Re: [Vo]:general approximation of the viability of gamma quenching
Lou, Interesting paper. The conditions explored in the paper, if I've understood them, are the Compton scattering of high energy photons on hydrogen atoms in the midst of a low energy laser field. The energy of the laser field is significantly below that of a typical transition frequency of the target electron in the ground state. To make things concrete, I take this to mean much less than the ionization potential of hydrogen, 13.6 eV; so significantly greater than 91 nm, in the ultraviolet range. This situation might be a good lower bound for the kind of photon field that would arise in the nuclear active area leading up to or following upon a reaction. My reading of the qualitative sections of the paper suggests that even at the lower bound, funny things happen. Two additional quotes worth mentioning: We will see, however, that not only the electron spectra can be dramatically modified by the coupling with a relatively weak laser field but also that this field may noticeably influence the properties of the outgoing high-energy photon. (p. 8.) The main effect of the laser field is the shift of the maximum in the photon energy spectrum towards lower frequencies. (p. 11.) It will be a while before I am able to make use of the field theory equations, unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately). Three questions arise: (1) How relevant are the initial conditions of the paper to the state of the nuclear active environment at any point in its evolution? (2) How accurate is the model developed in the paper for what it's exploring? (3) And what are the constraints that the model, if accurate, places on what we are considering? From what I have read of some other papers recently, at higher energies some additional processes arise: - Hard photons (far greater than 511 keV) scatter off of soft photons (far less than 511 keV), yielding electron-positron pairs in a successive cascade of interactions, losing energy in the process. - Hard photons scatter off of electrons and positrons. - Hard photons scatter off of one another. - Accelerating protons yield pairs, giving off energy and providing additional targets for hard photons. If the circumstances are right, the optical depth of the hard photons can reach 1, in which case the catastrophic loss of the hard photons, or their exit from the volume representing the system, reaches zero. The circumstances for such an optical depth are remarkably stable and attainable in the cosmological case provided there's a magnetic field. The tricky part is that for at least one equilibrium condition the magnetic field must be high for hard photons in the lower range (at or above 300 MeV). The magnetic field is what gives rise to the pair production in the several equilibrium conditions that are seen to result in the complete absorption of hard photons. I think there is another equilibrium condition that does not depend as much upon the magnetic field. Some rather exciting graphs describe these equilibrium conditions: Figure 5, page 6, of http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3852.pdf. I think the graph says that when the compactness of the luminosity of soft photons and hard photons is equal, anything above 10^4 eV disappears from the spectrum, except for a sharp peak. I do not know how to interpret the peak; it could be the 511 keV of the electron-positron annihilation photons, although I think it is too far to left for this. Figure 1, page 10, of http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0701633.pdf. Here the regions above the solid black line are ones in which complete hard photon absorption arises. These graphs are for the cosmological case. I get the impression the gamma quenching is taken as a given for certain astrophysical systems and is not controversial. I'm hoping I can tease apart the models that are used for these calculations like one might disassemble a watch and then put them back together and see if equilibrium conditions are possible for lower energies and weaker magnetic fields. The system in my mind at this point is that of a volume of ionized protons being propelled by high energy photons with enough energy to accelerate them significantly and cause them collide with deuterium and helium nuclei. Perhaps on occasion the collisions are sufficient for fusion, resulting in the injection of additional hard photons into the cavity and the maintenance of a field of soft photons and other targets sufficient to cause the hard photons to completely scatter. One question I have is whether a nonthermal distribution of protons that are in synchrony with the cavity mode would ever be possible. Eric On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:06 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Eric, It appears that the photon-stopping power of electrons which are dressed in electromagnetic fields may be much greater than that of bare electrons - i.e., dressed electrons that are exchanging large numbers of virtual photons with nearby nuclei and other electrons in magnetic and
[Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
To my knowledge, no one has yet to mention the oddities wrt elements 53, 53, and 54 including the iodine gap and the infamous Te isomer @ ~125 GeV. More on that later... The following comes from a gentleman who would rather not have his name associated with dissing a large cadre of men who have access to polonium :-) http://news.yahoo.com/y--big-story--in-search-of-a-simple-explanation-of-hig gs-boson--aka-the-god-particle.html Some Insiders say...the press release is all about getting more funding for the 5,000 researchers and two teams, Atlas and CMS. Is the Higgs Field is another term for the Aether which most textbooks say is an antiquated notion that doesn't exist ? attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:125 GeV
