTW, I noticed that Google is upgrading docs.google.com to drive.google.com Good movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780504/ Better movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1502404/ Hot movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1071875/ T
RE: [Vo]:Free Shipping
From: Robert Lynn Wind turbines on the ship would probably make more sense, as at least they will work in any wind direction (even travelling straight into the wind), as well as in port. I agree that wind turbines make way more sense than sails or even kites, but they too are not cost-competitive will oil at $100 or less. In fact oil would need to go above $200 before wind makes sense in terms of no-subsidy operation. However ! that will happen, no question ... and sooner-rather-than-later, given the power and greed of OPEC/Big-Oil. There is a very-windy test area for turbines nearby, and they have every type imaginable to cross-compare. I haven't seen the firm data, but from having visited there numerous times in all wind conditions, and talking to the techies - there is clearly one superior design, and it would be ideal for ships. It always seems to be doing the best especially in light wind. It is vertical axis, but with straight and surprisingly thin airfoils. The curved airfoils do far worse. The one pictured below is similar; and it is fairly low cost. In coastal areas, this device blows solar panels away, so to speak, in terms of fast pay-back. The noise is inescapable ... but not all that unpleasant (the sound of $aving$ - as they say). http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9956965-54.html However, subsidies are needed with this one too, in 2012 and beyond. But the underlying premise for wind and solar, in general, is that oil will reach $200/barrel within a decade. At that time, the early adopters will look like prophets - unless LENR comes along first. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Is OPEC afraid of synfuels?
So perhaps what we need is Poo-Roombas http://www.irobot.com/uk/ on every farm? Or train dogs to collect crap (they seem to like eating the stuff well enough) rather than using children as is common in the 3rd world. It's probably cheaper and easier to dry and burn the excrement to create energy than inefficiently producing biofuels. Many farm vehicles and trucks could be poo-powered if they were battery hybrids and if we could replace all farm diesel use and provide some electricity for the grid too then that would be a huge win. Probably a shit idea though. On 25 June 2012 06:51, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: To cover the losses in waste production from small operations, it may be appropriate to extend the analysis to more types of waste streams. First, Chicken manure. Estimation of the total yearly United States bio-diesel production capability from chicken manure. Chicken manure weight = 0.21 lb/day The United States chicken population is (1,970,000,000) Average chicken waste (litter) production is 0.21 lb/day. The total yearly litter production is as follows: 1,970,000,000 * 0.21 lb/day * 365 days * 1/2000 = 75,500,250 tons At 150 gallons of bio-diesel per dry ton of chicken litter 75,500,250 tons * 150 gallons = 11,325,037,500 gallons of bio-diesel per year from chicken litter. Running total U.S yearly bio-diesel from United States manure production is as follows: 11,325,037,500 gallons from chickens + 189,000,000,000 gallons from cow manure = 200,325,037,500 total gallons of bio diesel per year. - Estimation of the total yearly United States bio-diesel production capability from human waste sludge. The United States population is (310,000,000) Annual mass sludge per capita 64.4 pounds The total yearly sludge production is as follows: 310,000,000 * 64.4 pounds/year * 1/2000 = 9,982,000 tons/year Assuming a 40% moisture content, the dry weight of sludge = 9,982,000 * .6 = 5,989,200 tons/year At 150 gallons of bio-diesel per dry ton of sludge - 5,989,200 tons/year * 150 gallons/dry ton = 898,380,000 gallons of bio-diesel per year from human waste sludge. Running total U.S yearly bio-diesel from United States manure/bio-waste production is as follows: 11,325,037,500 gallons from chicken litter + 189,000,000,000 gallons from cow manure + 898,380,000 gallons of bio-diesel per year from human waste sludge = 201,223,417,500 total potential gallons of bio diesel per year. = Estimation of the total yearly United States bio-diesel production capability from swine waste. The United States swine population is (60,388,700) Swine are estimated to produce daily raw manure of as much as 8.4 percent of body weight (urine and feces). Generally, growing-finishing pigs weighing 21 to 100 kg can be expected to generate 0.39 to 0.45 kg of waste per day on a dry matter basis (Brumm et al. 1980). .45kg (1 lbs) * 60,388,700 * 1/2000 *365 = 11020937 tons of swine waste/year 150 gallons of bio-diesel/ton * 11,020,937 tons of swine waste/year = 1,653,140,662 gallons of bio-diesel/year from swine waste Estimation of the total yearly United