from:"pagnucco"

Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
dogmatists ironic.

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011

Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

Daniel, you may be correct.
I do not know.

However, both Akito Takahashi and Hideo Kozima may regard W-L viable.
See --  Second Cold Fusion Theorist Cites Widom-Larsen Theory
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/23/second-cold-fusion-theorist-cites-widom-larsen-theory/

Takahashi appears to be one of the founding members of the Cold Fusion
Energy, Inc. (CFEI) consortium - along with Hagelstein, McKubre,
Storms,...
See --  http://www.cfeis.com/

Daniel Rocha wrote:
 I started with stage 2 of negation and went to 1...

 2011/12/30 pagnu...@htdconnect.com

 Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
 dogmatists ironic.


 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011

 Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
 Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?







 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

Again, I am not sure.

Looking at the slide on p.105 at JCF12 Abstracts at--
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2011/JCF12/JCF12ExtendedAbstracts.pdf
-- I see the reaction 59Ni + e- 59Co + v + Q
I cannot read Japanese, but this looks like a heavy electron capture,
but that is just a guess. Pardon if I misinterpreted.

Daniel Rocha wrote:
No, Takashi used the weak force in the sense of finding a cross section
for the reaction electron proton, but he laid a very harsh criticism on WL
theory and make it clear the difference between the approaches. In fact,
he didn't take WL seriously.

2011/12/30 pagnu...@htdconnect.com

Daniel, you may be correct.
I do not know.

However, both Akito Takahashi and Hideo Kozima may regard W-L viable.
See -- Second Cold Fusion Theorist Cites Widom-Larsen Theory

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/23/second-cold-fusion-theorist-cites-widom-larsen-theory/

Takahashi appears to be one of the founding members of the Cold Fusion
Energy, Inc. (CFEI) consortium - along with Hagelstein, McKubre,
Storms,...
See -- http://www.cfeis.com/

Daniel Rocha wrote:
I started with stage 2 of negation and went to 1...

2011/12/30 pagnu...@htdconnect.com

Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
dogmatists ironic.

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011

Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?

--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Randy Hekman for Senate blog

Larsen has a website with slide presentations at:
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen

He provides a lot of hypotheses which could be tested for what seems
modest expense.  Most would involve looking for transmutations - which
would be a lot less contentious than calorimetry results.

Many have claimed presence of anomalous transmutations already.
Why people spend time arguing the subject puzzles me.
Why not just run a few more experiments, in financially/academically
disinterested labs, to confirm or reject W-L theory?

Akira Shirakawa wrote:
 On 2011-12-30 22:05, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 See:

 http://randyhekman2012.com/_blog/Blog/post/Energy_America's_Next_'Space_Race'_/

  From the link above:

 [...] It took a man I met at a conference in France five years ago to
 discover the answer.  Lewis Larsen, now CEO of Lattice Energy LLC in
 Chicago

 Maybe it's not the right thread for these questions, but I was
 wondering: does Lattice Energy LLC have a website? Besides theories, do
 Widom and Larsen have prototypes, working products or a roadmap for
 future projects/plans? I was thinking yes, since they are so certain
 that theirs is the correct theory for LENR and that they get mentioned
 often. But is it actually the case?

 Cheers,
 S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Forbes: The Year of Cold Fusion


I agree, Jed.

Forbes has deep enough pockets to send Mark Gibbs, along with a
technically sophisticated companion, to a lab claiming CF or LENR
anomalous energy or transmutation evidence.  He should publicly issue a
challenge to CF/LENR  researchers to allow him to witness and monitor
their experiments.  I would be surprised if no one accepted it.  That
would make a great story.


Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Inconclusive blather. See:

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/12/31/2012-the-year-of-cold-fusion/

Re: [Vo]:Forbes: The Year of Cold Fusion

Yes, but watching paint dry is ultra-exciting if the payoff is trillion$.

Gibbs appears to be happy writing Forbes filler-pieces.
He should get more creative.

Anyone who has CF/LENR tech that they are confident in would certainly be
happy to have it showcased in Forbes.  It would be Win-Win-Win.
The lab would get invaluable publicity.
Forbes would have a story that goes viral.
Gibbs would become a star journalist.

Jed Rothwell wrote:
 pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:


 Forbes has deep enough pockets to send Mark Gibbs, along with a
 technically sophisticated companion, to a lab claiming CF or LENR
 anomalous energy or transmutation evidence.  He should publicly issue a
 challenge to CF/LENR  researchers to allow him to witness and monitor
 their experiments.


 Sure. They could visit U. Missouri, SRI or U. Osaka, for example. The
 technically sophisticated companion can read their papers beforehand to
 confirm he or she can understand them. They would have to call ahead to be
 sure an experiment is actually in progress. Most of the time nothing is
 happening. They are getting ready to do a test, or evaluating the previous
 test.

 It is not all that exciting. Unless you understand calorimetry, it does
 not
 look like anything. As Ed Storms says, it is like watching paint dry.

 - Jed

[Vo]:New 'Cold Fusion Now' Video - E. Storms on ..Metals that Work


Courtesy of coldfusionnow.wordpress.com

Edmund Storms on The Nuclear Active Environment and Metals That Work

coldfusionnow.wordpress.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SorcxYf8VYg

He discusses Rossi, F-P, Piantelli, Ni-H, Pd-H

Title: WordPress.com







	
		
			

	
		
			

	
		
			

			
		

		
			

	
		New post on Cold Fusion Now	


	

			
		

		
			

	
		
			
	
		
			

			
			
Edmund Storms on The Nuclear Active Environment and Metals thatWork
by Ruby Carat
			
		
	


			Dr. Edmund Storms, cold fusion energy scientist and author of The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, spoke to Cold Fusion Now last summer.  
This segment has Dr. Storms discussing the idea of the Nuclear Active Environment, an idea that consolidates elements of the cold fusion/LENR/LANR/CANR reaction, through both geometry and processes, in an attempt to describe the reaction theoretically.


Cold Fusion Now 2012!
Related Videos with Edmund Storms On:
Federal Support and the 'Rossi Effect' October 28, 2011
Biological Transmutation October 27, 2011
Transition October 24, 2011
Related Posts
Edmund Storms on the Rossi device: "There will be a stampede." Ca$h Flow interview with James Martinez March 4, 2011
Status of Cold Fusion 2010 by Ruby Carat November 19, 2010

	

	
		Ruby Carat | January 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM | Tags: cold fusion, Edmund Storms, Kiva Labs, LENR, Nuclear Active Environment
 | Categories: People, Science, Video
 | URL: http://wp.me/pYQbF-2TK	

	
		
			
Comment
See all comments
			
		
	
			
		
	

			
		

		
			

	
		Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.	

	
		Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: 
		http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/edmund-storms-on-the-nuclear-active-environment-and-metals-that-work/
	

			
		
	

			

			

	

			
		
	

			

			

	
		
		Thanks for flying with  WordPress.com

Re: [Vo]:Forbes: The Year of Cold Fusion

So why doesn't he throw down the gauntlet?

How hard is that??

Mary Yugo wrote:
 On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:


 Anyone who has CF/LENR tech that they are confident in would certainly
 be
 happy to have it showcased in Forbes.


 You'd think so.  So why has it not happened?  Gibbs doesn't seem in any
 way
 reluctant to write in detail about LENR and related claims.

[Vo]:Toy model of Widom-Larsen theory for classical charged particles

2012-01-06 Thread pagnucco

W-L theory is based on abstruse QED (quantum electro-dynamics), in which a
'heavy electron' acquires extra mass from a photon 'dressing'.

In classical electromagnetic DC-current flow in wires, I believe this
effect mostly reduces to the inductive energy a conductive electron gains.

This simpler classical physics model is presented in:

Low frequency plasmons in thin-wire structures
http://siba.unipv.it/fisica/articoli/J/Journal%20of%20PhisicsvCondensedvMatter_vol.10_1998_pp.4785-4809.pdf

On p.4788, the authors derive this equation for electron effective mass
(m_eff) in an x-y parallel grid of nanowires of 1 micron radius(=r) and
spaced 5 mm apart (=a) in both x- and y- axes of the plane.

   m_eff = (mu_0)*(e^2)*(r^2)*n*ln(a/r)/2 = 14.83 m_p

where mu_0 = vacuum permeability
  e= electron charge
  m_p  = proton mass
  n= conduction electron density for Aluminum

In the paper, 'n' is for aluminum, but nickel has the same 11.7 eV
Fermi energy as aluminum (see [1]).  So the value for m_eff is nearly the
same for nickel.

(The approach used is to divide bulk inductive current momentum in a unit
volume of wire by the number of conductance electrons in a unit volume.)

So,  to overcome the 0.78 MeV barrier to neutron formation in
electron-proton collisions in this wire grid, the minimum electron
velocity 'v'
must satify

0.78 Mev = 1.25 * 10^(-13) Joule = 1.25 * 10^(-13) kg*(m/sec)^2

= (m_eff * v^2)/2 = 2.48 * 10^(-26) kg * (v^2)/2

Or, minimum required electron velocity is

v = 3.18 * 10^6 m/sec


I'm not certain, but I do not think electrons in disordered, amorphous
wires reach this velocity, but that ballistic electrons in sufficiently
long crystalline wires can.

Changing grid parameters changes m_eff and speed the threshhold as well.

Are these assumptions reasonable? Is this check on W-L theory correct?

Comments appreciated,
Lou Pagnucco


[1] EMP AND HPM SUPPRESSION TECHNIQUES - http://dodreports.com/ada360541

Re: [Vo]:Stress-induced negative coefficient of temperature?


In nanowires, conductance itself can change in a complex nonmonotonic,
nonlinear way as a function of current density.  For example, see --

Quantum Suppression of the Rayleigh Instability in Nanowires
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0006237


James Bowery wrote:
 Something that occurs to me about the emergence of a negative coefficient
 of temperature at high loading of hydrogen in metallic lattices is that it
 may be related to the stress imposed by that loading.  If stress reaches a
 point where charge carriers to emerge, then increasing the temperature may
 enhance the emergence of those carriers.

 The emergence of charge carriers with stress is theorized to occur in
 igneous rock:



 *Stress-Induced Changes in the Electrical Conductivity of Igneous Rocks
 and
 the Generation of Ground Currents*

 *Author*:Friedemann T. Freund, Akihiro Takeuchi, Bobby W. S. Lau, Rachel
 Post, John Keefner, Joshua Mellon, and Akthem Al-Manaseer

 *Abstract*

 If we can ever hope to understand the non-seismic signals that the
 Earth sends out before major earthquakes, we need to understand the
 physics
 of rocks under increased levels of stress. In particular we need to
 understand the generation of electrical currents in the ground. We have
 begun to study how electrical conductivity of igneous rocks changes under
 stress and what types of charge carriers are involved. We show that
 quartz-rich granite and quartz-free anorthosite both generate electronic
 charge carriers when subjected to stress. The charge carriers are positive
 holes (p-holes), i.e., defect electrons on the oxygen anion sublattice.
 They spread out of the stressed rock volume, the source volume, into the
 surrounding unstressed rocks. Time-varying ground currents are required to
 generate pre-earthquake local magnetic field anomalies and low-frequency
 electromagnetic emissions. We posit that stress-induced activation of
 p-hole charge carriers and their outflow from the source volume is the
 basic process by which ground currents can be generated in the Earths
 crust. We propose that the arrival of p-holes at the Earths surface leads
 to changes in the ground potential that may induce ionospheric
 perturbations. We further propose that the build-up of high electric
 fields
 at the ground surface can ionize the air, hence cause ion emission and
 corona discharges. When p-holes recombine at the ground surface, they are
 expected to form vibrationally highly excited O-O bonds. The de-excitation
 of these O-O bonds will lead to stimulated mid-IR emission, which may
 explain the reported pre-earthquake thermal anomalies identified in
 satellite images.

