Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
Once matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic laws. I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with. Once matter collapses, it is no longer part of this unicerse, and as such, no longer obeys quantum mexhanics and thermodynamic laws. A *gravitational singularity* or *spacetime singularity* is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitationalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitationalfield become infinite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_Riemannian_manifoldsof spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. According to general relativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity, the initial state of the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativityand quantum mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole: any star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radiushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities. If a singularity would ever form on earth, that would be the end of earth in this universe. Cheers:Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:36 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I agree. Basically I am talking about collapsed matter as the primary trigger for all of the secoondary reactions which Abd is working on figuring out. In quantum mechanics this is effected by the strength of quantum scale gravity and also the hoop effect caused by a void. Once matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic laws. I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with. I see a similarity in what Axil is calling ultra high density inverted rydberg matter and what I am talking about. I of course have done a top down approach. The thing I am also concerned with now is does any of this stuff stay around in the environment and not evaporate or decay completely which I think would be very bad for the surroundings, including people. I just put the theory out there last week. I am going to continue developing it. One last thought that I am adding to my theory regarding the big picture: If this anomalous heat effect is basically evaporating matter under relatively normal conditions then basically that tells us that all of the matter in the universe will evaporate over time. And since hawking showed that matter and anti-matter particles pop out of the vacuum and either destroy each other or the anti-matter particle might get sucked into a singularity to aid in its evaporation and leave a particle of matter that escapes into space then the universe might be stuck in sort of an endless do-loop of matter creation and evaporation to and from the quantum field. On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** CE, I think you need to gather your thoughts in one place, write a comprehensive paper and flesh out many lacking details to your theory, instead of repeating yourself ad nauseam here in Vortex, and interject your theory at every post. Your theory as posted in your blog is glaringly incomplete. I read your theory and I found it a bit lacking. I would like to see some mathematical support to your suppositions. Mathematical computations as to energy levels required, creation rates and evaporation rates. If you can come up with these, it would go a long ways in providing guidance for experimentation, which I would be willing to do if it is within my capability. Also an explanation with mathematical data as to why a singularity is formed in a void or crack as you propose instead of fusion occuring. Saying that quantum gravity is large, hence it creates a singularity ain't gonna cut it. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course, and assuming that you are serious about developing your theory and not just playing with your colleages here in Vortex, seeing how many your can loop around for a spin. Jojo - Original
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
*Each to its own. If the shoe fits, wear it. The spoiled baby boomer remains a baby, needing to put someone down in vain attempts to bolster themselves. Judgmental forays are worshiped as a commandment. However, take care*! To respond to a theory is a very friendly act. It shows that the theory is granted the respect that comes from attention. The author of the theory can use friendly criticism to perfect his thinking. The worst thing that can happen is that the theory causes the thread to be deleted, the author banned from the site and the theory to be classified as a product of a con man. Respectfully: Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Te Chung chung...@ymail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Back in the Florida swamps LENR pioneer http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesis.pdfsa=Uei=nv4tUKGVHKSgywHMqYHQDwved=0CBkQFjACsig2=2jnJ7E68bs8RTEvQ80nLXAusg=AFQjCNHrasQAwAaBEkfYm1IQ61UuUIym_g gets rich via NASDAQ http://magnegas.com/announcing-the-purchase-of-manufacturing-facilities (Price Quote: $3.08 Aug. 16, 2012 Market Closed) Winners earn a living, take risks, scrimp and get their hands dirty while losers idle time away rattling a tin cup for a few bob and breaking wind with verbal diarrhea without self support. Each to its own. If the shoe fits, wear it. The spoiled baby boomer remains a baby, needing to put someone down in vain attempts to bolster themselves. Judgmental forays are worshiped as a commandment. However, take care! Noble Gas Engine stock also offered at about $3. Sounds like a Variation on a Theme of Rossi. Easy, easy ... Chung --- On *Thu, 8/16/12, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com* wrote: From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thursday, August 16, 2012, 6:48 PM Like most predictions of string theory; super-symmetric particles, micro black holes, no one (AKA CERN) has detected them yet at any energy. CERN is way beyond any energy the cold fusion can reach or hot fusion for that matter. The prospects are grim. The string people are disappointed. Stringologists produce theory by the ton and none has been experimentally verified. Don’t stake your theories on strings. Strings are fringe science. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Stewart Simonson cheme...@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Always slept well at night On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night. Did you start having these dreams before or after you first read about quantum singularities? harry On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of those imaginings are retained and studied while others are dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for reasons of fashion or politics and religion. Physics is not out there, it lives in you. Harry A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration
The act of measuring requires one to impart some energy (photons or other) or matter upon the particle. Upon the object being measured, the object may instantly increase in mass or change velocity. Over time this energy will be transferred back to its environment as it evaporates... On Saturday, August 18, 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: BTW, I appear to contradict myself when I said measuring cannot increase the energy of the particle vs I agree with the claim that measuring can concentrate energy in a system. In the former, I mean I don't accept the idea that measuring can somehow increase the energy the particle without the transfer of energy from somewhere else. Harry On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Hi LP, I haven't read the paper, but I don't disagree with claim. In fact it should not be unexpected. Even in a macroscopic system a concentration energy can come about as a result of energy being transferred from the measuring system to the system being measured. Of course, such a measuring system would be considered defective because it provides a distorted picture of the energy content of system being measured. However, classical mechanics says a measuring system can be designed in theory to have an arbitrarily small distorting effect, whereas quantum mechanics says this is not possible in theory. Harry On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hello Harry, To be really precise, though, an energy measurement of a particle in a superposition of energy eigenstates might find it in one of the states higher than the weighted average energy of its wavefunction. So, you might say that the measurement increased its energy, but over many such measurements would just produce the mean energy of the wavefunction. While I am not convinced they are correct, the authors of the paper I referenced end with the conclusion - From a general perspective a phenomenon like the energy concentration in a composite quantum system can indeed be motivated physically. There exist processes, where there is a redistribution of energy among different system degrees of freedom making possible some amounts of system self-organization. In particular, one could examine the possibility of concentrating the total energy of the system into a subset of degrees of freedom producing a decrease of its entropy, which in order to avoid a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, would compel the release of energy to the environment, thus keeping the free energy constant. This is possible only if the system is open... Concentrating Energy by Measurement http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868 Interesting theory. -- LP Harry Veeder wrote: Actually, I tend agree with Robin that measuring cannot increase the energy of the particle. My question reflects my own attempt to understand why it is so. Now that I have thought about it, it is because one doesn't measure energy per se. Most measurements are really the result of calculations based on measurements of length and time plugged into a formula. BTW, the same is true of measurements of momentum. The modern physicists habit of refering to energy and momentum as observables is a perscription for phenomenological confusion. The resulting measures of length and time are only consistent with the supposed law-like properties of energy and momemtum on a statiscal level. Harry On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hello Harry, You asked -- So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used to precisely measure the energy of a particle? Probably not. But maybe there are subtleties that obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but allow for some counterintuitive effects. For example, refer to -- Concentrating Energy by Measurement http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868 -- LP Harry Veeder wrote: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM,
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
I have been using black hole and singularity interchangeably and that is confusing and inconsistent. I will refer to it as a quantum black hole that obeys quantum mechanics: In quantum mechanics, the black hole emits Hawking radiationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation, and so can come to thermal equilibriumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium with a gas of radiation. Since a thermal equilibrium state is time reversal invariant, Stephen Hawking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking argued that the time reverse of a black hole in thermal equilibrium is again a black hole in thermal equilibrium.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole#cite_note-1 This implies that black holes and white holes are the same object. The Hawking radiation from an ordinary black hole is then identified with the white hole emission. Hawking's semi-classical argument is reproduced in a quantum mechanical AdS/CFT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT treatment,[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole#cite_note-2 where a black hole in anti-de Sitter spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space is described by a thermal gas in a gauge theory, whose time reversal is the same as itself. In the Rohner video, i believe that the phenomena he describes fits the above description. I believe quantum black hole(s) from collapsed helium have built up on the inside of that one coil and are acting as a bridge that is collapsing matter (gas) and radiating energy through the coil to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium in its surroundings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0IPWmm7GDcfeature=youtube_gdata_player Collapsed matter acts like a quantum heat pump, which is useful. Downside is that it is a bad actor. When not in equilibrium it tends to devour matter releasing radiation and creating uncertainty, which is very hard on equipment and people. On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: Once matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic laws. I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with. Once matter collapses, it is no longer part of this unicerse, and as such, no longer obeys quantum mexhanics and thermodynamic laws. A *gravitational singularity* or *spacetime singularity* is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitationalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitationalfield become infinite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_Riemannian_manifoldsof spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. According to general relativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity, the initial state of the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativityand quantum mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole: any star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radiushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities. If a singularity would ever form on earth, that would be the end of earth in this universe. Cheers:Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:36 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: I agree. Basically I am talking about collapsed matter as the primary trigger for all of the secoondary reactions which Abd is working on figuring out. In quantum mechanics this is effected by the strength of quantum scale gravity and also the hoop effect caused by a void. Once matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic laws. I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with. I see a similarity in what Axil is calling ultra high density inverted rydberg matter and what I am talking about. I of course have done a top down approach. The thing I am also concerned with now is does any of this stuff stay around in the environment and not evaporate or decay completely which I think would be very bad for the surroundings, including people. I just put the
[Vo]:Papp demo and explosions, the end game, and John Rohner
Subject was: Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi At 03:11 PM 8/17/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: If you just sell plans for poppers, electronic circuit boards and licenses for the technology, then all of the liability rests with the OEM's they drag in. They probably give them a short demo in the shop before the thing malfunctions. I notice everytime I see a demo it is behind explosion proof glass. Oddity and UNCERTAINTY There was one explosion of a Papp engine, as such, AFAIK. That's the one where Feynman turned off the control electronics by pulling the plug. He expected the engine to run down, and he held on to the plug while Papp frantically tried to get it from him and plug it back in. The incident demonstrates that a Papp engine can be dangerous. Papp did a demonstration where an explosion was deliberately caused, that was filmed. That was not an engine, it was a cannon. Really, a big popper. I'm not aware of other explosions, but I've only begun to read in this area. Running Papp engines were witnessed and measurements were made with a dynamometer. This is not some marginal effect. It radically violates our expectations of what a noble gas mixture could do. I see only two possibilities: 1. Sophisticated fraud, begun by Papp and continued after his death by others. A sophisticated fraud can convince expert witnesses; this is why we demand independent verification; while collusion can exist between multiple parties, it is rare and the rarity increases with the number and variety of independent verifications. 2. An anomaly of vast implications, deserving of urgent investigation, with all deliberate speed. In science, ordinarily, one independent verification is enough to establish even an unusual result as valid. Cold fusion is a remarkable case where hundreds of independent verifications have been considered inadequate by some. My claim is, generally, that some are practicing cargo cult science. That goes back to what Jed recently mentioned: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf -- this interchange between Noninsky and David Lindley, an editor at Nature, including commentary by Nathan Lewis, lead author of the Cal Tech negative replication report that Nature had published, is utterly shocking as an example of misbehavior by one whom we would expect to be a guardian of scientific neutrality and objectivity. Taken together with the Lindsey's Nature editorial, http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/1990/Nature-Embarassment.shtml, we can see how the Scientific Fiasco of the Century (Huizenga's language) was set up. Huizenga only knew the half of it. I'll write separately on this. Here, it is clear, the apparent impossibility of the Papp engine can be seen as a primary reason why the Papp Effect, I'm calling it, has not been deeply investigated. There is another reason, equally important. Papp kept his methods secret, fearing loss of them to other interests. Others, with more or less access to the secrets, have likewise kept them hidden. So, until now, independent verification was difficult or impossible. Because of his history and apparent imbalance, John Rohner cannot be easily trusted, but if his recent offer of demonstration kits is real, we will soon have some independent testimony regarding the Papp Effect. For the first time, investigation will be divorced from the demand for a full-out engine, and can be focused on the Effect itself. John Rohner is making an implied claim that the original Papp formula for the fuel, from the patent, works. The only secret, then, would be the nature of the stimulation, and that's what Rohner is offering to sell, in the form of the electronics that provide it, together with the custom coils and electrodes, with complete specifications for everything else. I presume that he knows that it will not be long before the stimulation will be known in exact detail, even if he hasn't provided that information, through examination of what his circuit board and the coils do. We have seen public demonstration of a popper, by Bob Rohner, possibly a rough equivalent of what John Rohner is offering. (And I must point out that it is entirely possible that the John Rohner kit doesn't work, but Bob Rohner's public demonstration does. Or one or both kits produce a pop, but not actual anomalous power, see below.) What continues to be amazing to me is that the data to show anomalous power would have been easily available, with some relatively simple measurements in the demonstration. The lifting of a weight by the popper, a defined distance, would show work done -- but the video of Bob's popper, where it moves a hydraulic piston a measured distance, is easier to analyze -- but there seems to have been no serious questioning of Bob Rohner about this issue. How much energy is pumped into the pistion with each cycle, and how much work comes
Re: [Vo]:Recombination
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: John said that the original Papp engine produced boron as an ash product and as a consequence, demonstrated relatively poor reaction efficiency. Who observed this boron ash and where has it been corroborated?
Re: [Vo]:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The second part is inspired by Defkalion's technology but also by my impressions of ICCF-17 and to these I have added an overdose of wishful thinking. And a good deal of poetry to the prose. Very good. T
Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi
At 03:22 PM 8/17/2012, Axil Axil wrote: In a post today integral sited a death of a LENR developer in an explosion. The take away, LENR is dangerous when the power is high. It is best to be as safe as you can. When Pons and Fleischmann, in 1983, in one of their first experiments, using a cubic centimeter of palladium, loaded for a long time with deuterium, experienced a meltdown (actually, it seems that palladium was vaporized), they scaled down, and LENR researchers, until stability and reliability is demonstrated with any approach, are strongly advised to do this as well. Consider this: just a bit more nudge in a certain unfortunate direction, success, they might not have only lost an apparatus and a lab bench and a few inches of concrete floor, they might have lost the whole building and more. If you are going to mess with nuclear, be prepared to succeed. This conflicts with the drumbeat of demands for More Power! But More Power should be resisted, until much more is known. As long as power is adequate to be measured, clearly above noise, and especially when power is correlated with independent measures (helium is perfect for the Fleischman-Pons Heat Effect in PdD), there is no scientific value to More Power, only increased danger -- and expense. (To satisfy skeptics who very likely aren't going to be satisfied no matter what you do.) Get a small cell to produce reliable, stable power, it is easy to extrapolate to large devices, and there is no reason to expect that a cell would fail just because there were other cells operating in its vicinity. Or that if a 5 cm length of wire reliably produces X watts, a 500 cm length would not produce 100 * X watts. (Yes, it's possible that scale-up, if it involves operation at a different temperature, will fail. The Fleischmann-Pons approach may well not be scalable at practical power levels, and it may be inherently unreliable. However, it's still valuable for scientific investigation.) (If you have a small, reliable cell that produces XP or other easily measurable effects, *that* will ultimately satisfy the skeptics, if it's cheap and readily available. A skeptic isn't going to come up with $100,000 for a kilowatt generator, but might well spend $200 for a 1-watt device, if he or she gets to play with it to his or her heart's content. And if an inventor has a 1-watt device that is reliable, it should be trivial to get a patent. It's the lack of easily available demonstrations that has allowed the USPTO to deny patents. The patent, under additional claims, goes for bigger stuff. Once the patent is issued, as well, skeptics can independently make devices. But if you can buy one for $200, it makes no sense to go to all the work to recreate it independently -- unless one is actually aiming at engineering something bigger. And someone who wants to do that will *certainly* buy the kit. And serious skeptics will do it to figure out the trick. Good luck to them! -- and I mean that. -- If the FPHE had been replicable for $200, this would all have been over twenty years ago. Unfortunately, the figure is probably not far south of $10,000, plus a *lot* of time, for a full-on heat demonstration well above noise and possible calorimetric error. You can probably set up the FPHE for much less than that, if the scale is small. I'm working on it.)