States bio-diesel production capability from municipal solid waste. The United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that in 2006 there were 251 million tons of municipal solid waste, or 4.6 pounds generated per day per person in the USA 310,000,000 people * 4.6 lbs/person * 1/2000 * 365 days = 260,245,000 tons of municipal solid waste 150 gallons of bio-diesel/ton * 260,245,000 tons of municipal solid = 39,036,750,000 gallons of bio-diesel/year from municipal solid waste Running total U.S yearly bio-diesel from United States manure/bio-waste/solid waste production is as follows: 11,325,037,500 gallons from chicken litter + 189,000,000,000 gallons from cow manure + 898,380,000 gallons of bio-diesel per year from human waste sludge + 1,653,140,662 gallons of bio-diesel/year from swine waste + 39,036,750,000 gallons of bio-diesel/year from municipal solid waste = 241,913,308,162 gallons of bio-diesel/year(5,759,840,670 b/y --- 15,780,385 b/d) total potential gallons of bio diesel per year from U.S. waste streams. -- Because it is produced in massive concentrations, much of the bio-waste produces water pollution in streams and rivers or is burned for electric power production in meat processing plants or incinerated or landfilled. Also anaerobic digestion converts the waste to a methane and carbon dioxide rich biogas (sewage treatment) released to the atmosphere. All the minerals and nitrogen content from bio-diesel processing of the animal waste can be reapplied to farm land as mineral fertilizers formed from ash residue.
RE: [Vo]:Free Shipping
Also consider the Flettner rotor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 8:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Free Shipping From: Robert Lynn Wind turbines on the ship would probably make more sense, as at least they will work in any wind direction (even travelling straight into the wind), as well as in port. I agree that wind turbines make way more sense than sails or even kites, but they too are not cost-competitive will oil at $100 or less. ... attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:DDL wrt f/H
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com This is why I want to use H/Li7 for space travel. For use on Earth, I would prefer H/B11, which is less energetic, but Boron is more common. Note also that the alphas from the H/Li7 reaction are energetic enough to produce a few spallation neutrons, so this reaction is not quite as clean as the H/B11 reaction. Robin, This is not necessarily true, if we are talking about alphas from the f/H- pathway. That is a QM pathway - not a thermonuclear pathway. Your are transposing new physics into old physics, and that could be the problem in analyzing this or any QM reaction. The two high energy alphas of the known Li-7 reaction would only be true when the atom is split by an accelerated proton, but now we have what is essentially a cold dense ion with a Coulomb attraction, instead of repulsion. Importantly, it seems to involve nuclear tunneling and the strong force. We must assume that in order to get to the low redundancy (which is implied by the deep Dirac electron), the f/H- is already energy depleted. Plus we must assume that the reaction also depletes the strong force in a way that reduces the mass of the end products. You may counter that, even if the f/H- is somewhat energy-depleted, it has not lost a high percentage of the 8+ MeV, and that is true - BUT - these kinds of QM reactions are seldom comparable as logical or linear variations to hot reactions. It could easily be the case that in the fractional hydrogen situation, the two resulting alphas are far lower in energy than one would normally imagine, if extrapolating from the hot reaction. There are two additional possibilities, in addition to the energy depleted f/H ... which could explain two alphas which are in far lower in energy and do not produce spallation effects. One is the strong force depletion mentioned above and the other is the release of neutrinos, as well as two alphas. Bottom line. When a novel kind of reaction is instigated by what is, in effect, a new particle - fractional hydrogen - then there is little justification for trying to plug the results into known hot fusion parameters. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Free Shipping