1 amu = 931.46 MeV/c2 or alternatively 1 GeV = 1.074 amu. Ergo 125 GeV =~ 134 amu. The reported anomaly identified with the Higgs boson or field is at 125 GeV but that does not mean that 134 amu is a usable value for the equivalent rest mass. Xenon has an stable isotope with mass at 134 and that argues against this being the precise mass of the Higgs boson, or whatever was identified recently in data that every PR firm in the world is being paid to pump up as if it were actually really a god ... and even though all of these analogies is bit like comparing apples to oranges. However, there is other evidence indicating that the rest mass of the particle in question would be less. I have accumulated some hints that suggest it is lower - around 126 amu. At this level, there could be repercussions in 3-space with a few adjoining isotopes, especially if the Higgs field were a fractal space which we can identify with aether. Understanding this would open the door to how a higher dimension can interact with 3-space. It should be noted that among the dangerous or proscribed materials that citizens of the USA cannot possess under The Code of Federal regulations of the United States of America, are two tellurium nuclear isomers with amu of 125 and 127. Probably coincidence, as is that gap at iodine 126. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:125 GeV
Please forgive speculation based on too little information, and on a story that is just breaking. I do realize that none of the numbers are firm yet, and that I am trying to wedge into the big-picture a few energy anomalies which could be unconnected in the end, and which few in physics believe anyway. However, if there is any remote connection between all of this Higgs-hyperbole and maximizing the output of LENR in Ni-H reactions, then it is worth and early stab. Not to mention that emergent new meme - that the Higgs field = aether = zpe, roughly speaking. After all, we taxpayers need to get out some tiny return out for the billion$ sunk into that particular black (money) hole. Ok first off. Yours truly has been a big proponent for Ni-64 being the active isotope in Ni-H reactions for reasons which are in the archives and will not be repeated. It is probably yet another coincidence that this isotope is one half the atomic mass of what could be the Higgs (aether) value, depending on details to emerge later. Actually 63Ni, which is unstable would be the best fit for ½ of what I believe is the best value - 126 amu. Admittedly this could be a failing attempt to match up the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave, but heck ... the effort is shaping up better than a random-walk, thus far. _ 1 amu = 931.46 MeV/c2 or alternatively 1 GeV = 1.074 amu. Ergo 125 GeV =~ 134 amu. The reported anomaly identified with the Higgs boson or field is at 125 GeV but that does not mean that 134 amu is a usable value for the equivalent rest mass. Xenon has an stable isotope with mass at 134 and that argues against this being the precise mass of the Higgs boson, or whatever was identified recently in data that every PR firm in the world is being paid to pump up as if it were actually really a god ... and even though all of these analogies is bit like comparing apples to oranges. However, there is other evidence indicating that the rest mass of the particle in question would be less. I have accumulated some hints that suggest it is lower - around 126 amu. At this level, there could be repercussions in 3-space with a few adjoining isotopes, especially if the Higgs field were a fractal space which we can identify with aether. Understanding this would open the door to how a higher dimension can interact with 3-space. It should be noted that among the dangerous or proscribed materials that citizens of the USA cannot possess under The Code of Federal regulations of the United States of America, are two tellurium nuclear isomers with amu of 125 and 127. Probably coincidence, as is that gap at iodine 126. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:125 GeV
Jones, You been busy this morning... have some more coffee and you'll have it all figured out by noon-time! :-) -m _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 7:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:125 GeV Please forgive speculation based on too little information, and on a story that is just breaking. I do realize that none of the numbers are firm yet, and that I am trying to wedge into the big-picture a few energy anomalies which could be unconnected in the end, and which few in physics believe anyway. However, if there is any remote connection between all of this Higgs-hyperbole and maximizing the output of LENR in Ni-H reactions, then it is worth and early stab. Not to mention that emergent new meme - that the Higgs field = aether = zpe, roughly speaking. After all, we taxpayers need to get out some tiny return out for the billion$ sunk into that particular black (money) hole. Ok first off. Yours truly has been a big proponent for Ni-64 being the active isotope in Ni-H reactions for reasons which are in the archives and will not be repeated. It is probably yet another coincidence that this isotope is one half the atomic mass of what could be the Higgs (aether) value, depending on details to emerge later. Actually 63Ni, which is unstable