RE: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
Jed sed: There is nothing more ephemeral that a vitally important trade secret. Trade secrets about unimportant technology sometimes last for decades. Stealing trade secrets is probably right up there with absconding with military secrets. I wish I could find a brief You-Tube clip from the original Star Trek series, where Spock plays a double agent. The Vulcan keeps the Romulan captain preoccupied by wooing her while Kirk goes undercover. Kirk teleports into the bowels of the Romulan vessel's engine room in order to track down and steal a new secret stealth device known as the cloaking device. After an obligatory amount of running and jumping about Kirk manages to steal the cloaking device. When the Romulan captain finally realizes the fact that she had been had by the steely eye Vulcan she turns to him and expresses her displeasure at having been played a pawn in a game of espionage. (Never underestimate the scorn of a woman, no matter what the species.) Spock's reply was something to the effect that: Military secrets are the most fleeting of all secrets. BTW, by the time the Deep Space 9 Star Trek series rolled about the use of the cloaking device had become regulated by various interplanetary treaties. Initially only the Romulans were allowed to use the stealth technology - legally, that is. Well. after all, since they were the race that invented the device. But then, somehow, the Klingons managed to negotiate a deal with the Romulans, or perhaps they made an offer the Romulans couldn't refuse, and now their own bird of prey craft were also retrofitted with the same technology. I would imagine something just as messy will happen with the bulk of so-called CF trade secrets. Where trillions of dollars are at stake don't bet on the underlying technology remaining cloaked for very long. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:McKubre clarifies his view of the Celani demonstration
I would love to hear Mike's real thoughts on the the Papp engine and whether he thinks it is an interesting /unexplained phenomenon or we are close to a commercial product. Its unfortunate that the Rohner boys can't play nice--Bob just shut down all of his brother John's YouTube videos.. Bob: http://www.rohnermachine.com/ John: http://plasmerg.com/ - Brad On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I sent Mike a copy of the message I posted here, along with Robert Lynn's analysis. He responded: It would be fair to say that I have some concerns and am working with others to see if these can be resolved. I also think that the core of the experiment is a very clever idea and look forward to seeing more quantitative data. - Jed
[Vo]:Papp demo and explosions, the end game, and John Rohner
Abd, Just a thought... Papp may have known that the containment coil needed to remain energized in order to collect and contain charged, collapsed matter particles at the coil's inside surface that was being produced at each cycle. Possibly when Dr. Feynman unplugged the power the collapsed matter began devouring the walls of the cylinder leading to vessel failure from embrittlement and excess heat. I will make an analogy which I am sure will gather consternation: do you remember in ghostbusters when they closed the breaker on the containment device housing the...gremlins? On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Subject was: Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi At 03:11 PM 8/17/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: If you just sell plans for poppers, electronic circuit boards and licenses for the technology, then all of the liability rests with the OEM's they drag in. They probably give them a short demo in the shop before the thing malfunctions. I notice everytime I see a demo it is behind explosion proof glass. Oddity and UNCERTAINTY There was one explosion of a Papp engine, as such, AFAIK. That's the one where Feynman turned off the control electronics by pulling the plug. He expected the engine to run down, and he held on to the plug while Papp frantically tried to get it from him and plug it back in. The incident demonstrates that a Papp engine can be dangerous. Papp did a demonstration where an explosion was deliberately caused, that was filmed. That was not an engine, it was a cannon. Really, a big popper. I'm not aware of other explosions, but I've only begun to read in this area. Running Papp engines were witnessed and measurements were made with a dynamometer. This is not some marginal effect. It radically violates our expectations of what a noble gas mixture could do. I see only two possibilities: 1. Sophisticated fraud, begun by Papp and continued after his death by others. A sophisticated fraud can convince expert witnesses; this is why we demand independent verification; while collusion can exist between multiple parties, it is rare and the rarity increases with the number and variety of independent verifications. 2. An anomaly of vast implications, deserving of urgent investigation, with all deliberate speed. In science, ordinarily, one independent verification is enough to establish even an unusual result as valid. Cold fusion is a remarkable case where hundreds of independent verifications have been considered inadequate by some. My claim is, generally, that some are practicing cargo cult science. That goes back to what Jed recently mentioned: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/**RothwellJhownaturer.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf http:/**/lenr-canr.org/acrobat/**RothwellJhownaturer.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf-- this interchange between Noninsky and David Lindley, an editor at Nature, including commentary by Nathan Lewis, lead author of the Cal Tech negative replication report that Nature had published, is utterly shocking as an example of misbehavior by one whom we would expect to be a guardian of scientific neutrality and objectivity. Taken together with the Lindsey's Nature editorial, http://newenergytimes.com/v2/**inthenews/1990/Nature-** Embarassment.shtmlhttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/1990/Nature-Embarassment.shtml, we can see how the Scientific Fiasco of the Century (Huizenga's language) was set up. Huizenga only knew the half of it. I'll write separately on this. Here, it is clear, the apparent impossibility of the Papp engine can be seen as a primary reason why the Papp Effect, I'm calling it, has not been deeply investigated. There is another reason, equally important. Papp kept his methods secret, fearing loss of them to other interests. Others, with more or less access to the secrets, have likewise kept them hidden. So, until now, independent verification was difficult or impossible. Because of his history and apparent imbalance, John Rohner cannot be easily trusted, but if his recent offer of demonstration kits is real, we will soon have some independent testimony regarding the Papp Effect. For the first time, investigation will be divorced from the demand for a full-out engine, and can be focused on the Effect itself. John Rohner is making an implied claim that the original Papp formula for the fuel, from the patent, works. The only secret, then, would be the nature of the stimulation, and that's what Rohner is offering to sell, in the form of the electronics that provide it, together with the custom coils and electrodes, with complete specifications for everything else. I presume that he knows that it will not be long before the stimulation will be known in exact detail, even if he hasn't provided that information, through examination of what his circuit board and the coils do. We have seen public demonstration of a popper, by Bob
Re: [Vo]:
Peter, Very nice post. As you know, I believe this reaction might have a bit of heaven and hell locked within it. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The second part is inspired by Defkalion's technology but also by my impressions of ICCF-17 and to these I have added an overdose of wishful thinking. And a good deal of poetry to the prose. Very good. T
[Vo]:Gas Powered ECAT gain 3 or 6
On Rossi's journal someone asked a question of him about the gain of his hotter operating ECAT. In his answer, Rossi suggested that the gain of the gas powered unit was 3 when the gas is actively heating and infinite by definition when in gas standby. The device is being heated by the gas for 50% of the time, so the net gain is 6 averaged over a cycle. This is consistent with his earlier statements and does make sense according to an earlier model I constructed. My model demonstrated that a positive feedback mechanism can go both ways regarding power out versus time. Many times we tend to think of positive feedback as leading to serious run away in temperature as the device continues to get hotter with time. I was waken up to the fact that a device with positive feedback also has the other mode of operation. That is, the output power and thus temperature can progress toward zero. My model demonstrated that if you intercept the falling power on the way down with heating, in this case with gas, then you can reverse the process and kick the device back into the power output increasing mode. This will continue toward burn out unless you judiciously cut off your drive power at the proper time. As long as you do not wait too long, the internal heat generating power mechanism will then reverse back into the falling mode. My model actually worked very much in line with Rossi's 50% duty cycle and adds support to his claim in my opinion. The issue that I worry about is the critical timing for the cutoff of the gas burner. If you miss the cutoff past a tipping point, the device will continue toward its high temperature output out of control. Perhaps Rossi has discovered that this situation may not be too disadvantageous since a mechanism either leads to self reversal of the power output due to some inherent protection, or minor melting of the mixture. One or both paths might result in regained control. It is apparent that Rossi does have a working device. The main question is when can we convince the world that LENR is real, useful, and available. Dave
[Vo]:Final response to Jojo Jaro
Subject was Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus I apologise for not changing the subject header earlier. Contrary to his earlier statements, Jojo apparently does want to have the last word. So this is my last communication in response to him. I'm adding his email address to a deletion file, so I won't routinely read his posts. If someone *else* thinks I should respond to something, or that I'm making a mistake here, please let me know. At 03:41 PM 8/17/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: LOL... This made my day. Glad to be of service. Beware, though, of your satisfaction in this life, at the cost of your ruin in the next. It's not what goes in (which would include what you hear or read) that can lead to your loss, but what comes out. You do know that, right? The self proclaimed LENR/Cold Fusion expert does not even have a degree in the sciences, let alone in physics, where he proclaims himself to be an expert. Well, others claim I'm expert, and I do claim *relative expertise*, but really, I'm a student. I don't have *any* degree from an educational institution, in any subject. I dropped out of Cal Tech, in good standing, after the first term of my third year. That's just what's so. Why do you consider yourself to be an expert without a degree? Again, Jojo testifies falsely, on this and many other subjects. He takes what he reads, interprets it outside of intended meaning -- and probably outside of actually stated meaning -- and then asserts it as incorporated fact. As I've said many times, I'm a relative expert. That's because I had the background, from that education and continued interest in the sciences, over almost fifty years, to understand the cold fusion material (or most of it), and I read intensively in the field since early 2009, when I was an active Wikipedia editor, interested in Wikipedia process and neutrality. So I read all the material, skeptical and accepting. Anyone who does the reading I've done, with some reasonable background in the sciences, and who engages in extensive discussion, as I did, and who can learn from discussion (as distinct from merely insisting on being right,) would become a relative expert. You want a true expert, go to Dr. Storms, or Dr. McKubre, or Dr. Mosier-Boss, or Dr. Takahashi. All of these, besides their expertise from training and experience, have this in common: personal correspondence with me, useful at least to me and sometimes to them. Or go to Jed Rothwell, who is intimately familiar with the history and the sources, and who is really a writer and translator, and who has funded cold fusion research, he's put his money where his mouth is. He's earned his expert stripes. With no science degree. Am I right about that, Jed? So taking one freshman class under Feynman makes you an expert in your eyes. Funny how that is true in your eyes. Oh, that's right, shallow waters are too noisy to hear the truth. The truth is? No, I did not just take one freshman class under Feynman. Jojo doesn't read sources carefully. It's all explained below. That was the physics class taught by Feynman that became the classic physics text. They wanted Feynman to write a text, but he was recalcitrant. He did not normally teach undergraduates, but agreed to teach this one time, and it was two years, not one freshman class, and they filmed it, including the blackboards. And then wrote the text as, more or less, a heavily edited transcript. This was, to be explicit, two years. How many classes is that? Caltech was on a trimester system, so, technically, it was six. At another school, one a semester system, it might have been equivalent to four classes. At the very least, it was two years. And it doesn't matter. I'm a relative expert on cold fusion because I've studied the sources, and have studied them over and over as part of the process of writing extensive discussion of the topic (what Jojo calls verbal diarrhea.) Many times, in this, I've made interpretive errors, and some of them, at least, have become visible through re-reading and new writing, and occasionally by correction from others. Some generous people, when they see an error, specifically point it out, giving why it is an error. Others just attack, which is nearly useless. Any writer, who openly asserts what he or she thinks, is exposed to correction like this, and can benefit from it, *if* the writer is not attached to being right. Attachment to being right is poison. It leads to failure in many areas. Common question from marriage counselors: Would you rather be married or be right? Letting go of being right is not equivalent to accepting that others are right. It represents, instead, a willingness to look at things from other points of view, a willingness to broaden outlook, and to let go of insisting that one's own point of view is the only legitimate one, which, stated this way, is obviously ego and inflated sense of self. One who has
RE: [Vo]:Final response to Jojo Jaro
From Abd, Contrary to his [Jojo's] earlier statements, Jojo apparently does want to have the last word. So this is my last communication in response to him. I'm adding his email address to a deletion file. What took you so long? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: I apologize for the first part of no interest for LENR, but something frightening has happened- it seems that a gang of local politicians, leftists and rightists united have stolen or bought second hand our and try to apply it very fast. I fear they cannot be stopped and this makes the future very dim. I had to write about this as a citizen. The negative comments in your first section are well-taken, Peter. I would just add that I think celebrity, as you refer to it, has an important role for someone trying to make sense of the traffic going through this forum, in particular. It is an unrealistic ideal to ask people to rely upon their own competence and expertise, from start to finish, when it comes to a difficult problem like LENR (or, LENR+, if you like). Presumably it is possible for a nonspecialist to have reasonable assurance that a problem has advanced through one or more of these stages: 1. As one claim in a huge mass of claims about anything under the sun. 2. As something for which there is prima facie evidence that sets it apart from all of the other unsubstantiated claims. 3. As something that has received rigorous, independent confirmation. 4. As a verified phenomenon the existence of which there is general consensus. It is very difficult for a nonspecialist, on his or her own, to know whether a phenomenon has moved from (1) to (2). If you are not to overreach the limitations of your own knowledge and experience, you will have to rely upon the expertise of others who seem trustworthy to you. Such people can obviously make mistakes or have a conflict of interest, so you will not get a free ride, here, and you obviously can't just be an unthinking fanbot. But the scope of human knowledge is far too large for a nonspecialist to effectively go it alone. In light of that, I don't see a problem with referring to and relying upon authorities, all else being equal. They are just people that you trust are particularly competent. An implication is that you will want to be careful in who you choose to trust. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
At 04:44 PM 8/17/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: My singularity will rip matter apart in the near vacinity. Any neutrons that escape it will be very low momentum, since the singularities quantum gravity pull sucked all of the energy out of them. It also devours them. Stewart, this is embarrassing. You have not defined near vicinity. From the fact that the singularities you propose don't grow beyond bounds, we must consider near vicinity to be quite small. If it includes lattice atoms, it would suck them in (or be attracted to them, if they are more massive than it is). But this isn't the issue I'm addressing here. A neutron created in the vicinity of the singularity will have an initial velocity. If it is already a ULM neutron, that means that it has very low velocity relative to the environment, and we must assume that this also means relative to the singularity, which must not be high velocity in the lattice, or else Katie Bar the Door. Such a neutron has a high capture cross section, that's the importance of ULM in LENR discussions. Capture by what? An initial ULM neutron, near a singularity, will merge with the singularity, I'd assume, for a similar reason that it would be absorbed readily if not for the singularity. You are proposing that neutrons that escape will be very low momentum, since the [singularities] [sic] gravity ... sucked all the energy out of them. Gravity does not suck energy out of things. It accelerates them, with a vector dependent on the field. A neutron that escapes must have an initial escape velocity, which depends on its location relative to the singularity. If the escape velocity from a position is V(e), and the initial velocity of the neutron is V(n), then the final velocity of the neutron, if it escapes, will approach V(n) - V(e). Not zero or very low. With thermal neutrons or higher-energy neutrons, a neutron ending up as ULM would be a very rare coincidence, where V(n) happened to be almost exactly equal to V(e). Kinetic energy is relative. It's not something that can be sucked out of a particle. Note that a neutron would not be specially attracted to a singularity over other particles in the vicinity. Charged particles might have other forces acting on them, though. Nevertheless, a singularity sitting at a lattice site (center of the cubic lattice) would rapidly accumulate food. Hydrogen nuclei prefer that site. The growth of the singularity, from what I've read, casually, would be on the order of 10^9 protons or deuterons per second. I have no idea if this would result in net growth or would merely retard the evaporation of the singularity. I'd expect to see, though, a *lot* of radiation from such a circumstance. If the singularity grows to a size that it begins to eat lattice atoms, it would rapidly grow beyond limit. Goodbye, planet Earth. Steward, if you really do want to pursue this wild-hair idea, look at the stability and predicted lifetime of very small singularities, how fast they would have to be fed a diet of protons or deuterons to actually grow. There are also electrons available for food, there is always an electron presence anywhere in the lattice. But protons are way, way fatter, deuterons double that. We know they don't grow. So the issue would be how long they would live if formed, and whether or not there are events, however rare, that might occasionally allow them to eat the lattice. Because if they eat the lattice, they will not stop there! What is the critical size, how many AMU, is how I'd like to see it expressed. I can't see how a lattice-contained singularity could always avoid eating a lattice atom, unless its lifetime is very short and it is always formed at a cubic central site, and can't survive the journey to a lattice atom. If it eats a lattice atom, say Pd, it would then be that size, minimum. If it was low-mass before that, it would now be that mass. What, then, would be its expected lifetime? How would such a singularity behave? In all this, if you are proposing singularities as an explanation for LENR, you should understand that known LENR for PdD is a surface effect. It does *not* take place, to any major degree, in the lattice. At the surface, much is in motion Storms makes a good case that the effect only takes place in surface cracks. Very messy.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
At 06:03 PM 8/17/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: 6.2*10^7 neutrons per 5 min means 200 thousand neutrons per second. If each one carries 1MeV, that means 3*10^-10^-8J. There's about 3*10^7s every year, which means about 1Joule of radiation emitted per year. According to wikipedia: The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Radiological_ProtectionInternational Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends limiting artificial irradiation of the public to an average of 1 mSv (0.001 Sv) of effective dose per year, not including medical and occupational exposures.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millisievert#cite_note-ICRP103-0[1] Where 1 Sv = 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JouleJ/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogramkg =1Gy If those 62 million mean the total estimated from the source, given an isotropic distribution, it means 1000x above maximum background levels. According to this entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-induced_cancerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-induced_cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning It is hard to figure out the effects, at least for me, of such exposure for a long time. But, they are surely deadly. That does not appear to be so. First of all, an unconfirmed report of a burst or even steady neutron radiation, doesn't establish much. Such reports have been in error before. However, given the value reported, and the (very rough) calculation done by Daniel, implying 1 joule/year, that is 1 joule for the full emission, not 1 joule absorbed by a body. To get the full emission in a body, you'd have to swallow the source, and it would have to all be absorbed, not escaping. Please don't do that. Neutrons produce interesting effects. 1 MeV neutrons are not well-absorbed. I don't know the absorption cross-section for 1 MeV neutrons, but high-energy neutrons are highly penetrating, and until they interact, they mostly do nothing. You cannot translate directly from total emitted energy to total absorbed energy. 1 mSv would be 1 J/kg of fully absorbed radiation. I'd think one would want to limit radiation exposure to *every kilogram in the body* to this level. A 1 joule per year neutron source would produce an absorbed dose far under that for a kilogram at a distance. Easily this might be under 1 mSv per year. But I'd certainly defer to more accurate calculations. Most cold fusion experiments, especially PdD ones, do not produce any substantial neutron radiation, the levels found are close to background, sometimes elevated above background to be detectable, but not much beyond that! I have not read this particular report yet, so this is not a comment on it, just on the assertion that this level of radiation would be deadly. Probably not. But don't sleep with your specially-neutron-producing cold fusion experiment!