Also consider circulation controlled airfoils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosail -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 8:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Free Shipping From: Robert Lynn Wind turbines on the ship would probably make more sense, as at least they will work in any wind direction (even travelling straight into the wind), as well as in port. I agree that wind turbines make way more sense than sails or even kites, but they too are not cost-competitive will oil at $100 or less. In fact oil would need to go above $200 before wind makes sense in terms of no-subsidy operation. However ! that will happen, no question ... and sooner-rather-than-later, given the power and greed of OPEC/Big-Oil. There is a very-windy test area for turbines nearby, and they have every type imaginable to cross-compare. I haven't seen the firm data, but from having visited there numerous times in all wind conditions, and talking to the techies - there is clearly one superior design, and it would be ideal for ships. It always seems to be doing the best especially in light wind. It is vertical axis, but with straight and surprisingly thin airfoils. The curved airfoils do far worse. The one pictured below is similar; and it is fairly low cost. In coastal areas, this device blows solar panels away, so to speak, in terms of fast pay-back. The noise is inescapable ... but not all that unpleasant (the sound of $aving$ - as they say). http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9956965-54.html However, subsidies are needed with this one too, in 2012 and beyond. But the underlying premise for wind and solar, in general, is that oil will reach $200/barrel within a decade. At that time, the early adopters will look like prophets - unless LENR comes along first. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Coherent Quantum Wires and Charge Accumulation
Jojo, I believe that current carrying capacity in metal nanowires is proportional to cross-sectional area - before the diameter reaches the electron mean free path for the metal. But, there are other factors - length, geometry and uniformity of wire cross-section, temperature, applied voltage, cross-talk to adjacent nanowires, ... a very nonlinear relationship. (Refer to the paper I originally referenced.) I think (but am not sure) that based on the following paper - Room temperature ballistic conduction in carbon nanotubes (equation 11) http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0211/0211515.pdf - that in carbon MWNTs max-current is proportional (up to mean free path) to cross-sectional area, at least at the MNWT contacts. So, I would guess the same holds for SWNTs. I find this subject awesomely complex. Probably experiment is the best way to check theory. As the great philosopher Yogi Berra allegedly said: Theoretically, the theoretical and the empirical are the same - empirically, they're not -- Lou Pagnucco Jojo Jaro wrote: What you are saying is the current carrying capacity of a conductor is proportional to the cross sectional area of the conductor. That is true only for the macro scale. Current flow in a 1 dimensional SWNT appears to be governed by quite different mechanisms. I do not believe the Current carrying capacity of a CNT is proportional to its cross sectional area. I believe SWNTs with smaller diameters can carry more current that MWNT with larger diameters. I believe that is exactly what long coherence lengths mean in this context. Tell me where I'm wrong. Jojo - Original Message - From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Coherent Quantum Wires and Charge Accumulation Jojo, Please note this correction - ...current density is directly related to radius^2... - should read ...current is directly related to radius^2... The extra word changes the meaning entirely. Too large a radius (~ electron mean free path), though, will make the current diffusive instead of ballistic. -- Lou Pagnucco Lou Pagnucco wrote: Jojo, I believe in both metal nanowires and carbon SWNTs, current density is directly related to radius^2 - Refer to equation(1), page 1 of - Stability of Metal Nanowires at Ultrahigh Current Densities http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0411058v3.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Radiation Screening and Charge Accumulation
There are two basic processes going on in cold fusion when it is working properly: one(1) is charge accumulation that shields the coulomb barrier of atoms, and two(2), the other is quantum mechanical entanglement of protons from ionized hydrogen atoms that thermalize the radiation produced by fusion. It is possible for one(1) to be active when two(2) is not. This is true in the LeClair cavatation system where much of the energy produced by the reaction comes off as Gamma radiation. The LeClair system is very cold and does not have cracks which will produce entangled protons. Early on, Rossi had trouble with his 100 gram reactor when it was starting up and shutting down because it was too cold during those times. Dr. Kim explains the nuclear energy side of this entanglement mechanism in this paper: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf Kim shows how cold fusion of a cooper pair of protons (two protons stuck together) will produce certain types of nuclear reactions. In more detail in the old Rossi reactor design, at startup, a large amount of gamma radiation appears before proton entanglement has established itself since the temperature of the nickel has not gotten to the relatively low Curie temperature (nickel has the Curie temperature of 631 K (~358 C)). Formation of the proton condensate is sensitive to the magnetic nature of nickel. When nickel is ferromagnetic it won’t let the protons form and join the proton assemblages. In