 *Key word:Pre-earthquake phenomena, Electrical conductivity, Stress,
 Magnetic field, Ionization, EM emission, Thermal anomalies*
 --

 *Full_Text(pdf)http://tao.cgu.org.tw/center/article_download_one.php?id=530xv153p437
  *

[Vo]:Enormous current densities in nanowires

Ref[1] points out that certain nanowires can carry enormous current
densities (~ 10^11[A/cm^2]) which vaporize macro-sized wires.

In metals, this equates to ballistic electron speeds of ~ 100 km/sec
- approximately the same as (0-Amp) random thermal electron velocity
- far greater than a diffusive electron current drift velocity ~ 1 mm/sec
- far less than relativistic speeds.


When the wire diameter approaches 1 nm, nearly ballistic electon speeds
are possible over lengths of several microns.

In some nanowire and e-m field distributions, electrons attain inductive
(not kinetic!) energies  1 MeV.  Collisions with protons or nuclei can
overcome the potential barrier (0.78 MeV) allowing neutron formation.

Unless large (AC or DC) current flows are induced, conduction electrons
will not acquire significant inductive energy - i.e., they will not
acquire large effective mass - a term commonly misunderstood as
relativistic mass.
Here effective mass is a not a scalar, but a vector quantity measuring 
electron coupling to the inductive energy of the total current.
It is large in direction of large current flow, while small normal to it.

This my attempt at a semi-classical check on Widom-Larsen theory.
It looks quite reasonable to me, but I could be mistaken.
I would appreciate corrections or criticisms.

Thanks,
Lou Pagnucco

[1] Stability of Metal Nanowires at Ultrahigh Current Densities
 http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0411058

Re: [Vo]:Enormous current densities in nanowires

Horace, thanks for the reply.  You wrote:

 You should keep in mind that in nanowires, even (laser induced)
 thermal pulses move at 2x10^6 m/s, the conduction band electron speed.

Yes. There are electron-lattice mechanical couplings
(e.g,, pinches, phonons, ...) that complicate a simple, classical
model, but including them would make the math extremely impossible.

I am not at all sure how long a nanowire (or other nano structure)
must remain stable, since any nuclear events would disrupt it anyway.
However, the paper I cited shows there are some stable operating
points (magic conductance values) that can support ultra-high
current densities with minimal deformation.

 I am sorry that I do not have the appropriate time to give to this
 right now.  This looks like a very worthwhile and interesting
 discussion.

No problem.  I think that modeling the W-L theory with undergrad
physics is the place to start - even if overly simplistic, it may
provide insights.  It is not too difficult to contrive simple arrays
of nanowires with inductive couplings that have already been
analyzed in physics textbook chapters on RLC circuit theory.

 I do have some differences of opinion with WL theory, as noted on
 pages 9 and 15 of this article:
 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf

You may be correct.  You are considering at a much finer grain analysis
of the reactions.  However, it will be much more difficult (I think)
to model it.

 Following are some comments on the validity of WL theory:
 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html

Lots of good questions, but my example is not ambitious enough to answer
them.  I just wanted to see whether classical electrons could surmount a
780 KeV barrier. As far as missing gammas and neutrons, all I can suggest
is that the magnetic field encircling the ultra-high current nanowire is
gigantic - I am not able to do a QED analysis.

 and the Larsen  Widom Patent:
 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42900.html

Perhaps the experimental data is assumed to be the anomalously low
gamma emissions in purported LENR reactions. I am not sure.

Re: [Vo]:Enormous current densities in nanowires

Horace,

You parse comments way too precisely.

I should have said that your observations raise questions.

For instance, a key one is -
The WL math and QM is possibly controversial (e.g. via Hagelstein and
Chaudhary), but the logic and common sense in problem definition and
conclusions are clearly controversial and not so complex issues.

That seems to imply the question - 'Is W-L theory math correct?'
-- unless you are already sure there is no baby in the bath water.
I do not know.  That's why I looked at the simplest classical analogue I
can think of - as a cross-check, an imprecise guide.

Also, you statement It would be useful to hear the WL take on why the
lack of neutron activation LENR experiments... sure sounds like question
unless you mean for the following statements to be interpreted as a
definitive rebuttal.  Your counterpoints may all turn out to be totally
valid.  I'm not able to say.

To paraphrase the philosopher, Yogi Berra:
Theoretically, the theoretical and the empirical are the same.
Empirically, they're not.

BTW, in slide #25 of Celani's latest presentation -
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/WSEC2012%20Present.pdf  -- he states:

About theory, it is growing the interpretation that such phenomena arise
because the Weak Force (Larsen-Widom model) instead the previously
thought, usual Strong Force. A well know Researchers (A.Takahashi)
recently wrote a model were both forces can be active

As for myself, I'm just uncertain.




 On Jan 9, 2012, at 8:11 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:


 Following are some comments on the validity of WL theory:
 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html

 Lots of good questions, but my example is not ambitious enough to
 answer
 them.  I just wanted to see whether classical electrons could
 surmount a
 780 KeV barrier. As far as missing gammas and neutrons, all I can
 suggest
 is that the magnetic field encircling the ultra-high current
 nanowire is
 gigantic - I am not able to do a QED analysis.

 You must not have read the post. There are no questions, only
 assertions. I did not find any question marks.

 Best regards,

 Horace Heffner
 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Vo]:Larsen (Lattice Energy) proposes a new neutrino antenna

2012-01-10 Thread pagnucco


New possibilities for developing minimal mass, extremely sensitive,
collective many-body, quantum mechanical neutrino 'antennas'

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-collective-manybody-qm-neutrino-antennasjan-10-2012

A pretty venturesome proposal.  It seems testable.

The sensitivity is conjectured to be ~10^10 times that of existing detectors.
If it were much higher yet, maybe neutrino broadcasting would be possible?

One of the references gives Lattice's theory on why LENR transmutations
result mainly in stable isotopes -

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcnickel-seed-wl-lenr-nucleosynthetic-networkmarch-24-2011

[Vo]:An overlooked 2011 patent for micron-scale crystal-based fusion

2012-01-13 Thread pagnucco

This patent doesn't show up on google searches of discussion boards.

I am curious how it fits into the various LENR categories, and also
whether the approach works on nano-scales, and in which atmospheres,
emulsions and for which crystal distributions.

Although the fusion is claimed to be initiated at low temperature,
the USPTO did not reject it as a cold fusion claim
- maybe because of the mention of particle beams?

One of the inventors, Seth Putterman, is also a sonofusion researcher.

Does anyone have any insights on the patent's value?
Do the claims conflict with any pending patents?
Does it overlap any current LENR approaches?

Thanks,
Lou Pagnucco

* THE PATENT + EXCERPTS *

HIGH ENERGY CRYSTAL GENERATORS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS
Patent 7741615 Issued on June 22, 2010.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7741615/fulltext.html

Abstract

Ferroelectric, pyroelectric and piezoelectric crystals are used to
generate spatially localized high energy (up to and exceeding 100 keV)
electron and ion beams

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is based on the discovery that ferroelectric,
pyroelectric or piezoelectric crystal generator devices can be designed
that provide for the emission of high energy particles, such as 100 KeV
electrons from a three by one cubic centimeter ferroelectric material
that is heated just a few degrees above room temperature.
...
The following is a summary of the types of systems in which the
electron/ion beam generators of the present invention are directed
against a variety of different targets.
...
Fusion: The ion energies achieved with stimulated crystals in
accordance with the present invention are easily into the range where
collisions with deuterated [tritiated] targets create fusion with the
release of neutrons and energy and otherhigh energy particles.

it is possible to generate the emission of 100 KeV ions upon heating a
crystal on its positive `z` base. This happens because the compensating
charge on the opposite or negative `z` side is made up ofpositively
charged ions. When heated the domain flips, which brings a plus charge to
the surface and causes the ions to be blown off, with the same energy as
is supplied to the electrons. A compact source of fast ions (50 KeV)
provides a new route tofusion. With a deuterated atmosphere and a
deuterated surface, fusion at energies of 50 KeV is possible. Such fusion
was demonstrated using an exemplary crystal generator in accordance with
the present invention to generate the high field (greater than 25 V/nm)
that is required for gas phase field ionization of deuterium.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Some applications utilize deuterated systems. This means that deuterium
gas [or tritium gas] has been introduced into the region of the crystal
and/or that the hydrogen in the crystal has been replaced with
deuterium/tritium. And thatdeuterium has been adsorbed onto the crystal
surface or loaded into the crystal. Or that in addition a target made with
Deuteriu or tritium is used.

* DESCRIPTION FROM NANOPATENTS WEBSITE *

HIGH ENERGY 'Z' CRYSTAL GENERATORS FOR EARTH, MARS AND THE STARS,
NEW ROUTE TO FUSION -- This discovery brings to mind the fabled crystal
energy generators of Atlantis.
http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2011/01/high-energy-z-crystal-generators-for.html

Two California scientists say they have found a way to transform heat
into electricity through the use of crystals that could be used as a power
source here on Earth on in exploratory space vehicles. The crystal energy
could even provide a new way to generate fusion energy

The high-energy emission can be created by simply heating the material or
by application of external coercive electromagnetic and acoustic fields.
The high-energy emission can be created by simply heating the material or
by application of external coercive electromagnetic and acoustic
fields

The inventors say, it is possible to generate the emission of 100 KeV ions
upon heating a crystal on its positive `z` base. This happens because the
compensating charge on the opposite or negative `z` side is made up of
positively charged ions. When heated the domain flips, which brings a plus
charge to the surface and causes the ions to be blown off, with the same
energy as is supplied to the electrons. A compact source of fast ions (50
KeV) provides a new route to fusion...

The invention is based on the discovery that ferroelectric, pyroelectric
or piezoelectric crystal generator devices can be designed that provide
for the emission of high energy particles, such as 100 KeV electrons from
a three by one cubic centimeter ferroelectric material that is heated just
a few degrees above room temperature. The crystal can be put to use for a
new class of detectors, microscopes and display panels. In addition the
generators can be used as an energy source for conducting fusion and in
any situation where a localized source of energy

Re: [Vo]:An overlooked 2011 patent for micron-scale crystal-based fusion

2012-01-14 Thread pagnucco

My questions were motivated by definition #4 in the patent which refers to
deuterating the crystal, but it is clear (I think) from the context that
this is still just as part of proposed small, conventional (hot) impact
fusion - not really cold fusion, at all.  Fusion is not claimed to take
place within the deuterated crystal.