[Vo]:Question About Conservation of Energy In Plasma Transitions
Let's say you've got a xenon atom. It likes to absorb energy and emit photons. You know, xenon lamps etc. OK, so lets ask a real simple question: When a tube filled with xenon gas has some energy pumped into it and the electrons go to higher orbitals -- yes this happens for a very short period of time before photons are emitted but let's talk about just the short period of time. The diameter of the atoms presumably increases. Does the gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets say that the energy is sufficient to actually strip the electrons away and form an ionized gas for a short interval. Does the ionized gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets talk about really-simple magnetic confinement (say a magnetic mirror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_mirror type bottle) used in conjunction with a solid tube so that the non-conducting (because non-ionized) gas phase is confined by the solid tube and the conducting (because) ionized gas phase is confined by the magnetic bottle: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. However, what if the plasma has expanded during the high pressure phase, ie: done work against the magnetic confinement (like, oh, I don't know, generating an electrical power spike in a conductor associated with the magnetic field). Does that mean the free electrons of the plasma no longer want to return to their ground states and give up exactly the same amount of energy that they would have in the absence of having done work? If not, where did the electrons go and where do the xenon atoms get electrons to substitute for them?
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
I was thinking about this overnight and I think the right answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Suppose you are able to obtain a working LENR device containing e.g. powdered Ni or a Pd-coated cupronickel wire or whatever. You can certainly put the active material under and SEM and a spectrometer and determine exactly what it is, that's no problem. But you do not have access to the process that caused it to get that way. The significance of this fact should not be underestimated. The processing may be extremely nontrivial, requiring very expensive equipment for e.g. vapor deposition of metals with precise control over process parameters. Consider semiconductor processing. How do you think Intel has maintained a lead over the rest of the world for decades? By investing heavily in the real crown jewels, their process technology. And by not talking very much. It's worked for them. It could work for others. At the very least, this situation poses a severe barrier to academic replication in the short term. Unless, of course, one or more of the leaders choose to share the precise details. Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:09 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Jed sed: ** ** There is nothing more ephemeral that a vitally important trade secret.** ** Trade secrets about unimportant technology sometimes last for decades.** ** ** ** Stealing trade secrets is probably right up there with absconding with military secrets. ** ** I wish I could find a brief You-Tube clip from the original Star Trek series, where Spock plays a double agent. The Vulcan keeps the Romulan captain preoccupied by wooing her while Kirk goes undercover. Kirk teleports into the bowels of the Romulan vessel’s engine room in order to track down and steal a new secret stealth device known as the “cloaking device.” ** ** After an obligatory amount of running and jumping about Kirk manages to steal the cloaking device. When the Romulan captain finally realizes the fact that she had been had by the steely eye Vulcan she turns to him and expresses her displeasure at having been played a pawn in a game of espionage. (Never underestimate the scorn of a woman, no matter what the species.) Spock's reply was something to the effect that: Military secrets are the most fleeting of all secrets. ** ** BTW, by the time the Deep Space 9 Star Trek series rolled about the use of the cloaking device had become regulated by various interplanetary treaties. Initially only the Romulans were allowed to use the stealth technology – legally, that is. Well… after all, since they were the race that invented the device. But then, somehow, the Klingons managed to negotiate a deal with the Romulans, or perhaps they made an offer the Romulans couldn’t refuse, and now their own bird of prey craft were also retrofitted with the same technology. ** ** I would imagine something just as messy will happen with the bulk of so-called “CF” trade secrets. Where trillions of dollars are at stake don’t bet on the underlying technology remaining cloaked for very long. ** ** Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration
The measuring system can either transfer energy from itself to the system being measured or do the reverse and transfer energy from the system being measured to itself. harry On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:58 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: The act of measuring requires one to impart some energy (photons or other) or matter upon the particle. Upon the object being measured, the object may instantly increase in mass or change velocity. Over time this energy will be transferred back to its environment as it evaporates... On Saturday, August 18, 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: BTW, I appear to contradict myself when I said measuring cannot increase the energy of the particle vs I agree with the claim that measuring can concentrate energy in a system. In the former, I mean I don't accept the idea that measuring can somehow increase the energy the particle without the transfer of energy from somewhere else. Harry On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Hi LP, I haven't read the paper, but I don't disagree with claim. In fact it should not be unexpected. Even in a macroscopic system a concentration energy can come about as a result of energy being transferred from the measuring system to the system being measured. Of course, such a measuring system would be considered defective because it provides a distorted picture of the energy content of system being measured. However, classical mechanics says a measuring system can be designed in theory to have an arbitrarily small distorting effect, whereas quantum mechanics says this is not possible in theory. Harry On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hello Harry, To be really precise, though, an energy measurement of a particle in a superposition of energy eigenstates might find it in one of the states higher than the weighted average energy of its wavefunction. So, you might say that the measurement increased its energy, but over many such measurements would just produce the mean energy of the wavefunction. While I am not convinced they are correct, the authors of the paper I referenced end with the conclusion - From a general perspective a phenomenon like the energy concentration in a composite quantum system can indeed be motivated physically. There exist processes, where there is a redistribution of energy among different system degrees of freedom making possible some amounts of system self-organization. In particular, one could examine the possibility of concentrating the total energy of the system into a subset of degrees of freedom producing a decrease of its entropy, which in order to avoid a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, would compel the release of energy to the environment, thus keeping the free energy constant. This is possible only if the system is open... Concentrating Energy by Measurement http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868 Interesting theory. -- LP Harry Veeder wrote: Actually, I tend agree with Robin that measuring cannot increase the energy of the particle. My question reflects my own attempt to understand why it is so. Now that I have thought about it, it is because one doesn't measure energy per se. Most measurements are really the result of calculations based on measurements of length and time plugged into a formula. BTW, the same is true of measurements of momentum. The modern physicists habit of refering to energy and momentum as observables is a perscription for phenomenological confusion. The resulting measures of length and time are only consistent with the supposed law-like properties of energy and momemtum on a statiscal level. Harry On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hello Harry, You asked -- So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used to precisely measure the energy of a particle? Probably not. But maybe there are subtleties that obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but allow for some counterintuitive effects. For example, refer to -- Concentrating Energy by Measurement http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868 -- LP Harry Veeder wrote: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM,
Re: [Vo]:
using various spawar, nasa GRC 89/2005, toyota/mitsubishi, NI, celani, Piantelli, Focardi, ENEA, Rubbia/DeNinno... we are at level 3 since long... after the 30% successful replication following FP we were at 2 (negative replication have no meaning except it does not work). after NASA GRC 89, we were at 2+ but groupthink denial is so strong that 2 is not even accepted. can someone here tell me what can make the collective claims of Nasa GRC 19892005, Spawarreplicator, iwamurareplicator, and even the latest replication discussed at ICCF17, plus the NI and 200 total, not a perfect replication of the minimal of LENR : there is anomalous heat unexplained by usual theories and not chemical, probably nuclear or else alien... - I'm serious about that question, since on http://lenrforum.eu, I'm preparing an openletter to call some local media http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3t=429 I don't want to look stupid, so I must have all data needed to argue Does my claim, that even NASA GRC 89+2005 is enough. that SPAWAR+replication is too ? independently ! that Iwamura+replicator is too ? independently! can you add some other pair of replication ? thanks in advance. 2012/8/19 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: I apologize for the first part of no interest for LENR, but something frightening has happened- it seems that a gang of local politicians, leftists and rightists united have stolen or bought second hand our and try to apply it very fast. I fear they cannot be stopped and this makes the future very dim. I had to write about this as a citizen. The negative comments in your first section are well-taken, Peter. I would just add that I think celebrity, as you refer to it, has an important role for someone trying to make sense of the traffic going through this forum, in particular. It is an unrealistic ideal to ask people to rely upon their own competence and expertise, from start to finish, when it comes to a difficult problem like LENR (or, LENR+, if you like). Presumably it is possible for a nonspecialist to have reasonable assurance that a problem has advanced through one or more of these stages: 1. As one claim in a huge mass of claims about anything under the sun. 2. As something for which there is prima facie evidence that sets it apart from all of the other unsubstantiated claims. 3. As something that has received rigorous, independent confirmation. 4. As a verified phenomenon the existence of which there is general consensus. It is very difficult for a nonspecialist, on his or her own, to know whether a phenomenon has moved from (1) to (2). If you are not to overreach the limitations of your own knowledge and experience, you will have to rely upon the expertise of others who seem trustworthy to you. Such people can obviously make mistakes or have a conflict of interest, so you will not get a free ride, here, and you obviously can't just be an unthinking fanbot. But the scope of human knowledge is far too large for a nonspecialist to effectively go it alone. In light of that, I don't see a problem with referring to and relying upon authorities, all else being equal. They are just people that you trust are particularly competent. An implication is that you will want to be careful in who you choose to trust. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
At 06:09 PM 8/17/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: It is interesting that they claim element generation up to lead. That also happened in defkalion's data. Check that out. People, please start to discriminate. This is the slide show: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdfhttp://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf They are calling this LENR but that is not obvious. They are showing evidence for d-d fusion, which is hot fusion, that is, this is a different reaction from what is known as cold fusion. It may be at lower temperatures, but hot fusion is actually a name for a high-energy reaction that has no specific temperature cut-off. It will occur at lower energies due to tunnelling and other effects. What the slide show is presenting is evidence for results that are the known results from hot fusion. The slide show presents very little information. I was unable to find any report showing the 62 million neutrons together with how they were produced. It is not clear *what* they are claiming. If hot fusion is taking place, *of course* there would be transmutations. At some point I should go over Miley's work. It's been a while. In the classical FPHE, helium is the major transmutation product, by far, other effects are far down from helium production. But other effects are found, specifically, tritium, heavier transmutations, X-rays, short-range charged particle radiation (probably), and even a few neutrons. One should not lose sight of how rare these other products are, compared to helium.
Re: [Vo]:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: we are at level 3 since long... I'm thinking of Papp and the replicators. :) In an earlier thread I was implicitly arguing that we had gotten to (2) and could afford look around and kick the tires of the devices a little. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
No need to swallow. If that were to be used as a heater, within a few years, where people sleep, the proximity would cause deadly effects, after a few years. Or, in any place where they would be stored together, like in a department store, where dozens of them would be together. It would not be very safe for non specialized or personal use. . 2012/8/19 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com However, given the value reported, and the (very rough) calculation done by Daniel, implying 1 joule/year, that is 1 joule for the full emission, not 1 joule absorbed by a body. To get the full emission in a body, you'd have to swallow the source, and it would have to all be absorbed, not escaping. Please don't do that. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Papp demo and explosions, the end game, and John Rohner
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Abd, I will make an analogy which I am sure will gather consternation: do you remember in ghostbusters when they closed the breaker on the containment device housing the...gremlins? Ectoplasmic entities and psycho-kinetic energy are held by laser containment. Sheesh! T
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Yes, this is why I say they are claiming. They do not show much (or anything meaningful at all) concerning what methods are being used, or Although, it is sort of interesting that these similar things are showing up. Maybe a generalized contamination from overlooked common sources to both experiments. Painting, plastics? http://www.eoearth.org/article/Industrial_uses_of_lead 2012/8/19 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com People, please start to discriminate. This is the slide show: -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Papp demo and explosions, the end game, and John Rohner
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Abd, I will make an analogy which I am sure will gather consternation: do you remember in ghostbusters when they closed the breaker on the containment device housing the...gremlins? Ectoplasmic entities and psycho-kinetic energy are held by laser containment. Sheesh! Didn't the FDA determine that crossing ectoplasmic streams is what causes cancer?