such a collection of identical and entangled protons, all the protons in the collection share in the nuclear energy that any given member is exposed to. Nickel must first be made paramagnetic by heat so that the protons can join the superconductive proton assemblage. This entanglement process makes the heat output conversion of the cold fusion reaction possible. Rossi fixed this problem when he added a secondary heater to his old design to preheat the reactor structure before the Ni-H reaction begins. The coherent and entangle wave forms of these many protons that comprise the proton condensate will all work in concert through a quantum mechanical wave based summation process to form a combined, entangled and coherent single de-Broglie wave form. The whole proton condensate then participates in nuclear fusion. But the proton condensate can be spread out in the nickel lattice and also in the hydrogen envelope and even inside the walls of the reaction vessel. Because of its very large coherent de-Broglie wave form, the effective quantum mechanical range at which this condensate operates may be very large, being spread out anywhere up to hundreds of nano-meters which always include the proton pair that has participated in the fusion reaction. It seems to me that when copper or tungsten is used as the lattice material, the cold temperature problem in the lattice with regard to gamma production is not as pronounced because of the paramagnetic nature of these metals. Superconductivity and ferromagnetism just do not go well together. To address Francis points, it is at or beyond the cutting edge of condensed matter physics to determine how the protons behave in the way they do in the lattice of a transition metal. But the research of Piantelli has shown that 6 MeV protons are coming out of the nickel after these bars are immediately removed from the Piantelli reactor. This is a solid indicator to me that double proton fusion is occurring in the nickel lattice. When these bars are removed from the reactor they cool rapidly. This rapid cooling of these bars takes their temperature quickly below the Curie temperature of nickel. The energy of the cold fusion reaction is no longer being thermalized by entanglement of the protons, so all 6 MeV of the reaction is being produced by the nuclear relaxation process of the excited nucleus. Please realize that cold fusion using carbon based SWNT is new. It is unlike what Rossi originally started out with. And we can only suspect that he is now using carbon based SWNT from what we see in the NASA patents (this comes from the assumption that the Navy and NASA talk among themselves). When SWNT are used, we do not know where the fusion is occurring, inside the tubes or in the nickel lattice or both. Because we are going into the unknown experimentally, be careful and check for gamma radiation at all times. Don’t be caught unawares as LeClair was and spend any time in a hospital. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Axil, In you proposed theory of Charge Accumulation on 1 dimensional SWNTs, you propose screening of Coulomb barrier that will result in fusion of H+ with H+ or Ni with H+. In both of these cases, I believe gammas will be produced in abundance. Ed Storms' cracks will shield gammas because the reaction is way deep in the crevice of the crack. However if SWNT are the NAE, the fusion will be out in the open where the
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:DDL wrt f/H
On Monday 6/25 Beene said [snip] You may counter that, even if the f/H- is somewhat energy-depleted, it has not lost a high percentage of the 8+ MeV, and that is true - BUT - these kinds of QM reactions are seldom comparable as logical or linear variations to hot reactions. It could easily be the case that in the fractional hydrogen situation, the two resulting alphas are far lower in energy than one would normally imagine, if extrapolating from the hot reaction.[/snip] It may also be the case that the energy is constantly being bled from the F/H by the surrounding geometry 1/d^4 to keep it fractional.. the difference adds up fast over time especially if Naudts is correct about fractional hydrogen being relativistic. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:DDL wrt f/H -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.commailto:mix...