Re: [Vo]:anti-matter production

[Axil Axil]

Rossi said that the SL reactor produces photons in the 100 to 200 nm range.
This is the photon energy that resolves when Hawking's radiation is
extracted from the vacuum. Those photons have negative frequency.

As I have repeated a few time: SK energy does not come from transmutation
but from Hawking radiation. Rossi has found how to minimize transmutation
and produce energy by extracting photons from the vacuum. Photons extracted
from the vacuum have negative frequency. This means that they are in the UV
or EUV energy frequency range.


See:

Testing Hawking radiation in laboratory black hole analogues

https://phys.org/news/2019-...


In their study, Leonhardt and his colleagues made light out of positive and
negative frequencies. Their positive-frequency light was infrared, while
the *negative-frequency one was ultraviolet*. The researchers detected both
of them and then compared them with Hawking's theory.




On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:09 PM  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Rossi seems to think the Compton wavelength of the electron is important,
> and
> Proton21 uses 600 keV electrons.
> Perhaps 511 keV is the minimal energy needed by an electron to convert a
> proton
> into an anti-proton (pair -production??).
>
> If so then the theoretical maximum energy gain per reaction is a factor of
> 2 x (mass of proton) / (mass of electron) = 3672.
>
> That ought to be enough to cover conversion inefficiencies. ;)
>
> It also has the great advantage that a star ship wouldn't need to carry
> around
> massive amounts of dangerous anti-matter, but rather could make what they
> need
> on-the-fly from ordinary matter. In fact they may even be able to harvest
> hydrogen from interstellar space to use as fuel, ensuring that the initial
> fuel
> load would only need to be sufficient to get them up to a speed where they
> can
> collect it as fast as they use it.
>
> Combine this with a reactionless drive, and one has a near light speed
> capability to reach the stars. :)
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>

[Vo]:anti-matter production

[mixent]

Hi,

Rossi seems to think the Compton wavelength of the electron is important, and
Proton21 uses 600 keV electrons.
Perhaps 511 keV is the minimal energy needed by an electron to convert a proton
into an anti-proton (pair -production??).

If so then the theoretical maximum energy gain per reaction is a factor of 
2 x (mass of proton) / (mass of electron) = 3672.

That ought to be enough to cover conversion inefficiencies. ;)

It also has the great advantage that a star ship wouldn't need to carry around
massive amounts of dangerous anti-matter, but rather could make what they need
on-the-fly from ordinary matter. In fact they may even be able to harvest
hydrogen from interstellar space to use as fuel, ensuring that the initial fuel
load would only need to be sufficient to get them up to a speed where they can
collect it as fast as they use it. 

Combine this with a reactionless drive, and one has a near light speed
capability to reach the stars. :)

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:R Godes comments on LENR

[Axil Axil]

It is beginning to dawn on people that Cold Fusion does not exist.


Andrea Rossi
August 23, 2019 at 4:25 AM
Fox:
LENR is a so wide definition, that it is not a definition and it makes a
lot of con-fusion. Since this term is commonly used to connotate “cold
fusion”, I prefer to say we are out of it, also to be honest with the
recent development of our R Isotopic changes do not imply fusion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
August 22, 2019 at 2:11 PM
Giovanni:
No. I arrived to think that cold fusion does not exist.
At this point of our theoretical and technological development, after 20
years of hard work, we think that cold fusion does not exist. I am sorry,
but I feel us lightyears far from the LENR community, to which we,
actually, never belonged. My effect depends on atom’s potentials that have
nothing to do with cold fusion or LENR. This, by the way, is clearly put in
evidence in my paper here:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_anf_long_range_
particle_interactions.


---

Gerard McEk
August 24, 2019 at 6:56 AM
Dear Andrea,
Now you have come to the insight that Cold Fusion nor LENR are the cause of
energy production in the E-Cat SK, I and many others wonder where the
energy comes from.

Does it mean that you believe the energy, generated in the E-Cat SK, is not
from nuclear origin where ‘E=mc’ plays the main role?

I really look forward to your answer.
May your final tests confirm your ideas about the Rossi effect!
Kind regards, Gerard

Andrea Rossi
August 24, 2019 at 8:10 AM
Gerard McEk:
Yes.
Thank you for your kind attention to our work.
In this very moment we are starting the final series of tests in the USA.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:56 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