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration
I agree with that. Either way you have changed the measured. On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: The measuring system can either transfer energy from itself to the system being measured or do the reverse and transfer energy from the system being measured to itself. harry On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:58 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: The act of measuring requires one to impart some energy (photons or other) or matter upon the particle. Upon the object being measured, the object may instantly increase in mass or change velocity. Over time this energy will be transferred back to its environment as it evaporates... On Saturday, August 18, 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: BTW, I appear to contradict myself when I said measuring cannot increase the energy of the particle vs I agree with the claim that measuring can concentrate energy in a system. In the former, I mean I don't accept the idea that measuring can somehow increase the energy the particle without the transfer of energy from somewhere else. Harry On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Hi LP, I haven't read the paper, but I don't disagree with claim. In fact it should not be unexpected. Even in a macroscopic system a concentration energy can come about as a result of energy being transferred from the measuring system to the system being measured. Of course, such a measuring system would be considered defective because it provides a distorted picture of the energy content of system being measured. However, classical mechanics says a measuring system can be designed in theory to have an arbitrarily small distorting effect, whereas quantum mechanics says this is not possible in theory. Harry On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hello Harry, To be really precise, though, an energy measurement of a particle in a superposition of energy eigenstates might find it in one of the states higher than the weighted average energy of its wavefunction. So, you might say that the measurement increased its energy, but over many such measurements would just produce the mean energy of the wavefunction. While I am not convinced they are correct, the authors of the paper I referenced end with the conclusion - From a general perspective a phenomenon like the energy concentration in a composite quantum system can indeed be motivated physically. There exist processes, where there is a redistribution of energy among different system degrees of freedom making possible some amounts of system self-organization. In particular, one could examine the possibility of concentrating the total energy of the system into a subset of degrees of freedom producing a decrease of its entropy, which in order to avoid a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, would compel the release of energy to the environment, thus keeping the free energy constant. This is possible only if the system is open... Concentrating Energy by Measurement http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868 Interesting theory. -- LP Harry Veeder wrote: Actually, I tend agree with Robin that measuring cannot increase the energy of the particle. My question reflects my own attempt to understand why it is so. Now that I have thought about it, it is because one doesn't measure energy per se. Most measurements are really the result of calculations based on measurements of length and time plugged into a formula
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
At 06:11 PM 8/17/2012, Axil Axil wrote: The hot fusion people and the nuclear physicist crowd will not believe that LENR is real unless they see lots of neutrons; this is a good political type experiment. It hasn't worked before, why should it work now? The main cold fusion reaction, responsible for the FPHE, does not produce neutrons. It's real, and that's easy to show. It does produce a nuclear product, helium. Think that's not a nuclear product? Be my guest, make it some other way. Ah, yes, I should mention that the often-repeated meme that the helium could be leakage from ambient is *preposterous*, it's only possible to assert that by radically ignoring the actual experimental evidence, which includes, but is not limited to, situations where the produced helium rose above ambient, quite significantly. The real kicker is that the helium produced is *always* proportional to the anomalous energy, and the ratio is consistent with deuterium fusion. Other reactions besides d-d fusion can do that, though they almost certainly involve, then, multibody fusion. I.e., 4D - 2He-4 or the like. Bottom line, we don't know what the main reaction is. The pseudoskeptical physics community has made a whole series of demands as to what would satisfy them. It's a moving target, because as evidence accumulated, the demands increased. 1. Reliable experiment. That means, for them, an experiment that always produces the same results. This is wilful blindness, and an imposition on other fields of particular expectations of physicists, who are accustomed to nice clean experiments where conditions are very precisely controlled. Naturally, these people hate electrochemistry with a passion. It's messy as hell. However, that doesn't mean that science can't be done, it can, and as in all the messier fields, one looks for statistical correlations. 2. Nuclear product. Originally, it was assumed that the reaction must be d-d fusion or nothing. So the expected products from d-d fusion were sought, and when it was shown, rather conclusively, that these products were not appearing, this was considered definitive refutation of cold fusion. It's an obvious error. What that worked showed was that the experiment did not reproduce the conditions of hot, d-d fusion. It's something else. It would be like assuming that all burglars wear watch caps with holes cut out for the eyes, and therefore a photo of a burglar is fake because the fellow has no watch cap on. 3. Two cups of tea on demand. This is a variation on reliable experiment. It's total nonsense, because lots of cold fusion experiments run hot and could be used to brew tea, it would mean nothing. 4. Commercial device. Of course they would be convinced if there is a commercial device. But a physical effect might be nowhere near ready for commercialization, might *never* be commercializable, and that has practically nothing to do with reality. Muon-catalyzed fusion is known and understood and will probably never be commercially useful. FPHE fusion depends on very difficult-to-control material conditions, and the material shifts during the experiment, in uncontrolled ways (so far). 5. An explanation. I.e., some explanation that will satisfy them. *Sometimes,* PdD shows anomalous heat. This was shown in hundreds of reports, 153 in peer-reviewed journals alone. What is the source of that heat? That was, beginning in 1989, a simple scientific question. The physicists, because of a relatively small number of negative replications-- which only show replication failure -- began to assume unidentified calorimetry error. They stuck to this story in spite of massive reports, using many different kinds of calorimetry. There never has been a peer-reviewed report that actually explained the source of the heat, other than attempts to explain it as a nuclear effect. Yet physicists, many of them, to this day, treat cold fusion as a closed book. Wasn't that proven to be bogus, twenty years ago? No. It wasn't. That's plain and simple. Questions were raised, that's all. And then, over the next decade, the questions were answered, but the physicists stopped listening. Most importantly, by 1991, expanded in 1993, the ash was identified: helium. And that does, in fact, explain the excess heat. It's proportional to the helium produced, at (approximately) the value expected from any form of deuterium conversion to helium. That does *not* explain the *mechanism. To explain the mechanism is going to take, most likely, a concerted effort on the part of quantum physicists, using the most sophisticated tools of quantum field theory. And we aren't yet giving these physicists enough data, nor are they attempting to develop it themselves. That is why this is truly a Scientific Fiasco. We have the mass abandonment of a field by those whose expertise would be needed to resolve mysteries. Chemists struggle along, with little guidance
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:09 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson Spock's reply was something to the effect that: Military secrets are the most fleeting of all secrets. Episode 57, The Enterprise Incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUFbd9e-aY @ 3:55 T
[Vo]:OT: Psychonauts
- Dead Astronaut http://www.thefoxisblack.com/2011/08/05/space-suit-of-the-week-63/ This “Dead Astronaut” is a sculpture by Brandon Vickard, and I can’t quite figure out what is going on with this sculpture. As if astronauts didn’t have enough to worry about (sudden loss of pressure, micrometorites, cosmic radiation, etc.) one astronaut has to worry about termites. Even though this dead astronaut is made out of dead wood, the sculpture has a life of its own. Living in gallery space, this would-be explorer begs questions. These questions may vary from the questions inspired by living astronauts; mostly about the ideas that launched the sculpture. Surely a poplar Apollo suit complete with a skull is grounded in something. We can look at the expression of the dead astronaut, our observations branching out into new questions rooted in the expression of the skull. Usually the face is hiding behind a reflective visor that protects retinas from UV light, our astronaut may not be worried about UV rays… Because um… he’s not real. However, as long as we wonder what his purpose is and what territory he is exploring, he really isn’t dead at all. --- The Cosmic Dead by the Psychonauts http://thecosmicdead.bandcamp.com/album/psychonaut Album cover features another dead astronaut
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
At 06:17 PM 8/17/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: But that is sort of bad news too. People won't be able to have these devices at home. It seems that there are bursts of high activity 1000x above the high limit level is way too dangerous. What devices? Daniel, isn't that jumping to conclusions? The results reported in that poster session, if that's what it was, are for a particular experimental approach. Neutrons are *not* found in normal FPHE cold fusion work, and probably not with nickel, either (though I'm sure less work has been done). (This was PdD, I think, but it's all vague, I did not find an original report with 62M neutrons. Rather some large-text, red letter claims in the slide show are being taken as if they were complete experimental reports.) That analysis of high limit level was way pessimistic, as well. Radiation damage from fast neutrons would accumulate. Bursts would be effectively averaged over time. I really don't have any clear idea, at this time, if the levels of neutrons reported would be dangerous or not. What I'm clear about is that the analysis presented here was not at all careful.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
At 06:32 PM 8/17/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: Not really bad news. Ed Storms came up with a theory that fusion happen in cracks of the lattice. Summing that, with what I see in the slides, they are thinking that a BEC of D is forced to be fused by the fractures. So, LENR is a kind of variation of fractofusion. C'mon, Daniel. Get it straight. Fractofusion does not refer to fusion in cracks, as per Storms' ideas, not like that. Storms thinks that cracks create cavities of a necessary resonant size. Fractofusion refers to fusion through acceleration of particles by high voltages created by crack formation. If fractofusion is real, it is hot fusion, so of course it would generate neutrons. It might be so that the present report involves fractofusion, but I'm not seeing any clear present report. I'm seeing a slide presentation with sime large red type claims. It's not at all clear what it means.
[Vo]:Rossi Wakes Up
Wise: Andrea Rossi August 19th, 2012 at 2:16 AM Dear ivan: We have decided, so far, to limit our sales to the 1 MW plants becausethis dimension is the one that gives to Leonardo Corp. the maximumeconomic momentum, considering our present structure. We foresee,anyway, to lower, in future, the power of the products for sale. Inthis monent there is also a pending situation regarding theIntellectual Property and there are around clowns ( think to the onesthat claim to have been able to copy us) that have just mock ups (emptyboxes) which they will inmmediately fill up with our technology as soonas cheap E-Cats will be in the market: this has been their strategyfrom the beginning. Marketing only the 1 MW plants we can select ourCustomers. When the domestic Ecats will be certified the numbers willbe enough big to allow us a big scale production, so that our priceswill be enough low to defeat the competition even after they will beable to copy us. About the chance of our competitors to reach us andcompete with us, without copying us, from what I saw recently, they allare lightyears far from being able to produce something able to producereal energy: they are making paper aeroplanes, we are manufacturingBoeing 707. With all respect. Warm Regards, A.R. Quickly
[Vo]:Rossi Wakes Up -- Took Note of Linear Generator with 2 Noble Gas Engine Heads
Sweet Progress: Rossi must be following Vortex. Love, Candy ny . min Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:57:45 -0700 Wise: Andrea Rossi August 19th, 2012 at 2:16 AM Dear ivan: We have decided, so far, to limit our sales to the 1 MW plants becausethis dimension is the one that gives to Leonardo Corp. the maximumeconomic momentum, considering our present structure. We foresee,anyway, to lower, in future, the power of the products for sale. Inthis monent there is also a pending situation regarding theIntellectual Property and there are around clowns ( think to the onesthat claim to have been able to copy us) that have just mock ups (emptyboxes) which they will inmmediately fill up with our technology as soonas cheap E-Cats will be in the market: this has been their strategyfrom the beginning. Marketing only the 1 MW plants we can select ourCustomers. When the domestic Ecats will be certified the numbers willbe enough big to allow us a big scale production, so that our priceswill be enough low to defeat the competition even after they will beable to copy us. About the chance of our competit! ors to reach us andcompete with us, without copying us, from what I saw recently, they allare lightyears far from being able to produce something able to producereal energy: they are making paper aeroplanes, we are manufacturingBoeing 707. With all respect. Warm Regards, A.R. Quickly
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Spock's reply was something to the effect that: Military secrets are the most fleeting of all secrets. Arthur C. Clarke said the same thing, except he was talking about actual military secrets. He knew quite a few of them because he worked experimental GCA radar systems during WWII. There is no need to steal industrial trade secrets. The product itself tells you all you need to know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wakes Up -- Took Note of Linear Generator with 2 Noble Gas Engine Heads
Why are you asking me? I am not working on any Papp engine. My hands are full with my gen2 LENR research on Carbon Nanostructures. In fact, I want somebody to build me one of these Papp engines so that I can free myself and my farm factory from Raghead oil. Heck, I am even willing to provide RD money if someone can show me that this thing is real. I don't believe Papp technology is real, otherwise, we would have seen something tangible within the 30 years that has passed. If this thing is real, don't you think one of the Rohner boys would have produced something by now, other than those pathetic kits. Didn't Bob Rohner claim to be the one building the engine for Papp and supposedly seen it on a dyno producing incredible horses? What happened in these 30 years. Why hasn't he simply recreated what he claims he has done? But, what do I know. Unlike some college dropout here who has the audacity to claim to be a Physics and LENR expert, I am not claiming to be an expert in these things, though at the very least, I do have a degree in Electrical Engineering. Jojo - Original Message - From: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 4:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wakes Up -- Took Note of Linear Generator with 2 Noble Gas Engine Heads Jojo (Or anybody else, for that matter): Quote me a price for a working 10 kw linear generator as previously referenced in vortex with a Noble Gas driving head on each end. You mentioned your hands on abilities previously and lack of significient results. This project is proven, simple (One moving part and no heat) and a quick assemble. Warm Regards, Reliable P.S. Two pistons with PM Magnet slots should be a one piece engineering plastic cast. SNIP Mint Candy Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:15:44 -0700 Sweet Progress: Rossi must be following Vortex. Love, Candy ny . min Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:57:45 -0700 Wise: Andrea Rossi August 19th, 2012 at 2:16 AM Dear ivan: We have decided, so far, to limit our sales to the 1 MW plants becausethis dimension is the one that gives to Leonardo Corp. the maximumeconomic momentum, considering our present structure. We foresee,anyway, to lower, in future, the power of the products for sale. Inthis monent there is also a pending situation regarding theIntellectual Property and there are around clowns ( think to the onesthat claim to have been able to copy us) that have just mock ups (emptyboxes) which they will inmmediately fill up with our technology as soonas cheap E-Cats will be in the market: this has been their strategyfrom the beginning. Marketing only the 1 MW plants we can select ourCustomers. When the domestic Ecats will be certified the numbers willbe enough big to allow us a big scale production, so that our priceswill be enough low to defeat the competition even after they will beable to copy us. About the chance of our competit! ors to reach us andcompete with us, without copying us, from what I saw recently, they allare lightyears far from being able to produce something able to producereal energy: they are making paper aeroplanes, we are SNIP manufacturingBoeing 707. With all respect. Warm Regards, A.R. Quickly
Re: [Vo]:Question About Conservation of Energy In Plasma Transitions
What I don’t understand is if this is possible: 1 - 4He + 4He → 8Be(-93.7kEV) 2 - Be8 - 2He4(18.074 MeV) If this reaction is possible, and if this is what recombination is, where does the 18 MeV come from. Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. This is a bad assumption. If two helium atoms fuse about 18 MeV is produced along with a positron and a neutrino. I do not understand this reaction. Maybe someone can help. http://everything2.com/title/proton-proton+chain In the PPIII stellar fusion reaction, Steps 1 through 3 can be replaced by the first half of the triple alpha stellar fusion process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process Explicitly 1 - 4He + 4He → 8Be(-93.7kEV) 2 – 8Be + proton → B8 (0.135 MeV) - other possible reactions involver electron and hydrogen capture. 3 - B8 - Be8 + positron + neutrino (followed by spontaneous decay...) 4 - Be8 - 2He4(18.074 MeV) We start out with two helium atoms and we end up with two helium atoms but about 19MeV of additional energy is produced. Where does this energy come from? J. Rohner says that he stops the triple alpha stellar fusion process before a third helium atom is fused. He calls this process recombination as the Be8 fissions back to two helium atoms. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Let's say you've got a xenon atom. It likes to absorb energy and emit photons. You know, xenon lamps etc. OK, so lets ask a real simple question: When a tube filled with xenon gas has some energy pumped into it and the electrons go to higher orbitals -- yes this happens for a very short period of time before photons are emitted but let's talk about just the short period of time. The diameter of the atoms presumably increases. Does the gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets say that the energy is sufficient to actually strip the electrons away and form an ionized gas for a short interval. Does the ionized gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets talk about really-simple magnetic confinement (say a magnetic mirror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_mirror type bottle) used in conjunction with a solid tube so that the non-conducting (because non-ionized) gas phase is confined by the solid tube and the conducting (because) ionized gas phase is confined by the magnetic bottle: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. However, what if the plasma has expanded during the high pressure phase, ie: done work against the magnetic confinement (like, oh, I don't know, generating an electrical power spike in a conductor associated with the magnetic field). Does that mean the free electrons of the plasma no longer want to return to their ground states and give up exactly the same amount of energy that they would have in the absence of having done work? If not, where did the electrons go and where do the xenon atoms get electrons to substitute for them?
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Rossi is right about the CLOWNS (was::Rossi Wakes Up -- Took Note of Linear Generator with 2 Noble Gas Engine Head)
Defkalion is moving to Canada. Can someone comment on something I heard which is western Canada (such as Alberta and Vancouver) have weak laws that make running scams and frauds easier? On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Rossi is right about one thing; the clowns are just waiting for the home ecats so that they can steal it again and put it inside their mock ups. I don't know about others here, but am I the only one seriously bothered by DGT's behavior. They cheat and lie with a straight face in their expensive Armani suits. Weren't they supposed to release their test data at ICCF-17? Has anyone seen those test data from supposedly half a dozen third party folks? Now, they've picked up and moved to Canada. Are we supposed to believe those pictures of their factory supposedly being built in Xanthi? Supposedly, they moved because of the grave economic situation in Greece. Question is, Why then build a multi-million factory in a place that has grave economic outlook? A few weeks ago, I predicted that there is a 70% chance that DGT will withdraw from ICCF-17. I then went on to elaborate on what I meant - that is, that they will withhold data. Well, looks like I was right about these clowns. What has DGT released at ICCF-17? A single paper that contains more verbosity on how great DGT is and how great their organization and teamwork is; than real scientific theory, let alone real scientific data. Heck, right now ChemE has released more scientific theory about his Gremlins than these clowns. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:
oops... notthe same level I agree. On papp I don't know any paper validating it's core mechanism... is there even any description ? 2012/8/19 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: we are at level 3 since long... I'm thinking of Papp and the replicators. :) In an earlier thread I was implicitly arguing that we had gotten to (2) and could afford look around and kick the tires of the devices a little. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Question About Conservation of Energy In Plasma Transitions
James, I am assuming that your question is motivated by the controveral Papp claims. While I have not had time to do more than peruse the following speculative papers, perhaps they are relevant, but I am not sure they are correct. Ion trapping and sonoluminescence ABSTRACT: Sonoluminescence is the intriguing phenomenon of strong light flashes from tiny bubbles in a liquid. The bubbles are driven by an ultrasonic wave and need to be filled with noble gas atoms (c.f. Fig. 1). Approximating the emitted light by blackbody radiation indicates very high temperatures. Although sonoluminescence has been studied extensively, the origin of the sudden energy concentration within the bubble collapse phase is still controversial (p.21) http://www.sussex.ac.uk/physics/iqt/ECTI/index_files/Booklet3.pdf Composite quantum systems and environment-induced heating Abstract. In recent years, much attention has been paid to the development of techniques which transfer trapped particles to very low temperatures. Here we focus our attention on a heating mechanism which contributes to the finite temperature limit in laser sideband cooling experiments with trapped ions. It is emphasized that similar heating processes might be present in a variety of composite quantum systems whose components couple individually to different environments. For example, quantum optical heating effects might contribute significantly to the very high temperatures which occur during the collapse phase in sonoluminescence experiments. It might even be possible to design composite quantum systems, like atom-cavity systems, such that they continuously emit photons even in the absence of external driving. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1551.pdf Quantum Optical Heating in Sonoluminescence Experiments http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1121 Sonoluminescence and quantum optical heating http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.0885 ENVIRONMENT-INDUCED HEATING IN SONOLUMINESCENCE EXPERIMENTS http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.7022.pdf Energy concentration in composite quantum systems http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.5337 -- Lou Pagnucco James Bowery wrote: Let's say you've got a xenon atom. It likes to absorb energy and emit photons. You know, xenon lamps etc. OK, so lets ask a real simple question: When a tube filled with xenon gas has some energy pumped into it and the electrons go to higher orbitals -- yes this happens for a very short period of time before photons are emitted but let's talk about just the short period of time. The diameter of the atoms presumably increases. Does the gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets say that the energy is sufficient to actually strip the electrons away and form an ionized gas for a short interval. Does the ionized gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets talk about really-simple magnetic confinement (say a magnetic mirror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_mirror type bottle) used in conjunction with a solid tube so that the non-conducting (because non-ionized) gas phase is confined by the solid tube and the conducting (because) ionized gas phase is confined by the magnetic bottle: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. However, what if the plasma has expanded during the high pressure phase, ie: done work against the magnetic confinement (like, oh, I don't know, generating an electrical power spike in a conductor associated with the magnetic field). Does that mean the free electrons of the plasma no longer want to return to their ground states and give up exactly the same amount of energy that they would have in the absence of having done work? If not, where did the electrons go and where do the xenon atoms get electrons to substitute for them?
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
FHPE has no normal conditions only workable conditions. Generally, they either do not work or just work softly. But, sometimes wires and pieces of metal explodes for God knows why reasons or just bursts of more intense activity. Up to this result, IF that is correlated with cold fusion, I was not aware that such emission could happen. Something vaguely similar in terms of radiation poisoning hazard was told was during a visit from Celani to Rossi, where he measured some intense (whatever he means with that) gamma rays bursts. 2012/8/19 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com Neutrons are *not* found in normal FPHE cold fusion work, and probably not with nickel, either (though I'm sure less work has been done). -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Question About Conservation of Energy In Plasma Transitions
Interesting questions. Let me give it a try. I doubt that the pressure would change very much in the case of excited atoms since this is a gas. The pressure depends more upon the number of atoms than their size. The second question probably depends upon whether or not the gas is heated up by the ionization. If kinetic energy is given to the gas atoms, they will move faster and the pressure would rise. The third question is complex. If work was done by the gas during the process before the gas neutralized, then the pressure would be less along with the temperature. I consider each atom independent to a great degree in space. The electrons would behave the same as before unless they are in different motion. If this is true the Doppler effect will show up. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 1:48 pm Subject: [Vo]:Question About Conservation of Energy In Plasma Transitions Let's say you've got a xenon atom. It likes to absorb energy and emit photons. You know, xenon lamps etc. OK, so lets ask a real simple question: When a tube filled with xenon gas has some energy pumped into it and the electrons go to higher orbitals -- yes this happens for a very short period of time before photons are emitted but let's talk about just the short period of time. The diameter of the atoms presumably increases. Does the gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets say that the energy is sufficient to actually strip the electrons away and form an ionized gas for a short interval. Does the ionized gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets talk about really-simple magnetic confinement (say a magnetic mirror type bottle) used in conjunction with a solid tube so that the non-conducting (because non-ionized) gas phase is confined by the solid tube and the conducting (because) ionized gas phase is confined by the magnetic bottle: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. However, what if the plasma has expanded during the high pressure phase, ie: done work against the magnetic confinement (like, oh, I don't know, generating an electrical power spike in a conductor associated with the magnetic field). Does that mean the free electrons of the plasma no longer want to return to their ground states and give up exactly the same amount of energy that they would have in the absence of having done work? If not, where did the electrons go and where do the xenon atoms get electrons to substitute for them?
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
In reply to MarkI-ZeroPoint's message of Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:50:51 -0700: Hi, [snip] Robin stated, Other factors to take into consideration are that a neutral black hole would oscillate back and forth through the planet Funny, that's exactly how electrons behave in my physical model... with the electron 'hole' being the other half of the electron. So whatever is oscillating is constantly traversing the nucleus, only it is traveling so fast that it is only 'inside' the nuclear volume for a very short time (10^-30s). Robin, do you have a ref for your above statement? -Mark Not necessary. If you drop a brick it will land on your toes. ;) If you drop a black hole it's density is such that nothing will stop it. It will keep on going, building in speed and mass till it reaches the core of the planet, then start slowing down as it comes out the other side. Eventually it will come to a stop, then start falling back again. Well that's what I originally thought. ;) However it's actually quite a bit more complicated. Everything on the surface has angular momentum due to the rotation of the planet. Conservation of angular momentum means that as the radius decreases, the tangential momentum must increase. Since the latter comprises both mass and velocity, there will be some velocity increase in the West to East direction, which may mean that eventually it may go into an orbit at some depth. This is complicated by the fact that the mass changes over time, both due to Hawking radiation, and due to the fact that gremlins get hungrier as they grow, so whether the mass increases or decreases depends on which process dominates. Neither process has a constant rate, as both rates depend on the momentary size of the gremlin. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
Subject was Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration At 10:43 PM 8/17/2012, James Bowery wrote: Isn't 23 years of torture enough? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Several experts in calorimetry expressed doubts about the Celani demonstration at ICCF17. Mike McKubre in particular feels that it is impossible to judge whether it really produced heat or not, because the method is poor. He does not say he is sure there was no heat; he simply does not know. Others feel that he exaggerates the problem. It is crucial that people who accept cold fusion, who are knowledgeable about it, take on skeptical roles. Otherwise those roles will be taken by people who are *not* acceptors. One of the major skeptical arguments is that the cold fusion community naively accepts every report, that we are believers, and the pseudoskeptics only use this term for us. We are believers, as if cold fusion was our religion, as if our belief in it is impervious to evidence, as if we are not properly skeptical. It's inherently insulting, but there is also a truth to it. We are often reluctant to point out the most obvious of errors. Some *really poor* research has been published, even under peer review. Calorimetric error is possible. Not all cold fusion reports are free of calorimetric error. Mike is pointing to certain problems in the calorimetry. This may or may not be relevant to Celani's research goals. Generally, at this point, researchers are not out to prove cold fusion. The Celani demonstrations should not be taken as if they were that. They are presentations of current work, which can then be seen in operation. Heat at the levels reported, and with the calorimetric technique used, are not going to convince a serious skeptic. But that's not the purpose. Celani is investigating the behavior of materials, and for his purpose, every experiment is a control, with respect to variations in material processing. He doesn't need to scale up, and he doesn't need to know absolute heat production. He only needs to know *relative* heat production, and for that purpose, absolute calorimetric error is not so important. When he's found a reasonable optimization of his processes, *then*, before he attempts to scale up or to finalize his work, he'd want absolute accuracy in his calorimetry. There is a constant drumbeat in this field to demonstrate massive power generation. While some will prefer to experiment and take their chances, hoping to win the lottery and find the magic combination, others will explore the parameter space, seeking optimal operating points, and seeking other evidence that might eventually lead to understanding the nuts and bolts of whatever effect is being demonstrated. Such as ash. If Celani can get a few weeks of operation, even at the relatively low power levels he's claiming, he should be able to see transmutations, enough to identify the ash, and possibly the fuel. (Actually, 10 - 15 W is not really low. 1 watt in this field, if well above noise, is quite decent. And it's spectacular if correlated with helium, which probably requires the 1 watt to be continued for a decent time.) We should ignore the marching orders from those who want cheap energy (or proof that this isn't all bogus). None of that is about the science, which should take precedence, if we are sane. Attempts to scale up cold fusion, to make it reliable, have burned through as much as a few hundred million dollars of investment (anyone got a decent figure on that?). Much of that may have been wasted, being directed toward a goal of more and better, instead of what the hell is this? Obviously, more and better would be desirable. But it puts the cart before the horse. It is about time that we respect the recommendations of both U.S. DoE reports for basic research, before demanding massive investment in cold fusion. A fraction of what has been spent already on cold fusion could be enough, and it would be a tiny fraction of what is being spent on hot fusion, which we *know* is unlikely to produce practical power for a very long time, if ever. (Current estimates seem to be by 2050.) See the current Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fusion_poweroldid=508022868 From the lede: Fusion powered electricity generation was initially believed to be readily achievable, as fission power had been. However, the extreme requirements for continuous reactions and plasma containment led to projections being extended by several decades. In 2010, more than 60 years after the first attempts, commercial power production was still believed to be unlikely before 2050.[3] [3] http://web.archive.org/web/20061107220145/http://www.iter.org/Future-beyond.htm (That's horrible sourcing for something in the lede of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has definitely
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:31:41 -0400: Hi, [snip] A *gravitational singularity* or *spacetime singularity* is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitationalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitationalfield become infinite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_Riemannian_manifoldsof spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. I suspect that the only singularity is the center point of the black hole. (Like the center of a circle.) However I don't think that there is actually anything in the center. I think that all matter is converted to EM radiation by the time it reaches the Schwarzschild radius, where the curvature of space time is so strong that the EM radiation basically just goes around in a circle. My guess is that there is only vacuum inside the Schwarzschild radius. Black holes are hollow. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Can Fields Induce Other Fields in Vacuum?
On 08/16/2012 01:19 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: FYI: this forwarded to me by a colleague... -Mark Trouble with Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory: Can Fields Induce Other Fields in Vacuum? http://vixra.org/pdf/1206.0083v5.pdf Abstract The purpose of this article is to point out that Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, believed by the majority of scientists a fundamental theory of physics, is in fact built on an unsupported assumption and on a faulty method of theoretical investigation. The result is that the whole theory cannot be considered reliable, nor its conclusions accurate descriptions of reality. In this work it is called into question whether radio waves (and light) travelling in vacuum, are indeed composed of mutually inducing electric and magnetic fields. The idea of mutually inducing electric and magnetic fields is, without a doubt, one of the cleverest stupid things found in modern science. We don't want to abandon it so soon... it has the big advantage that it solves the problem of the light carrying medium. It reminds me of the feats of the Münchhausen's baron, who raises himself up by pulling from the strings of his shoes.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
That's the final stage of his theory, which has a resonant requirement. The longest wavlength for a cavity with 1nm is 2nm or ~500eV. This is wavelength has a strong absorption in matter in general because it ressonates with the inner orbitals of atoms. So, it is a highly ionizing radiation which would soon heat and melt the surroundings. But that is not the only problem, since even if this wavelength is easily absorbed, a cavity that small is essentially transparent to it. So, there is no cavity. Besides, I cannot see how that could exclude fractofusion. The breakdown potential for a subnanometer is extremely small to consider an acceleration to thousands of KeV. Consider that the electronics industry spends billions just to keep the off state current leak bellow 0.01% of the On state, and that is one of the main problems. Intel went 3D transistors to increase the gate area so that leaks could be avoided. But let's say current could be contained, vacuum has an electric strength of up to 20-40MV/m, depending on the shape of the electrodes. That means that a 1nm breakdown would require 20-40mV of potential, hardly enough to accelerate any ion to fusion. The use of Mica could improve that to 0.1eV, so a separation of 0.1mm could indeed cause fusion. Now, I was calling for a pressure mechanism, that would require far less energy than what was stated above. Considering the size of what I had in mind (I didn't write yet), it would operate more or less like an enzyme. But, that doesn't matter anymore, right? 2012/8/19 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com Storms thinks that cracks create cavities of a necessary resonant size. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
At 12:51 AM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Good calorimetry is difficult, but comparisons are not. Wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate two parallel implementations, one with an unprocessed CONSTANTAN wire and no H2, one with a processed wire and H2, and measure the difference using the same approach? Why do I even have to pose this question? Questions like this are what cause the rest of the world to doubt the whole discipline. How hard is this? What am I missing? Help me out here. Jeff, the Celani experiment is not designed to show the rest of the world that cold fusion is real. He is investigating a technique, and for that purpose, if he keeps his apparatus the same, he doesn't need an absolute control. Rather, he sees the effect on the results from shifts in materials. His *experimental series* provides the control he needs. You are correct. He's comparing results. Here, he was only showing one experiment. His calorimetry was approximate. If he keeps the same conditions, his comparisons should be sound, and I'd assume that the full series would include something not active. That will check his baseline. He only demonstrated one experiment out of a series, and that not under full operating conditions. This is little more than show and tell. Demonstrations don't convince anyone who is truly skeptical, but Celani's full experimental reports might be better for someone on the fence. If you want better study, take a look at SRI P13/P14. That series, done in 1991, I think, shows definitive XP, with matched hydrogen control; the full series shows the variability of results. The same cathode, same apparent conditions, two times the same current excursion was run, no heat. The same with the hydrogen control. Third time's a charm. The third excursion is what was published widely, it's in the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review paper. Without knowing about the first two excursions, though -- which weren't mentioned in the review paper -- you'd just think, well, XP tracking input current. This is unusual? Yes, it is *very* unusual. The hydrogen control is in series, measured with the same calorimetric method, showing no excess heat, only an increase in noise with increased current (as would be expected). The deuterium cell takes off. The first two runs show that the calorimetry is working. The shutdown also shows that the calorimetry is working. The whole series shows that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect depends on uncontrolled variables. Even the *same cathode* did not produce the same effects. By the way, SRI monitored the D/PD and H/Pd ratios. It was over 90% for all excursions. The difference is not due to loading difference. Storms, now, would explain this by differences in the surface cracking of the cathodes. Not controlled. It is absolutely no wonder that many researchers found nothing, and finding nothing proved nothing other than ... it's possible to do the experiment, as it was defined, and find nothing. In science, we look for explanations that cover *all* the work that has been done. What came to be known, eventually, covers, quite well, the early negative replications. From what we know, they were to be expected. Lewis, for example, didn't have over 80% loading, a necessity with his approach. He may or may not have seen some actual XP, that issue is covered by the correspondence between Noninski and Nature. And then there came heat/helium, and knocked the brains out of the skeptical responses. Except, for those who were pseudoskeptics instead of real skeptics, believing in themselves more than science, they haven't noticed yet it takes a while for the beast to go down, since it doesn't depend on higher brain functions it only operates on primitive survival instincts.
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
At 02:02 AM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: So I understood, but then the flip side: why the questions about the calorimetry? Again, what am I missing? I've answered before but these responses are delayed. What you are missing, Jeff, is that Celani's work isn't conclusive, by any means. It's investigational, and he is comparing results between his own experiments. What was demonstrated wasn't even one of these, not really, though maybe he'll be able to use the data. Some enthusiastic supporters of cold fusion exaggerate the importance of such demonstrations. Don't get me wrong. I support cold fusion research. Celani's work is actually quite important, but not for convincing skeptics, or demonstrating absolute, confident calorimetry. That any heat at all is apparent is of interest to most of us. It's an indication that NiH reactions are possible, one more among many. Of course I'd love to see better calorimetry! But it is not Celani's purpose, which is investigating the materials and their responses under test. He only needs *relative* calorimetry for that. And he doesn't need two experimental setups for that. He just runs them all the same and compares outcomes, serially. You may want to see a simultaneous control, but you aren't paying his bills!
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
Thanks. Very much appreciated (both of them). Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 02:02 AM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: So I understood, but then the flip side: why the questions about the calorimetry? Again, what am I missing? I've answered before but these responses are delayed. What you are missing, Jeff, is that Celani's work isn't conclusive, by any means. It's investigational, and he is comparing results between his own experiments. What was demonstrated wasn't even one of these, not really, though maybe he'll be able to use the data. Some enthusiastic supporters of cold fusion exaggerate the importance of such demonstrations. Don't get me wrong. I support cold fusion research. Celani's work is actually quite important, but not for convincing skeptics, or demonstrating absolute, confident calorimetry. That any heat at all is apparent is of interest to most of us. It's an indication that NiH reactions are possible, one more among many. Of course I'd love to see better calorimetry! But it is not Celani's purpose, which is investigating the materials and their responses under test. He only needs *relative* calorimetry for that. And he doesn't need two experimental setups for that. He just runs them all the same and compares outcomes, serially. You may want to see a simultaneous control, but you aren't paying his bills!
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
I have always wondered exactly what happens to matter that is heading directly toward the singularity. Doesn't time for the matter slow down due to the intense gravity to such a degree that it appears to stop in mid path at the horizon from our observation perspective? Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 6:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous? In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:31:41 -0400: Hi, [snip] A *gravitational singularity* or *spacetime singularity* is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitationalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitationalfield become infinite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_Riemannian_manifoldsof spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. I suspect that the only singularity is the center point of the black hole. (Like the center of a circle.) However I don't think that there is actually anything in the center. I think that all matter is converted to EM radiation by the time it reaches the Schwarzschild radius, where the curvature of space time is so strong that the EM radiation basically just goes around in a circle. My guess is that there is only vacuum inside the Schwarzschild radius. Black holes are hollow. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Question About Conservation of Energy In Plasma Transitions
No likely to be true. Both paths should have the same yields. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 4:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Question About Conservation of Energy In Plasma Transitions What I don’t understand is if this is possible: 1 - 4He + 4He → 8Be(-93.7kEV) 2 - Be8 - 2He4(18.074 MeV) If this reaction is possible, and if this is what recombination is, where does the 18 MeV come from. Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. This is a bad assumption. If two helium atoms fuse about 18 MeV is produced along with a positron and a neutrino. I do not understand this reaction. Maybe someone can help. http://everything2.com/title/proton-proton+chain In the PPIII stellar fusion reaction, Steps 1 through 3 can be replaced by the first half of the triple alpha stellar fusion process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process Explicitly 1 - 4He + 4He → 8Be(-93.7kEV) 2 – 8Be + proton → B8 (0.135 MeV) - other possible reactions involver electron and hydrogen capture. 3 - B8 - Be8 + positron + neutrino (followed by spontaneous decay...) 4 - Be8 - 2He4(18.074 MeV) We start out with two helium atoms and we end up with two helium atoms but about 19MeV of additional energy is produced. Where does this energy come from? J. Rohner says that he stops the triple alpha stellar fusion process before a third helium atom is fused. He calls this process recombination as the Be8 fissions back to two helium atoms. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Let's say you've got a xenon atom. It likes to absorb energy and emit photons. You know, xenon lamps etc. OK, so lets ask a real simple question: When a tube filled with xenon gas has some energy pumped into it and the electrons go to higher orbitals -- yes this happens for a very short period of time before photons are emitted but let's talk about just the short period of time. The diameter of the atoms presumably increases. Does the gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets say that the energy is sufficient to actually strip the electrons away and form an ionized gas for a short interval. Does the ionized gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets talk about really-simple magnetic confinement (say a magnetic mirror type bottle) used in conjunction with a solid tube so that the non-conducting (because non-ionized) gas phase is confined by the solid tube and the conducting (because) ionized gas phase is confined by the magnetic bottle: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. However, what if the plasma has expanded during the high pressure phase, ie: done work against the magnetic confinement (like, oh, I don't know, generating an electrical power spike in a conductor associated with the magnetic field). Does that mean the free electrons of the plasma no longer want to return to their ground states and give up exactly the same amount of energy that they would have in the absence of having done work? If not, where did the electrons go and where do the xenon atoms get electrons to substitute for them?
Re: [Vo]:Can Fields Induce Other Fields in Vacuum?
I think the concept of one field generating the other in space as the wave advances is defective. In my way of thinking it is not possible to stop a wave in motion and perform a test of this nature. You would need to travel faster than light to get to an observation point that allows this. I prefer to measure the field parameters at a point removed from the moving charge that initiates the wave. Then I am able to measure the effect of the electric field and magnetic field as it passes by at the speed of light. There is no reason to assume one vector generates the other. I came to the realization years ago that there is actually only one parameter defining both fields. Charge and its movement is the key. Current is proportional to the first derivative of the spatial position of charge with respect to time(charge velocity). Radiation is related to the charge acceleration. The magnetic field is determined by the currents in space and time. Everything electromagnetic originates with charge. Dave -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 6:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Can Fields Induce Other Fields in Vacuum? On 08/16/2012 01:19 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: FYI: this forwarded to me by a colleague… -Mark Trouble with Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Theory: Can Fields Induce Other Fields in Vacuum? http://vixra.org/pdf/1206.0083v5.pdf Abstract The purpose of this article is to point out that Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, believed by the majority of scientists a fundamental theory of physics, is in fact built on an unsupported assumption and on a faulty method of theoretical investigation. The result is that the whole theory cannot be considered reliable, nor its conclusions accurate descriptions of reality. In this work it is called into question whether radio waves (and light) travelling in vacuum, are indeed composed of mutually inducing electric and magnetic fields. The idea of mutually inducing electric and magnetic fields is,without a doubt, one of the cleverest stupid things found in modernscience. We don't want to abandon it so soon... it has the bigadvantage that it solves the problem of the light carrying medium. It reminds me of the feats of the Münchhausen's baron, who raises himself up by pulling from the strings of his shoes.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
At 10:14 AM 8/18/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Aug 17, 2012, at 18:28, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Widom Larsen postulate that the neutrons are produced when a proton captures an electron. The process is endothermic (energy must be supplied or it will not occur) so the neutrons initially have extremely low energy (cold). As a result they are nearly stationary and don't leave the material. Also the reaction cross-section with nearby nuclei is high leading to a cascade of nuclear effects that product the observed energy. I believe the usual nuetron activation would lead to some short-lived isotopes. But what is seen are shifts to stable isotopes, which is a detail that would need to be accounted for. There are low levels of tritium, which is radioactive, but this appears to be the sole exception and can possibly be accounted for in other ways. W-L theory proposes ordinary neutron activation. The theory is, ah, unusual in that they propose the formation of neutrons on the surface of metal hydrides, through a heavy electron patch that supposedly exists there. These heavy electrons can, supposedly, more readily combine with protons to form neutrons, and they assert that these neutrons will be very low momentum, which they call Ultra-Low-Momentum. Maybe. However, from there, it gets weirder. They propose a series of reactions, instead of just one, because to get to the known main product, helium, they must have more than one neutron activation *in sequence.* They don't look at the rate issues. That is, if N neutrons are being formed, to get to He-4, they would need to activate He-3, which is absent. The most common and probably most available reactant would be deuterium. So they add a neutron, they would get tritium as the main product. That does not work, because tritium is observed at levels far below those of helium. So they have to have a different first reaction. I think they choose lithium, which is only present in some types of cells. Actually, at the moment, I forget how they do it. Someone read their papers and explain, okay? What I recall is that they need at least two reactions to happen sequentially, but the neutrons formed would not preferentially react with the product of the first reaction, so we'd expect the first reaction product to stick around, and the second product to be rare. And then there is the problem that neutrons are promiscuous. They would react with almost everything in sight. I think some materials have higher capture cross-sections, so that's a complication. In any case, some of the activations would produce gamma decays, and the gammas are not observed. So to explain that, they need to invent *another* entirely new process, a second miracle, beyond the first one of neutron formation. They postulate that the heavy electron layer that creates the neutrons also functions as an extremely effective gamma shield. That has military implications, all of its own. They managed to patent it, but ... the USPTO does not validate patents, normally, unless they appear to be *impossible.* (Cold fusion is allegedly impossible, and the UPSTO appears to be still following that line, though it is seriously out of touch with the scientific journals. There is a place for a bit of lobbying) I don't see that Larsen has *ever* addressed the serious problems with W-L theory. Nor has Mr. Krivit asked him the hard questions and reported his answers. Years ago, Krivit did report Larsen's response when Richard Garwin asked him about evidence for the gamma shield. Propietary, was Larsen's response. I've called W-L theory a hoax. That's because it pretends to present evidence that falls apart under examination. It's doing damage. If W-L theory is real, it's a bit like Rossi being real. We can't tell from the public evidence and independent confirmation. The recent theory presented from Brillouin is a bit different. He does hypothesis neutron formation, but in lattice sites, claiming a different principle, which I'll leave to the physicists to dismantle or accept. Once formed, the neutron would indeed be ULM, it seems, because of how it's formed. It would then preferentially react with hydrogen (i.e., a proton or deuteron). If what was formed was a dineutron, and if the dineutron is stable for a nanosecond or so, what we would see woudl be helium-4 as a product, most of the time. (with deuterium loading). It's a bit more reasonable. Missing: how is the 24 MeV resulting reaction energy dissipated? Again, I'll leave this to the physicists. It seems a little closer to me to plausibility than W-L theory.
[Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
Mark, I absolutely agree that they will want to fall to earth, i just do not agree that micro black holes will necessarily zoom directly thru the earth. At 23 micrograms, about like a grain of sand, the smallest predicted mass of one at a planck length, I more pictured it acting like ball lighting while it is in the air. In addition to the acceleration due to gravity, i envisioned it might be also be subject to thermal currents and magnetic fields causing it to drift some on its way down. I envisioned it might get lodged in matter such as rocks and metal lattices in the ground. Over time it should make its way to the center, triggering local fusion and fission reactions in local matter on its way to the core, safetly away from life. I think the only safe place for this stuff might be the center of the earth. 1/3 of the heat at the center of the earth is thought to be from radiation of some kind. Jupiter and Saturn are also thought to have something generating excess heat at their core. On Sunday, August 19, 2012, wrote: In reply to MarkI-ZeroPoint's message of Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:50:51 -0700: Hi, [snip] Robin stated, Other factors to take into consideration are that a neutral black hole would oscillate back and forth through the planet Funny, that's exactly how electrons behave in my physical model... with the electron 'hole' being the other half of the electron. So whatever is oscillating is constantly traversing the nucleus, only it is traveling so fast that it is only 'inside' the nuclear volume for a very short time (10^-30s). Robin, do you have a ref for your above statement? -Mark Not necessary. If you drop a brick it will land on your toes. ;) If you drop a black hole it's density is such that nothing will stop it. It will keep on going, building in speed and mass till it reaches the core of the planet, then start slowing down as it comes out the other side. Eventually it will come to a stop, then start falling back again. Well that's what I originally thought. ;) However it's actually quite a bit more complicated. Everything on the surface has angular momentum due to the rotation of the planet. Conservation of angular momentum means that as the radius decreases, the tangential momentum must increase. Since the latter comprises both mass and velocity, there will be some velocity increase in the West to East direction, which may mean that eventually it may go into an orbit at some depth. This is complicated by the fact that the mass changes over time, both due to Hawking radiation, and due to the fact that gremlins get hungrier as they grow, so whether the mass increases or decreases depends on which process dominates. Neither process has a constant rate, as both rates depend on the momentary size of the gremlin. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wakes Up -- Took Note of Linear Generator with 2 Noble Gas Engine Heads
Where is the reference to noble gas engine technology? On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Mint Candy m.ca...@gmx.us wrote: Sweet Progress: Rossi must be following Vortex. Love, Candy ny . min Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:57:45 -0700 Wise: Andrea Rossi August 19th, 2012 at 2:16 AM Dear ivan: We have decided, so far, to limit our sales to the 1 MW plants becausethis dimension is the one that gives to Leonardo Corp. the maximumeconomic momentum, considering our present structure. We foresee,anyway, to lower, in future, the power of the products for sale. Inthis monent there is also a pending situation regarding theIntellectual Property and there are around clowns ( think to the onesthat claim to have been able to copy us) that have just mock ups (emptyboxes) which they will inmmediately fill up with our technology as soonas cheap E-Cats will be in the market: this has been their strategyfrom the beginning. Marketing only the 1 MW plants we can select ourCustomers. When the domestic Ecats will be certified the numbers willbe enough big to allow us a big scale production, so that our priceswill be enough low to defeat the competition even after they will beable to copy us. About the chance of our competitors to reach us andcompete with us, without copying us, from what I saw recently, they allare lightyears far from being able to produce something able to producereal energy: they are making paper aeroplanes, we are manufacturingBoeing 707. With all respect. Warm Regards, A.R. Quickly
[Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
2.5MJ/automobile battery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
1 hour at 107 horsepower http://www.plasmerg.com/_files/Cert.pdf
2.6MJ/battery;1hour;107hp?battery http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/
([{2.6 * (mega*joule)} / battery]^-1 * [1 * hour]) * (107 * horsepower) ?
battery
= 110.47821 battery
Re: [Vo]:Question About Conservation of Energy In Plasma Transitions
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 4:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I doubt that the pressure would change very much in the case of excited atoms since this is a gas. The pressure depends more upon the number of atoms than their size. While true, that is different from the statement I doubt that any change in the pressure would be due to any change in the size of the atoms. The second question probably depends upon whether or not the gas is heated up by the ionization. If kinetic energy is given to the gas atoms, they will move faster and the pressure would rise. Again, that is different from the statement, The ionized gas pressure would not change due to ionization per se. The third question is complex. If work was done by the gas during the process before the gas neutralized, then the pressure would be less along with the temperature. Then consider work done compressing another gas reservoir. Certainly we can expect that the ionized gas chamber would decrease in temperature and pressure as it increased in volume while doing work against the other gas reservoir. However, this doesn't do us any good because when the electrons fall back to their ground state and neutralize the positive ions, the energy originally input to ionize is re-emitted as photons of, presumably(?) the same total energy as that originally required to ionize the gas atoms.
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:09:07 PM Subject: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine? 2.5MJ/automobile battery 1 hour at 107 horsepower = 110.47821 battery Hah! It was actually 1 hour 6 minutes .. so add another 10 batteries. While you're at it, calculate the diameter of the 3-wire extension cord needed to power it from the mains!
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
Do you expect to see 107 HP for an hour with a automobile sized battery? I have a larger one that powers a small johnboat and it is lucky to run for a couple of hours at much less power. You need a special deep discharge type to have a chance of any serious power over time from what I have seen. Also, I recall they disconnected the batteries after the engine was running. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 7:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine? From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:09:07 PM Subject: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine? 2.5MJ/automobile battery 1 hour at 107 horsepower = 110.47821 battery Hah! It was actually 1 hour 6 minutes .. so add another 10 batteries. While you're at it, calculate the diameter of the 3-wire extension cord needed to power it from the mains!
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 10:55 AM 8/18/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: I think the invention was real, powerful and very uncertain and unreliable, prone to failures, malfunctions and explosions, nature of the beast. No. Papp demonstrations did not normally fail. That's a myth. The demonstration that Feynman interrupted was working, quite well. That if failed was pretty obviously the result of removing power from the control system. Papp could not have anticipated that (though he was certainly careless to design the control system not to be fail-safe against power failure.) The only other explosion I know of was a demonstration planned as an explosion. Please get it straight. (I'm new to this Papp engine stuff, so there could be plenty I don't know.) As I've written, I see two possibilities, based on what I've learned so far: 1. Papp was a fraud and others have continued the fraud. 2. This thing is real, there is a real Papp Effect, and we will see an energy revolution, and likely soon. I don't see mistake or artifact as reasonable here. The demonstrations were too much power for too long. There is ample testimony to that, and I'm getting some by private mail that is very credible; unfortunately, I won't ask anyone to count on that, precisely because I can't disclose who it is from. All I will do is to assert, on my own authority, that there are experts who have believed that there is something real about the engine, that fraud is unlikely. But I have to keep it alive as a possibility, until there is full, open, independent verification, and there isn't. Not yet. Do *not* invest in a Papp Engine, unless you know what you are doing and have been able to independently verify operation. Anyone asking for money for Papp Engines, at this point, is quite likely a scammer. The Inteligentry popper, the experimental unit, might be a reasonable investment for someone who wants to check out the science, but, note, there has been *no public demonstration* of this popper. You could lose your money, be prepared for that. I'd recommend that people interested in checking out the popper coordinate with each other. It could save a lot of money. I'm willing to coordinate this, being disinterested financially, so people can write me off-list if they wish; I'll keep identities confidential unless disclosure is explicitly allowed. I am *not* a believer in the Papp Engine, my position is that there is so much secrecy and paranoia and rancor around it that we can't know what is going on. I *do* trust the scientific method, and know that impossibility proofs are not a part of it. Ever.
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com\ Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:46:13 PM While you're at it, calculate the diameter of the 3-wire extension cord needed to power it from the mains! 107 hp = 78.7 KW / 120 V = 655 Amps https://wiktel.com/standards/ampacit.htm Highest gauge listed = = 260A (in insulated 3-wire cable) http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm = Diameter 0.46 (1.6mm). Allowing for insulation, that makes a bundle of about 1 inch diameter. To carry 655 amps you need 2.5 of them -- round up to 3 So, Feynman would have needed to yank out 3 1-inch diameter extension cords.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 11:03 AM 8/18/2012, Axil Axil wrote: This is a certificate of an independent and legally witnessed test of the Papp engine by two independent witnesses in 1983. http://www.plasmerg.com/_files/Cert.pdfhttp://www.plasmerg.com/_files/Cert.pdf Right. Stuff like this is why I bifurcate this into fraud/real. There is more than this particular test. Much more. But there is no independent verification. That test was not an independent verification. Period. It was a test run under Papp's supervision.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 12:15 PM 8/18/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent More importantly, as I have already stated in this forum, it vitiates the patent in all countries. Moreover in all countries but the US, which is first to invent rather than first to file, it opens the door to a valid patent filing in the present by those who decipher the prior patent. In other words, the noble gas engine has never been in the public domain because its patent disclosure did not, in fact, disclose in such a way that those skilled in the art (what art?) could reproduce the benefit of the invention. Whether or not this is so depends on the exact language of the patent. Probably so. But I'd check with a lawyer before depending on new patentability. John Rohner, or one of his companies, which he might or might not still control -- this whole thing is too complicated for the average bear -- obtained a new patent fairly recently, which might or might not cover current work. I haven't read it. Not planning to. Beware of investing in the Papp Engine at this point. The whole situation is a tangled mess. If interested, building a popper would be in order. If Bob Rohner has any sense, he'll encourage people to buy a popper from him, since he's actually demonstrated it. He could easily provide plans for it, with a license to build one, for cheap, and at a decent profit. John's going to eat his lunch if he doesn't. Unless John doesn't really have a popper and is just bluffing See what I mean about mess? Don't risk your life savings just because someone talks a good line. Even if they have a running engine, it could turn out that they don't own the technology, they will lose their shirts, and you along with them. Be careful!