@bigpond.com This is why I want to use H/Li7 for space travel. For use on Earth, I would prefer H/B11, which is less energetic, but Boron is more common. Note also that the alphas from the H/Li7 reaction are energetic enough to produce a few spallation neutrons, so this reaction is not quite as clean as the H/B11 reaction. Robin, This is not necessarily true, if we are talking about alphas from the f/H- pathway. That is a QM pathway - not a thermonuclear pathway. Your are transposing new physics into old physics, and that could be the problem in analyzing this or any QM reaction. The two high energy alphas of the known Li-7 reaction would only be true when the atom is split by an accelerated proton, but now we have what is essentially a cold dense ion with a Coulomb attraction, instead of repulsion. Importantly, it seems to involve nuclear tunneling and the strong force. We must assume that in order to get to the low redundancy (which is implied by the deep Dirac electron), the f/H- is already energy depleted. Plus we must assume that the reaction also depletes the strong force in a way that reduces the mass of the end products. You may counter that, even if the f/H- is somewhat energy-depleted, it has not lost a high percentage of the 8+ MeV, and that is true - BUT - these kinds of QM reactions are seldom comparable as logical or linear variations to hot reactions. It could easily be the case that in the fractional hydrogen situation, the two resulting alphas are far lower in energy than one would normally imagine, if extrapolating from the hot reaction. There are two additional possibilities, in addition to the energy depleted f/H ... which could explain two alphas which are in far lower in energy and do not produce spallation effects. One is the strong force depletion mentioned above and the other is the release of neutrinos, as well as two alphas. Bottom line. When a novel kind of reaction is instigated by what is, in effect, a new particle - fractional hydrogen - then there is little justification for trying to plug the results into known hot fusion parameters. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Free Shipping
I studied the Fletner Rotor ship in a fluid dynamics class at university. Took far too much power for the propulsion benefit it produced. Slotted wings such as used on AC45 america's cup catamarans are far more efficient and have fantastic ability to modulate lift. If you want to see something cool check out upwind wind-turbine powered race cars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrro4MxNr7Yfeature=related Best they can do directly upwind is 65% of wind speed (ie 6.5kts in a 10 kt wind) On 25 June 2012 18:27, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: Also consider circulation controlled airfoils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosail -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 8:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Free Shipping From: Robert Lynn Wind turbines on the ship would probably make more sense, as at least they will work in any wind direction (even travelling straight into the wind), as well as in port. I agree that wind turbines make way more sense than sails or even kites, but they too are not cost-competitive will oil at $100 or less. In fact oil would need to go above $200 before wind makes sense in terms of no-subsidy operation. However ! that will happen, no question ... and sooner-rather-than-later, given the power and greed of OPEC/Big-Oil. There is a very-windy test area for turbines nearby, and they have every type imaginable to cross-compare. I haven't seen the firm data, but from having visited there numerous times in all wind conditions, and talking to the techies - there is clearly one superior design, and it would be ideal for ships. It always seems to be doing the best especially in light wind. It is vertical axis, but with straight and surprisingly thin airfoils. The curved airfoils do far worse. The one pictured below is similar; and it is fairly low cost. In coastal areas, this device blows solar panels away, so to speak, in terms of fast pay-back. The noise is inescapable ... but not all that unpleasant (the sound of $aving$ - as they say). http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9956965-54.html However, subsidies are needed with this one too, in 2012 and beyond. But the underlying premise for wind and solar, in general, is that oil will reach $200/barrel within a decade. At that time, the early adopters will look like prophets - unless LENR comes along first. Jones
Re: [Vo]:DDL wrt f/H
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:27:35 -0700: Hi, [snip] There are two additional possibilities, in addition to the energy depleted f/H ... which could explain two alphas which are in far lower in energy and do not produce spallation effects. One is the strong force depletion mentioned above and the other is the release of neutrinos, as well as two alphas. The reaction H + Li7 = 2*He4 + 17.35 MeV is based purely on the difference in mass, it has nothing to do with hot fusion, and is in fact completely independent of the method employed. The initial H is indeed depleted, by about 360 keV, which reduces the total to about 17 MeV, or 8.5 MeV per alpha. Still sufficient to produce the occasional spallation neutron. As to Plus we must assume that the reaction also depletes the strong force in a way that reduces the mass of the end products. ...I fail to see why we must make any such assumption. BTW there are no neutrinos involved in this reaction at all, because it's not a beta decay reaction. It's a straight fast fusion/fission reaction. (The total number of protons neutrons is the same before as after.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Is OPEC afraid of synfuels?