So I think their claims strictly cover conventional fusion, and will not
relate to CF/LENR in any way, unless the pyroelectric crystals can be
mixed in with, or coated on, say Ni or Pd to catalyze more intense CF/LENR
reactions, since these crystals can generate intense, localized EM-fields
( 25 V/nm).

Re: [Vo]:multielectron catalysis theory A possible theory for rossi reactor

The website has been down for some time now.
It keeps returning the message: Bandwidth Exceeded ... try again later.

It sounds like a pretty sophisticated theory that only a few can properly
assess.  Does it make any testable predictions?  Or does it provide any
insights into the CF/LENR results reported so far?




 multielectron catalysis theory A possible theory for rossi reactor

 The situation with the new energy source [1] developed by the Italian
 physicists mainly is
 similar  to  the  situation with HTSP  (high  temperature
 superconductors):  there  is  the  effect, but there are no phenomenon
 physical mechanism explanation and adequate theory.
 A.  Rossis  reactor  theory  suggested  is  based  on  the  developed
  electron-quark  analogy
 method and multielectron theory [2, 3]. The method difference is
 availability of a color charge in
 electrons  analogous  to  the  color  charge  of  quarks  in  quantum
 chromodynamics  (QCD)

 http://www.snapdrive.net/files/658133/Reaktor_Rossi.pdf

Re: [Vo]:multielectron catalysis theory A possible theory for rossi reactor

Thanks, Brad

That link works.

However, the theory rests on QCD (quantum chromodynamics) which I do not
understand.  For those trained in QCD, it might be worth
google-translating the more detailed Russian web page:
http://viktor19451.narod.ru/
Aside from the diagrams, the translation looks pretty good.

 Here is an alternate site for download:

 http://ecatplanet.net/downloads/pdf/Reaktor_Rossi.pdf

 - Brad

 On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:23 AM,  pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
 The website has been down for some time now.
 It keeps returning the message: Bandwidth Exceeded ... try again later.

 It sounds like a pretty sophisticated theory that only a few can
 properly
 assess.  Does it make any testable predictions?  Or does it provide any
 insights into the CF/LENR results reported so far?

RE: [Vo]:multielectron catalysis theory A possible theory for rossi reactor

Jones,

You should have posted the free version of that paper at URL:
http://www.ladir.cnrs.fr/pages/fillaux/152_JPCM_2006_3229.pdf

Also related may be the paper:
Proton transfer across hydrogen bonds: From reaction path to Schrödingers
cat*
http://media.iupac.org/publications/pac/2007/pdf/7906x1023.pdf

and other citing papers at:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=enlr=cites=14755060705510149149um=1ie=UTF-8ei=QTwWT4uZMq3KiAKR1YTGDwsa=Xoi=science_linksct=sl-citedbyresnum=2ved=0CCkQzgIwAQ

This is very interesting but also very difficult reading - even apart from
CF/LENR connections. I have not really seen related material before.
Hopefully, some more elementary introductory papers are available. If I
find any, I will post pointers to them. Do you know of any?

Regards,
Lou Pagnucco

Thanks for posting this - and it is intriguing in one way but flawed in
another - certainly in the suggested binding energy. If it were true, the
nickel active material would be completely unmeltable, for one thing.
There
is no basis for going to that extreme.

The most obvious flaw in this theory goes back to the vagaries of the QM
species called a multiparticle, which is theorized as an variety of
entangled species but otherwise is imaginary. Of course, the neutrino was
also imaginary at one early stage. OTOH, the part about entanglement is
possibly the best feature, in explaining E-Cat/Hyperion - because the
sudden
loss of entanglement is the elegant way to explain the huge problem of
periodic quiescence. And the appearance of entanglement explains how the
strong force can be used for gain without fusion or fission. And the
re-emergence of entanglement explains why the reactor can be started up
again easily but with a time delay.

In Rossis reactor, these Russian theorists say the multiparticle is
created
by the color interaction of molecular hydrogen H2 electrons and Ni crystal
lattice atoms valence electrons. This kind of sounds like
spintronics/excitonics - and it should. The more you think about it, the
more sense it makes.

But there are two big problems before moving forward - first,
multiparticles
have not been documented as real AFAIK - and second, certainly not
detected
with anything close to this binding energy (~300 keV). They need to get
realistic on the binding energy. Spintronics/excitonic potential energy is
far less.

Of course, the proof could be E-cat/Hyperion and even Thermacore. We have
talked about entanglement before - and this is the second best way to
realize how it would work in practice. The best way is still to suggest
that
the nickel is responsible for spillover and surface pitting provides the
rigidity. Proton entanglement of dense surface hydrogen (2D) makes sense
as
it is already bound in 5 or 6 atoms, according to Holmlid, and certain
kinds
of surface crystals makes sense too - especially since one particular
paper
can explain the earlier Thermacore work with Potassium catalyst. See
Macroscopic quantum entanglement and super-rigidity of protons in the
KHCO3 crystal Abstract here:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-8984/18/12/006

If we find out that either Rossi or DGT did copy Thermacore's use of
potassium carbonate as the so called secret then the entanglement
hypothesis will vault ahead of all the others as the most likely
explanation.

Please post the news - if anyone finds reference or evidence to potassium
carbonate in either of these newer devices. It will definitely be the
smoking gun.

BTW hydrogen potassium carbonate is expected from the dehydrogenated
molecule, in the presence of spillover, and the initial entanglement could
be a nano-magnetic phenomenon of the adjoining nickel.

-Original Message-
From: ecat builder

Here is an alternate site for download:

http://ecatplanet.net/downloads/pdf/Reaktor_Rossi.pdf

- Brad

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:23 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
The website has been down for some time now.
It keeps returning the message: Bandwidth Exceeded ... try again later.

It sounds like a pretty sophisticated theory that only a few can
properly
assess. Does it make any testable predictions? Or does it provide any
insights into the CF/LENR results reported so far?

RE: [Vo]:From NET: Bockris is still in the game!!

Abd,

I only want to ask your opinion on the unexpectedly low gamma radiation.

Let's assume we have a nanowire (or nano-protrusion on a nano-particle)
with diameter of a few nanometers and (experimentally observed) carrying a
huge 10^11 [Amp/cm^2] current density.

Then would this nanowire be enveloped in an ultra-intense surface vortex
plasmon of very high momentum electrons?

If a gamma release occurred at, or below, the metal surface, could many
gammas escape at their birth energies, or would Compton-effect
collisions with the electron shroud deplete most of their energy?

Thanks,
Lou Pagnucco

 At 11:53 PM 1/16/2012, you wrote:
I asked a close
friend (PhD physicist) and he said the same thing as Krivit; that fusion
[...]
 Now, W-L theory predicts *lots* of transmutations. These are not
 observed to be correlated with the heat. Transmutations are indeed
 observed, but at levels way below that of helium. Further, gamma
 emissions would be expected from neutron activation reactions from
 any slow neutrons, not to mention ultra low momentum neutrons. The
 gammas are not observed. W-L propose a totally novel mechanism for
 gamma suppression, and, realize, this mechanism would have to be very
 efficient, catching *lots* of gammas, yet the mechanism would only
 cover, as proposed, the area of formation of heavy electrons. there
 would be edge effects, some gammas would escape.

 (Note that Larsen has patented a gamma ray shield based on this idea.
 There is no published confirmation of any such effect, and Larsen has
 never revealed any experimental evidence behind the claim. That such
 a patent could be issued, while patents on cold fusion are rejected
 as impossible, like perpetual motion machines, is just an example
 of how much damage the physics establishment did with its little
 semantic error.)

Re: [Vo]:Nickel honeycomb ?

2012-01-25 Thread pagnucco

Marten,

You might want to google or bing nickel nanowire grow or nickel whisker
grow.

Some of these techiques are hazardous, so better use extreme caution.

My guess is that (poly-)crystalline nanostructures  are most promising.


 Hello guys
 I have a q, i have been reading all the posts about the problems with
 energy transfer, core melts and so on .
 Why not embed the nickel / catalyst mix in a honeycomb, or other
 structure that gets easy acess for both H2 and
 heat trasnfer to the walls of the tube ?

 Is there any practical method of doing this?
 I have thought about covering steel or other material with nickel as so
 many other people, but in my mind that decrease the surface
 too much, a fungi or honeycomb like structure would maybe work, but how
 to make one ?

 Any ideas ?


 Marten

Re: [Vo]:Resonances: Coupling between electronic states and vibrational modes (phonons)...

2012-01-25 Thread pagnucco

Along those lines, you might want to read -
PROGRESS ON DUAL LASER EXPERIMENTS
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinprogresson.pdf

EXCERPT:
We have continued our experiments using duel laser stimulation of
electrochemically loaded PdDx. In earlier work, we used two properly
oriented and polarized tunable diode lasers which provided stimulation at
optical frequencies; interestingly, we found that the excess heat
issensitive to the beat difference frequency. Low-level thermal signals
are observed to be
triggered at apparent resonances when the difference frequency is 8.3,
15.3 and 20.4 THz

Perhaps, also related is the ultrasonic Superwave LENR stimulation used
by Energetics Technologies -
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf
My impression is that their source has a wideband discrete spectrum of
phase-locked frequencies - so that the same stimulus signal is repeatedly
swept.

RE: [Vo]:Resonances: Coupling between electronic states and vibrational modes (phonons)...

2012-01-26 Thread pagnucco

Jones,

My reply was originally to Mark Iverson's thread - I don't know why it
started a new one.  Mark is citing some experiments showing that
photosynthesis is more efficient when driven by selected multiple fixed
frequencies, and wonders whether there is a connection with CF/LENR
effects.

Good question on Ni-H.  Rossi apparently uses an RF-generator.  I have to
check on others, like Miley and Defkalion.  Energetics uses ultrasound -
their signal is imprecisely defined in their patent application,  but it's
clearly broadband, and appears to have a discrete picket-fench spectrum.

Based on the papers I've perused, I'd guess that optimal em/sonic
stimulation depends sensitively on particle size, temperature, morphology,
density, colloidal formations, crystallization patterns, proximity to
surfaces, ...

If Rossi's claims are accurate, I'd bet that National Instruments is
trying to (somehow) close the loop in this huge state-space to stay in the
tiny and elusive stable optimal operating spaces.

Thanks,
Lou Pagnucco


 Lou,

 This kind of photon stimulation was of great interest a few years ago and
 is
 known as the Letts/Cravens effect. They had a tortuous path to get it to
 a
 useful level when at EarthTech. Many null results in the process. Are we
 there yet?

 At one time they also were saying that a magnetic field adds to the
 effect.
 That is of keen interest as well, if this effect relates to quantum
 entanglement, in any way.

 Two additional points of interest that jump out to the Ni-H crowd:

 1)This gain from optical stimulation applies to Pd-D. Does it apply
 equally to Ni-H?
 2)The highest gain is at ~15 THZ which is a IR emission (near IR)
 better known from its wavelength about 1.5 microns. This corresponds to a
 blackbody temperature, so the laser only adds coherency.

 Actually the third point for interest for Ni-H watchers is derivative.

 If the answer to 1) is yes, then should not the active powder be in the
 size
 range of 2)?