would be the best fit for ½ of what I believe is the best value - 126 amu. Admittedly this could be a failing attempt to match up the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave, but heck ... the effort is shaping up better than a random-walk, thus far. _ 1 amu = 931.46 MeV/c2 or alternatively 1 GeV = 1.074 amu. Ergo 125 GeV =~ 134 amu. The reported anomaly identified with the Higgs boson or field is at 125 GeV but that does not mean that 134 amu is a usable value for the equivalent rest mass. Xenon has an stable isotope with mass at 134 and that argues against this being the precise mass of the Higgs boson, or whatever was identified recently in data that every PR firm in the world is being paid to pump up as if it were actually really a god ... and even though all of these analogies is bit like comparing apples to oranges. However, there is other evidence indicating that the rest mass of the particle in question would be less. I have accumulated some hints that suggest it is lower - around 126 amu. At this level, there could be repercussions in 3-space with a few adjoining isotopes, especially if the Higgs field were a fractal space which we can identify with aether. Understanding this would open the door to how a higher dimension can interact with 3-space. It should be noted that among the dangerous or proscribed materials that citizens of the USA cannot possess under The Code of Federal regulations of the United States of America, are two tellurium nuclear isomers with amu of 125 and 127. Probably coincidence, as is that gap at iodine 126. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:125 GeV
Well, Mark - there is at least one highly respected theoretician who thinks that I am spinning wheels with this endeavor. Maybe it is premature ... what is that they say about 'fools rushing in ...? Nevertheless - nothing I have seen theoretically stands up to close scrutiny, so I will trudge onward. At any rate, in shaking the google-tree to see what forbidden fruit falls out ... as fate would have it, when hydrogen iodide is suggested, a fellow named Robert Mockan had been posting on this molecule being Rossi's secret activator, at least last year. He seems to have given up. Maybe the Higgs-hyperbole will reinvigorate having another look at hydrogen iodide. _ From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Jones, You been busy this morning... have some more coffee and you'll have it all figured out by noon-time! :-) -m _ From: Jones Beene Please forgive speculation based on too little information, and on a story that is just breaking. I do realize that none of the numbers are firm yet, and that I am trying to wedge into the big-picture a few energy anomalies which could be unconnected in the end, and which few in physics believe anyway. However, if there is any remote connection between all of this Higgs-hyperbole and maximizing the output of LENR in Ni-H reactions, then it is worth and early stab. Not to mention that emergent new meme - that the Higgs field = aether = zpe, roughly speaking. After all, we taxpayers need to get out some tiny return out for the billion$ sunk into that particular black (money) hole. Ok first off. Yours truly has been a big proponent for Ni-64 being the active isotope in Ni-H reactions for reasons which are in the archives and will not be repeated. It is probably yet another coincidence that this isotope is one half the atomic mass of what could be the Higgs (aether) value, depending on details to emerge later. Actually 63Ni, which is unstable would be the best fit for ½ of what I believe is the best value - 126 amu. Admittedly this could be a failing attempt to match up the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave, but heck ... the effort is shaping up better than a random-walk, thus far. _ 1 amu = 931.46 MeV/c2 or alternatively 1 GeV = 1.074 amu. Ergo 125 GeV =~ 134 amu. The reported anomaly identified with the Higgs boson or field is at 125 GeV but that does not mean that 134 amu is a usable value for the equivalent rest mass. Xenon has an stable isotope with mass at 134 and that argues against this being the precise mass of the Higgs boson, or whatever was identified recently in data that every PR firm in the world is being paid to pump up as if it were actually really a god ... and even though all of these analogies is bit like comparing apples to oranges. However, there is other evidence indicating that the rest mass of the particle in question would be less. I have accumulated some hints that suggest it is lower - around 126 amu. At this level, there could be repercussions in 3-space with a few adjoining isotopes, especially if the Higgs field were a fractal space which we can identify with aether. Understanding this would open the door to how a higher dimension can interact with 3-space. It should be noted that among the dangerous or proscribed materials that citizens of the USA cannot possess under The Code of Federal regulations of the United States of America, are two tellurium nuclear isomers with amu of 125 and 127. Probably coincidence, as is that gap at iodine 126. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
http://pesn.com/2012/06/30/9602121_Solid_State_E-Cat/ The New Solid State E-Cat It is my considered opinion, the new E-Cat Reactor Core is now under precise electric control. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]:peter hagelstein's new theory
I wrote: It is the newest version, or iteration, of the same theory he had before. He should be publishing soon. The people at WM said they want manuscripts in 2 weeks. If he does not publish I will ask him for the slides. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]:OT: Wall of Fire