The profit motive can change the way farmer’s think of their waste streams: i.e. from a nuisance to a lucrative profit center. The removal of animal waste can be completely automated on the farm for rapid conversion to $3 a gallon biodiesel. The advantage of process heat from cold fusion is that the reactor is safe, inexpensive, and small. Animals could be selectively bred for their effective production of waste. A 5,000 gallon tank holding biodiesel can be filled automatically on the farm by a computerized waste handling system. This fuel could be sent to local filling stations or a nearby airport or the farmer could even setup a roadside fuel station and avoid all the middle man profit taking. In general, cold fusion will work to decentralize energy production and liberate energy producers and users from the oppression and control of the multi-national monopolies. For the farmer, one of the most important outputs of the Molten Salt Oxidation Process (MSOP) is biochar. In traditional methods of biomass fast pyrolysis, this char is used to fire the bioreactor and is turned into CO2. When nuclear energy from cold fusion is used, biochar can be saved and reapplied back to the soil. This will immediately and rapidly reverse climate warming from CO2. First off, Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass, and differs from charcoal only in the sense that its primary use is not for fuel, but for biosequestration or atmospheric carbon capture and storage. Charcoal is a stable solid, rich in carbon content, and thus, can be used to lock carbon in the soil. Biochar is of increasing interest because of concerns about climate change caused by emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG). Carbon dioxide capture also ties up large amounts of oxygen and requires energy for injection (as via carbon capture and storage), whereas the biochar process breaks into the carbon dioxide cycle, thus releasing oxygen as did coal formation hundreds of millions of years ago. If the production of biochar is tied to the high profits from liquid biofuel production, huge amounts of the stuff will be generated on the farm as a result of our insatiable desire for liquid fuels. Biochar can sequester carbon in the soil for hundreds to thousands of years, like coal. Modern biochar is being developed using pyrolysis to heat biomass in the absence of oxygen in kilns and MSOP is an analogous process. However, to the difference of coal and/or petroleum charcoal, when incorporated into the soil in stable organo-mineral aggregates does not freely accumulate in an oxygen-free and abiotic environment. This allows it to be slowly oxygenated and transformed in physically stable but chemically reactive humus, thereby acquiring interesting chemical properties such as cation exchange capacity and buffering of soil acidification. Both are precious in clay and /or nutrient-pore and/or nutrient depleted soils. Biochar can be used to sequester carbon on centurial or even millennial time scales. In the natural carbon cycle, animal waste or plant matter decomposes rapidly after the plant dies, which emits CO2; the overall natural cycle is carbon neutral. Instead of allowing the plant matter to decompose, pyrolysis can be used to sequester some of the carbon in a much more stable form. Biochar thus removes circulating CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it in virtually permanent soil carbon pools, making it a carbon-negative process. In places like the Rocky Mountains, where beetles have been killing off vast swathes of pine trees, the utilization of pyrolysis to char the trees instead of letting them decompose into the atmosphere would offset substantial amounts of CO2 emissions. Although some organic matter is necessary for agricultural soil to maintain its productivity, much of the agricultural waste can be turned directly into biochar, bio-oil, and syngas. Biochar is believed to have long mean residence times in the soil. While the methods by which biochar mineralizes (turns into CO2) are not completely known, evidence from soil samples in the Amazon shows large concentrations of black carbon (biochar) remaining after they were abandoned thousands of years ago. Lab experiments confirm a decrease in carbon mineralization with increasing temperature, so ultra-high temperature charring of plant matter increases the soil residence time and long term soil benefits of high temperature biochar. Terra preta soils are of pre-Columbian nature and were created by the local farmers and caboclos in Brazil's Amazonian basin between 450 BC and AD 950. It owes its name to its very high charcoal content, and is characterized by the presence of charcoal in high concentrations; organic matter such as plant residues, animal feces, fish and animal bones and other material; and of nutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn). All of these elements save nitrogen
Re: [Vo]: Daves Demon and Radiation Free LENR