> There are a few  interesting comment from  Robert Godes here:
>
>
>
> http://sjbyrnes.com/cf/the-case-against-cold-fusion-experiments/
>
>
>
> It is the last comment in a long thread and you may not want to read it
> all…
>
>
>
> Godes seldom posts to News Groups or blogs, so  it is unclear where he
> stands on some major points – and it would be nice to know that  he is
> capable of defending his claims in the context of Internet armchair
> experts... a tough audience even when not particularly skeptical. He may be
> prepping for something, who knows?
>
>
>
> Thankfully,  there are a number of nuggets in this post worth thinking
> about, but too many extraneous issues going-on… relating mostly to
> [reportedly dishonest] skeptics. Otherwise there is  one detail which
> strikes me as most important in the Big Picture, even though most people
> gloss over it.
>
>
>
> Why? Well  it can be interpreted as debasing or marginalizing the P/F
> effect ... ironically  proving that the thermal anomaly exists while
> disproving the original details of why it exists.
>
>
>
> Quote: “H is not a control for D. Mike McKubre​ was shocked when I showed
> him my results and told him that they were obtained using distilled water.
> By controlling the underlying physics, it is possible to run the reaction
> in Pd using ordinary hydrogen…”
>
>
>
> In the extreme, Godes could be saying that since both H and D are equally
> active in palladium electrolysis, for producing anomalous heat - there is
> unlikely to be “nuclear fusion” going on at all. Of course, others have
> said something similar - but he is closer to being “man of the hour” and a
> successful fun-raiser to boot.
>
>
>
> Is Robert Godes positioning to “burst on the scene” as the miracle man of
> alternative energy?
>
>
>
> Let’s hope so. But to be clear – this would not mean that the gainful
> thermal reaction of loaded palladium hydride is not nuclear – it seems to
>  definitely be “nuclear” but it may not be  predominantly nuclear fusion.
>
>
>
> Someone, maybe it was Meulenberg has shown that even a dense hydrogen or
> Mills effect is deriving energy from the nucleus. Which is to say that mass
> is being converted into energy somehow - but the underlying reaction is not
> for the most part actual fusion of deuterium  into helium. It can be argued
> that reaction always produces strong gamma radiation.
>
>
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]:R Godes comments on LENR

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Am 24.08.19 um 22:56 schrieb JonesBeene:
In the extreme, Godes could be saying that since both H and D are 
equally active in palladium electrolysis, for producing anomalous heat 
- *t**here is unlikely to be “nuclear fusion” going on at all*. Of 
course, others have said something similar - but he is closer to being 
“man of the hour” and a successful fun-raiser to boot. 



This is obvious nonsense. Our high signal/noise measurements show that 
in LENR magnetic energy in the range of some 10keV are transferred from 
fusing D*-D* to an other nucleus.


Mills with his H*-H* reaction is obviously not doing fusion. But others 
doing LENR with H*-H* see 2.1 MeV output/H.


And one more thing: This transfer of some 10keV is temperature dependent!

J.W.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

[Vo]:R Godes comments on LENR

[JonesBeene]

There are a few  interesting comment from  Robert Godes here:

http://sjbyrnes.com/cf/the-case-against-cold-fusion-experiments/

It is the last comment in a long thread and you may not want to read it all…

Godes seldom posts to News Groups or blogs, so  it is unclear where he stands 
on some major points – and it would be nice to know that  he is capable of 
defending his claims in the context of Internet armchair experts... a tough 
audience even when not particularly skeptical. He may be prepping for 
something, who knows?

Thankfully,  there are a number of nuggets in this post worth thinking about, 
but too many extraneous issues going-on… relating mostly to [reportedly 
dishonest] skeptics. Otherwise there is  one detail which strikes me as most 
important in the Big Picture, even though most people gloss over it. 

 Why? Well  it can be interpreted as debasing or marginalizing the P/F effect 
... ironically  proving that the thermal anomaly exists while disproving the 
original details of why it exists.

Quote: “H is not a control for D. Mike McKubre​ was shocked when I showed him 
my results and told him that they were obtained using distilled water. By 
controlling the underlying physics, it is possible to run the reaction in Pd 
using ordinary hydrogen…” 

In the extreme, Godes could be saying that since both H and D are equally 
active in palladium electrolysis, for producing anomalous heat - there is 
unlikely to be “nuclear fusion” going on at all. Of course, others have said 
something similar - but he is closer to being “man of the hour” and a 
successful fun-raiser to boot. 

Is Robert Godes positioning to “burst on the scene” as the miracle man of 
alternative energy? 

Let’s hope so. But to be clear – this would not mean that the gainful thermal 
reaction of loaded palladium hydride is not nuclear – it seems to  definitely 
be “nuclear” but it may not be  predominantly nuclear fusion. 

Someone, maybe it was Meulenberg has shown that even a dense hydrogen or Mills 
effect is deriving energy from the nucleus. Which is to say that mass is being 
converted into energy somehow - but the underlying reaction is not for the most 
part actual fusion of deuterium  into helium. It can be argued that reaction 
always produces strong gamma radiation. 

Jones