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
At 01:27 PM 8/18/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hello Akira, I can't see any bad news. If I'm correct, Miley's team reports a much more robust reaction than previously seen, along with a variety of extremely anomalous transmutations. Where is the report? Miley's reports of transmutations are not new. The slide show that was at the head of this thread is very shallow, mostly large print red statements with little data. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS%26PROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf So what is pagnucco's statement based on? I've no difficulty at all accepting a wide variety of transmutations. Any fusion reaction is likely to lead to at least some of these. The neutron report is far outside the norm, however. I'm waiting to see a more complete report than that slide show! It is practically unintelligible.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Just more UNCERTAINTY On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 12:15 PM 8/18/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto: a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent More importantly, as I have already stated in this forum, it vitiates the patent in all countries. Moreover in all countries but the US, which is first to invent rather than first to file, it opens the door to a valid patent filing in the present by those who decipher the prior patent. In other words, the noble gas engine has never been in the public domain because its patent disclosure did not, in fact, disclose in such a way that those skilled in the art (what art?) could reproduce the benefit of the invention. Whether or not this is so depends on the exact language of the patent. Probably so. But I'd check with a lawyer before depending on new patentability. John Rohner, or one of his companies, which he might or might not still control -- this whole thing is too complicated for the average bear -- obtained a new patent fairly recently, which might or might not cover current work. I haven't read it. Not planning to. Beware of investing in the Papp Engine at this point. The whole situation is a tangled mess. If interested, building a popper would be in order. If Bob Rohner has any sense, he'll encourage people to buy a popper from him, since he's actually demonstrated it. He could easily provide plans for it, with a license to build one, for cheap, and at a decent profit. John's going to eat his lunch if he doesn't. Unless John doesn't really have a popper and is just bluffing See what I mean about mess? Don't risk your life savings just because someone talks a good line. Even if they have a running engine, it could turn out that they don't own the technology, they will lose their shirts, and you along with them. Be careful!
Re: [Vo]:Rossi FIRST?? 1MW : gas-fired COP = 3 minimum 6 maximum
At 02:36 PM 8/18/2012, Axil Axil wrote: The efficiency of a gas electric generator is about 33%. If the Cop of a Rossi reactor is 3, that means that the Rossi plant is about the same cost wise as a straight up gas burner. When gas is used to fire the Rossi reactor, the overall efficiency of that reactor goes up a few times but it is not very good at all. This is why Rossi must go to gas for the heat he needs to keep his reactor activated. The upcoming battle of the LENR systems in the market place is going to be one of efficiency and in this regard, Rossi does not look very well positioned. Cheers:Axil Uh, Axil, this would be for heating. Gas can be very efficient for heating. The other Rossi reactors used electricity to heat the device, so Rossi is cutting out the middleman, so to speak, for that part of the process. (i.e., electricity may be made from gas, with 33% efficiency, using your figure.) Make sense, unlike a lot that comes out of Rossi.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi FIRST?? 1MW : gas-fired COP = 3 minimum 6 maximum
At 04:39 PM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: I think the point of (b) in the original message was that today's posting by Rossi talks about a 1MW plant using the future tense. Which seems to conflict with some prior statements by Rossi. Yes, I noticed that. Of course, he can always say it was just a keyboarding error. Hanging on each word from Rossi is a formula for massive distraction from real life.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
At 05:36 PM 8/18/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Oh yes he is! His influence is seen in most of the new experiments reported at ICCF17. Most of the authors give him credit. If it turns out his results are fake it will ironic, to say the least. I've seen massive deception play a major role in history, and even for the good, in an entirely different field. Yes, ironic.
Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova
At 07:30 PM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: I am curious about the weak and erratic comment. What about evidence like this - http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdfhttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf This doesn't look that hard to reproduce - the main problem is access to the spectrometer-equipped SEM, which is not the sort of power tool found in the average garage. ;-) I've no idea how common these devices are. Anyway, have their been attempts/failures to reproduce this kind of work? Famous last words in cold fusion: That doesn't look that hard to reproduce. As to the SEM, so equipped, Dr. Storms has one in his basement. Nifty, eh? He does do analyses for others, sometimes, if someone has a real need, and especially if they are doing work of interest to him. I'd encourage anyone in that position to contact him.
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
At 07:39 PM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Thanks for writing this, I was also scratching my head trying to figure out whether Godes and W-L were saying the same thing or not. Minor comment: I think you typo'd 782MeV when meaning 782KeV. Yes. Thanks. They are not saying the same thing, though there is a small resemblance. Certainly Godes is not confirming W-L.
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
Shirley, you're joking Mr. Feynmann! Feynmann: Stop calling me Shirley. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com\ Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:46:13 PM While you're at it, calculate the diameter of the 3-wire extension cord needed to power it from the mains! 107 hp = 78.7 KW / 120 V = 655 Amps https://wiktel.com/standards/ampacit.htm Highest gauge listed = = 260A (in insulated 3-wire cable) http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm = Diameter 0.46 (1.6mm). Allowing for insulation, that makes a bundle of about 1 inch diameter. To carry 655 amps you need 2.5 of them -- round up to 3 So, Feynman would have needed to yank out 3 1-inch diameter extension cords.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/ My Visit to Inteligentry Even the usually supportive Sterling D. Allan of Pure Energy Systems News is asking hard questions. The entire area is in a herding cat’s type of predicament. The Rohner business plan is something that an engineer would come up with. If the Papp engine does work, the business plan might not. Cheers:Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:15 PM 8/18/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto: a...@lomaxdesign.coma**b...@lomaxdesign.com a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent More importantly, as I have already stated in this forum, it vitiates the patent in all countries. Moreover in all countries but the US, which is first to invent rather than first to file, it opens the door to a valid patent filing in the present by those who decipher the prior patent. In other words, the noble gas engine has never been in the public domain because its patent disclosure did not, in fact, disclose in such a way that those skilled in the art (what art?) could reproduce the benefit of the invention. Whether or not this is so depends on the exact language of the patent. Probably so. But I'd check with a lawyer before depending on new patentability. John Rohner, or one of his companies, which he might or might not still control -- this whole thing is too complicated for the average bear -- obtained a new patent fairly recently, which might or might not cover current work. I haven't read it. Not planning to. Beware of investing in the Papp Engine at this point. The whole situation is a tangled mess. If interested, building a popper would be in order. If Bob Rohner has any sense, he'll encourage people to buy a popper from him, since he's actually demonstrated it. He could easily provide plans for it, with a license to build one, for cheap, and at a decent profit. John's going to eat his lunch if he doesn't. Unless John doesn't really have a popper and is just bluffing See what I mean about mess? Don't risk your life savings just because someone talks a good line. Even if they have a running engine, it could turn out that they don't own the technology, they will lose their shirts, and you along with them. Be careful!
Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova
Famous last words... That's a fair comment. Let me try it a different way. If you look at the Dash paper at ICCF, they appear to give quite specific directions about preparation of the material. This in contrast to Celani, Schwartz, Rossi, and Godes, who do not give such directions, as best I read the publications available to me (and not confined solely from ICCF-17). For example, from the Dash paper: Ti foil (Alfa Aesar stock #43676, 99.99%, metals basis) and Pd foil (Alfa Aesar stock #11514, 99.9%, metals basis) were cold rolled from 0.5 mm thickness to about 0.3 mm thickness. Strips (10 x 30 mm2) were cut from the cold rolled foils to be used as cathodes during electrolysis. The electrolyte consisted of 1.5M H2SO4 (Fisher) in D2O (Aldrich). [ . . . elided . . . ] A cell with a cathode made from cold rolled Ti was attached to the Pt cathode wire. A control cell was identical except that its cathode was a Pt foil. Each cell had a Pt foil anode and the same H2SO4/D2O electrolyte. Recrystallization was achieved by heating the cold rolled foils for 40 minutes at an average temperature of ~700°C with a Bunsen burner, after which a recrystallized Ti foil was crimped to the Pt cathode wire. Electrolysis was performed with constant cathode current density of about 0.3 A/cm2. Cell voltage and temperature were monitored with an automated data acquisition system. [ http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf ] Now I didn't mean to imply that repro was easy. But to me, this looks like a science paper, i.e. like they are attempting to make it possible for others to replicate their work by providing a sufficiently detailed description of their procedures. Unlike some of the others I named, I find it likely that they would assist in efforts to replicate the work by providing clarifications (I haven't contacted them, although coincidentally I live in the same metropolitan area.) Has anyone tried? Not tried? Tried and failed? I'd be tempted to try it myself, it doesn't look horribly expensive (measuring instrumentation aside). But my total lack of academic credibility would mean I'd be unable to influence the larger discussion in a meaningful way. Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 07:30 PM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: I am curious about the weak and erratic comment. What about evidence like this - http://newenergytimes.com/v2/**conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-** 17-Dash-Effect%20of%**20Recrystallization-Paper.pdfhttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf **http://newenergytimes.com/v2/**conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-** 17-Dash-Effect%20of%**20Recrystallization-Paper.pdfhttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf This doesn't look that hard to reproduce - the main problem is access to the spectrometer-equipped SEM, which is not the sort of power tool found in the average garage. ;-) I've no idea how common these devices are. Anyway, have their been attempts/failures to reproduce this kind of work? Famous last words in cold fusion: That doesn't look that hard to reproduce. As to the SEM, so equipped, Dr. Storms has one in his basement. Nifty, eh? He does do analyses for others, sometimes, if someone has a real need, and especially if they are doing work of interest to him. I'd encourage anyone in that position to contact him.
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Subject was Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration At 10:43 PM 8/17/2012, James Bowery wrote: Isn't 23 years of torture enough? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto: jedrothw...@gmail.com**jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Several experts in calorimetry expressed doubts about the Celani demonstration at ICCF17. Mike McKubre in particular feels that it is impossible to judge whether it really produced heat or not, because the method is poor. He does not say he is sure there was no heat; he simply does not know. Others feel that he exaggerates the problem. But that's not the purpose. Celani is investigating the behavior of materials, and for his purpose, every experiment is a control, with respect to variations in material processing. He doesn't need to scale up, and he doesn't need to know absolute heat production. He only needs to know *relative* heat production, and for that purpose, absolute calorimetric error is not so important. When he's found a reasonable optimization of his processes, *then*, before he attempts to scale up or to finalize his work, he'd want absolute accuracy in his calorimetry. This is incommensurate with McCubre's criticism which is that he doesn't know if there is heat being produced. If Celani has a bunch of systems that are more or less below unity, he's not getting the information he seeks. On the other hand, expanding on my terse exasperation: The calorimetry problem should, for the purposes of cold fusion, have been solved by now -- not just technically but economically. There have been enough experiments done that the instrumentation design should not only be relatively standardized but inexpensive. This is even worse. A century? For perspective, the section has: In early 2012, NIF director Mike Dunne expected the laser system to generate fusion with net energy gain by the end of 2012.[56] But we should _expect_ a lack of progress in a technosocialist field. There are ZERO incentives to succeed (as long as you aren't _politically_ embarrassed by something like cold fusion) and every incentive to expand the length and scope of the development effort.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Le Aug 19, 2012 à 6:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com a écrit : http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/ Is it normal to mount the electronics on the engine block like that? Even though it not understood to heat up like a normal engine, I understand that it still gets hot. I do not imagine that it is necessary to place the controllers on the engine like that; or am I mistaken? Eric
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 5:29:35 PM So, Feynman would have needed to yank out 3 1-inch diameter extension cords. None of the reports indicate whether the Papp engine was running under load or not.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
I do not believe this engine will ever make it to market. When it is
working as designed it is destroying itself, much in the way that a wire
that shows the anomalous heat effect is considered a successful result just
before the wire becomes embrittled and breaks apart.
On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Eric Walker wrote:
Le Aug 19, 2012 à 6:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'janap...@gmail.com');
a écrit :
http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/
Is it normal to mount the electronics on the engine block like that? Even
though it not understood to heat up like a normal engine, I understand that
it still gets hot. I do not imagine that it is necessary to place the
controllers on the engine like that; or am I mistaken?
Eric
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The calorimetry problem should, for the purposes of cold fusion, have been solved by now -- not just technically but economically. The calorimetry problem was solved in 1848. Every single person associated with this field, including me, knows exactly how to build a calorimeter for this experiment. There are problems, however: 1. This particular experiment calls for a large calorimeter that can maintain the cell internal temperature at 120 deg C or more. 2. Celani does not happen to have such a calorimeter, and he does not have the time or the money to build one. If you would like to contribute, say, $50,000 and couple of months of labor to Celani, he will then have a suitable calorimeter. We would all be pleased to see that. If you are not willing to assist him then I think you refrain from kibitzing. Like all cold fusion researchers, he is doing the best he can with no resources, working against tremendous opposition. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Abd, Firstly, cheer up a bit. Way too much hostility. The proceedings paper is at: Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ProceedXX.pdf They sound quite confident that they can reproduce the effect at will now - and they regard the intensity of neutron generation as a milestone. The transmutations may indicate D-D fusions along with other complex multibody reactions. Unless they badly misinterpreted all of their instrument readings, more detail and replications should follow. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 01:27 PM 8/18/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hello Akira, I can't see any bad news. If I'm correct, Miley's team reports a much more robust reaction than previously seen, along with a variety of extremely anomalous transmutations. Where is the report? Miley's reports of transmutations are not new. The slide show that was at the head of this thread is very shallow, mostly large print red statements with little data. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS%26PROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf So what is pagnucco's statement based on? I've no difficulty at all accepting a wide variety of transmutations. Any fusion reaction is likely to lead to at least some of these. The neutron report is far outside the norm, however. I'm waiting to see a more complete report than that slide show! It is practically unintelligible.
Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova
At 07:43 PM 8/18/2012, Eric Walker wrote: I am not in a position to assert an opinion here, but the impression I get is that the evidence for transmutations to stable isotopes is solid; see Ed Storms's book for a good discussion. An important difficulty, however, is that the amounts detected cannot explain the levels of excess power observed. (For those wondering whether a shift to unstable isotopes is also possible under certain circumstances, I'm not sure, although I have only seen this reported in two instances by two related groups.) This is commonly said, and it's important to understand the full context. Yes, with transmutations, other than to helium, the amounts detected, so far, cannot explain the levels of excess power seen. Helium does that. The transmutations are found at a much lower rate than would be necessary to explain the observed power, without the helium production. Transmutations can sometimes be observed at very low rates of formation. Complicating this, the analytical methods used can detect extraordinarily small quantities of some isotopes, and ruling out contamination can be difficult. Nevertheless, it can be done. The steps necessary are not always taken. One remarkable thing I've found. There is often little attempt to correlate transmutations with excess heat. If the transmutations are from a side reaction or secondary reaction, we'd expect correlation, at least a loose one. What we normally see are results from a *single experiment*, not results correlated across many experiments. That correlation would normally be done by showing the range of heat/isotope. Or helium/isotope. As well, it's entirely possible that transmutations are related to the H/D ratio, at least in FPHE experiments.
Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova
Indeed, small traces of transmutations (e.g. Pd—Ag, Ti—Vd and Ni—Cu) may be explained by neutron production in light element fusion reactions. Afterall Fleischmann thought that he saw some neutrons, although there were no where near enough of them to be statistically significant or what is expected from hot fusion reactions. Just an idea. Therefore it would be important to look for helium and tritium also from Ni-H cells. Where Celani's cell is perhaps the most advanced. Celani should send his cell for someone who has mass spectrosopy available. I would say that even Curious could find the Helium from Celani's cell. This test could be done as early as 2016, when there is a launch window open to Mars. It would cost perhaps 20 billion (distributed for ten year span) but it is still cheap compared to the scientific value of such experiment. Just another wild idea. —Jouni On Aug 20, 2012 6:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 07:43 PM 8/18/2012, Eric Walker wrote: I am not in a position to assert an opinion here, but the impression I get is that the evidence for transmutations to stable isotopes is solid; see Ed Storms's book for a good discussion. An important difficulty, however, is that the amounts detected cannot explain the levels of excess power observed. (For those wondering whether a shift to unstable isotopes is also possible under certain circumstances, I'm not sure, although I have only seen this reported in two instances by two related groups.) This is commonly said, and it's important to understand the full context. Yes, with transmutations, other than to helium, the amounts detected, so far, cannot explain the levels of excess power seen. Helium does that. The transmutations are found at a much lower rate than would be necessary to explain the observed power, without the helium production. Transmutations can sometimes be observed at very low rates of formation. Complicating this, the analytical methods used can detect extraordinarily small quantities of some isotopes, and ruling out contamination can be difficult. Nevertheless, it can be done. The steps necessary are not always taken. One remarkable thing I've found. There is often little attempt to correlate transmutations with excess heat. If the transmutations are from a side reaction or secondary reaction, we'd expect correlation, at least a loose one. What we normally see are results from a *single experiment*, not results correlated across many experiments. That correlation would normally be done by showing the range of heat/isotope. Or helium/isotope. As well, it's entirely possible that transmutations are related to the H/D ratio, at least in FPHE experiments.
Re: [Vo]:McKubre clarifies his view of the Celani demonstration
I don't think Mike is likely to make any announcement soon He said enough on the stage at TeslaTech As to the videos, John may not know that YouTube is obligated to obey a DCMA take-down notice, but that he can file a counter-claim and presumably YouTube will then restore the videos. Filing a counterclaim if you don't have the right is hazardous to your legal health! John may prefer to play the victim, and I certainly don't know who is right. John's own ravings have convinced me to not believe a word he says without verification, and some of that rubs off on Bob Rohner as well. Mutually Assured Destruction. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 12:16 PM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: I would love to hear Mike's real thoughts on the the Papp engine and whether he thinks it is an interesting /unexplained phenomenon or we are close to a commercial product. Its unfortunate that the Rohner boys can't play nice--Bob just shut down all of his brother John's YouTube videos.. Bob: http://www.rohnermachine.com/ John: http://plasmerg.com/ - Brad On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I sent Mike a copy of the message I posted here, along with Robert Lynn's analysis. He responded: It would be fair to say that I have some concerns and am working with others to see if these can be resolved. I also think that the core of the experiment is a very clever idea and look forward to seeing more quantitative data. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wakes Up
I haven't verified that Rossi actually wrote this. If he did, That is lamer than anything I've ever seen from Rossi. He may be completely losing it. So to speak, the clowns have empty boxes, they will fill with our small e-cats. Therefore we won't sell small e-cats. That'll show them! Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 2:56 PM, ny@aol.com wrote: Wise: Andrea Rossi August 19th, 2012 at 2:16 AM Dear ivan: We have decided, so far, to limit our sales to the 1 MW plants because this dimension is the one that gives to Leonardo Corp. the maximum economic momentum, considering our present structure. We foresee, anyway, to lower, in future, the power of the products for sale. In this monent there is also a pending situation regarding the Intellectual Property and there are around clowns ( think to the ones that claim to have been able to copy us) that have just mock ups (empty boxes) which they will inmmediately fill up with our technology as soon as cheap E-Cats will be in the market: this has been their strategy from the beginning. Marketing only the 1 MW plants we can select our Customers. When the domestic Ecats will be certified the numbers will be enough big to allow us a big scale production, so that our prices will be enough low to defeat the competition even after they will be able to copy us. About the chance of our competitors to reach us and compete with us, without copying us, from what I saw recently, they all are lightyears far from being able to produce something able to produce real energy: they are making paper aeroplanes, we are manufacturing Boeing 707. With all respect. Warm Regards, A.R. Quickly
Re: [Vo]:McKubre clarifies his view of the Celani demonstration
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: I don't think Mike is likely to make any announcement soon He said enough on the stage at TeslaTech That's too bad for us, but understandable. I listened to a shorter version of the TeslaTech video once more to better understand what McKubre was saying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS1MsymF8hc At 5:27 minutes, McKubre says that he was intrigued by the Papp engine and set up a challenge. The challenge, presumably to replicators, was to demonstrate that more than 10 times the electrical energy being put into the system was being produced. McKubre and coworkers set up the test and showed those involved what to do. He then explains that the challenge was successfully met, presumably by Bob Rohner. Later it becomes apparent that Bob Rohner's group does not have a final product yet, and I think Jones is partly correct that I have misrepresented things when I said that McKubre endorses Rohner's work. It is also clear, however, from McKubre's description of the (Rohner) test, from his comments on the history of the Papp engine and from his description of an interview of an eyewitness to the Feynmann accident that he believes there is probably something to the Papp engine and that it is a worthy line of exploration. Eric
Re: [Vo]:We need to be skeptical, and why: the future of Cold fusion
Is there a design for this $50,000, 2 man-month high temperature calorimeter? It sounds like a design could be created by a large number of people. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The calorimetry problem should, for the purposes of cold fusion, have been solved by now -- not just technically but economically. The calorimetry problem was solved in 1848. Every single person associated with this field, including me, knows exactly how to build a calorimeter for this experiment. There are problems, however: 1. This particular experiment calls for a large calorimeter that can maintain the cell internal temperature at 120 deg C or more. 2. Celani does not happen to have such a calorimeter, and he does not have the time or the money to build one. If you would like to contribute, say, $50,000 and couple of months of labor to Celani, he will then have a suitable calorimeter. We would all be pleased to see that. If you are not willing to assist him then I think you refrain from kibitzing. Like all cold fusion researchers, he is doing the best he can with no resources, working against tremendous opposition. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Question About Conservation of Energy In Plasma Transitions
I think the Be-8 ground state decay to 2 He-4 is at about the 93 KeV figure. Not the higher figure. Where did you get 18 MeV? My understanding is that 4D - Be-8 + about 47.6 MeV, which is initially as a nuclear excited state. Some of that may be emitted as a series of photons. If the Be-8 nucleus lasts long enough, it will decay to the ground state, leaving only the 93 KeV to show up as dual He-4 kinetic energy. If the initial fusion was within a BEC, there may also be 4 electrons to share the energy. It's a stretch, but this is a rough idea of how TSC fusion might meet the Hagelstein limit for charged particle radiation in the FPHE. I'm not saying I believe it! Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What I don’t understand is if this is possible: 1 - 4He + 4He → 8Be(-93.7kEV) 2 - Be8 - 2He4(18.074 MeV) If this reaction is possible, and if this is what recombination is, where does the 18 MeV come from. Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. This is a bad assumption. If two helium atoms fuse about 18 MeV is produced along with a positron and a neutrino. I do not understand this reaction. Maybe someone can help. http://everything2.com/title/proton-proton+chain In the PPIII stellar fusion reaction, Steps 1 through 3 can be replaced by the first half of the triple alpha stellar fusion process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process Explicitly 1 - 4He + 4He → 8Be(-93.7kEV) 2 – 8Be + proton → B8 (0.135 MeV) - other possible reactions involver electron and hydrogen capture. 3 - B8 - Be8 + positron + neutrino (followed by spontaneous decay...) 4 - Be8 - 2He4(18.074 MeV) We start out with two helium atoms and we end up with two helium atoms but about 19MeV of additional energy is produced. Where does this energy come from? J. Rohner says that he stops the triple alpha stellar fusion process before a third helium atom is fused. He calls this process recombination as the Be8 fissions back to two helium atoms. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Let's say you've got a xenon atom. It likes to absorb energy and emit photons. You know, xenon lamps etc. OK, so lets ask a real simple question: When a tube filled with xenon gas has some energy pumped into it and the electrons go to higher orbitals -- yes this happens for a very short period of time before photons are emitted but let's talk about just the short period of time. The diameter of the atoms presumably increases. Does the gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets say that the energy is sufficient to actually strip the electrons away and form an ionized gas for a short interval. Does the ionized gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets talk about really-simple magnetic confinement (say a magnetic mirror type bottle) used in conjunction with a solid tube so that the non-conducting (because non-ionized) gas phase is confined by the solid tube and the conducting (because) ionized gas phase is confined by the magnetic bottle: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. However, what if the plasma has expanded during the high pressure phase, ie: done work against the magnetic confinement (like, oh, I don't know, generating an electrical power spike in a conductor associated with the magnetic field). Does that mean the free electrons of the plasma no longer want to return to their ground states and give up exactly the same amount of energy that they would have in the absence of having done work? If not, where did the electrons go and where do the xenon atoms get electrons to substitute for them?
Re: [Vo]:Question About Conservation of Energy In Plasma Transitions
I sited this link in my poat, you must have missed it. http://everything2.com/title/proton-proton+chain See the PPIII section at the end of list. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: I think the Be-8 ground state decay to 2 He-4 is at about the 93 KeV figure. Not the higher figure. Where did you get 18 MeV? My understanding is that 4D - Be-8 + about 47.6 MeV, which is initially as a nuclear excited state. Some of that may be emitted as a series of photons. If the Be-8 nucleus lasts long enough, it will decay to the ground state, leaving only the 93 KeV to show up as dual He-4 kinetic energy. If the initial fusion was within a BEC, there may also be 4 electrons to share the energy. It's a stretch, but this is a rough idea of how TSC fusion might meet the Hagelstein limit for charged particle radiation in the FPHE. I'm not saying I believe it! Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What I don’t understand is if this is possible: 1 - 4He + 4He → 8Be(-93.7kEV) 2 - Be8 - 2He4(18.074 MeV) If this reaction is possible, and if this is what recombination is, where does the 18 MeV come from. Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. This is a bad assumption. If two helium atoms fuse about 18 MeV is produced along with a positron and a neutrino. I do not understand this reaction. Maybe someone can help. http://everything2.com/title/proton-proton+chain In the PPIII stellar fusion reaction, Steps 1 through 3 can be replaced by the first half of the triple alpha stellar fusion process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process Explicitly 1 - 4He + 4He → 8Be(-93.7kEV) 2 – 8Be + proton → B8 (0.135 MeV) - other possible reactions involver electron and hydrogen capture. 3 - B8 - Be8 + positron + neutrino (followed by spontaneous decay...) 4 - Be8 - 2He4(18.074 MeV) We start out with two helium atoms and we end up with two helium atoms but about 19MeV of additional energy is produced. Where does this energy come from? J. Rohner says that he stops the triple alpha stellar fusion process before a third helium atom is fused. He calls this process recombination as the Be8 fissions back to two helium atoms. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Let's say you've got a xenon atom. It likes to absorb energy and emit photons. You know, xenon lamps etc. OK, so lets ask a real simple question: When a tube filled with xenon gas has some energy pumped into it and the electrons go to higher orbitals -- yes this happens for a very short period of time before photons are emitted but let's talk about just the short period of time. The diameter of the atoms presumably increases. Does the gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets say that the energy is sufficient to actually strip the electrons away and form an ionized gas for a short interval. Does the ionized gas pressure increase during that interval? Now lets talk about really-simple magnetic confinement (say a magnetic mirror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_mirror type bottle) used in conjunction with a solid tube so that the non-conducting (because non-ionized) gas phase is confined by the solid tube and the conducting (because) ionized gas phase is confined by the magnetic bottle: When the electrons fall back into their ground states we can comfortably assert that the photons emitted will equal the energy input. However, what if the plasma has expanded during the high pressure phase, ie: done work against the magnetic confinement (like, oh, I don't know, generating an electrical power spike in a conductor associated with the magnetic field). Does that mean the free electrons of the plasma no longer want to return to their ground states and give up exactly the same amount of energy that they would have in the absence of having done work? If not, where did the electrons go and where do the xenon atoms get electrons to substitute for them?
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
The engines, by report, don't run hot. Warm, at most. Not a problem for electronics. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 9:36 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Le Aug 19, 2012 à 6:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com a écrit : http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/ Is it normal to mount the electronics on the engine block like that? Even though it not understood to heat up like a normal engine, I understand that it still gets hot. I do not imagine that it is necessary to place the controllers on the engine like that; or am I mistaken? Eric
Re: [Vo]:McKubre clarifies his view of the Celani demonstration
I wish we had more guys looking over these Papp engines to determine whether or not they are real. The concept is interesting, and of course there are problems that need resolution before quantity production could be considered. I have been thinking of the behavior of a crossed field device of this nature and think there may be something there, but it is quite complex. Review the operation of magnetrons if you want to see some similar characteristics. I am still attempting to calculate the electromagnetic power pulse applied to the piston, since it apparently does not operate as a heat engine. At them moment it is not clear how the nobel gas ion mixture supplies the reaction momentum to the piston motion. One day someone will figue this puppy out. Dave -Original Message- From: ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre clarifies his view of the Celani demonstration I would love to hear Mike's real thoughts on the the Papp engine and whether he thinks it is an interesting /unexplained phenomenon or we are close to a commercial product. Its unfortunate that the Rohner boys can't play nice--Bob just shut down all of his brother John's YouTube videos.. Bob: http://www.rohnermachine.com/ John: http://plasmerg.com/ - Brad On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I sent Mike a copy of the message I posted here, along with Robert Lynn's analysis. He responded: It would be fair to say that I have some concerns and am working with others to see if these can be resolved. I also think that the core of the experiment is a very clever idea and look forward to seeing more quantitative data. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
In reply to Alan Fletcher's message of Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:08:43 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?) Note that the paper uses THz frequencies, which are not readily obtained using an oscillator, but are par for the course when it comes to heat (as Jones is fond of pointing out). In short, temperature control may be important. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
That PESN report gives me practically no confidence. So they've sold the poppers before they are ready to ship any? Has anyone seen an Inteligentry popper function? They are announcing the availability of engines at an upcoming show, but the mfrs. haven't seen a running engine? The most brilliant idea was that they don't want to look competent, to throw off the competition. Who was it said that? It's late and I don't want to reread it. 100 poppers already sold? While it's believable, I have to remember the source! Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/ My Visit to Inteligentry Even the usually supportive Sterling D. Allan of Pure Energy Systems News is asking hard questions. The entire area is in a herding cat’s type of predicament. The Rohner business plan is something that an engineer would come up with. If the Papp engine does work, the busin ess plan might not. Cheers:Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 12:15 PM 8/18/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent More importantly, as I have already stated in this forum, it vitiates the patent in all countries. Moreover in all countries but the US, which is first to invent rather than first to file, it opens the door to a valid patent filing in the present by those who decipher the prior patent. In other words, the noble gas engine has never been in the public domain because its patent disclosure did not, in fact, disclose in such a way that those skilled in the art (what art?) could reproduce the benefit of the invention. Whether or not this is so depends on the exact language of the patent. Probably so. But I'd check with a lawyer before depending on new patentability. John Rohner, or one of his companies, which he might or might not still control -- this whole thing is too complicated for the average bear -- obtained a new patent fairly recently, which might or might not cover current work. I haven't read it. Not planning to. Beware of investing in the Papp Engine at this point. The whole situation is a tangled mess. If interested, building a popper would be in order. If Bob Rohner has any sense, he'll encourage people to buy a popper from him, since he's actually demonstrated it. He could easily provide plans for it, with a license to build one, for cheap, and at a decent profit. John's going to eat his lunch if he doesn't. Unless John doesn't really have a popper and is just bluffing See what I mean about mess? Don't risk your life savings just because someone talks a good line. Even if they have a running engine, it could turn out that they don't own the technology, they will lose their shirts, and you along with them. Be careful!
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
That paper certainly didn't cheer me up. Indeed it made me very sad. Myonic fusion? Yes, I know what they meant. The paper reads like it was written with Voice Recognition software, without editing, more or less off-the-cuff, by someone who knows a lot but is utterly disorganized. The neutron experiment isn't clearly described in this paper. It's apparently in another conference paper Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 11:07 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Abd, Firstly, cheer up a bit. Way too much hostility. The proceedings paper is at: Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ProceedXX.pdf They sound quite confident that they can reproduce the effect at will now - and they regard the intensity of neutron generation as a milestone. The transmutations may indicate D-D fusions along with other complex multibody reactions. Unless they badly misinterpreted all of their instrument readings, more detail and replications should follow. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 01:27 PM 8/18/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hello Akira, I can't see any bad news. If I'm correct, Miley's team reports a much more robust reaction than previously seen, along with a variety of extremely anomalous transmutations. Where is the report? Miley's reports of transmutations are not new. The slide show that was at the head of this thread is very shallow, mostly large print red statements with little data. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS%26PROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf So what is pagnucco's statement based on? I've no difficulty at all accepting a wide variety of transmutations. Any fusion reaction is likely to lead to at least some of these. The neutron report is far outside the norm, however. I'm waiting to see a more complete report than that slide show! It is practically unintelligible.