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:58:01 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Behavior of my mental experimental device begins with a proton removed a long distance from the nucleus such that the force measured on my demon is virtually zero. As I turn the screw the proton approaches the nucleus and the force measured between is mostly coulomb since it operates over vast distances as compared to the strong force. Very tiny amounts of electromagnetic energy are released Not at his point. Up till now, energy is being consumed. There is no energy release (as you point out yourself here below ;) . since the motion is extremely slow for the test. The energy applied by me to the screw is ramping up according to the integrated product of the force and distance as the proton is forced toward the nucleus. The force is proportional to the inverse second power of the distance so that I get the usual voltage reading versus displacement as the distance is reduced toward zero. The force begins to increase strongly as the two elements approach each other and thus the voltage rapidly increases. This process is continued as the force becomes ever stronger resisting the motion and I continue to apply energy to the system until a point is reached where the strong force equals the magnitude of the electric coulomb force and a static no force point is reached. From this point forth the force reverses and my demon now must resist a force that draws the two parts together ever stronger with distance. Under this condition, energy must be absorbed by my screw action and a point will soon be reached where all of the coulomb energy I entered earlier has been returned. Now, I find that I must take energy from the system at an ever more rapid gradient with distance due to the overpowering strong force pulling on the proton. Eventually the proton reaches a stable position within the nickel nucleus and the force action upon it is reduced to zero and my demon can relax. Whew! ;) Now when the net energy associated with the above movements is determined I hypothesize that the value is the calculated reduction in mass of the system consisting of the nickel atom, a proton and an electron that makes the new copper atom complete. When nickel 62 is subjected to this action I arrive at copper 63 which is a stable element and 6.12232 MeV of energy have been absorbed by the demon. Correct. The most important aspect of this procedure is that all of the energy can be released in the form of mechanical energy and there is no release of gamma radiation whatsoever. Here you make the assumption that the final product will be Copper in it's ground state. In reality that may not be the case. Furthermore, depending on the Nickel isotope that you start out with the final Copper nucleus may be subject to beta decay (a slow process), resulting in longer term radioactivity. (e.g. Cu61). The mass loss associated with binding energy is converted entirely into a safe form that cannot be detected by a radiation detection device. I contend that this might explain why LENR reactions of some types behave in this manner. Of course a demon of this nature is not going to be available, but perhaps the implication is that all we require is a strong coupling mechanism that retards the motion of the proton as it makes it path into the nucleus of the target atom. The electric fields associated with the electron cloud could be a factor, as could other electromagnetic couplings. Nothing is going to retard the proton once the nuclear force gets it's claws into it. However as I have previously suggested, a fast particle can carry the energy away. E.g. an electron or a proton, or even multiple protons (from a condensate). Of course, the nucleus itself would tend to slow down any proton heading in its direction until the strong force intervenes. Note however that it's only after this point that excess energy becomes available - as your demon has demonstrated. There is theory of strong interactions among electrons that result in heavy electrons, why not give consideration to the same type of activity related to protons? A heavy proton would most likely radiate energy at a much lower rate than a lone proton as it is accelerated by the strong force. The proton doesn't radiate anything. Once it has formed a Copper nucleus, that new nucleus is in an excited state, and it is this Copper nucleus which radiates (unless it has already managed to dispose of the energy via one or more fast particles). I have been searching for any type of mechanism that would reduce the high energy radiation associated with nuclear reactions and maybe this can be achieved since my demon suggests that a retardation effect would allow the exact same amount of energy to be released over a longer period of time and thus at lower frequencies. Talk to Fran, though I fail to understand how his mechanism would allow a
Re: [Vo]:Is OPEC afraid of synfuels?