 Original Message-
 From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

 Along those lines, you might want to read - PROGRESS ON DUAL LASER
 EXPERIMENTS
 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinprogresson.pdf


 EXCERPT:
 We have continued our experiments using duel laser stimulation of
 electrochemically loaded PdD. In earlier work, we used two properly
 oriented and polarized tunable diode lasers which provided stimulation at
 optical frequencies; interestingly, we found that the excess heat
 is sensitive to the beat difference frequency. Low-level thermal signals
 are observed to be triggered at apparent resonances when the difference
 frequency is 8.3,
 15.3 and 20.4 THz

 Perhaps, also related is the ultrasonic Superwave LENR stimulation used
 by Energetics Technologies -
 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf
 My impression is that their source has a wideband discrete spectrum of
 phase-locked frequencies - so that the same stimulus signal is repeatedly
 swept.

Re: [Vo]:High pressure plasmas, and Ni-H

2012-01-28 Thread pagnucco

Jones,

You wrote:

 The video in question demonstrates that even a bulb not designed to
 operate as a plasma emitter, can create an local plasma, and produce
 copious light with a few watts of input (like the CFL which can operate
at  a subwatt level).

Did the experiment measure radiant+thermal overunity gain?

Re: [Vo]:Ball Lightning 2012: call for papers

2012-01-30 Thread pagnucco

On a 2008 CNN Larry King Show, former air force officials showed videos of
UFOs which I think may be ball lightning.

The videos are available starting at --

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTBqwTuSuMM

Has anyone seen these?
If so, any opinion on whether ball lightning is a good explanation?

Lou Pagucco


 On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:38 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:


 Russian YouTube shows a video film of airborne BL lasting 40+ seconds
 during
 thunderstorm at:


 http://rutube.ru/tracks/3787124.html?v=f37c6f3d5dd780052a6bca48c0825685
 http://rutube.ru/tracks/3787124.html?v=f37c6f3d5dd780052a6bca48c0825685

 The event occurs at the 4:30 point into the vid.  One of the best
 examples of BL I have seen.

 T

Re: [Vo]:magnetic monopoles and nuclear transmutations

2012-01-30 Thread pagnucco


An earlier, easier to read paper --

Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole
by Georges Lochak, Leonid Urutskoev
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

-- gives more graphics on the experimental set up.

The authors claim the effect is robust, repeatable and seems to be a bulk
phenomenon as opposed to a surface one.  Isotopic changes even appear in
large fissile atoms which lead the authors to search for quite elaborate
fission-fusion combinations to explain the missing radiation and neutron
emissions.

Apparently, in a section written by the second author (Urutskoev) they
speculate why this finding is ignored:

One might ask: If Lochaks theory is correct, why has it garnered so
little interest for twenty years? The answer is obvious. French physicists
are deeply convinced that all genuine physical theories can only be
developed outside France. Other physicists usually do not read scientific
publications in French. Because of that Lochaks works are not known to
academics.
A more profound reason is that the Standard Model does not need the
leptonic magnetic monopole. Today's physics are dominated by the
dictatorship of democracy. Let us explain that using a simple example.
About five years ago a CERN paper was published which had around 600
authors. The list of authors was longer than the article itself. As to the
authors of the present report, we believe that a new idea may come to one
head or at most two heads, but in no way to 600 heads at the same time.
Bearing in mind that theorists and experimentalists tend to consider the
Standard Model impeccable (something like a holy icon), you will
understand the attitude to Lochaks theory.

One interesting excerpt from the original arxiv.org paper cited below is:

... several remarkable effects :
1) The appearance of an astonishingly stable lightning ball (50 times the
duration of the discharge) with a very complex optical spectrum, showing
the rays of various chemical elements, many of which were initially absent
from the laboratory installation ...

One earlier Russian paper -
Development of Atomic and Nuclear Processes in a Laser-Produced Plasma
http://www.maik.ru/full/lasphys/98/2/lasphys2_98p438full.pdf
- suggests that intense laser beams ( 3.4 X 10^16 W/cm^2) may knock inner
shell electrons into atomic nuclei making them neutron-rich isotopes with
hard to predict results.

Is it possible the lightning ball was due to some unusual localized
lasing effect leading to the theorized isotopic changes?

- Lou Pagnucco


Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
 Equation for Light Leptonic Magnetic Monopole and its Experimental Aspects

 Georges Lochak

 http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2752



 An excerpt from the Abstract:

 Our monopoles are magnetically excited neutrinos, which leads to
 experimental consequences. These monopoles are assumed to be produced by
 electromagnetic pulses or arcs, leading to *nuclear transmutations* and,
 for
 beta radioactive elements, a shortening of the life time and the emission
 of
 monopoles instead of neutrinos in a magnetic field.



 In summary, they performed experiments of electrical discharges under
 water
 with Titanium foil (and other foils), and found that only 48Ti to be
 anomalously depleted in the 'ash', but that there were numerous other
 elements found; little if any excess heat, and no energetic
 particles/emissions. Seems that this experimental method strongly favors
 the
 transmutation pathway over all others (i.e., thermal, nuclear (strong
 force)).



 -Mark

Re: [Vo]:The cooper pair dance.

2012-02-01 Thread pagnucco


Perhaps this has already been discussed on Vortex-l, but a quick search
yielded the following paper -

Formation of Cooper pairs in quantum oscillations of electrons in plasma
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4596

- I have only briefly perused it, but if it's correct, it may point out
some connections of high-temp Cooper-pairing, plasmons, and anomalous
fusion.  Some other papers by the author also address this issue:

http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Dvornikov_M/0/1/0/all/0/1

Any opinions on this series of papers?

- Lou Pagnucco


Axil Axil wrote:
 When protons enter a micro cavity, they rattle and dance around it for a
 long, long time. All the while, the walls are vibratingmoving back and
 forth in a random fashion in the protons reference frame, As they bounce
 of
 the walls, the walls give and take energy away on each bounce. So when the
 protons encounter each other, they never have the same quantum mechanical
 properties.
 [...]

Re: [Vo]:Magnet Motor Video..Hmmmmm????? 267,500 hits- goes Viral.

2012-02-03 Thread pagnucco

Perhaps, someone could devise a long-running magnetic energy extractor
building on the simple approach in:

A Magnetic Linear Accelerator
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/lin_accel.pdf

If so, I bet it would be popular in toy stores.

William Beaty wrote:
 On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Harry Veeder wrote:
 If theory predicted that it should run for x hours but instead ran
 much longer would it qualify as a true FE device?

 If it runs far longer ...then it merely supplies a more precise method for
 measuring the actual energy provided by your magnets!  :)
 Experimenter's Regress, where experiments force alteration in theory,
 but where theory forces alteration in interpretation of experiments.

 Anyhow, I wonder how difficult it would be to *engineer* a magnet motor
 which drives itself against friction and runs for awhile before weakening
 its own magnets?  Something with low friction so it could operate for
 significant time?  What would such a device look like?


 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:Acoustic Fusion Article on the International Business Times

2012-02-07 Thread pagnucco

Since Energetics Technologies (featured on 2009 60 Minutes tv-show) uses
ultrasound -

Ultrasonically-excited electrolysis Experiments at Energetics Technologies
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf

- is it possible that their wideband ultrasound is really inducing
cavitation fusion on the electrode surfaces?

Axil Axil wrote:
 I wonder if sonoluminescence could be used as a cheap way to produce the
 Rossi reaction. I believe that Rydberg hydrogen is produced by the extreme
 high pressures occurring during cavatation. The intense ultraviolet
 radiation coming at or very near the end of bubble collapse is a clue that
 highly excited hydrogen gas is being generated. Any excited dirty plasma
 hydrogen will produce Rydberg atoms.

 If a large bubble can enclose a micro sized nickel particle, a Rossi type
 reaction might be produced.
 Cavatation is extremely powerful. It can produce 5 nanometer diamonds from
 graphite feedstock in a few nanoseconds.

 The nickel powder might be easily destroyed inside the collapsing
 cavitation bubble.

 Some fluid other than water might be better used to get rid of the oxygen;
 maybe a hydrocarbon.

 But such an experiment is easily done; just add some nickel powder of
 various sizes, start cavitation, and look for excess heat.

 Regards: Axil








 On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 From: Patrick Ellul

 *   Came across this article and I thought it might be of some
 interest
 to this forum.


 http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/294046/20120207/acoustic-fusion-potentially-g
 green-inexpensive-virtually-inexhaustible.htm


 This is fairly well-known group to many of us. Ross Tessien was formerly
 the
 head of Impulse Devices, and a poster on this forum many years ago. I do
 not
 know why he left the company - as seems to be the case. Here is his
 patent.

 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7510321.html

 They have had a prototype device on the market for some time IIRC but
 seemed
 to be moving to sonochemistry instead of fusion.

 http://www.impulsedevices.com/

Re: [Vo]:Do you think Rossi will still be too busy?

2012-02-14 Thread pagnucco

I have a hard time seeing why Rossi would pay any attention to this:

(1) If his e-cat is real, $1M is a miniscule distraction.

(2) If it's a mistake or fraud, replying would foolish.

 On 2012-02-14 17:14, Chemical Engineer wrote:
 _Smith Offers $1 Million Prize for Successful E-Cat Demo_
 
 http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/14/smith-offers-1-million-prize-for-successful-e-cat-demo/

 Somebody quickly forward this to Andrea Rossi!
 This is an offer he simply cannot refuse.

 Cheers,
 S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Do you think Rossi will still be too busy?

2012-02-14 Thread pagnucco


Better still, if Smith is convinced the e-cat is not real, why not pledge
the $1M to a worthy cause if it's not verified by end of 2012?
- or offer bets through an on-line site like intrade.com?

Otherwise, it's hard to be sure he's not a flamboyant publicity seeker.


 An X-Prize would be an excellent idea.  I hope that Mr. Smith gives this
 concept serious consideration.

 Dave



 -Original Message-
 From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Feb 14, 2012 2:20 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Do you think Rossi will still be too busy?


 The media are going to love this, and they will be very damning if Rossi
 doesn't accept.


 If he is prepared to put such money on the line it would be nice if Smith
 opened this up to all-comers, like an X-Prize, eg for a consistently
 replicable cold fusion reaction with a gain of 5-10 and power output 1kW.


 On 14 February 2012 18:50, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


 At 08:14 AM 2/14/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:

 Smith Offers $1 Million Prize for Successful E-Cat Demo




 My offer is very simple, which I will restate:  I ask you to repeat the
 March 29, 2011 demonstration purported to show that your E-CAT unit had an
 output power of many times the input power through LENR (low energy
 nuclear reactions).

 As the sole judges as to whether this can be repeated correctly, I suggest
 we use the two Swedish scientists, Kullander and Essen, as they attended
 the March 2011 demonstration and wrote a report.  I would be happy to
 cover any reasonable cost of having them flying to Italy to attend the
 repeat of the demonstration.  They can then check the wires (because, as
 you know, there have been claims that the wiring may have been
 misconnected) and also the power output of the unit in relation to both
 the heated water and the steam.



 I understand the 29 March 2011 demonstration took place over a period of
 more than six hours and showed a power multiplication of approximately ten
 times.  To make the demonstration test even fairer, I would be happy if
 the demonstration to qualify for the assignment of the USD1,000,000 were
 reduced to a five-hour period and with a power multiplication ratio of at
 least eight times. This will make it very much easier for you to qualify
 for the USD1,000,000,  As far as I am concerned, eight timesâ power
 multiplication through LENRs will solve the worldâs power problems for
 the future.