short but sweet. Harry On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Here is another wall of fire in San Diego, where they accidentally shot off 20 minutes of July 4th fireworks in 15 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuJHfkXEI-o Sort of like a gigantic lightbulb. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/entire-san-diego-fireworks-show-exploded-in-15-seconds-ruining-show.html Tweet: Due to CA state budget cuts, San Diego downsized their annual bayfront fireworks show to a single firework. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the reaction. On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is averaged over a period of time. Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat production. The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]:peter hagelstein's new theory
Putting things into proper perspective, Hagelstein’s LENR theory based on the coupling between a deuteron and a lattice is what Peter Gluck calls a LENR reaction as opposed to a LENR+ reaction. Being only classified as a LENR reaction as Peter Gluck properly describes, this theory is basically thermionic in nature and a reactor based on it will be both very weak and hard to control. The Rossi phase I design is what Peter Gluck terms a LENR+ reaction which relies on a thermionic based catalyst to amplify and supplement the reaction. Rossi’s new design is electrically activated and is two generations more advanced over Hagelstein’s theory. This new solid state design by Rossi may well be classified as a LENR++ design. Things are moving very fast in LENR and is is difficult to keep up with Rossi let along surpass him. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: It is the newest version, or iteration, of the same theory he had before. He should be publishing soon. The people at WM said they want manuscripts in 2 weeks. If he does not publish I will ask him for the slides. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
This new information is the major reason for my post. The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate. The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different unless it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if the process is totally under control of something as simple as an electric current then he has a much improved device. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the reaction. On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is averaged over a period of time. Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat production. The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
A Higgs boson walks into a church. We don't allow Higgs bosons in here! shouts the priest. Says the particle: But without me, how can you have Mass? T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Extending on Peter Gluck’s concept of LENR+ as a supplemented LENR design, I offer to classify this new Rossi design as a LENR++ design. DGT LENR+ technology has been superseded by Rossi’s new LERN++ design. I will wait for this new Rossi device to be commercially available for home use before I make a buying decision on my own personal LENR unit. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This new information is the major reason for my post. The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate. The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different unless it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if the process is totally under control of something as simple as an electric current then he has a much improved device. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the reaction. On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is averaged over a period of time. Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat production. The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
From Axil Things are moving very fast in LENR and is difficult to keep up with Rossi let along surpass him. ...and from David: The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate. I suspect not everyone within the Vort Collective shares what appears to be a new level enthusiasm coming from certain members. Too many implied predictions from Rossi over the past year and a half have come and gone, causing many to become just a tad jaded. While I genuinely hope Rossi's latest accomplishments in the solid state realm are exactly what they claim to be, major accomplishments, the man also appears to be an accomplished carnival barker. It's not that I'm implying Rossi is deliberately lying about his latest claims. For me, it's more a matter of recalling something Mr. Spock once said: I exaggerated. IOW, Calculated [dis?]information to keep the wheels greased. I wait for more forthcoming solid evidence and independent validation. A prototype where we are allowed to kick the tires would be nice too. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 1:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons A Higgs boson walks into a church. We don't allow Higgs bosons in here! shouts the priest. Says the particle: But without me, how can you have Mass? T
[Vo]:Well...it is kinda like---Well- Higgs
Greetings All, I find the search for Higgs funny: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22029-its-a-boson-but-we-need-to-know-if-its-the-higgs.html Grins, Ron Kita, Chiralex Everytime I hear of the Press say something astrological is appearing in the night sky that we must see---I yawn..beeen there t many times before !!
RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
No way to diss-Cern ? -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton A Higgs boson walks into a church. We don't allow Higgs bosons in here! shouts the priest. Says the particle: But without me, how can you have Mass? T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Competition is always beneficial to the consumer in any product offering. The refresher course that Microsoft has provided us in the preceding decades shows that the consumer is not well served by a monopoly. The monopolist is free to call his own shots, charge what the market will bear, and release product at a measured pace that he judges best for his best interests and disposition. The more venders that supply a given product, the greater is the advantage to the consumer. Rossi is attempting to corner the LENR market through the offering of a superior technology. It is up to the competitors of Rossi to flush him out into the open so the competitive forces in the marketplace can flow with great vigor. When the big multinational energy providers recognize that LENR is real and can produce a profit, Rossi’s technology will be exposed to intense competition. Rossi is wise to take his time to get all his ducks in order to face that competition and try to stay ahead of it for as long as he can. Rosssi is smart to keep the sleeping beasts in the energy business as dead to the LENR world as long as he can manage. So time is on Rossi’s side until a competitor steps forth (DGT ?) to shake up the world of the multinational energy producers into frantic and frenzied action. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 5:14 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Axil Things are moving very fast in LENR and is difficult to keep up with Rossi let along surpass him. ...and from David: The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate. I suspect not everyone within the Vort Collective shares what appears to be a new level enthusiasm coming from certain members. Too many implied predictions from Rossi over the past year and a half have come and gone, causing many to become just a tad jaded. While I genuinely hope Rossi's latest accomplishments in the solid state realm are exactly what they claim to be, major accomplishments, the man also appears to be an accomplished carnival barker. It's not that I'm implying Rossi is deliberately lying about his latest claims. For me, it's more a matter of recalling something Mr. Spock once said: I exaggerated. IOW, Calculated [dis?]information to keep the wheels greased. I wait for more forthcoming solid evidence and independent validation. A prototype where we are allowed to kick the tires would be nice too. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 5:15 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? Mass transit? :-) T
RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
Urban decay? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? Mass transit? :-)
RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
Terry won! :-) -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 4:05 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 5:15 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? Mass transit? :-) T
RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
Jones, Urban decay?... well, perhaps if the bus drives around for several bosonic half-lives! You're great at Lawyering, and pretty sharp on Laws of physics, but in the Laughs dept... don't quit your day-job! :-) -m -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 4:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons Urban decay? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? Mass transit? :-)
RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? So far, there have been three really good theories set forth. Mass transit?= runner up No way to diss-Cern = my favorite Urban Decay Come on! Mark. Reveal your data! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
Jeopardy style Boson Jokes for $1000 answer: mass pyschology question: what is .? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:44 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jones, Urban decay?... well, perhaps if the bus drives around for several bosonic half-lives! You're great at Lawyering, and pretty sharp on Laws of physics, but in the Laughs dept... don't quit your day-job! :-) -m -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 4:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons Urban decay? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? Mass transit? :-)
Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Jeopardy style Boson Jokes for $1000 answer: mass pyschology What is the treatment for the mass murder of trillions of Higgs Bosons? T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Your puzzling is puzzling, Harry. Rossi is claiming (I think it was) 10 KWatts of power from a unit. There are few practical ways to measure that besides (in essence) boiling water. A gale of air? I will give you, that Rossi may not have /simultaneously/ attained 600 degC and 10 KWatts. This is what an efficient electric power generator needs, so a shortcoming here could indeed show puffery. In either case, a useful device, at least for pool heating! How many gallons can you keep at 10 degC above ambient, with 10 KWatts ? Ol' Bab On 7/6/2012 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
Mass Hysteria. - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 5:15 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 1:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons A Higgs boson walks into a church. We don't allow Higgs bosons in here! shouts the priest. Says the particle: But without me, how can you have Mass? T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