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:48:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] For the farmer, one of the most important outputs of the Molten Salt Oxidation Process (MSOP) is biochar. In traditional methods of biomass fast pyrolysis, this char is used to fire the bioreactor and is turned into CO2. When nuclear energy from cold fusion is used, biochar can be saved and reapplied back to the soil. This will immediately and rapidly reverse climate warming from CO2. Once CF becomes widespread no one will bother with bio-diesel at all. (As Jed has pointed out many times). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Radiation Screening and Charge Accumulation
In reply to Jojo Jaro's message of Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:28:17 +0800: Hi, [snip] In both of these cases, I believe gammas will be produced in abundance. Ed Storms' cracks will shield gammas because the reaction is way deep in the crevice of the crack. You are missing a scale factor here. Gammas will penetrate many centimeters of metal. Cracks are only microns in size. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Radiation Screening and Charge Accumulation
Yes, I am aware of that. I was working under the assumption that there is some process on the lattice that would thermalize the gammas. And comparing with a SWNT, that process, whatever it is, is not present when fusion is induced by SWNT as opposed to cracks. But, no matter. Axil has answered my question. Bottom line, we don't know what will happen in SWNT mediated Cold Fusion. I am preparing several Gamma ray ion chambers, and a Neutron Ion Chanber. Jojo - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Radiation Screening and Charge Accumulation In reply to Jojo Jaro's message of Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:28:17 +0800: Hi, [snip] In both of these cases, I believe gammas will be produced in abundance. Ed Storms' cracks will shield gammas because the reaction is way deep in the crevice of the crack. You are missing a scale factor here. Gammas will penetrate many centimeters of metal. Cracks are only microns in size. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Is OPEC afraid of synfuels?
If the greens, the politicians, and the medical communities are smart, they will postpone the introduction of cold fusion into the transportation market to clean up the environment and farming by removing the leaking animal waste lagoons, the mountains of manure, save billions of dollars in medical costs, make the food supply pure, save thousands of lives, improve the quality of the marginal soils all over America to the days that they had been when the pilgrims landed, reverse global warming so that the snows will return, and convert the chemical industry to biologic feed stock. They can do all this using the forces of the marketplace rather than through governmental policies, codes and procedures. Or they can keep on screwing up, follow what Jed’s book states, and impose heavy handed solutions through a mountain of freedom killing heavy handed regulations. Sometimes it is important to do smart things using the natural motivations of the people rather than be an ideological purest. On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:28 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:48:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] For the farmer, one of the most important outputs of the Molten Salt Oxidation Process (MSOP) is biochar. In traditional methods of biomass fast pyrolysis, this char is used to fire the bioreactor and is turned into CO2. When nuclear energy from cold fusion is used, biochar can be saved and reapplied back to the soil. This will immediately and rapidly reverse climate warming from CO2. Once CF becomes widespread no one will bother with bio-diesel at all. (As Jed has pointed out many times). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