 I don't know why he wants to go back to March 29, and not, for example,
 the Oct 5 (was it?) Heat Exchanger version, and to use steam rather than
 water.
 Also, Rossi only guarantees COP=6, not 8.

 KE would be fine to supervise ... but I think I'd go with recommendations
 from Jed (ISTR) to hire an HVAC company to certify the tests with
 callibrated equipment, etc etc.

Re: [Vo]:Do you think Rossi will still be too busy?

2012-02-14 Thread pagnucco

Rossi is certainly an enigmatic character, but it is highly improbable
that he would slow his race with Defkalion if they both have real LENR
technology for such a small amount, nor would Rossi accept it if e-cat is
a fraud.  Either way, Smith can be pretty sure his offer will receive no
response.

Smith should take some real risks to show good faith himself.

Peter Gluck wrote:
 I have confessed more times that I cannot understand and/or predict
 Rossi's
 reactions (his own, not those from the core of the E-cat)
 In this case my bet is that now he will ask more money, 2 or 3 million US$
 for a 'perfect test.
 Let's see!
 Peter

 On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:00 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:


 Better still, if Smith is convinced the e-cat is not real, why not
 pledge
 the $1M to a worthy cause if it's not verified by end of 2012?
 - or offer bets through an on-line site like intrade.com?

 Otherwise, it's hard to be sure he's not a flamboyant publicity seeker.
[...]

Re: [Vo]:Russ George's May 6, 1999 Cold Fusion Times article?

2012-02-15 Thread pagnucco


Hopefully, this helps -
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2007/1999-RussGeorge-APS-Presentation.pdf

 I'm attempting to obtain a copy of Production of Helium-Four from
 Deuterium Using Nano-Particle Palladium by Russ George, published in the
 May 6, 1999 issue of Cold Fusion Times on page 1.

[Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory

2012-02-15 Thread pagnucco

W-L LENR theory claims ultra-low momentum neutrons (ULMNs) are created
- quite surprising if due to high kinetic energy e-p collisions.

Overcoming the electroweak effective potential barrier that repels
an electron from a proton (= udu 'quark bag') requires 780 KeV.

Can slow (non-relativistic) electrons climb the barrier by borrowing
just enough potential magnetic (but no kinetic) energy - leaving ULMNs?

As shown in [1], in nanowires. almost no conduction electron energy is
kinetic.  Almost all is likely stored in virtual exchange photons.

On metal hydride nano-particle surfaces, plasma electrons and protons
can oscillate in parallel and opposite directions .
-- When velocity = 0, coulomb force brings some e-p pairs together
-- as velocity increases, magnetic ampere force pinches e-p pairs closer

Semiclassically, this increasing ampere force is equivalent to a rising
linear potential in a time-varying Schroedinger equation - Graphically:

---
 PLASMONIC OScILLATION: TRANSFERING 'MAGNETIC ENERGY'

 MIN PLASMON AMPLITUDE   AMPLITUDE INCREASES
 MIN AMPERE FORCE    AMPERE FORCE RISES
 MIN LINEAR POTENTIAL    LINEAR POTENTIAL RISES

   ^ ^^ ^
   . .. .
\  .   \ .\   .\.
 \ .\. \  . \ e
  \.+-+ +--  \   .  +-+ +-  \ . +-+ +-   |:+-
   \   .| | | ^   \  .  | | |\.e| | ||:|
\  .| | | |\ .  | | | \_| | ||:|
 \ .| | | | \   | | | | ||V|
  \ | | |780 \ e| | | | || |
   \| |u|KeV  \_| |u| |u||u|
\   | |d| |   |d| |d||d| -- ULMN (ddu)
 \ e| |u| |   |u| |u||u| + neutrino
  \_| |_| V   |_| |_||_|
---

An electron arriving at a potential wall is pushed forward by the
magnetic coupling to millions of conduction electrons and back-reacts
by borrowing some of their collective momentum (Newton's 3rd Law).

Ref[2] shows that electrons in nanowires can acquire enormous inertial
mass from this coupling - distinct, I believe, from relavistic mass
- which may make the surface plasma appear as an extremely viscous
fluid to gamma rays, and could trap most high-energy gammas.


[1]How Much of Magnetic Energy is Kinetic Energy? - Kirk T. McDonald
http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/kinetic.pdf

[2]Extremely Low Frequency Plasmons in Metallic Microstructures
http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/lfplslet.pdf

Comments/corrections very welcome,
Lou Pagnucco

Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory

Alain,

I am trying to find minimal semi-classical models for W-L theory.
Quantum W-L theory requires intense local e-m fields.

Metallic nano-structures can super-focus coulomb and magnetic fields.
Surface probes show huge amplifications at nano-sized hotspots - even
after 2-Dimensional filtering which smudges and attenuates peaks.

Does a hotspot electron passing free protons (with equal, opposite
momentum) or an immobile proton experience enough ampere force long enough
to overcome the 780 KeV barrier, producing a ULMN?

Using classical physics, the two references I cited indicate that in
nanostructures, conduction electrons' momentum, inertial mass and magnetic
energy can be vastly larger than in macroscopic circuits.  Maybe a
semi-classical analysis can yield reasonable results - if actual field
strengths, charge densities, electron velocities,... are used?
Are entanglement, nonlocality, Bose condenscation, ... really needed?

I'm uncertain.  Good data is hard to find.

Thanks for the reply,
Lou Pagnucco


On Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Alain Sepeda wrote:

if you red WL theory, they say that the neutrons are generated
from coherents pairs of p+e, and the result is a group of possible neutrons
widely distributed among the coherents p, thus slow and delocalized
a kind of schodinger cat gang


most are alive, but one is dead, but nobody knows which, so the dead cat is
wide, thus slow

2012/2/16 pagnu...@htdconnect.com

 W-L LENR theory claims ultra-low momentum neutrons (ULMNs) are created
 - quite surprising if due to high kinetic energy e-p collisions.

 Overcoming the electroweak effective potential barrier that repels
 an electron from a proton (= udu 'quark bag') requires 780 KeV.

 Can slow (non-relativistic) electrons climb the barrier by borrowing
 just enough potential magnetic (but no kinetic) energy - leaving ULMNs?

 As shown in [1], in nanowires. almost no conduction electron energy is
 kinetic.  Almost all is likely stored in virtual exchange photons.

 On metal hydride nano-particle surfaces, plasma electrons and protons
 can oscillate in parallel and opposite directions .
 -- When velocity = 0, coulomb force brings some e-p pairs together
 -- as velocity increases, magnetic ampere force pinches e-p pairs closer

 Semiclassically, this increasing ampere force is equivalent to a rising
 linear potential in a time-varying Schroedinger equation - Graphically:

 ---
  PLASMONIC OScILLATION: TRANSFERING 'MAGNETIC ENERGY'

  MIN PLASMON AMPLITUDE   AMPLITUDE INCREASES
  MIN AMPERE FORCE    AMPERE FORCE RISES
  MIN LINEAR POTENTIAL    LINEAR POTENTIAL RISES

   ^ ^^ ^
   . .. .
 \  .   \ .\   .\.
  \ .\. \  . \ e
  \.+-+ +--  \   .  +-+ +-  \ . +-+ +-   |:+-
   \   .| | | ^   \  .  | | |\.e| | ||:|
\  .| | | |\ .  | | | \_| | ||:|
 \ .| | | | \   | | | | ||V|
  \ | | |780 \ e| | | | || |
   \| |u|KeV  \_| |u| |u||u|
\   | |d| |   |d| |d||d| -- ULMN (ddu)
 \ e| |u| |   |u| |u||u| + neutrino
  \_| |_| V   |_| |_||_|
 ---

 An electron arriving at a potential wall is pushed forward by the
 magnetic coupling to millions of conduction electrons and back-reacts
 by borrowing some of their collective momentum (Newton's 3rd Law).

 Ref[2] shows that electrons in nanowires can acquire enormous inertial
 mass from this coupling - distinct, I believe, from relavistic mass
 - which may make the surface plasma appear as an extremely viscous
 fluid to gamma rays, and could trap most high-energy gammas.


 [1]How Much of Magnetic Energy is Kinetic Energy? - Kirk T. McDonald
 http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/kinetic.pdf

 [2]Extremely Low Frequency Plasmons in Metallic Microstructures
 http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/lfplslet.pdf

 Comments/corrections very welcome,
 Lou Pagnucco

Re: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory

I believe that W=L theory proposes that LENR is initiated by strong
focusing of E-M fields on metal hydride surfaces.  I may be
misunderstanding, but wouldn't activation energy loss be too small to
detect in the energy released?

I don't understand Jones Beenes' point.
If correct - how do neutrons decay into e-, p+ and neutrino?


David Roberson wrote on Mon, 20 Feb 2012:

 I am beginning to get the impression that you are not a fan of the Widom
 Larsen theory.  That is not a difficulty as far as I can determine since
 my question is mainly an attempt to approach the problem from another
 point of view.  It seems that we are spending a lot of effort trying to
 figure out where the net activation energy arises when I think it is a
 good idea to look for that energy from within the reaction products.
 There is more than enough energy released by the LENR effect than required
 to initialize it.  Does it not seem logical to search for the missing
 energy in a location which has excess energy?

 The correct LENR theory may already exist in some form, but I have not
 detected anything resembling a consensus thus far.  What experiments can
 be conducted to weed out the concepts that are not correct?  Are there any
 ideal tests that would prove a particular theory beyond reasonable doubt?

 Please understand that I am attempting to think outside of the normal box.
  Sometimes an alternate approach to problems ignites a fuse.

 Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, Feb 20, 2012 6:49 pm
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory


 Not sure where you are going with this - but the simple explanation of all
 s it cannot happen, due to conservation of spin.
 Two half-spin fermions cannot fuse to form a half-spin neutron. Otherwise
 ydrogen would be unstable and spontaneously form neutrons.
   From: David Roberson
   I have a question that has bugged me for quite some time now
 nd maybe one of you would humor me with a simple explanation.

   Do we have to consider the total energy required for a P + e
 o become a N to have to arise out of a non active material?
 Oh sure - if you have a relativistic beam line with which to arbitrarily
 onvert energy into mass of any variety, such as creating a neutrino to
 arry away the extra spin - then you can do it; but the energy balance is
 so
 op-sided that it is irrelevant for practical purposes.
 Once again, Widom Larsen theory is brain dead from start to finish.
 Jones

RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory


Too many points to address.

Perhaps, the Celani-Srivastava presentation at the March 22 CERN LENR
Colloquium will discuss them, since Srivastava is a proponent.


Jones Beene wrote:

 Well - all of us on vortex would love to be able to focus on a consistent
 theory that works. W-L theory seems to be a continuing waste of our time
 for
 understanding Ni-H - for many major reasons (I have combined Ed Storms'
 objections with my own here):

 1) No neutron activation seen - neutron activation could not be avoided if
 the theory was valid.

 2) The technology and literature on ultra low temperature neutrons is
 well
 known and bears no resemblance to the Larsen invented species: ultra low
 momentum neutrons. How could the two be different?