I suggest LENRv2 or LENR2 instead of LENR++ as this is a totally different reaction, not just an enhancement of the previous process. Version 2 is based on electric control of Carbon Nanotubes instead of temperature control of Thermionic Catalysts. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 5:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Extending on Peter Gluck’s concept of LENR+ as a supplemented LENR design, I offer to classify this new Rossi design as a LENR++ design. DGT LENR+ technology has been superseded by Rossi’s new LERN++ design. I will wait for this new Rossi device to be commercially available for home use before I make a buying decision on my own personal LENR unit. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This new information is the major reason for my post. The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate. The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different unless it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if the process is totally under control of something as simple as an electric current then he has a much improved device. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the reaction. On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is averaged over a period of time. Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat production. The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it
[Vo]:photo-assisted ionization of iodine
This paper goes all the way back to 1920 - by H. D. Smyth and K. T. Compton Palmer Physical Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey. One of those names should be familiar- Karl was Arthur's brother. http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v16/i6/p501_1 This concerns the strong fluorescence effect on ionization of Iodine. Iodine is not normally a Mills/Rydberg-multiple catalyst. When fluorescing under the influence of a mercury green line emitter, iodine vapor shows weaker ionization at a potential about 2.6 volts less than the normal ionizing potential... An observed ionizing potential was found to be 6.8 volts, due to fluorescing molecules... The interesting part of this, from the standpoint of using iodine as a catalytic hole for f/H, following Mills rules for Rydberg multiples - is that iodine is both easily vaporized and the 6.8eV I.P. is a whole fraction of 27.2 eV - one quarter. In a reactor containing hydrogen and iodine vapor, along with HI gas - where lots of UV is being emitted and absorbed, there should be large levels of photo-assisted ionization, perhaps even semi-coherence. You would not need an external emission source after startup. Is it possible to accomplish the first level drop of one Ry in partial steps instead of one full step? Well, NO - at least not in Mills' estimation, but he has missed many details, and we have the luxury of cherry picking the best and discarding the rest. Whole fractions like .25Ry or 6.8 eV could work in some circumstances, and HI in the presence of I2 it could end up being a two body reaction anyway. In a typical plasma, having many energy holes in close proximity would be statistically impossible, but iodine forms a dense purple vapor which is about 10,000 times denser than a typical plasma. Here is a picture. http://0.tqn.com/d/chemistry/1/0/I/0/1/iodine.jpg The basic idea for this concept, which is unique - since Mills himself has never mentioned photo-assisted ionization of iodine AFAIK - is to use the effect alone or in conjunction with other catalysts like nano-nickel in order to tap into Iodine's natural mass energy state. Notably it has but one stable isotope. Of course, in the context of the Higgs field, this M.O. (Higgs renormalization) would be advantageous in the event that there was some kind of a gateway at around the mass-energy of vaporized iodine, and of course if/when we can show for sure that the Higgs field is a subset (superset?) of the zero point field. In this version of Rydberg mediated hydrogen shrinkage (and absolutely contrary to Mills theory) there is NO permanently reduced ground state of hydrogen (f/H). Following UV emission on shrinkage, the zero point or Higgs/aether field immediately acts to reinflate the atom. No gammas, either :-) If there is indeed a Higgs field (aether, or zpe subset) which is relevant to 3-space when a gateway is present, and with a favored decay level at ~125 GeV, then that knowledge would define the easiest way to access the energy - via an element that would otherwise lose or gain mass at exactly this value. I am focusing on iodine here, but the gateway could also be tellurium or xenon, both of which have demonstrable energy anomalies in this mass-energy range. Iodine is favored for many reasons - not the least of which is its single isotope stability. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
No Jaro, Mass Hysteria would be two busses of Higgs Bosons about to crash head-on into each other! -m -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 5:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons Mass Hysteria. - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 5:15 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 1:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons A Higgs boson walks into a church. We don't allow Higgs bosons in here! shouts the priest. Says the particle: But without me, how can you have Mass? T
Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
Ancient Higgs Story. :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 8:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons Mass Hysteria. - Original Message - rom: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net o: vortex-l@eskimo.com ent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 5:15 AM ubject: RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 1:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons A Higgs boson walks into a church. We don't allow Higgs bosons in here! shouts the priest. Says the particle: But without me, how can you have Mass? T
Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
I disagree, that would be Mass Casualty. :-) Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 8:53 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons No Jaro, Mass Hysteria would be two busses of Higgs Bosons about to crash head-on into each other! -m -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 5:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons Mass Hysteria. - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 5:15 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 1:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons A Higgs boson walks into a church. We don't allow Higgs bosons in here! shouts the priest. Says the particle: But without me, how can you have Mass? T
Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
What do you call the coverage given to the God particle? harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Mass Hysteria.
Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Jeopardy style Boson Jokes for $1000 answer: mass pyschology What is the treatment for the mass murder of trillions of Higgs Bosons? T hehe. The murder was brought about by mass psychosis. harry
[Vo]:Dust Today, Gone Tomorrow
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120705201330.htm *Dust Today, Gone Tomorrow: Astronomers Discover Houdini-Like Vanishing Act in Space* According to the neutron repulsion based nebular cold fission theory that I have recently come up with, the heavy elements in the dust grains in the stellar cloud fragment into lighter elements as they have always been seen to do in LENR reactors until all the heaver elements are transmuted into various transparent gaseous elements. These gaseous components are not acted upon by electrostatic fields upon which LENR fission is based so these elements do not participate in the LENR reaction in space. These gaseous cloud components such as Helium, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Neon, Fluorine, and Argon are expelled away from the star into space as solar wind by the ultraviolet radiation of the star. From the article, the star was not observed in the infrared until 25 years ago when the dust cloud first appeared. Then the dust cloud pumped out huge amounts of infrared radiation (caused by the LENR reaction); enough radiation so that the cloud was observable from the Earth in the bright infrared. Then after an instant on the astrological time scale, the cloud vanished. The cloud was transmuted for the most part into transparent gases. It all can be explained through the action of LENR on dust in space. This sort of observation will be a puzzle to astronomers until these misanthropist star gazers embrace the reality of LENR. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations
Rossi behaviour and speech is puzzling. ;-) I gave up in november trying to weave a coherent picture of his research. Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: Your puzzling is puzzling, Harry. Rossi is claiming (I think it was) 10 KWatts of power from a unit. There are few practical ways to measure that besides (in essence) boiling water. A gale of air? I will give you, that Rossi may not have simultaneously attained 600 degC and 10 KWatts. This is what an efficient electric power generator needs, so a shortcoming here could indeed show puffery. In either case, a useful device, at least for pool heating! How many gallons can you keep at 10 degC above ambient, with 10 KWatts ? Ol' Bab On 7/6/2012 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will be delivered soon. The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all or any of this is true. Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative feedback were dominate? I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will see the results that we so much anticipate. Dave
RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
What do you call the coverage given to the God particle? Mass Hysteria. But this pertains only to Catholic Bosons. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
No, note that I said about to crash, so they are reacting to their imminent demise... Massive Casualty would be what remains after the collision... -m -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 6:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons I disagree, that would be Mass Casualty. :-) Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 8:53 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons No Jaro, Mass Hysteria would be two busses of Higgs Bosons about to crash head-on into each other! -m -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 5:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons Mass Hysteria. - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 5:15 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons What do you call a bus full of Higgs Bosons? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 1:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons A Higgs boson walks into a church. We don't allow Higgs bosons in here! shouts the priest. Says the particle: But without me, how can you have Mass? T
RE: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
RE: What do you call the coverage given to the God particle? The obvious, but less appropriate answer is Mass Media... I would prefer, Mass(ive) Misinformation! :-) -Mark -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 6:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons What do you call the coverage given to the God particle? harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Mass Hysteria.
Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
2012 and the type 13 planets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDKo7pTwIwA Quit looking!
Re: [Vo]:Bosons and Bogons
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: 2012 and the type 13 planets: But there *is* hope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfQLA0S7eJ0 T
Re: [Vo]:general approximation of the viability of gamma quenching
Eric, Lots of good, but very difficult questions. I am trying to understand how Compton scattering formulas change when dressed electrons are involved. I do not think the standard derivations work for electrons in e-m fields - whether bound or not. Even fields in dc currents probably cannot be ignored. Experimental results are hard to find. This effect may be related to the interpretation of the magnetic vector potential as a store of momentum - see: What the electromagnetic vector potential describes www.uccs.edu/~jmarsh2/links/AJP-46-05-499.pdf Yes, if the paper is correct and NAEs occur in volumes where dressed electrons are densely distributed, then maybe any gammas generated will quickly dissipate most of their energy in collisions before escaping. Perhaps NAEs are sites where large field energies dress electrons, protons and nuclei. My guess is that ultra-high energy nonlinear effects like some types of pair creation are unlikely, but I am not sure. I do believe that the protons will oscillate coherently in surface plasmons. Also, note that MarkI-ZeroPoint has continued this tread renamed as - [Vo]:How to modify cross-sections and branching ratios. -- Lou Pagnucco Eric Walker wrote: Lou, Interesting paper. The conditions explored in the paper, if I've understood them, are the Compton scattering of high energy photons on hydrogen atoms in the midst of a low energy laser field. The energy of the laser field is significantly below that of a typical transition frequency of the target electron in the ground state. To make things concrete, I take this to mean much less than the ionization potential of hydrogen, 13.6 eV; so significantly greater than 91 nm, in the ultraviolet range. This situation might be a good lower bound for the kind of photon field that would arise in the nuclear active area leading up to or following upon a reaction. My reading of the qualitative sections of the paper suggests that even at the lower bound, funny things happen. Two additional quotes worth mentioning: We will see, however, that not only the electron spectra can be dramatically modified by the coupling with a relatively weak laser field but also that this field may noticeably influence the properties of the outgoing high-energy photon. (p. 8.) The main effect of the laser field is the shift of the maximum in the photon energy spectrum towards lower frequencies. (p. 11.) It will be a while before I am able to make use of the field theory equations, unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately). Three questions arise: (1) How relevant are the initial conditions of the paper to the state of the nuclear active environment at any point in its evolution? (2) How accurate is the model developed in the paper for what it's exploring? (3) And what are the constraints that the model, if accurate, places on what we are considering? From what I have read of some other papers recently, at higher energies some additional processes arise: - Hard photons (far greater than 511 keV) scatter off of soft photons (far less than 511 keV), yielding electron-positron pairs in a successive cascade of interactions, losing energy in the process. - Hard photons scatter off of electrons and positrons. - Hard photons scatter off of one another. - Accelerating protons yield pairs, giving off energy and providing additional targets for hard photons. If the circumstances are right, the optical depth of the hard photons can reach 1, in which case the catastrophic loss of the hard photons, or their exit from the volume representing the system, reaches zero. The circumstances for such an optical depth are remarkably stable and attainable in the cosmological case provided there's a magnetic field. The tricky part is that for at least one equilibrium condition the magnetic field must be high for hard photons in the lower range (at or above 300 MeV). The magnetic field is what gives rise to the pair production in the several equilibrium conditions that are seen to result in the complete absorption of hard photons. I think there is another equilibrium condition that does not depend as much upon the magnetic field. Some rather exciting graphs describe these equilibrium conditions: Figure 5, page 6, of http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3852.pdf. I think the graph says that when the compactness of the luminosity of soft photons and hard photons is equal, anything above 10^4 eV disappears from the spectrum, except for a sharp peak. I do not know how to interpret the peak; it could be the 511 keV of the electron-positron annihilation photons, although I think it is too far to left for this. Figure 1, page 10, of http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0701633.pdf. Here the regions above the solid black line are ones in which complete hard photon absorption arises. These graphs are for the cosmological case. I get the impression the gamma quenching is taken as