 3) Energy cannot spontaneously concentrate on an electron to levels of in
 excess of  760,000 eV to provide a minimal basis for a neutron. (Second
 Law)

 4) Electrons at moderate temperatures cannot store energy beyond the
 energy
 levels available in a chemical systems, far below 0.76 MeV.

 5). Energetic electrons at less than relativistic energies do not react
 with
 protons to make neutrons. (Conflict with observation and violation of
 conservation of spin)

 6). Neutron addition to nickel produces well-known nuclear products that
 are
 not observed. (Conflict with copious observation)

 7). Neutron addition requires emission of gammas of known energy, which is
 not observed. (Conflict with experience and theory)

 8). Radioactive transmutation products should be present and are not seen.

 These are all major objections, and there are dozens more minor
 objections.
 Any one of these will invalidate W-L.

   It seems that we are spending a lot of effort trying to
 figure out where the net activation energy arises when I think it is a
 good
 idea to look for that energy from within the reaction products.  There is
 more than enough energy released by the LENR effect than required to
 initialize it.  Does it not seem logical to search for the missing energy
 in
 a location which has excess energy?

 No problem there. This is QM - and energy can be borrowed in advance of
 being repaid, as they say. But there are no neutrons. That much is
 completely clear.

   What experiments can be conducted to weed out the concepts
 that are not correct?

 First - we need to know for sure if there are absolutely zero gammas
 during
 operation or not. Bianchini says zero from the best available testing.
 Rossi
 says some, but offers no data; and DGT says some, but offers no data.

 If we knew the spectrum, and the net energy of gammas relative to the
 thermal output - there is little doubt that a workable theory could be
 framed.

 But it will not include anything from W-L - unless neutron activation is
 documented.

 Jones

RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory

Jones,

On your first point -

Electron Capture events [energy+p+e -- n+v] occur in the nucleus
and respect conservation laws.  Are we sure they cannot also occur in
extremely energetic complex plasmons?

On your second point - Energy must come from somewhere.

The formulas in the two papers I referenced show that conduction
electrons in nano-circuits can acquire far more momentum, inertial
mass and potential magnetic energy than in macro-circuits.

This is why I suggested that the electroweak barrier might be
surmounted by direct conversion of magnetic potential energy by an
ampere pinching together of an e-p pair - bypassing conversion
of magnetic-to-kinetic energy.

After all, exchanging electrostatic potential energy with
gravitional potential energy at slow speeds is easy.

The ampere force on an e-p plasmon pair is exerted by magnetic coupling to
millions of electrons.  Maybe an good analogy would be an arrow.  Only the
tip's electrostatic coupling to the rest of the arrow gives it piercing
power.

BTW, I am not sure of any of the above. Just speculating.
I welcome corrections.

Thanks for the reply,
Lou Pagnucco

Jones Beene wrote on Mon, 20 Feb 2012:
 -Original Message-
 From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

 I don't understand Jones Beene's point.
 If correct - how do neutrons decay into e-, p+ and neutrino?

 Yes, that is correct - and spin is conserved on neutron decay. Since you
 are going from a more massive neutron to a less massive proton, the energy
 released is also conserved.

 BUT - there is a basic asymmetry here in that in addition to the large
 mass deficit, when you try to go the other way (P + e), there is
 NO neutrino with which to conserve spin, so it cannot happen in that
 direction - get it?
 Neutrinos are ubiquitous but cannot be captured to retain symmetry.
  Plus - even if spin were not an issue, you cannot go from low mass to
 higher mass without adding LOTS of energy from somewhere. Speed of light
 squared cannot be easily bypassed to suddenly create the deficit mass -
 as W-L apparently wish to do. As David mentioned, in QM - the deficit
 could potentially be borrowed in advance, but only IF it could be
 repaid immediately (sub-pico-sec). However, there is too much time
 delay for that since the neutron is not immediately absorbed following
formation.

RE: [Vo]:A brief, semi-classical take on Widom-Larsen theory

2012-02-21 Thread pagnucco


Jones,

There too many theories to be partisan.  They all may be wrong.

First - E-C cannot occur in hydrogen.
Probably true, but plasma is not hydrogen.
Plasma e-p wave functions are not stationary.

Second - I agree - relativistic collisions can be ruled out.
That's why I conjectured direct conversion of potential energy might occur.

Third - E-C occurs in heavy atoms.
Yes.  That does not prove it cannot happen with different dynamics in
other circumstances.  W-L cite examples of anomalous neutron production
that MAY  be explained by E-C.  I am not sure.  The March 22
Celani-Srivastava presentation at CERN probably will cover this
- and W-L theory makes testable predictions.

Fourth - Why is neutrino capture is required?


Jones Beene wrote on Tue, 21 Feb 2012:
 Lou,

 On your first point -

 Electron Capture events [energy+p+e -- n+v] occur in the nucleus
 and respect conservation laws.  Are we sure they cannot also occur in
 extremely energetic complex plasmons?

 EC cannot occur with hydrogen, period.

 Never, Nada, No way. Not in QM, not in classical, not in plasmons. Even in
 a
 relativistic beam line, where the require energy near an MeV is available,
 that reaction is NOT a variety of EC.

 EC is not even a good analogy, since it occurs in unstable heavier nuclei
 (a
 beta emitter) with excess neutrons - and hydrogen (protium) has no neutron
 at all. Excess neutrons are the sine qua non for EC. There is no EC
 candidate in the nickel reactant at any rate.

 Most importantly the neutrino in EC is emitted, not captured â¼

 It needs to be captured for W-L theory to work properly. One cannot
 conflate
 two fundamentally different phenomena like this and then reverse the
 reaction vectors to prove a point. That is why I called the theory brain
 dead wrt nickel-hydrogen, which it is.

 Jones

[Vo]:If LENR is successful - you may not be invited to the party

2012-02-22 Thread pagnucco


Tech Bubble 2.0: It's a Private Thing

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/ipo-facebook-ipo-social-media-social/2/22/2012/id/39516

Along with private, secretive dark pool markets, investment markets
appear to be becoming exclusive clubs.

Hope this doesn't happen to LENR, if it can be commercialized.

[Vo]:New Presentation on Widom-Larsen Theory

2012-03-01 Thread pagnucco

Lewis Larsen has just posted a presentation on W-L theory
covering both history and theory.  It is timely, since one
of W-L's proponents (Y.N. Srivastava) will be co-presenting
at CERN with Celani on March 22.

A closer look at LENRs in condensed matter systems
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc300-nanoseconds-in-life-of-an-lenractive-patchfeb-29-2012

Especially with respect to transmutations, W-L theory makes
a lot of verifiable/falsifiable predictions.  Hopefully, the
Celani-Srivastava presentation will motivate more experiments.

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: DGT Triggered Reaction? Any Evidence?

2012-03-01 Thread pagnucco

George Miley and Xiaoling Yang have just published the abstract -

A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf

- which will be presented in the
ADVANCED CONCEPTS: LENR, ANTI-MATTER, AND NEW PHYSICS Session
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess462.pdf
- Friday, March 23, 2012

at the NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting)
The Woodlands, TX, March 21-23, 2012
http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html

They briefly discuss pressure cycling to generate heat from Patterson-type
cells.  Perhaps, someone living within driving distance of Houston could
attend, and ask for more details.  Also, Yang's and Miley's email
addresses are on the abstract, in case anyone wants to contact them.


 What exactly do we mean by reloading? It can't be the same as initial
 loading where hydrogen seeps into the lattice to fill or displace any
 vacancies or ambient gas already present because once a stable average
 gradient is established you would simply have migration where any
 displacements leave behind a vacancy for other randomly moving hydrogen to
 fill. This sounds much like a long ago argument I had with Jones Beene
 regarding the need to circulate hydrogen through the nano powder [based
 on the Haisch Moddel prototype], apparently circulation isn't needed at
 the macro scale because we aren't taking any energy away from the hydrogen
 and it can be re-cycled endlessly just using the random motion of heated
 gas through the geometry. I can see where changing the pressure up and
 down might modify the degree that the hydrogen is able to seep into the
 lattice [fractional levels?] but you aren't circulating new gas.. or is
 this what you mean by reloading ?
 Fran
 From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
 Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:39 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: DGT Triggered Reaction? Any Evidence?

 Thanks Terry, I recall DGT saying that as well.  I was actually wondering
 if the reloading happens naturally as a result of the hydrogen pressure
 after a triggered event takes place.  In this way, they are just re
 triggering an event that proceeds to completion on its own.  Can hydrogen
 reload into nickel quickly enough for this type of reaction to be a useful
 energy source and could we determine the amount of time between the
 triggered events from their scope display?  Also, this process reminds me
 a great deal of the video produced by Blacklight showing a run at the
 university test facility where one triggered pulse of heat energy was
 observed.

 Dave

 -Original Message-
 From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.commailto:hohlr...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Thu, Mar 1, 2012 11:31 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: DGT Triggered Reaction? Any Evidence?

 On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:44 AM, David Roberson
 dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote:



 Does anyone within the vortex see additional evidence in support any of
 the

 above concepts?





 I asked PDGT specifically if they were reloading with hydrogen for the

 second burst and they denied that was the case.



 T

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: DGT Triggered Reaction? Any Evidence?

2012-03-01 Thread pagnucco

Axil,

Miley, et al, are working on Ni-H cells also.

 I am getting the impression that the old timer LENR researchers are hung
 up on deuterium and Helium 4 ash as the only true path toward LENR
 success.
 Not true. Ni-H is the golden path ahead. You will find gold where others
 are finding it, not in your living room rug.

 On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 6:52 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 George Miley and Xiaoling Yang have just published the abstract -

 A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
 (LENRs)
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
 [...]

[Vo]:Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp

2012-03-02 Thread pagnucco


A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf

To be presented March 22, at The Woodslands, TX at
NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting)
http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess301.pdf

EXCERPT:
Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1) has
been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy. While
there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded kW-MW
LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are
important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction.
Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power unit
at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas (H2
can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J heat,
well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all
conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely chemical
reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to
negligible power input with gas loading! ...

Re: [Vo]:Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp

2012-03-02 Thread pagnucco

Corrections:
Title line should read 350W/Kg - date is March 23 - session URL is
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess462.pdf

Does anyone know whether Dick Smith's offer extends to Miley's lab, and
whether Miley would accept?

Lou Pagnucco


 A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf

 To be presented March 22, at The Woodslands, TX at
 NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting)
 http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess301.pdf

 EXCERPT:
 Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1) has
 been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy. While
 there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded kW-MW
 LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are
 important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction.
 Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power unit
 at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas (H2
 can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J heat,
 well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all
 conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely chemical
 reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to
 negligible power input with gas loading! ...

Re: [Vo]:Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp

2012-03-02 Thread pagnucco

Yes - pretty expensive, but as Daniel Rocha points out, they might be able
to claim the $1M prize with an investment of $60,000.  Also, it's worth
noting that the nanoparticles are not pure Pd.  Perhaps, too, if Miley
were to accept the challenge, a Pd supplier might provide it just for
advertising value.  And, lastly, if the Miley group could win the $1M,
then they would probably be deluged with offers of investment money.

Also, let's not forget Miley also works with Ni-H - so an analogous cell
might work with nano-Ni as well.

Peter Gluck wrote:
 I hope that at the 25th Anniversary of CF, palladium will be history. Its
 limits are inherent and incurable.
 And it's its scarcity is annihilating the chances to
 be an important source of energy.
 350W per kg...multiply it by 1000 and it starts to become interesting
 Peter

 On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:22 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 Corrections:
 Title line should read 350W/Kg - date is March 23 - session URL is
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess462.pdf

 Does anyone know whether Dick Smith's offer extends to Miley's lab, and
 whether Miley would accept?

 Lou Pagnucco

 
  A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
 (LENRs)
  http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
 
  To be presented March 22, at The Woodslands, TX at
  NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting)
  http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html
  http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess301.pdf
 
  EXCERPT:
  Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1)
 has
  been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy.
 While
  there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded
 kW-MW
  LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are
  important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell
 construction.
  Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power
 unit
  at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas
 (H2
  can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J
 heat,
  well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all
  conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely
 chemical
  reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to
  negligible power input with gas loading! ...
 
 
 
 
 





 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:nanoparticles in LENR

2012-03-27 Thread pagnucco


In nano-particles/wires/structures, ambient electric and magnetic fields
can be superfocused and amplified by a factor of ~50K.  This seems quite
counter-intuitive and pretty spectacular.


 I appreciate the interesting responses to my questions Xavier.  From the
 information you supplied I draw a conclusion that there is nothing
 spectacular occurring with the nano particles.  Their behavior appears to
 more or less mimic that of spheres of conductive material that have merely
 been shrunken in size so that they interact with visible and near visible
 wavelength radiation.  I do find the delayed decay(100 u sec?) into
 photons or heat interesting at visible wavelengths.  And please post
 further information about the 80 nm transition if you happen to recall
 later what transpired.

 Dave

 [...]

[Vo]:Brillouin Energy interviewed on Coldfusionnow.org

2012-03-28 Thread pagnucco


http://coldfusionnow.org/?p=15344

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy making waves

2012-03-29 Thread pagnucco

Thanks for posting this, Axil,

Brillouin's patent application claims that energy is derived from electron
capture by protons, as does Widom-Larsen theory. I have only had time to
quickly peruse it, but I did not see an explanation for the missing
gamma-rays. Perhaps, I missed it, or misunderstood part of the
application.

Does anyone have any insight?

Thanks,
Lou Pagnucco

Axil wrote:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=nWbjAQAAEBAJpg=PA2source=gbs_selected_pagescad=2#v=onepageqf=false

Energy Generation Apparatus and Method

This patent application explains the mechanism for the H/Ni LENR reaction.
This system is a pressurized water system that uses a unique electrical
pulse called a Q pulse applied to the Nickel or Palladium wire. This pulse
creates phonons in the metal wire of the proper character what creates
degenerate electrons at high energy using cavity confinement to energize
the electrons.

These electrons will combined with protons (H+) to form low energy
neutrons
that combine with the nuclei of the metal wire resulting in transmutation.

The shape and frequency of the Q pulse is critical to form the right
phonon
pattern in the metal lattice so that the electron acquires the properly
level of energy. I assume as speculation that there is a resonance
condition involved.

Rossis implementation of the frequency generator is an attempt to form a
Q
pulse in his reactor as prompted by R Godes. But Godes has his secret too;
it is the frequencies of the Q pulse. Rossi has no control mechanism in
his
product and therefore his reactor is not marketable.

[...]

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy making waves

2012-03-30 Thread pagnucco

Brillouin's website and the paper describing their theory at -
http://www.brillouinenergy.com
http://www.brillouinenergy.com/BrillouinEnergyHypothesis.pdf
gives more details.

I believe that a number of metal alloys are used for hydrogen storage.
It makes sense that they do not limit materials to just Ni and Pd.

Brillouin sounds quite real.  Hopefully, their technology will prove out.


Axil wrote:
 If you noticed, the 4H mechanism Brilllouin Energy Corp (BEC) describes is
 a heavy water mechanism.


 The patent might be a heavy water technology. But the patent mentions ions
 from water. This mixing of reaction mechanisms does not make sense. BEC
 also mentions 4He as a reaction product. What happened to copper?  Is the
 nickel enrichment in heavy isotopes required in the lattice? No mention of
 this in the patent.


 They specify that many materials can be used besides nickel, but this
 contradicts the special common enabling properties that nickel and
 palladium are purported to have in the electron shells. These properties
 get protons inside the lattice in heavy concentrations and can only be
 found in nickel and palladium. Whats up with this?
 [...]

[Vo]:Should there be a prediction market for LENR?

2012-03-30 Thread pagnucco

There are several prediction markets that allow legal wagers on political,
economic, technological, ..., events.

The Wikipedia page at -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market - lists and describes them:

Prediction markets (also known as predictive markets, information
markets, decision markets, idea futures, event derivatives, or virtual
markets) are speculative markets created for the purpose of making
predictions. The current market prices can then be interpreted as
predictions of the probability of the event or the expected value of the
parameter. For example, a prediction market security might reward a dollar
if a particular candidate is elected, such that an individual who thinks
the candidate had a 70% chance of being elected should be willing to pay
up to 70 cents for such a security.

People who buy low and sell high are rewarded for improving the market
prediction, while those who buy high and sell low are punished for
degrading the market prediction. Evidence so far suggests that prediction
markets are at least as accurate as other institutions predicting the same
events with a similar pool of participants

High profile media have covered LENR. Would a prediction market in LENR
also attract enough participants to be liquid? Perhaps with a wager like -
'A Fortune 500 company announces an LENR product by 2015'?

Re: [Vo]:Should there be a prediction market for LENR?

2012-03-30 Thread pagnucco

You make a excellent point, Jed.

I have heard accusations that some of these markets may have been
manipulated by certain political election campaigns.  It probably doesn't
require a huge investment to move the odds.

However, these markets are probably too small for a major corporation to
make much profit in.  I think it would be much more expensive to suppress
a new energy technology than it would take to move these markets.  And,
having odds makers following LENR might generate a lot of public interest.


Jed Rothwell wrote:
 I do not know much about prediction markets but this seems like a bad idea
 because the game is rigged. Whether a Fortune 500 company will announce a
 product or not is entirely a matter of politics. There are no technical
 reasons to prevent this from happening. In a sane world, every Fortune 500
 company would already be frantically developing cold fusion.

 In the 1980s the television program Dallas had a season during which
 everyone was asking who shot JR? (Everyone but me. I had no idea this
 was
 happening.) In the UK, there are betting shops where you can bet on just
 about anything: sports, politics, whether tourists will travel to the
 moon.
 However they did not allow people to bet on who shot JR because the answer
 was known to someone. It was up to the scriptwriters. The scriptwriters
 themselves might have secretly placed bets in favor of one character or
 another, making a fortune.

 The decision to develop cold fusion or not has never been bounded by
 technical problems. It has always been a matter of choice. It has always
 been about academic politics and funding. Any time in the last 23 years,
 any major industrial company might have invested $100 million or so, and
 very likely they would have developed a workable prototype. At least they
 would've shown beyond any doubt that the effect is real and worth spending
 hundreds of millions more on.

 I suppose it may take approximately $1 billion to develop industrial
 prototypes. I think it will be far more expensive than Defkalion now
 anticipates. This may seem like a lot of money but it is approximately how
 much the world spends every day on fossil fuel. Compared to the savings
 brought by cold fusion this is a microscopic sum of money. It like
 investing a dollar in the lottery and winning $500 million (as someone is
 likely to do tonight).

 Many skeptics over the years have argued that we should not do cold fusion
 research because we cannot be sure it will pan out. That's ridiculous.
 First, because by that standard no one would get out of bed in the morning
 because you might be struck by lightning. Second, because there is every
 indication that cold fusion will work out, and not a single valid
 technical
 reason to doubt that. By 1990 it had already achieved temperatures and
 power density. There has never been any doubt that once it is understood
 and controlled, it will be a viable source of energy far cheaper than any
 other.

 Some skeptics have argued that we cannot afford to do cold fusion
 research.
 That goes way beyond ridiculous into deepest cloud cuckoo land. imagine a
 $500 million lottery in which there are only 10 tickets for sale, one is
 certain to win, and you have the opportunity to buy nine of them for $9.
 Would you say you can't afford that?

 Cold fusion will be by far the most cost-effective RD in the recorded
 history of our species.

 - Jed

[Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

2012-04-04 Thread pagnucco

Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled -
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning - at -
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen

He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective
motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, can
form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events.

Slides 18-20 (Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III)
review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on
whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce
transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf).

Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled
electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam of
uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none.  Rutherford's eminence
trumped Wendt's more modest reputation.

Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce -
using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's.

Has anyone tried to reproduce it?

RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

Abd,

Regarding the absence of gammas -

Don't nanoscale currents store far more inductive momentum/energy than
macro currents do per conduction electron?  For example, see -
Low Frequency Plasmons in Thin Wire Structures - JB Pendry
http://www.cmth.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/Newphotonics/pdf/wires.pdf

The surface electrons behave as a low density plasma of very heavy
charged particles.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I surmise that these high effective mass
electrons propagate with extremely high momentum - due to inductive
coupling to other neighboring conduction electrons.  I believe they appear
effectively far more massive in the current flow direction.

If so, is it reasonable to suppose that a high energy gamma would
experience many (anomalously high) dissipative Compton collisions before
escaping as a less energetic photon?  If this is plausible, could we
confirm it, by embedding a few radioactive gamma sources inside nanowires
and observing whether gammas are attenuated and/or directionally scattered
during current flow?

Thanks,
Lou Pagnucco


Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
 At 08:59 AM 4/5/2012, Jones Beene wrote:
This is hot, so to speak. Cough, cough ... that can be understood in a
slightly derogatory way.

Well, it is a slick presentation, glossy and well-prepared - and very
convincing for LENR in a most superficial way. Cheerleaders for W-L, like
Steve Krivit will be quick to heap on the praise. Put on your waders.

However, there is little or no indication that this information has the
least bit of relevance for anything other than exploding wires and
 lightning
- where everyone has known for a long time that nuclear reactions do
 occur.
These are not LENR reactions, but are hot. Very hot.

Too bad, with all Larsen's funding, that he cannot muster a decent
experiment of his own with real data - but instead must depend on slick
side-shows and shills to promote a theory that is almost absurd for its
intended purpose.

 Yeah, I've been looking for evidence that W-L theory is more than a
 castle in the air, with no foundation. I've been looking in vain.
 It's all post-hoc analysis, with ad hoc explanations presented as if
 it were established fact.

 I read with interest widom and Larsen's paper on Absorption of
 Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons
 on Metallic Hydride Surfaces. That's the rabbit that they pull out
 of the hat to explain lack of gamma radiation from metal hydride
 LENR. This should actually be relatively easy to validate
 experimentally, and they know that it would have some value on its
 own, hence they have patented the idea of using these heavy electron
 patches to absorb gamma radiation. Fine. Demonstrate it. Once upon a
 time Larsen was asked by Garwin -- Krivit reported this conversation
 -- about experimental evidence for the gamma absorption. That's
 proprietary information, Larsen replied.

 Great. But now that it's patented?

 The slide show is well produced, except it's all gee-whiz,
 *explanations* of stuff with no grounding.

 And I still have seen no expanation, anywhere, of the basic problems
 with W-L theory.

 W and L essentially notice what is fairly obvious: if neutrons can be
 formed, LENR will take place. But what kind of LENR?

 So they make up a way that neutrons might be formed, then treat this
 as if it were established fact. Okay, that's part of how we form
 imaginative hypotheses. But then real science starts, in the effort
 to falsify this lovely construct. And I see very little of this.

 W and L do address one obvious problem, the lack of observed gammas,
 though they understate it. They say that the expected copious gammas
 are not seen. They understate the problem drastically. If neutrons
 are formed on the surface of metal hydrides, they will produce
 predictable specific frequencies of gamma radiation, and, yes,
 copiously. In order to explain away the lack of observation of these
 gammas, they have to imagine a really prefect gamma-capture device.
 So they make one up. So we now have two rooms built in our castle in the
 air.

 This is little or no improvement over open ignorance. At least I
 don't know is intellectually honest. I can imagine is great, as
 long as we don't believe what we imagine. Ever. Imagination is useful
 when it leads to real creation and real understanding, as
 demonstrated by an ability to predict what would otherwise be a
 mystery or miracle. Simply creating more miracles that aren't
 grounded is not what the field of LENR needs. We need far more basic
 science, far more real data, far more establishment of controlled
 experimental conditions. Theories? We have *way too many.* Storms is
 right about that.

 So I'll be posting something here about a very specific piece of
 equipment that is needed to do some of this work. I hope that those
 with some hands-on experience with lasers will assist us. There is
 some very exciting stuff going on.

 So, the third miracle that Widom and Larsen theory involves.
 Intermediate

RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

Jones,

Sure, some of those experiments produce hot plasmas, but there are many 
experimental results which appear to produce transmutations with
temperatures too low to produce collisions energetic enough for fusion  -
unless the energy is focused and hidden in infinitesimal volumes.

My suggestion is that transmutations be the litmus test for LENR - not the
calorimetry results which never seem definitive enough for everyone.  If
the reported successful experiments were well conducted, then they will be
reproducible.

Jones Beene wrote:
 This is hot, so to speak. Cough, cough ... that can be understood in a
 slightly derogatory way.

 Well, it is a slick presentation, glossy and well-prepared - and very
 convincing for LENR in a most superficial way. Cheerleaders for W-L, like
 Steve Krivit will be quick to heap on the praise. Put on your waders.

 However, there is little or no indication that this information has the
 least bit of relevance for anything other than exploding wires and
 lightning
 - where everyone has known for a long time that nuclear reactions do
 occur.
 These are not LENR reactions, but are hot. Very hot.

 Too bad, with all Larsen's funding, that he cannot muster a decent
 experiment of his own with real data - but instead must depend on slick
 side-shows and shills to promote a theory that is almost absurd for its
 intended purpose.

 Lou, your asked: tried to reproduce... what? Exploding wires? There is a
 megaton of RD on exploding wires - and no one doubts that it is good
 data,
 but how does it relate to LENR?

 The exploding wire field kind of languished a decade ago, due to lack of a
 way to go from wires, one at a time - to higher output. Almost every issue
 of FT (Fusion Technology) in the 1990s had papers on this (before Miley
 retired as editor). Too bad FT never went digital. There are a couple of
 patents on ways to continuously feed wired into electrodes but none of
 them
 got traction, as far as I know.

 Jones



 -Original Message-
 From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

 Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled -
 Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
 New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning - at -
 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen

 He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective
 motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, can
 form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events.

 Slides 18-20 (Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III)
 review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on
 whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce
 transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf).

 Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled
 electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam of
 uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none.  Rutherford's eminence
 trumped Wendt's more modest reputation.

 Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce -
 using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's.

 Has anyone tried to reproduce it?

RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

Jones,

Good points.
I do not know the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect.  I will research it tonight.
There could be a number of confounding effects that coexist.

Our tendency to look for a relativistic collision behind every nuclear
event (except radioactivity) could be the problem.

Lou Pagnucco

Jones Beene wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

 Jones, Sure, some of those experiments produce hot plasmas, but there
 are
 many
 experimental results which appear to produce transmutations with
 temperatures too low to produce collisions energetic enough for fusion...


 Lou - yes that is absolutely true. But there is a middle ground. This goes
 back a few decades to Philo Farnsworth - the inventor of television. He
 was
 obsessed with fusion at lower but not low energy. The Farnsworth Fusor is
 the main case in point for the middle ground (and exploding wires is
 next). This is a completely different regime than LENR. Indeed W-L may
 have
 some relevance to warm fusion, but none to LENR.

 Copious neutrons from both these devices (Fusor and exploding wire) are
 documented at input energies of about 10 keV instead of the fusion
 threshold
 of over 1 MeV for real fusion (100 times less). Thus, the name often
 applied
 to these two reactions is warm fusion. They are triggered with 100 times
 more energy than LENR, but are 100 time colder than thermonuclear fusion.
 Mas o menos.

 The wild card which explains everything is the Oppenheimer-Phillips
 effect,
 aka the deuteron stripping reaction, or OP effect which is the removal
 of a neutron from deuterium.

 Wiki has an entry but it is probably the most flawed Wiki entry I have
 read.
 There is better information in the Vortex archive.

 Jones

RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

Abd,

I intend to do some more research on this - plasmonics is pretty dicey.

I'm not sure whether a nanowire has a cross-section large enough to
scatter gammas originating at any significant distance, thoug, unless they
are extremely collimated.

But, I am more optimistic than you are that W-L would pass this test.
According to the calculations in the paper I cited, the enormous effective
(not relativistic) mass of those electrons make each look like a subatomic
battering ram to any particle unfortunate enough to collide with one.

I will try to find a local college with appropriate lab resources.
There's a slim chance I can get it done.
Probably expensive. Too bad I lost the lottery.

Lou Pagnucco


Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
 At 03:29 PM 4/5/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Abd,

Regarding the absence of gammas -
... is it reasonable to suppose that a high energy gamma would
experience many (anomalously high) dissipative Compton collisions before
escaping as a less energetic photon?  If this is plausible, could we
confirm it, by embedding a few radioactive gamma sources inside nanowires
and observing whether gammas are attenuated and/or directionally
 scattered
during current flow?

 Gamma sources could be placed so that gammas pass through the
 supposedly active heavy electron patches, and, if W-L theory is real,
 drastic attenuation should be seen. That attentuation should not be
 seen with controls. W-L theory requires 100% absorption of the gamma
 energies that would be generated from neutron absorption, so this
 should not be difficult to detect.

 Since Larsen patented this, it's really on him to demonstrate it. I'm
 not about to try setting up some complex experiment just to prove a
 wild theory wrong.

 Now, if I had a reason to believe W-L theory, if I were a proponent
 of it, then, sure, the experiment would be very much in order.

 Widom and Larsen are raising a highly unlikely theory *without any
 experimental evidence specifically supporting it.*

 If they published a gamma screen paper, with sufficient detail for
 replication, and showing their own results, *then* we'd see some
 movement on this. Until then, it's fancy pie in the sky.

 That wouldn't prove W-L theory, but a successful prediction is golden
 for moving ahead with new science.

RE: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

Abd,

You are right - I did not intend to sound dogmatic.

I am beginning to wonder whether a couple of different phenomena, perhaps
sharing a common denominator, are occurring - depending on experimental
materials and procedures.  Nature may be getting a little perverse here.

The Wendt-Irion exploding wire experiment did appear to produce Helium.
Their original paper is -
EXPERIMENTAL ATTEMPTS TO DECOMPOSE TUNGSTEN AT HIGH TEMPERATURES
- Amer. Chem. Soc. 44 (1922)
http://www.uf.narod.ru/science/WendtIrion.pdf

Would this provide some link between CF and LENR if reproduced?

Lou Pagnucco

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
 At 04:37 PM 4/5/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
My suggestion is that transmutations be the litmus test for LENR - not
 the
calorimetry results which never seem definitive enough for everyone.  If
the reported successful experiments were well conducted, then they will
 be
reproducible.

 There are some highly questionable assumptions here.

 First, it appears that the predominant reaction (by far) in the
 Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect does not involve transmutations *other
 than to helium.*

 Helium has been found to be correlated with heat. Helium had been
 reported, early on, by Pons and Fleischmann and by others, but the
 results were not widely accepted and were not convincing.

 Miles, however, ran a series of cells, finding excess heat in most,
 and collected gas samples from all the cells, submitting it for blind
 analysis. His results were clear: no excess heat, no helium. If there
 was excess heat, there was helium, in amounts well within an order of
 magnitude of what would be expected from fusion of deuterium to
 helium (by any mechanism; if the fuel is deuterium and the ash is
 helium, this value, 23.8 MeV/He-4, will result. The major difficulty
 is collecting all the helium for measurement; Storms figures that
 roughly half is trapped in the cathode.)

 Secondly, individual cold fusion experiments, in PdD, continue to be
 highly erratic. Success rates, i.e., finding some excess heat, have
 increased over the years until nearly every cell shows such a result,
 but the quantity of heat varies greatly.

 It is not a problem of how well the experiments are conducted.
 Rather, the very method involves physical conditions which are quite
 difficult to control. It appears that the FPHE involves defects in
 the palladium, and the palladium itself changes during the process. A
 cathode which is showing no effect, later, under what would appear to
 be the *exact same conditions*, then shows the effect, and not
 marginally; rather, clearly, far above noise.

 What is constant, though, whenever it has been tested, is the
 correlation of helium with the heat. There is no contrary
 experimental evidence; the early negative replications, the ones that
 tested for helium -- and some did -- actually confirm this. They
 found no helium and they found no heat. From what we know now, we can
 say for certain that they simply failed to set up the necessary
 conditions, and from other later work, it's quite clear what this
 likely involved. They ran at a loading of roughly 70%, whereas the
 FPHE required loading of something on the order of 90% or better.
 (Effects are not seen, at all, below 80%).

 To get that high loading requires special palladium. Before the work
 of Pons and Fleischmann, it appears that 70% was considered about the
 best you could get!

 And high loading, by itself, isn't necessarily adequate.

 In any case, the calorimetry, in the hands of experts, is quite
 adequate. It alone won't convince those who are not confident about
 calorimetry, which is why helium is so important. The helium and
 calorimetry confirm each other. The only thing that connects them
 would be transmutation, i.e., the fusion of deuterium to helium.

 There have been attempts to impeach the helium results, but every one
 of those attempts that I've seen simply ignores the experimental
 conditions. It's as if someone says, Helium has been found in cold
 fusion cells and the person, without looking at the data at all,
 says, Must be leakage from ambient helium. End of topic.

 That could make some sense when the helium levels are below ambient.
 It makes no sense when they rise above ambient, as they do on
 occasion, and it does not explain -- at all -- how the helium could
 be correlated with the heat, and not just at some random value, at
 roughly the fusion value. Once this was known and confirmed, by
 rights, the shoe should have been on the other foot. That happened
 long ago, and here we are, still flapping about.

 With a preposterous theory gaining attention because, it's claimed,
 It's not fusion! Where are the experimental results to back it up?
 The confirmed predictions?

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation