[Vo]:And thanks for all the fish
Unfortunately, Abd was one of the list's most interesting contributors and commentators. So your decision, while nice on paper, effectively declares victory for the troll. It's your list. But I'm outta here. Jeff Berkowitz
[Vo]:Bummer
Select all, mark as read. Same as most other days lately. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon
After some additional reading, I agree with you, Abd. Or perhaps I should just say that my assertions from last evening were false and I'm now even more confused you are. Which I will take as step forward ... it is far better to be confused than to be wrong. Jeff On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 08:11 PM 12/28/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: I think a lot of the reasoning about photons, above, is wrong. The red shift has nothing to do with gravity, only the relative velocity of the photon source relative to the observer. Eek. Apparently not. If an event just outside the event horizon of a black hole emits a photon, an observer at rest relative to the black hole will observe no red shift regardless the strength of the black hole's gravitational field. Apprently this is not so, and it directly contradicts many sources that might be expected to get it right. The red shift is not a motion-related doppler shift, it is a gravitational shift, purely. If the observer then accelerates away from the black hole, similar photons emitted from the same source will appear to be red shifted. It's entirely an observational effect. There is no loss of energy from the photon and no need to store anything anywhere. This topic is a continual temptation to me to stick my foot in my mouth. What I'm getting is that there is a lot I don't understand about black holes and particularly about the event horizon. Essentially, I've felt that I have a decent understanding of special relativity, but general relativity is another animal, and gravitational effects on light are an aspect of general relativity. The event horizon, it is being said, is the point at which no path exists for the photon to escape, to travel away from the singularity. This is caused by the intensity of the gravitational field, which is a fixed value at the event horizon. That's the value that allows no escape. Just outide the event horizon, the photon may escape, but does not escape unscathed. It loses energy climbing the gravitational potential field. It red-shifts as it loses energy. (That energy is being converted to potential energy, just as with any object with momentum away from a gravity source loses momentum, trading it for potential energy.) The puzzle to me here is the statement made that an object travelling toward the black hole will not only be seen through a red shift, but will also appear to slow, such that it never passes the event horizon, it just gets closer, but more and more slowly, until it is red-shifted out of observability. It is alleged that this takes forever. And I don't understand that. To resolve this, part of what I'll need to look at are the equations for gravitational red shift, or the effect of gravity on light. Then I can look at what would happen with light emitted outside the event horizon (which I presume will fall out of the gravitational equations), and can construct a thought-experiment for an object approaching the event horizon, which was the original problem here. It *looks* to me like some material that is popularly stated about black holes and event horizons might be incorrect, but I certainly don't know enough to claim that with any clarity. I *do* imagine that I know enough to deny that the red shift being talked about here is the ordinary doppler shift, i.e., due to the relative velocity between the source and the reference frame.
Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon
I think a lot of the reasoning about photons, above, is wrong. The red shift has nothing to do with gravity, only the relative velocity of the photon source relative to the observer. If an event just outside the event horizon of a black hole emits a photon, an observer at rest relative to the black hole will observe no red shift regardless the strength of the black hole's gravitational field. If the observer then accelerates away from the black hole, similar photons emitted from the same source will appear to be red shifted. It's entirely an observational effect. There is no loss of energy from the photon and no need to store anything anywhere. Jeff On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 10:16 PM 12/27/2012, David Roberson wrote: That energy leaving the massive star becomes trapped within the space surrounding it to a significant degree; how is this possible unless space itself has expanded to accommodate it? No, the energy is not trapped. Light continues to travel at the speed of light. Actually Abd, a photon has a finite amount of energy that is directly proportional to its frequency. Yes. If it becomes red shifted by definition it has less energy. Since the photon looses energy as it travels through the region from the edge of the black hole toward our observation point, that energy must be stored within this space. The energy is stored in the gravitational system. It is potential energy. When a body falls toward the earth, its potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. When the body is shot from the earth, and it is deaccelerated by gravity, its kinetic energy is converted to potential energy. We don't normally think of light this way. However that seems to me to be what happens. If the light were reflected back to the black hole, returning along the same path, it would regain the energy it lost. Potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy. We could collect each photon with a detector after it leaved the vicinity of the black hole and we would find that it is less energetic. So no, it does not continue forever at the same energy. That's correct. But it continues forever, unless it is obstructed. And it continues at the same velocity. It does not slow down (in a vacuum, anyway). Then the photon will continue to infinity. I thought that your idea was supposed to be a way to communicate information from within the event horizon to outside, by positing a ship that is outside of our horizon, but sees an event horizon closer, and the second ship is within our horizon -- we can't communicate with it -- but outside of the first ship's horizon. One thing at a time Abd. The main plan is to communicate if possible, but this explains part of the problem and why it happens. Every once in a while it makes sense to look at the overall system. It's like any photon. It travels until it reaches the end of time. I.e., forever, and a day. Its energy remains intact, but because of the red-shift, the energy is spread out more. No. If the photon becomes red shifted, energy is lost from that photon. If the red shift is total down to zero, no energy remains. If the photon is beyond the event horizon, heading outward, it is never red shifted to zero. (I was incorrect about energy, though. Energy is lost in climbing the gravitational well, stored as potential energy from gravity.) What do we have in terms of observation of black holes? Sorry if it sounded like I had observations of them. I was just asking if others might as I do not. I didn't think that. It has to be. However, I don't know that any such object has been observed. All the spectral lines would be shifted. We might conclude that the object is a a great distance, and the only way we'd know that it wasn't would be if we could detect graviational effects other than red shift. This is a good question for the astronomers. Perhaps they are seeing these things and are not aware of it. It is hard to imagine that there are not a large number of these out there unless they tend to explode before reaching this size range. It might not be a bad idea for the astronomers to take a second look at what is referred to as failed stars or other unusual thermal objects. I doubt they would miss this. But maybe.
Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon
I read all the relevant wikipedia pages. My conclusion is that this question is very difficult and that the process of answering it will involve rephrasing it in more precise terms. In particular the term event horizon is a catchall for multiple distinct horizons, each backed by a subtly different mathematical formalism. Jeff On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Is the event horizon of a black hole considered an observer relative location? We, who are at a very large distance relative to a black hole see the event horizon as located a finite distance from the center of the star. If another observer happens to be closer to the same hole, does he detect it as somewhat nearer to the center of the hole? I have an interesting thought experiment that depends upon the answer to this question. My suspicion is that the perceived horizon location does depend upon the exact location and most likely motion of the observer. Has anyone had an opportunity to actually calculate this effect? Dave
Re: [Vo]:INFN/Stmicro paper: Modification of Pd-H2 and Pd-D2 thin films processed by He-Ne laser...
Thanks for posting the link. There has been work like this at Lecce for many years. I've posted this link before. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Castellanonucleartra.pdf Jeff On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, On 22passi, Danielle Paserini publish a paper from INFN/Lecce/StMicrohttp://www.22passi.it/coherence2012/Nuclear_transmutation_in_Pd_thin_films.pdfabout changes (transmutation, craters...) in thin films of PdD/PdH, with laser excitation... This paper was inside the JCMNS volume5 by JP Biberian, and you quoted it here too, but I don't remind (maybe I did not catch it)... What is your opinion on it... It remind me Iwamura. NB: I've posted my small summary/extract on lenr-forum.comhttp://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?907-INFN-Lecce-STMicro-Pd-H2-amp-Pd-D2-thin-films-processed-by-He-Ne-laser... Critics welcome about my position... Drew just found a paperhttp://www.22passi.it/coherence2012/Nuclear_transmutation_in_Pd_thin_films.pdfcited by 22passi where INFN/Uni Lecce and Dr Mastromatteo from ST Microelectronics. It was presented at Coherence2012http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?p=3357#post3357 . It was also in the volume 5 of the journal of condensed matter nuclear science (J-P Biberian) in 2011http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedd.pdf#page=7 . this paper is really interesting. First it is using microelectronics-style technology, ion implant, thin films... far from electrolysis or powder/film cooking. the Laser excitation is interesting... It looks high-tech, but for specialist of micro-electronics and nanotech it is more usual. In the paper the few results are explained as such Different behaviors were revealed for samples kept in air, laser treated and no-laser treated: so, about the samples kept in air, the film surface was smooth, it looked like a mirror; instead, the samples treated and no-treated by laser showed morphological modifications of the Pd-film due to the gas absorption. The morphological modifications consisted in formation of spots with dimension of 1-50 μm after gas loading. Fig. 4 shows an example of spots on the surface of a sample of palladium implanted with boron, loaded by D2 gas and not irradiated. By EDX analyser, we have investigated inside the spots and we have found the presence of new elements such as C, O, Ca, Fe, Al, S, Mg, K and Na. In Fig. 5 an example of EDX spectrum of a Pd sample with 76 days of treatment is reported. It is possible to observe the presence of many new elements which were inexistent before the treatment. In addition, by He-Ne laser action, we have found a larger number of spots and a larger number of new elements. Fig. 6 shows a SEM micrograph of a sample processed by H2 gas and laser; Fig. 7 shows EDX spectrum obtained from one spots of the sample: the new elements were: C, O, Ca, Fe, Al, S, Mg, K, Na, F, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni. The list of the new elements is reported for every experimental case of the sample treatment. We can observe that the combination between H2 gas loading and laser action on the treatment of the samples is very interesting in order to produce many transmutation elements; nevertheless the results with D2 gas loading are also not negligible about the production of new elements, but there are no evident differences between laser and no laser treated samples. The laser action is also very important to increase the spot density on the surface of the treated samples. All new elements were found inside the spots systematically but none of these seems to be generated from a particular nuclear reaction between B and D2 and H2. These experiments confirm the reproducibility of the transmutation phenomenon but we are still far to make clarifications about the mechanisms which happened inside the crystalline lattice of Pd samples. . They clearly find melting of pdd, different behaviors, transmutation toward lighter elements than Pd... I would compare those experiment with the ones of Iwamura. in the article on 22passihttp://translate.google.com/translate?hl=frsl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.fr%2F2012%2F12%2Fcoherence-2012-contributi-di-ubaldo.html%3Futm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DFeed%3A%2Bblogspot%2FGneRw%2B%28%253Cp%2Balign%253D%2522right%2522%253EVentidue%2Bpassi%2Bd%2527amore%2Be%2Bdintorni%2B%2B%2B%253C%2Fp%253E%29, Danielle nicely remind the fact read from the paper: The article in English (as pdf), at a glance, shows three facts which experimentally Mastromatteo considers indisputable: 1. Pd immersed in the environment of H or D is the seat of energetic phenomena of nuclear origin, since the material in the form of thin film reaches the melting temperature, as can be seen from the pictures in the electron microscope (type reactions chemical would not be able to bring the material to fusion in areas so
[Vo]:Request about off-topic threads.
Just please don't put anything about alternative energy in an off-topic thread. That was those of us interested in alternative energy can just ignore the off-topic threads. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:So what has been discovered is not a new source of energy....
For what it's worth, Harry, there is a bit of early history that played out in a way similar to what you're describing. Back in 1994, Focardi, Habel and Piantelli published this: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Focardi-AnomalousHeatNi-H-NuovoCimento.pdf After which some folks at CERN published this: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1996/1996Cerron-InvestigationOfAnomalous.pdf YMMV. Jeff On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: ... Instead Celani, Piantelli, Forcardi discovered that when nickel aborbs hygrodgen the thermal charactersitics of nickel change (by making it less reflective)? And Celani has discovered that this change is correlated with a drop in the electrical resistance of the nickle. Is that it? harry
Re: [Vo]:tunneling in chemical reactions, esp. involving H transfer
http://www.ezra.chem.cornell.edu/cat_poem.pdf On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Researchers at the University of Georgia in the US have discovered a possible form of tunneling in connection with chemical reactions, especially if hydrogen transfer is involved: http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/uga-researcher-discovery-new-force-chemical-reactions/ (From a link posted by Ron B to the MFPM comments section of the most recent blog post.) Eric That is the first depiction I have ever seen of Schrodinger's cat escaping from Schrodinger's box. What is the world comming to when Schrodinger's Cat won't stay put? ;-) Harry
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
In their 12/12/12 Progress Blog posting, MFMP stated that there was a dleliberate error in the data viewer, and challenged people to spot it. *We have a “deliberate mistake” in the data viewer, if you are sober enough at this time in the day, we challenge you to spot it. * Did anyone ever find it? Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Correction! I didn't realize that they had upped the power to 54 watts. Craig On 12/14/2012 03:14 PM, Craig wrote: I'm not seeing the problem. The highest temperature in the calibration runs for T-GlassIn, at this power level, was about 125C. During this live run, the temperature appears to be about 5 C above that. Craig On 12/14/2012 03:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
Is everyone taking into account the fact that the graphs for T_Glassout are actually (T_Glassout - T_Ambient), while the graph for T_Glassin is the raw T_Glassin and is not corrected for ambient? Or at least so they are labeled. Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed Then again maybe the behaviour is analogous to the sun's corona. The corona sphere is at a higher temperature then the surface of the sun which is the opposite of what you would expect from a straightforward application of thermodynamics. harry
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
The difference between T_Mica and T_GlassIn seems to be about 5 degrees larger than it was during calibration. I put the details in the progress blog comments. Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/14/2012 03:53 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Is everyone taking into account the fact that the graphs for T_Glassout are actually (T_Glassout - T_Ambient), while the graph for T_Glassin is the raw T_Glassin and is not corrected for ambient? Or at least so they are labeled. Jeff I don't think that's relevant for this issue. The temperature of the inside of the glass appears to be the same in both the calibration runs and this current test, for the same power level applied. This implies that the extra temperature on the outside of the glass is some sort of artefact. Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
Agree. No idea what's really going on. For example, the calibration numbers I posted came from a 1-bar 100% H calibration run. Are they now running 100%H or 75%H / 25%Ar in the cell? If the latter, is it enough to account for the apparent 5C degree difference? I'm not making any claims, that is for sure. Just posting data. Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: The difference between T_Mica and T_GlassIn seems to be about 5 degrees larger than it was during calibration. I suppose . . . if all of the temperature sensors show an increase except T_Glassin, that sensor might be malfunctioning. But I doubt it. When a sensor malfunctions it generally drifts, or it shows zero, or some random number. It does not usually show the same value it did during calibration. In this case, if the thing is malfunctioning it is too low. Meaning it drifted down. It should keep going down, lower and lower. This is not good news. In calorimeters of this general design that I know of, such the ones Mel Miles made where he measured the temperature at the cell wall, temperatures everywhere rise when heat increases. They may not all rise the same degree, but they rise proportionally. You do not see one sensor showing the same temperature as before. I have no idea why it might be doing this, but it does seem like an artifact. As I said before, the highly stable output that turns on right away also makes me think it is an artifact. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP
I should have zoomed in on voltage, current and R/R0 by turning off the temperature traces in the graph, but the comment below is pretty close. Between 4PM and (almost) midnight PST, Hot wire current varied by less than 10 milliamps (1.712 - 1.722 amps) Hot wire voltage varied by less than 20 millivolts (27.99 - 28.01 volts) R/R0 varied by less than 0.005 ohm. I am looking at 1 minute averages. This is very solid. Jeff On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I looked at the voltage, current, and R/R0 values over various periods and they all look completely flat to me. I don't see any evidence of erratic power supply behavior. I'm not so sure about the correlation with T_ambient either. If you zoom to the 14:00 - 14:50 period the ambient temp drops slightly while the P_Xs rises for many minutes. There are other periods like this too. Jeff On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: Re almost hourly fluctuations in T_Ambient -- the HVAC system kicking in periodically, maybe? Also, do any of the electronics folks here know what the effect might be on the instrumentation providing us with a measure for P_in if the external power supply were erratic? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP
Here's a 33 minute period from this morning. To me they look kind of inverted - one goes up when the other goes down. At least in this sample. The 50-minute cycles may be there but have to be confirmed by the math ... the mind is sometimes too good at finding patterns. Jeff On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:00 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I think that there is a strong correlation between the ambient and the assumed power output. Dave -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 4:41 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP The frequency of T° ambient and P_Xs are the same (Around 50 minutes). Is ir a coincidence? Arnaud On 2012-12-13 03:29, Craig wrote: This is so strange. I set the data in View Test Celani Cell #2, found here: http://data.hugnetlab.com/ to view back 4 hours. Then I selected only P_Xs Low. Notice that the excess power is oscillating between 4 watts and 8 watts, in a very precise rhythm, with each wave appearing to have the same shape, and with each wave lasting about an hour. I also see that the wave appears to be tapering with the lows becoming higher and the heights become lower. There also seems to be a correlation with T_Ambient, but why? Whatever this is, it didn't happen with the previous overnight run with power applied to the inert wire (and the active wire partially loaded, in hydrogen atmosphere). This is a user-submitted image from the MFMP blog showing it: http://i.imgur.com/bB383.png (note that Power (Red) actually shows W instead of bar) From 2012-12-12 00:00 to about 10:00, external glass temperature (under 50W of indirect heating) didn't seem to fluctuate very much with ambient temperature. However with direct heating (48W) it does quite much. The main difference between those two runs is that the one with indirect heating had a starting hydrogen pressure of 2 bar (which increase with heat, of course), while the latter ones started at 1 bar, probably offering less thermal inertia (but still not explaining how glass temperature variations can be larger than ambient ones, assuming that these are the ones which drive them). Cheers, S.A. attachment: P_Xs_T_Amb_20121213_0700_0733_Eu.PNG
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
The possible correlation with T_Ambient was being discussed in another thread. Eric and Arnaud (?) pointed it out, I argued against jumping to conclusions. Dunno. Jeff On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in the lower P_Xs Low parameter. Ah, that does look better. The periodicity is maybe a little too regular. But better. If I had to pick a likely instrument artifact, I would guess those fluctuations are the HVAC cycle. Maybe not; they seem too long for that. They turn on and increase for 30 to 50 minutes, and then off for about that long, turning on again as soon as the baseline is reached. That is what a thermostat does, but 50 minutes is longer than it takes to heat most buildings. Maybe the ambient temperature recording (T_Ambient) can rule out this possibility. I assume those are minutes on the X-scale. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP
No argument. All we can say right now is neither factor (HF supply noise / enthalpy) appears to be significant based on the available data for the supplies and reasonable analysis on the chemical side. Neither the data nor the analysis is everything one could ask for. Jeff On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:07 AM 12/13/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: I am looking at 1 minute averages. This is very solid. Okay. This would not detect invisible excess input power due to power supply high-frequency variations. At all. This is what SRI did. They used a constant-current power supply, with high-bandwidth control. The supply, then, faced with transients in resistance, rapidly varies the voltage. So voltage is sampled at high frequency, and is averaged and reported periodically. However, it's rather obvious, there must be some variation in current, or the supply would not know to alter the voltage. Supplies actually produce constant voltage naturally, if they are beefy enough, which they usually are. Internal feedback rapidly changes the voltage to maintain constant current, when the supply is in constant current mode. What Britz studied was the effect of current noise. It was very low. If the current is tightly controlled, power remains the product of average voltage times the constant current. Thus the challenged assumption was constant current. As McKubre has written, these supplies -- at least the one he used, which was documented -- are very good. To be sure, workers in the field have examined the current with high-bandwidth oscilloscopes. (They had not documented this in the papers, one cannot possibly, in normally-published papers, document *everything*, but we asked.) They don't see the high-frequency noise that would cause a problem. The researchers should nail this down, and check for true solidity in the power supply, otherwise, indeed, high-frequency noise could cause misreporting of input power.
Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP
I looked at the voltage, current, and R/R0 values over various periods and they all look completely flat to me. I don't see any evidence of erratic power supply behavior. I'm not so sure about the correlation with T_ambient either. If you zoom to the 14:00 - 14:50 period the ambient temp drops slightly while the P_Xs rises for many minutes. There are other periods like this too. Jeff On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: Re almost hourly fluctuations in T_Ambient -- the HVAC system kicking in periodically, maybe? Also, do any of the electronics folks here know what the effect might be on the instrumentation providing us with a measure for P_in if the external power supply were erratic? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP
Got from another LENR researcher: There are several reported values for the enthalpy of formation of nickel hydride with -8.8 kJ/mol being the lowest and -16.3 kJ/mol being the highest at standard temperature and pressure. He went on to show that given a wire containing 0.3g of Ni, enthalpy could account for less than 10 watts for 10 seconds. I took away that no matter how you torture the numbers, the resulting values are going to be orders of magnitude too small to account for Celani-type results. I have a spreadsheet with the calculations. If anyone wants to see it I'll go back to him and ask him about sharing. Jeff On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 09:17 PM 12/12/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: Something I haven't seen any discussion about is the amount of energy required to load materials with hydrogen to be used in these various LENR/CF devices. If that energy is taken into account, are the claims of excess energy from the operation of the devices still valid? [mg] This has been studied in great detail. However, there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. Loading of hydrogen or deuterium into palladium, for example, is exothermic. I'm not so sure about nickel. But, certainly in the study of the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, the study has taken into account all the known chemistry. Further, many different types of controls have been used. And for frosting on the cake, again with the FPHE, helium has been measured and shown to be correlated with the excess energy. The value of the ratio is the value expected from the fusion of deuterium to helium, and this has been confirmed by a dozen research groups. Above I mention that the loading of deuterium into palladium is exothermic. So heat after death is particularly interesting, where cells develop very substantial anomalous heat when the electrolytic current, which is used to maintain high loading, is turned *off*. A lot of heat can appear, lasting for days, sometimes. At that point, the deuterium will start to deload, it's like evaporation, and like evaporation, this will *cool* the cathode. The skeptical answer to this has been the cigarette lighter effect, i.e., a claim that the deloading deuterium is combusting. But there isn't enough oxygen there for that. This would quickly extinguish itself, if it were happening. Look, cold fusion was discovered by expert chemists. They actually did, Mark, know what they were talking about. Pons and Fleischmann were not physicists and they had no experience measuring neutrons, but they thought they could trust a neutron meter. No. So they ended up with egg on their faces from making a claim about neutron radiation that any expert physicists, experienced with measuring neutrons, would not have made. But Fleischmann was the world's foremost experts on electrochemistry, and the calorimetry they used was about the best ever done. They were measuring heat to the milliwatt. Their work has been confirmed with many different approaches, and imagining that such an obvious error as forgetting to allow for whatever went into the cell would be made by so many experts -- cold fusion researchers are *mostly* expert chemists -- is rather naive. Something that is overlooked is that the FPHE is set up by loading palladium with deuterium. That is an energy-producing process, but maintaining the electrolysis for a long time does consume energy. That energy ends up as the potential energy of separated hydrogen/deuterium and oxygen. If that's allowed to escape, and if it were not accounted for, it would be negative XP. Open cells, like those of Pons and Fleischmann, are pretty complex to analyze, partly because of this. SRI International, which was hired by the Electric Power Research Institute in 1989 to research cold fusion, built their own calorimeter, and it was not as sensitive as the work done by PF, but it was basically bulletproof, flow calorimetry, running at constant temperature, not vulernable to calibration problems (on the other hand, PF calibrated their calorimetry with a resistor pulse every day). SRI, and many researchers, use a recombiner in the cell, which essentially burns the generated gas in the cell, recovering that energy, so there is no need to compensate for it. There does need to be an accounting for orphaned oxygen, but, again, that is a negative contribution to anomalous power. It represents unrecombined gas that has stored up so much energy. People have gone over the calorimetry in this work with a fine-tooth comb. Minor errors have been claimed or identified, but the basic cold fusion calorimetry work stands, and if you can figure out a way that helium just happens to match, with the FPHE, heat from the calorimetry, other than having a common cause, well, you have a much better imagination than I. It doesn't merely correlate, it correlates at the fusion value. That would ordinarily
Re: [Vo]:Celani's cell did NOT vary with pressure!
As the comments on the posting suggest, it seems (in hindsight) a mistake that MFMP chose to accept Celani's recommendation of building the cell from quartz for safety reasons. The safety issues could have been addressed with additional shielding and the only consequence would have been modest inconvenience in working around the lab setup. A corollary is that everything I've ever heard about Celani makes me think he is a really wonderful man. He must have guessed the change would complicated matters but he still put the safety of experiments first even at a critical juncture. I admire him very much and I wish I could meet him. Jeff On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Celani's cell did NOT vary with pressure! on 08 December 2012. Dear world, We have an admission and an apology to make, on the upside, some very important developments have occurred as a result. When we first started seeing a correlation of sorts between Pxs and Pressure in the US cell, I asked for this to be investigated more deeply and Malachi, Ryan and the team did fantastic further work and analysis showing a potentially challenging finding. We are going to investigate this further and have made extra calibrations in US and EU cells to do exactly that moving forward. What we did not say was that Celani had already been challenged at NI week and ICCF17 and subsequently on this exact potential issue and had carried out specific experiments to test for a measurable effect and reported back to his critics his findings which did not, in his cell, show the kind of relationship have seen. We had received this email a little after the 7th October 2012, but in the pressures of everything had simply forgotten about it, in hindsight, it was probably the reason we pushed for the investigation. Having said that, we were not given permission to share emails between MFMP and Celani openly, had we been able to then the community watching our journey would have surely reminded us. -- continues -- http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/171-celani-did-not-see-that-effect
Re: [Vo]:Mitsubishi Reports Toyota LENR Replication
Despite the thinness of the evidence and the ever-present contamination concerns, my gut tells me the LENR community would benefit from more focus on transmutation results. For one simple reason: transmutation results are persistent, while excess heat is ephemeral and easier to wish away. And frankly, across the history of CF/LENR, has been easy to get wrong (numerous examples). On the other hand, if these results can be confirmed and understood, it is very likely that the underlying reaction will turn out to be exothermic. So this approach offers a way to reach to the desired outcome (controllable, cheap, clean energy) by a back door discovery path. It's just a gut feel. I can't defend it any better than that. But I believe it. Jeff On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:00 PM 12/7/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: The Nov-14 ANS paper - Transmutation Reactions Induced by Deuterium Permeation through Nano-structured Pd Multilayer Thin Film - is available at http://newenergytimes.com/v2/**conferences/2012/ANS2012W/** 2012Iwamura-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdfhttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ANS2012W/2012Iwamura-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdf Jed Rothwell wrote: This was discussed at ICCF17 as well. This paper cites theoretical papers by Widom and Larsen, and one by Akito Takahashi. The W-L theory reference is a bit puzzling, but maybe dineutrons are proposed as persistent enough to produce transmutations, but the transmutations observed are consistently +2n in atomic weight *and* in atomic number, where n = 1, 2, 3. That's not what neutrons would be expected to do. It would take two dineutrons to accomplish one transmutation, and why would they wait around for simultaneous absorption? However, multibody clusters, formed from deuterium, as molecular condensates, might do just this. These clusters would have equal numbers of protons and neutrons, and would be, formed from molecular deuterium, exist as multiples of two deuterons. Takahashi has studied 4D clusters, predicting fusion for them. But he simply studied that one configuration, and it's entirely possible that actual cluster size depends on conditions. The formation of condensates would occur when relative motion was very low, between deuterium molecules. In these experiments, there is a substantial net motion through the material, so the clusters might be formed with a velocity matching that of the deuterium, and they might then preferentially fuse with material at the surface. Such clusters would, I'd think, have a high capture cross-section, thus explaining the surface transmutations observed. Prior criticism of Iwamura's experiment was based on a hypothesis (with a piece of evidence) that Pr, in particular, was present in the lab as a contaminant. However, that alone isn't adequate to explain even Iwamura's results, and certainly does not explain these replications. The Iwamura experiment is particularly interesting because it strongly points to multibody reactions, starting with two deuterons, and the most likely explanation for why one would be getting +2D as a minimum result, plus 4D and 6D, is that molecular deuterium is involved. I.e., the electrons are present, and thus the condensate, if it forms, is charge-neutral. (Indeed, I think that's necessary for a condensate, or at least one electron would have to be present.) This is still thin.
Re: [Vo]:Unobtainium and Beryllium
Abd, I assume you're aware of the hazards of working with this stuff? That being said, its melting point is not absurdly high - under 2400F. Could you melt some under, say, an N2 or argon atmosphere, on perhaps a ceramic surface, so that it spread out into a thin layer, and then cool it? Jeff On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 05:02 PM 12/6/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Yes, a more powerful reaction would be nice, but we must work with what we have, as Abd stresses. We will die of old age if we sit around waiting UPS to deliver a $1.5 million package of unobtainium. It's coming? And the reward of patience is ... patience. Actually, I asked for $1.5 million so I could *attempt to obtain* this crucial material. That would include my overhead, travel expenses, etc. You don't think it's easy to buy unobtainium, do you? If we actually find some, we might need to go back for more funding to actually purchase it. However, the bright side: unobtainium is expected to be simply a catalyst. So it will not be destroyed in the experiments, and we could resell it. Given how much work it will have taken to find the material, we could probably break it down into smaller pieces and resell them to recover the funding, with the profit from resale covering the initial outlay. Actually, seriously, I just bought a bit over 5 grams of beryllium metal, 99.9% pure,on eBay for $37. What I really wanted was a very small piece of beryllium foil, but was I patient? No Did I ask if someone had a small piece they could spare? No I found how insanely expensive beryllium foil was and assumed that beryllium itself must be so as well. No, I paid a reasonable price, it turns out, for 5 grams. However, what I really want is a tiny piece that I can fit in the well of an Am-241 ionization source from a smoke detector, because the conversion rate for alphas to neutrons by Be-9 is very low, and so getting the beryllium as close as possible to the alpha source is desirable. In commercial Am-Be neutron sources, they actually blend the Be and Am oxide. And they use a thousand times as much Am-241, i.e., one mCurie, instead of the 0.9 uCurie in a smoke detector source. (My goal is to test LR-115 SSNTD material for neutron detection. I had the naive idea that I might be able to bash the Beryllium metal with a hammer to make a thin foil, then cut a piece. Maybe. Probably not a great idea. Beryllium is very hard, it might shatter. I don't want to use machining or cutting techniques that would create small fragments, turning my apartment or basement into a hazardous waste area. I may try using this little ingot directly, and maybe the Be itself will multiply the neutrons a bit. But any ideas?)
Re: [Vo]:Unobtainium and Beryllium
A friend (not on this list) commented to me on the side: Molten metals have a wicked high surface tension. Would never flow, always ball-up. He says the only choice is hot forging/hot rolling. Comments: You can turn glass on an ordinary lathe if it's red hot. Jeff On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Abd, I assume you're aware of the hazards of working with this stuff? That being said, its melting point is not absurdly high - under 2400F. Could you melt some under, say, an N2 or argon atmosphere, on perhaps a ceramic surface, so that it spread out into a thin layer, and then cool it? Jeff On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 05:02 PM 12/6/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Yes, a more powerful reaction would be nice, but we must work with what we have, as Abd stresses. We will die of old age if we sit around waiting UPS to deliver a $1.5 million package of unobtainium. It's coming? And the reward of patience is ... patience. Actually, I asked for $1.5 million so I could *attempt to obtain* this crucial material. That would include my overhead, travel expenses, etc. You don't think it's easy to buy unobtainium, do you? If we actually find some, we might need to go back for more funding to actually purchase it. However, the bright side: unobtainium is expected to be simply a catalyst. So it will not be destroyed in the experiments, and we could resell it. Given how much work it will have taken to find the material, we could probably break it down into smaller pieces and resell them to recover the funding, with the profit from resale covering the initial outlay. Actually, seriously, I just bought a bit over 5 grams of beryllium metal, 99.9% pure,on eBay for $37. What I really wanted was a very small piece of beryllium foil, but was I patient? No Did I ask if someone had a small piece they could spare? No I found how insanely expensive beryllium foil was and assumed that beryllium itself must be so as well. No, I paid a reasonable price, it turns out, for 5 grams. However, what I really want is a tiny piece that I can fit in the well of an Am-241 ionization source from a smoke detector, because the conversion rate for alphas to neutrons by Be-9 is very low, and so getting the beryllium as close as possible to the alpha source is desirable. In commercial Am-Be neutron sources, they actually blend the Be and Am oxide. And they use a thousand times as much Am-241, i.e., one mCurie, instead of the 0.9 uCurie in a smoke detector source. (My goal is to test LR-115 SSNTD material for neutron detection. I had the naive idea that I might be able to bash the Beryllium metal with a hammer to make a thin foil, then cut a piece. Maybe. Probably not a great idea. Beryllium is very hard, it might shatter. I don't want to use machining or cutting techniques that would create small fragments, turning my apartment or basement into a hazardous waste area. I may try using this little ingot directly, and maybe the Be itself will multiply the neutrons a bit. But any ideas?)
Re: [Vo]:Unobtainium and Beryllium
Yeah, my friends say the same thing. A lethal dose can be absorbed before there are any symptoms. Symptoms can take up to 5 years to become apparent. I assume Abd knows this. Jeff On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:45 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I would not mess with that in any manner Abd. Take care my friend. Dave -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Dec 8, 2012 12:31 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Unobtainium and Beryllium At 11:27 PM 12/7/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: A friend (not on this list) commented to me on the side: Molten metals have a wicked high surface tension. Would never flow, always ball-up. He says the only choice is hot forging/hot rolling. Comments: You can turn glass on an ordinary lathe if it's red hot. I think this is where the video says: Don't try this at home.
Re: [Vo]:Mitsubishi Reports Toyota LENR Replication
I didn't make any claims - or reject any claims - based on gut feel. There are obviously many more potentially valuable experimental approaches than time or money to pursue them all. I believe there is insufficient information to make a completely defensible objective choice between them. In situations like this, decisions about what to pursue and what to ignore generally have to be made on the basis of gut feel. In this context I stated mine. It's not the same as (e.g.) a belief in, or rejection of, a theoretical idea that goes beyond what can be supported by the data. Jeff On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 06:50 PM 12/7/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Despite the thinness of the evidence and the ever-present contamination concerns, my gut tells me the LENR community would benefit from more focus on transmutation results. For one simple reason: transmutation results are persistent, while excess heat is ephemeral and easier to wish away. And frankly, across the history of CF/LENR, has been easy to get wrong (numerous examples). Well, transmutation results have also been evanescent, and some have been tracked to contamination. My comment about thin, by the way, was about a theoretical explanation. The experimental evidence for a transmutation effect in the Iwamura experiment is looking considerably more solid than previously. What would be conclusive would be, in fact, transmutation or other specifically nuclear evidence that is correlated with heat. That's only been done with helium. With some reactions, there might not be any readily available nuclear evidence. If, for example, Storms is correct and NiH reactions are producing deuterium, this is going to be difficult to detect, given the natural occurrence of deuterium in hydrogen. Talk about clean nuclear power! But helium is, perhaps, even cleaner. Still possible to detect deuterium, though, if a reaction lasts for long enough or enough total energy release, and if deuterium depleted hydrogen is used. On the other hand, if these results can be confirmed and understood, it is very likely that the underlying reaction will turn out to be exothermic. So this approach offers a way to reach to the desired outcome (controllable, cheap, clean energy) by a back door discovery path. Do realize that there have been transmutation reports for a long time, and *helium* is a transmutation result that is known to be correlated with heat. Generally, transmutation results -- other than helium -- are far below the levels of helium. It's just a gut feel. I can't defend it any better than that. But I believe it. I think belief in this stuff is a Bad Idea. Fine to hope. Fine to trust results enough to fully support further research. But positive belief can be quite a similar error to the error of the pseudoskeptics, who believed in their own skeptical hypotheses without ever bothering to actually confirm them. It's also fine to be excited about possibilities.
Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Now we have this new result showing ~1 watt of excess heat at some high operating power (not stated but sufficient to raise the cell temp to 350C). By implication, I am asked to believe that the team making the measurement can somehow achieve absolute accuracy significantly better than MFMP have achieved with their open, consultative, clearly documented process. Sorry, I choose not to believe this right now. On what basis? Do you know anything about their calorimetry? No, and that is my point. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires
MFMP have done very careful work and documented it well. Yet when they showed a watt or so of apparent excess heat around the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, they did not make a claim. Instead, they held it to be in the noise, not clearly separable from the variance between their calibration runs. Now we have this new result showing ~1 watt of excess heat at some high operating power (not stated but sufficient to raise the cell temp to 350C). By implication, I am asked to believe that the team making the measurement can somehow achieve absolute accuracy significantly better than MFMP have achieved with their open, consultative, clearly documented process. Sorry, I choose not to believe this right now. Jeff On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: thanks for the image... and also for the leak about STMicro (8o) note that ST have been seen earlier http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=37t=150p=461hilit=STMicroelectronics#p461 10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals *10-14 April 2012 * http://www.iscmns.org/work10/ (2 employees of French STMicro- note tha ST micro is in difficulties, and was officially betting it's future on photovoltaic energy, despite chinese PV battle) the curtains of that theater are falling. 2012/12/5 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com On 2012-12-05 16:01, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, An improved version of Celani's ICCF17 presentation in a scientific paper format was also posted on the same blog: http://www.22passi.it/pirelli/**ICCF17CelaniArtD.pdfhttp://www.22passi.it/pirelli/ICCF17CelaniArtD.pdf These are the slides mentioned in the opening post, edited to show the name of the major international company: http://i.imgur.com/yA7HS.jpg http://i.imgur.com/cOTvo.jpg Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Important news from HUG team in Minnesota
It's bad news, but it's important. In short, the contention now is that Celani did not account for effect of pressure changes within the cell. Reducing the gas pressure reduces the thermal conductivity of the gas. This reduces the temperature of cell components like the metal flanges that are mostly heated by the gas. So at lower gas pressure, the flanges don't get as hot and so don't radiate away as much heat. But the electrical heating is constant, so measured temperatures at other points in the cell must rise. HUG is contending that this pressure-modulated rise in temperature elsewhere in the cell is what Celani measured as excess heat. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/163-a-partial-explaination Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Foreign Policy Journal article on cold fusion
Thanks Jed. Rossi, Rossi, Rossi. I'm afraid this current wave of interest is not going to end well. Jeff On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I have never heard of the Foreign Policy Journal. Anyway, see: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/30/cold-fusion-and-the-energy-crisis-to-be-or-not-to-be/ Intro: Cold Fusion and the Energy Crisis: to be or not to be? by Dr. Stoyan Sarg November 30, 2012 While the year 2011 will be remembered for the remarkable progress in cold fusion achieved in Italy and more particularly by the E-cat reactors of Andrea Rossi, the year 2012 will be remembered for the slow progress of its recognition by the mainstream establishments. Cold fusion, known also as LENR, is a new and safer type of nuclear energy that will rival the currently used unsafe nuclear power. Its advantages are unparalleled: a lack of radioactive waste and byproducts that could be used for a weapon; abundance of fuel (nickel) without the need for mining of radioactive uranium with the accompanying environmental contamination; much cheaper and scalable reactors from small to large size with the possibility of also being used as an energy source for a spaceship. The latter option is envisioned by NASA. . . .
[Vo]:Curiosity's historic discovery
Or not. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412567,00.asp Jeff
[Vo]:Apparently plausible (!?!?) FTL
http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive Has anyone competent to understand the arguments read the 1994 paper? Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas
Axil, agree totally. I have a relative who was studying walkaway-safe, thorium fueled, gas-cooled pebble bed reactors (just another of many alternatives along the lines you suggest) way back in the Carter administration. And in all this time we haven't done anything about it. Jeff On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: “So a secondary power system that doesn't rely on the plant at all (batteries, diesel generators, etc.) is mandatory.” This sort of system is active; active is bad, but a completely passive reactor shutdown process is entirely possible. The nuclear industry in the west will not build such a system because it is not a light water reactor. The Indians will use sodium heat pipes for passive reactor cool down. This is possible because the Indians use liquid lead as a coolant. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: So a secondary power system that doesn't rely on the plant at all (batteries, diesel generators, etc.) is mandatory.
Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas
Around two-thirds is right. Many online sources quote 32% and I recall 33% from a class I took eons ago. Two other things: 1. Controlling the reactivity of an operating reactor is extremely complex. See for example Section 3, Core Cell Improved Design, here: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~doster/NE405/Manuals/BWR6GeneralDescription.pdf 2. For any large generator, the load has got to roughly match the generating capacity unless you want to damage or destroy the equipment. This why generating plants (of all types) trip offline so aggressively when something goes seriously wrong with the electrical grid. The idea of the operators trying to modulate the plant reactivity and also switch in massive dummy loads to match the plant output, all in the midst of an accident scenario that may have left the plant in an unknown condition, seems wildly unrealistic to me. Jeff On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:41 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:07:53 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] That is the same question I asked myself when the problem first came up. I concluded that a scram most likely was necessary since the output of the reactor is normally many times the requirement to supply the backup equipment load. I suspect that it would be extremely difficult to back the power output downward enough without loosing system stability. In fact, the power resulting just from the nuclear decay elements might exceed the load required with no ability to dissipate the excess energy safely. One might wonder if the left over heat could be deposited within the inlet water as long as the pumps were operating. I suppose that it might have been possible had the personnel at the reactors been trained to handle the problem in that manner. I think the thermal efficiency of most nuclear plants is around 25-30%. That means that they usually dispose of around two thirds of their full power output as waste heat. IOW if the auxiliary equipment is operating, then they can easily dispose of even the total power output at a reduced operating level. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels
No worries. Stuff happens. I probably shouldn't have sent the follow-up, made it seem like a bigger deal than it should be. Jeff On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:31 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: BTW: To put this bug in perspective, I've been using the calchemy Unicalc very frequently ever since 1996 without any errors cropping up until this, and this one appears to be related not to units but to a peculiar case in dimensional analysis. On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:05 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: My units calculator inserted an erroneous 2pi constant into the conversion. That's the first time its betrayed me. I'll report it to the authors. Here's a link to the web version: http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/ So, yes, 13mm looks like the figure. Are there electrodes with any dimensions in the range of 1.3cm? On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: James, ** ** I’ve a problem with my HP calculator emulator which gives me 13.093 mm** ** ** ** d= v * t = v / f ( with v=1/f) ** ** 5630/430E3 = 13.093E-3 m = 13.093 mm ** ** Arnaud -- *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] *Sent:* jeudi 22 novembre 2012 22:21 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels ** ** It's hard to know where to begin here but let me just say this that given the speed of sound in nickelhttp://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities/ : 5630m/s and 430kHz: 5630m/s;430kHz?mm ([5630 * meter] / second) * (430 * [kilo*hertz])^-1 ? milli*meter = 2.0838194 mm In other words, a 2mm electrode should exhibit resonance at ~430kHz. On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: On the contrary James, at least two of us did look closely at this possibility [electrode acoustics]. My associate went to trouble to find and download a mpeg sound file of a bicycle bell of the same general size as Davey’s, and plugged it into a program for this kind of analysis – in fact it is dedicated bell analysis software that has proved very accurate for electrodes in the past. The natural acoustic of this hemisphere are nowhere close. The main freq is 4,445.5 Hz, with some sub harmonics, the lowest being around 521/545 Hz, but those are so faint as to be discarded. Higher harmonics are barely above noise. Thus, since the acoustics of the electrodes were off by two orders of magnitude over the signature sound, we did not think that electrode acoustics were in any way relevant as an alternative explanation, or otherwise worth pursuing. Jones *From:* James Bowery As I previously advisedhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73144.html : Look at the acoustics of the electrodes. Since this advice seemed to make no impact on the discourse here at vortex-l, let me expand: Acoustic resonance in the metallic electrodes does have a reasonable chance of bearing directly on the creation of the nuclear active environment hypothesized to exist. I don't think I need to expland on list the possibilities here. Moreover, if one looks at the speed of sound in metals, the 430kHz LENR signature regime corresponds to the thickness of the cathodes frequently reported as exhibiting the phenomena. Need I say more? ** **
Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels
I can't resist jumping back in at this point. These full bridge devices are mostly used as motor controllers. In such applications you just need to turn it on and have it supply an appropriate AC signal while the motor is running and then turn it off. There's never any need for fine control or signal modulation. Also, the full bridge design, on its own, doesn't lead directly to any solution for the problem of superimposing the Q pulses on the loading current. Of course you're free to go your own way, but I think the motor controller approach may be more difficult than just trying to adopt Godes' design directly. If you look at the first figure http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7NVukY_dlR0/UISB4e_LSAI/AW4/Rl9BROYHIHQ/s1600/Q-Pulses-1.PNGfrom here http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/thoughts-about-godes-brillouin-patent.htmlyou'll see two traces, the green one at top and the blue one at the bottom. The green spikes are the Q-pulses and the blue pulse train is the input from the microcontroller. The input pulse train from the microcontroller has a 50% duty cycle, but the Q pulses are narrow. In other words, the Q pulse width is not a function of the width of the input pulses. Instead, each positive-going edge on the input causes a narrow positive-going Q pulse, and each negative-going edge on the input signal causes a narrow negative-going Q pulse. The characteristics of each Q pulse are set by the choice of inductor and capacitor (labeled L1 and C2 in my circuit) and the load (R1 in my circuit), and not directly by any control signal. Note that my C2 is equivalent to Godes' C5 in figure 3C of the patent application. I apologize for not paying more attention to these labeling issues. Also note that my circuit includes an ideal voltage source V1 at upper left. A real circuit needs a discharge capacitor to simulate an ideal voltage source. This is shown at extreme upper left in Godes' figure 3C. Confusingly, the discharge capacitor is labeled C2 in Godes' designations. Now, the distinctions between my partial circuit and Godes' complete one. First, in Godes' circuit you see a transformer, T8 (part number F626-12) in place of my inductor L1. That transformer is playing two roles. These are (a) its primary winding acts as an inductor, playing the role of my L1. And (b), the Q pulses couple across to the secondary winding; but in the secondary, which shares no ground reference with the primary, Godes is free to establish any ground reference (or DC loading current +V) he likes. As you can see from figures 3C and also 3B and 3A, Godes uses the center tap of the transformer as ground (or +V) for the loading current. Now, since the transfomer-coupled Q pulses are swinging end to end across the secondary winding and the center tap of the secondary is the reference point, the Q pulses are swinging positive and negative relative to the reference point of the loading current. In other words they are AC. The reason I used the term ground (or +V) and reference point above is that it doesn't matter for the superimposed Q-pulses. It does matter for the loading current; you have to pick the loading current polarity so that the center tap of the transformer leads to the electrochemical anode. The ensures that the core will be the cathode, so it will evolve the H2 to load. You can more clearly see in figure 3A, where the core is labeled 15. Figure 3A also shows how the two ends of the secondary of T8 (which is not labeled, but there's only one transformer in figure 3A) are across the core; thus, as the Q pulses swing positive and negative, the polarity reverses across the core, which is the true meaning of AC in this case. In summary, you could probably generate interesting pulse trains with a variety of techniques. But I think the clever use of T8 is essential. I'm not going to try and explain why I think this, it's partly gut feel. I just wouldn't imagine trying to solve this problem in other ways when the Godes' circuit shows a way of doing it that I believe will work. Also, to summarize the parameters that Godes can vary from the microcontroller, they are: (1) the amplitude of the Q pulses, labeled 55a in figures 3A, 3B, and 3C; (2) presumably the width of the input pulses, which control the spacing between positive- and negative-going Q pulses; (3) the timing of the input pulses, which controls the timing of Q-pulse pairs. But not the shape of the pulses, which is determined by the inductance of the primary of T8, the value of C5, the load on the secondary of T8 (i.e. the impedance of the wet cell) and the coupling characteristics of T8. It is this last bit that explains why I think I would need decent test equipment to get this circuit working - the AC characteristics are going to be weird and will need to be discovered bit by bit. For example changes in the AC impedance of the wet cell caused by ongoing electrolysis could cause the whole secondary circuit to begin oscillating under the drive of the Q pulses
Re: [Vo]:Michio Kaku: One solar flare could bring many Fukushimas
I suspect the reason plant designs don't attempt to harness the decay heat is that in one key accident scenario (massive LOCA) you aren't going to be able to generate any steam pressure from core heat. Being able to address this scenario is essential to getting licensed. So a secondary power system that doesn't rely on the plant at all (batteries, diesel generators, etc.) is mandatory. From the standpoint of the plant designers, the above reasoning means the decay heat subsystem looks like a completely unnecessary extra cost. They already have the mandatory secondary and there's no licensing requirement for a tertiary power system that may not work in some failure scenarios. Jeff On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'll admit I don't get this. The reactor stays hot because of residual radioactivity. And if it isn't cooled, it gets *hotter* than normal operation under power. So there should be enough power there to the turbines to keep it -- and maybe the fuel storage ponds -- cool. There is not enough power to drive the main turbines. I think it takes at least 600 MW of heat from the reactors to drive the turbines at 200 MWe (20% of normal capacity). After a SCRAM the power is reduced to around 5%, and it falls rapidly after that. I suppose you could have smaller auxiliary steam turbines. I think at some plants, some of the initial response is powered by main reactor steam. But the overhead for the pumps and other equipment operating is something like 15% so they would not be enough to keep the clockwork going. Whereas if all you want to do is keep cooling water flowing through the reactor into the cooling towers, a much smaller set of pumps will suffice. As I said, the aux systems have never been destroyed in any previous accident. They would not have been destroyed in this one if anyone had imagined a tsunami this large might strike. They could have located the equipment where the tsunami did not reach, or they could have built a higher seawall. The accident could have been prevented easily if they had known it was coming. You cannot anticipate everything . . . Someone did, in fact, anticipate this. He wrote a report pointing to historic evidence for a tsunami at this location a thousand years ago. As someone else pointed out, they think of everything in cases like this. After a major accident at a nuclear plant, or with a large modern airplane, you can always find an engineering report worrying about that problem. But you cannot fix every possible problem. If you tried, the power plant would always be under repair being retrofitted; the airplane would never leave the ground. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels
If you are referring to his Figure 3A - I don't *think* he's using two cathodes. I think the image of two dots with two lines between them is intended to convey that the cathode has physical extent - he describes it somewhere as a grid of nickel wires (?) - and the Q pulses swing positive and negative across the cathode when referenced to the center tap of the secondary. This also suggested by figure 3B where the core (again, labeled 15) is just a horizontal line between vertical lines running to the ends of the secondary of T8. Of course I could have missed what you're seeing. Or we could be looking at the same thing and I could be completely missing it. ;-) With respect to finding the part - the exact part is probably not critical. The circuit design on our blog page doesn't use the same half-bridge driver chip or the same MOSFETs as Godes either, it just produces similar behaviors (I hope). The key points are that it's a radio frequency isolation transformer with a certain turns ratio between primary and secondary. (The fact that it's a radio frequency part supports the whole argument about the Q pulses - it has to pass those higher harmonics as described in the blog page, or the pulses will come out rounded in the secondary, the skin effect won't come into the play to the same effect there, etc.) I found this link: http://www.lintechcomponents.com/product/010478953/F62612H/72656 which might be a starting point for finding or making something similar. Really do be careful. We wouldn't want to lose you. It looks like a 3:1 voltage step-up in the secondary. This circuit can burn a path through your internal organs faster than your muscle fibers can possibly contract to take your hands away. Read up on high voltage technique and think about every action. Always wear eye protection. I once saw a miswired high powered sonar driver blow some of the driver components into little shards some of which became embedded in the wallboard behind the lab bench. This isn't like working on digital electronics. Jeff On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for explaining this Jeff. Did you see that he is using 2 cathodes? What is the difference between the two? Initially I was thinking about just trying to replicate his circuit, but the F626-12 seems to be pretty hard to track down. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: F626-12
Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels
://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf -- bottom of column 1 page 1), he says, High voltage, bipolar, narrow pulses were sent through the cathode and separately pulse-width modulated (PWM) electrolysis through the cell (between the anode and cathode). So, looks to me like he loops Q through the cathode and the DC loading pulse comes through the anode through the cell to the cathode. Also, are you suggesting that his alternating current is alternating DC current (never goes to truly negative voltage)? Thank you for the caution. I will research and be careful with this. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: If you are referring to his Figure 3A - I don't *think* he's using two cathodes. I think the image of two dots with two lines between them is intended to convey that the cathode has physical extent - he describes it somewhere as a grid of nickel wires (?) - and the Q pulses swing positive and negative across the cathode when referenced to the center tap of the secondary. This also suggested by figure 3B where the core (again, labeled 15) is just a horizontal line between vertical lines running to the ends of the secondary of T8. Of course I could have missed what you're seeing. Or we could be looking at the same thing and I could be completely missing it. ;-) With respect to finding the part - the exact part is probably not critical. The circuit design on our blog page doesn't use the same half-bridge driver chip or the same MOSFETs as Godes either, it just produces similar behaviors (I hope). The key points are that it's a radio frequency isolation transformer with a certain turns ratio between primary and secondary. (The fact that it's a radio frequency part supports the whole argument about the Q pulses - it has to pass those higher harmonics as described in the blog page, or the pulses will come out rounded in the secondary, the skin effect won't come into the play to the same effect there, etc.) I found this link: http://www.lintechcomponents.com/product/010478953/F62612H/72656 which might be a starting point for finding or making something similar. Really do be careful. We wouldn't want to lose you. It looks like a 3:1 voltage step-up in the secondary. This circuit can burn a path through your internal organs faster than your muscle fibers can possibly contract to take your hands away. Read up on high voltage technique and think about every action. Always wear eye protection. I once saw a miswired high powered sonar driver blow some of the driver components into little shards some of which became embedded in the wallboard behind the lab bench. This isn't like working on digital electronics. Jeff On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for explaining this Jeff. Did you see that he is using 2 cathodes? What is the difference between the two? Initially I was thinking about just trying to replicate his circuit, but the F626-12 seems to be pretty hard to track down. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.comwrote: F626-12
Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels
Axil, absolutely right, yet I agree with Jack about the implementation. When I did that LTSpice analysis of the simplified circuit, I was very clear about how big a simplification it was for me to leave out the isolation transformer and the loading current. The entire circuit as described in the patent is quite complex and subtle. The pulse generator is very close to oscillation; poor construction techniques alone are probably enough to make it ring like a bell instead of producing pulses that can be modulated from the microcontroller as described in the patent. Jack, I think really understanding the isolation transformer T8 is essential to solving the problem with the loading current. The microcontroller/pulse generator and the wet cell are separate circuits with separate grounds. I don't think the circuit will work as described if the two sides of T8 have a common ground anywhere. In fact I think it might result in letting the smoke out. And it's always worth mention that the circuit in the patent is potentially deadly. The issue that has blocked our little group from taking this on is the cost of the test equipment. Without a high-bandwidth oscilloscope to look at the Q pulses, you are blind. Based on my own experience (with vaguely similar designs for driving large piezo transducers in sonar systems), the drive circuit is unlikely to work as intended without testing and fussing and adjustment, so being blind does not sound like a path to success. I think 300Mhz bandwidth is the bare minimum, a GHz scope would be better. These cost money. Let us know how it goes. Jeff On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CDAQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Flenr-canr.org%2Facrobat%2FGodesRcontrolled.pdfei=iV6uUL25CaeF0QHQqIG4DAusg=AFQjCNHuzrqKGBNAwRi7rIW-VMSkqLKLHAsig2=7Pt74QjBK5CUU6fNvN-1OQ *Controlled Electron Capture and the Path Toward Commercialization* From the reference as follows: “The AC stimulation consists of alternating high voltage positive and negative pulses, approximately 100ns wide, of duty cycles up to 1% or repetition rates of up to 100KHz” This is called reverse field current in plasma physics. It produces a counter rotating plasmoid in the shape of a ring. The plasmoid moves forward in a dielectric like a rolling smoke ring. This alternating pulse current is not an AC current. It produces very high Instantaneous power. IMHO, the pulse cycle should be modified so that a weak positive pulse acts as a pre-iodization pulse for the negative pulse. The power delivered by the negative pulse could therefore be further increased. The current is high but the short pulse duration keeps the thin wire from damage. IMHO, Your experiment should include a comparison of various pulse regimes to compare for optimized heat production. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, Yes, that is the plan. I'm still trying to understand exactly what Godes does. It turns out to not be real easy to get a bipolar (AC) pulse at ~200V along with the loading DC. High frequency/high voltage AC is the key at a specific pulse width to get the conductor skin effect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect). You won't get that with DC pulses. Also, in this early test cell, it looks like he is using more than 2 electrodes in the cell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFrDlcnjth8 Jack Jack On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Jack, I suggest that you rerun your experiment with nanosecond duration pulsed direct current using capacitive discharge. You have not tested the hypothesis that high instantaneous pulse power output will trigger over unity power production as has been demonstrated by Brillouin Energy. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Hi folks, I have completed a long series of experiments utilizing borax, standard nickels (combined with thoriated tungsten rods), and an automated Android phone control system. Although I developed some cool methods of running experiments, I have to conclude that I found no anomalous heating. Here is the final write-up and presentation. http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/11/22/automated-android-electrolysis-system-experiments-1-25/ Best regards, Jack
Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels
Interesting. A U.S. nickel is 1.95mm thick. On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: It's hard to know where to begin here but let me just say this that given the speed of sound in nickelhttp://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities/ : 5630m/s and 430kHz: 5630m/s;430kHz?mm ([5630 * meter] / second) * (430 * [kilo*hertz])^-1 ? milli*meter = 2.0838194 mm In other words, a 2mm electrode should exhibit resonance at ~430kHz. On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: On the contrary James, at least two of us did look closely at this possibility [electrode acoustics]. ** ** My associate went to trouble to find and download a mpeg sound file of a bicycle bell of the same general size as Davey’s, and plugged it into a program for this kind of analysis – in fact it is dedicated bell analysis software that has proved very accurate for electrodes in the past. The natural acoustic of this hemisphere are nowhere close. ** ** The main freq is 4,445.5 Hz, with some sub harmonics, the lowest being around 521/545 Hz, but those are so faint as to be discarded. Higher harmonics are barely above noise. ** ** Thus, since the acoustics of the electrodes were off by two orders of magnitude over the signature sound, we did not think that electrode acoustics were in any way relevant as an alternative explanation, or otherwise worth pursuing. ** ** Jones ** ** ** ** *From:* James Bowery ** ** As I previously advisedhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73144.html : ** ** Look at the acoustics of the electrodes. ** ** Since this advice seemed to make no impact on the discourse here at vortex-l, let me expand: ** ** Acoustic resonance in the metallic electrodes does have a reasonable chance of bearing directly on the creation of the nuclear active environment hypothesized to exist. I don't think I need to expland on list the possibilities here. ** ** Moreover, if one looks at the speed of sound in metals, the 430kHz LENR signature regime corresponds to the thickness of the cathodes frequently reported as exhibiting the phenomena. ** ** Need I say more?** ** **
Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels
However a U.S. nickel is 75/25 copper/nickel. It might be possible to figure out the speed of sound using information in this thread: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=277330 I'll look at it later. Jeff On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. A U.S. nickel is 1.95mm thick. On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: It's hard to know where to begin here but let me just say this that given the speed of sound in nickelhttp://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities/ : 5630m/s and 430kHz: 5630m/s;430kHz?mm ([5630 * meter] / second) * (430 * [kilo*hertz])^-1 ? milli*meter = 2.0838194 mm In other words, a 2mm electrode should exhibit resonance at ~430kHz. On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: On the contrary James, at least two of us did look closely at this possibility [electrode acoustics]. ** ** My associate went to trouble to find and download a mpeg sound file of a bicycle bell of the same general size as Davey’s, and plugged it into a program for this kind of analysis – in fact it is dedicated bell analysis software that has proved very accurate for electrodes in the past. The natural acoustic of this hemisphere are nowhere close. ** ** The main freq is 4,445.5 Hz, with some sub harmonics, the lowest being around 521/545 Hz, but those are so faint as to be discarded. Higher harmonics are barely above noise. ** ** Thus, since the acoustics of the electrodes were off by two orders of magnitude over the signature sound, we did not think that electrode acoustics were in any way relevant as an alternative explanation, or otherwise worth pursuing. ** ** Jones ** ** ** ** *From:* James Bowery ** ** As I previously advisedhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73144.html : ** ** Look at the acoustics of the electrodes. ** ** Since this advice seemed to make no impact on the discourse here at vortex-l, let me expand: ** ** Acoustic resonance in the metallic electrodes does have a reasonable chance of bearing directly on the creation of the nuclear active environment hypothesized to exist. I don't think I need to expland on list the possibilities here. ** ** Moreover, if one looks at the speed of sound in metals, the 430kHz LENR signature regime corresponds to the thickness of the cathodes frequently reported as exhibiting the phenomena. ** ** Need I say more?** ** **
Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels
You don't need a high speed scope if the circuit is working *correctly*. But if it's working correctly, you don't need to measure it at all. ;-) The reason for a high speed scope is to observe the behavior when it's not working correctly. It's a high-power, high-speed AC circuit, so errors or bad construction practices may produces really weird results that simply won't be observable with a low-bandwidth instrument. I wouldn't read too much into the divisions on the scope. The probe and scope electronics will act as a low-pass filter, so you'll a smoothed and rounded representation of reality. It's not the frequency of the pulses that's the issue here, it's the harmonics that compose the rising and falling edges of the pulse. For AC pulses you can look at Arnaud's message. Godes didn't use this approach, I think - instead the clever use of T8 as both an inductor and as the primary of an isolation transformer; then by suitably referencing the secondary side, the core sees AC. I could be misreading the design, however. There are four MOSFETs in Godes design. Jeff On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff, I don't think your scope would need that level of resolution. Godes describes using the following: A 100MHz Fluke 196C oscilloscope meter. Anyway, there is not a lot of info on the net about using PWM to make bipolar pulses. Producing a DC pulse to those specs is not so difficult. A bipolar pulse seems to be a different story. I have a 25mhz oscilloscope, so I'll try to see if it has the resolution needed. Supposedly, it will show down to 5 ns/div on the horizontal axis. I'll try to experiment to see if I can get a 100 ns DC pulse with PWM and see how the scope does. Here is the scope I have. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T6XNCA/ref=pe_175190_21431760_M3T1_SC_dp_1 Jack On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. A U.S. nickel is 1.95mm thick. On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: It's hard to know where to begin here but let me just say this that given the speed of sound in nickelhttp://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities/ : 5630m/s and 430kHz: 5630m/s;430kHz?mm ([5630 * meter] / second) * (430 * [kilo*hertz])^-1 ? milli*meter = 2.0838194 mm In other words, a 2mm electrode should exhibit resonance at ~430kHz. On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: On the contrary James, at least two of us did look closely at this possibility [electrode acoustics]. ** ** My associate went to trouble to find and download a mpeg sound file of a bicycle bell of the same general size as Davey’s, and plugged it into a program for this kind of analysis – in fact it is dedicated bell analysis software that has proved very accurate for electrodes in the past. The natural acoustic of this hemisphere are nowhere close. ** ** The main freq is 4,445.5 Hz, with some sub harmonics, the lowest being around 521/545 Hz, but those are so faint as to be discarded. Higher harmonics are barely above noise. ** ** Thus, since the acoustics of the electrodes were off by two orders of magnitude over the signature sound, we did not think that electrode acoustics were in any way relevant as an alternative explanation, or otherwise worth pursuing. ** ** Jones ** ** ** ** *From:* James Bowery ** ** As I previously advisedhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73144.html : ** ** Look at the acoustics of the electrodes. ** ** Since this advice seemed to make no impact on the discourse here at vortex-l, let me expand: ** ** Acoustic resonance in the metallic electrodes does have a reasonable chance of bearing directly on the creation of the nuclear active environment hypothesized to exist. I don't think I need to expland on list the possibilities here. ** ** Moreover, if one looks at the speed of sound in metals, the 430kHz LENR signature regime corresponds to the thickness of the cathodes frequently reported as exhibiting the phenomena. ** ** Need I say more?** ** **
Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels
Correct. Sanity check: if we imagine a hypothetical material with v = 430e3, d = 1 (meter); if v = 43e3, d = 0.1m ; 4.3e3, 0.01m. So the answer for v = 5.63e3 must be slightly more than 0.01m. James, I should have checked your math! ;-) The 1.95mm comment is a nonstarter for two reasons, now. Jeff On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: James, ** ** I’ve a problem with my HP calculator emulator which gives me 13.093 mm ** ** d= v * t = v / f ( with v=1/f) ** ** 5630/430E3 = 13.093E-3 m = 13.093 mm ** ** Arnaud -- *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] *Sent:* jeudi 22 novembre 2012 22:21 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels ** ** It's hard to know where to begin here but let me just say this that given the speed of sound in nickelhttp://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities/ : 5630m/s and 430kHz: 5630m/s;430kHz?mm ([5630 * meter] / second) * (430 * [kilo*hertz])^-1 ? milli*meter = 2.0838194 mm In other words, a 2mm electrode should exhibit resonance at ~430kHz. On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:* *** On the contrary James, at least two of us did look closely at this possibility [electrode acoustics]. My associate went to trouble to find and download a mpeg sound file of a bicycle bell of the same general size as Davey’s, and plugged it into a program for this kind of analysis – in fact it is dedicated bell analysis software that has proved very accurate for electrodes in the past. The natural acoustic of this hemisphere are nowhere close. The main freq is 4,445.5 Hz, with some sub harmonics, the lowest being around 521/545 Hz, but those are so faint as to be discarded. Higher harmonics are barely above noise. Thus, since the acoustics of the electrodes were off by two orders of magnitude over the signature sound, we did not think that electrode acoustics were in any way relevant as an alternative explanation, or otherwise worth pursuing. Jones *From:* James Bowery As I previously advisedhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73144.html : Look at the acoustics of the electrodes. Since this advice seemed to make no impact on the discourse here at vortex-l, let me expand: Acoustic resonance in the metallic electrodes does have a reasonable chance of bearing directly on the creation of the nuclear active environment hypothesized to exist. I don't think I need to expland on list the possibilities here. Moreover, if one looks at the speed of sound in metals, the 430kHz LENR signature regime corresponds to the thickness of the cathodes frequently reported as exhibiting the phenomena. Need I say more? ** **
Re: [Vo]:25 experiments completed with borax and nickels
It turns out that determining the speed of sound in metals is kind of a mess. There is formula, sqrt (Young's Modulus / density), that gives an approximation of the answer. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/souspe2.html For nickel, I find 200GPa and 8.94e3 kg*m^-3; the formula then gives 4740 m/s. But this is only 84% of a purported value I found in http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities, which gives 5630 m/s. It seems even harder to find good answers for copper, I think because it's hard to find a single value of Young's Modulus. Wikipedia gives a range of 110GPa - 128GPa; http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_417.html is the citation for the wikipedia page and gives 117 (grin). With density = 8.96e3 kg*m^-3, 110GPa and 128GPa give 3500 and 3780 m/s which are 75% and 81%, respectively, of the value 4660 m/s found in that same link. But this other link http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sound-speed-solids-d_713.html gives a completely different value for speed of sound in copper, about 3900 m/s, which agrees more closely with the estimate from the formula. For 70/30 cupronickel alloy, http://www.copper.org/applications/cuni/txt_properties.html shows a value of 22 * 10^6 psi±5% ≈ 152GPa for Young's Modulus and 8.95 for the density. This gives 4120 m/s by formula. The above examples all suggest this value is low, but there's no way to know how low. The second link above includes this text: *The table below lists typical longitudinal wave ultrasonic velocities in a variety of common materials that can be measured with ultrasonic thickness gages. Note that this is only a general guide. The actual velocity in these materials may vary significantly due to a variety of causes such as specific composition or microstructure, grain or fiber orientation, porosity, and temperature. This is especially true in the case of cast metals, fiberglass, plastics, and composites. For best accuracy in thickness gaging, the sound velocity in a given test material should always be measured by performing a velocity calibration on a sample of known thickness.* The goal here is construct an electrode that will define a standing wave at a certain frequency *f* that is near 430KHz but is not known precisely. Given all of the above this is going to be tricky. We cannot just vary *f* to fit the electrode size because it's not arbitrary. We cannot know the size of the electrode to construct for a given *f* unless we have very accurate knowledge of the speed of sound in the electrode material. In addition we must accurately control the other conditions, e.g. temperature, because they will affect the speed of sound in the material. And all this fussing is just to find out whether the phenomenon is real or not. If this stuff was easy everybody would be doing it. Jeff On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: However a U.S. nickel is 75/25 copper/nickel. It might be possible to figure out the speed of sound using information in this thread: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=277330 I'll look at it later. Jeff On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. A U.S. nickel is 1.95mm thick. On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: It's hard to know where to begin here but let me just say this that given the speed of sound in nickelhttp://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities/ : 5630m/s and 430kHz: 5630m/s;430kHz?mm ([5630 * meter] / second) * (430 * [kilo*hertz])^-1 ? milli*meter = 2.0838194 mm In other words, a 2mm electrode should exhibit resonance at ~430kHz. On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: On the contrary James, at least two of us did look closely at this possibility [electrode acoustics]. ** ** My associate went to trouble to find and download a mpeg sound file of a bicycle bell of the same general size as Davey’s, and plugged it into a program for this kind of analysis – in fact it is dedicated bell analysis software that has proved very accurate for electrodes in the past. The natural acoustic of this hemisphere are nowhere close. ** ** The main freq is 4,445.5 Hz, with some sub harmonics, the lowest being around 521/545 Hz, but those are so faint as to be discarded. Higher harmonics are barely above noise. ** ** Thus, since the acoustics of the electrodes were off by two orders of magnitude over the signature sound, we did not think that electrode acoustics were in any way relevant as an alternative explanation, or otherwise worth pursuing. ** ** Jones ** ** ** ** *From:* James Bowery ** ** As I previously advisedhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg73144.html : ** ** Look at the acoustics of the electrodes. ** ** Since this advice seemed
Re: [VO]: More support for variable radioactive decay rates...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5783 http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318 http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4074 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156 Analysis: http://phys.org/news201795438.html Refutation: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4357 On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: New Scientist is a general science magazine. Perhaps the article below references a basic research paper that can be found on Arxiv? Eric On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Andy Findlay andy_find...@orange.netwrote: From New Scientist (needs free registration): *Half-life strife: Seasons change in the atom's hearthttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628912.300-halflife-strife-seasons-change-in-the-atoms-heart.html? * *Nothing is supposed to speed up or slow down radioactive decay. So how come the sun seems to be messing with some of our elements? * The evidence keeps accumulating... Andy Findlay* *
Re: [VO]: More support for variable radioactive decay rates...
Refutation should have said Criticism. Jeff On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5783 http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318 http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4074 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156 Analysis: http://phys.org/news201795438.html Refutation: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4357 On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: New Scientist is a general science magazine. Perhaps the article below references a basic research paper that can be found on Arxiv? Eric On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Andy Findlay andy_find...@orange.netwrote: From New Scientist (needs free registration): *Half-life strife: Seasons change in the atom's hearthttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628912.300-halflife-strife-seasons-change-in-the-atoms-heart.html? * *Nothing is supposed to speed up or slow down radioactive decay. So how come the sun seems to be messing with some of our elements? * The evidence keeps accumulating... Andy Findlay* *
Re: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear
It's a really weird article. It starts off with this title: Steven Jones replica: Pons Fleischmann XS Heat not from fusion Then the author (Allen) goes on to quote Jones as follows: ... there is a confirmed and published effect showing products of d-d [deuterium-deuterium] fusion at low levels. This is true 'cold fusion' ... But then author Allen goes on to summarize: Jones has adamantly stated that the PF reactions, while producing excess heat, are not due to fusion. (wtf!?) and The problem with calling it fusion when it is not ... (wtf again!?) So it seems to me the larger problem here is that Allen's article is incoherent, quoting Jones as saying one thing and then summarizing him (and titling the article!) by saying exactly the opposite. Jeff On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Gad. What a jerk. Was, is, remains. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear
I thought the article was incoherent enough that I'd be afraid to guess what the author really thinks his own point is. Ymmv. Jeff On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Here is my exegesis of Sterling Allan's presentation of Steven Jones's recent research: 1. There is piezonuclear fusion. Fleischmann's and Pons's discovery was not this. 2. There is metal-assisted d-d fusion. Fleischmann's and Pons's discovery was also not this. 3. There is anamalous xs heat, or Freedom Energy, which is what Fleischmann and Pons investigated. They did not discover it. Peter Davey, in the 1940s, also researched it. People do not know what goes into anomalous xs heat, but to call it fusion 3a. confuses the issue, because people want to see radiation if there is fusion. 3b. is incorrect. I couldn't tell whether Jones insisted on (3b) or was just emphasizing (3a). Eric On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: It's a really weird article. It starts off with this title: Steven Jones replica: Pons Fleischmann XS Heat not from fusion
Re: [Vo]:MFMP Power Out Curve Question
Sorry if this confuses matters, but I recall Celani stating somewhere in writing: believe me, this device is not a black-body radiator. It may have been on that Italian site with 22 in the name. No time to hunt it down just now ... Jeff On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:29 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have been following the fine work of the MFMP team and analyzing the data. These guys are doing excellent work and I congratulate them for sharing their data on a real time basis for everyone to view. I wish that we had the same cooperation from the other experimenters, but I understand why they are reluctant. The purpose for this post is to see if anyone among us can explain the unusual power output as a function of the outer glass temperature of the test cylinder. I believe that it has been the assumption that the outer glass surface should behave as a radiation source in a more or less black body manner. This implies that the radiation should be proportional to the 4th power of the temperature at that surface according to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. I began my analysis assuming that this would be likely, but find that it does not seem to be true. I performed a curve fitting operation on some of the recent data that the guys submitted on line and found that the power leaving the cell very much matches a second order equation over a wide range of input values. My actual function is as follows: P(Out) = .001656 * T * T - .6284 * T + 40.3. Here P(Out) is in units of watts and T is Kelvin degrees. This function does a good job of matching the point pairs from 0 watts to 100 watts of output. The temperature varies from approximately 300 to 450 Kelvin over that output range. It is apparent that the function that I am posting does not work over a much larger range than that in actual use since an entry of 0 degrees Kelvin would result in an output of 40.3 watts which is nonsense. I started my review by assuming the forth order function. I thought of a cute trick of taking the derivative of the expected function to eliminate the fixed incoming radiation that must be subtracted to obtain accurate output radiation power calculations. Then I took the ratio of the derivatives for each adjacent pair of power points to eliminate the proportional constant. My procedure was a bit tricky to perform, but eventually I got the bugs worked out of my results. At that point I was expecting to see the ratio of adjacent derivatives follow a cubic function of their temperature ratios. This expectation was not demonstrated to my satisfaction. I was seeking useful results so I plotted the derivative of the power output versus temperature and saw that the curve followed a linear path instead of third order. With this result as a reference I performed a curve fit of power out versus temperature using a second order function and got very reasonable results. Am I missing something here? Why does the temperature on the surface of the glass cylinder not obey the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship? Does this suggest that the major heat transport mechanism is convection into the air instead of radiation? Is it possible that the IR radiation is escaping the demonstration device and the calibrations are mainly derived from the direct gas heating of the glass? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Uranium vs Thorium Nuclear Energy Generation
I've looked at this a little. It's been under study for over 30 years, so the pros and cons are pretty well understood. The wikipedia page (thorium fuel cycle) covers them. It's definitely feasible, probably an economic win for countries with a lot of thorium (e.g. India), and arguably a little safer. But for me, bottom line is that it doesn't change the fundamentals. There are still waste handling issues and reactor design issues and nuclear economy/proliferation issues. So moving from U to Th is a difference (in the technology sphere) that doesn't really make a difference (in the public policy sphere). Jeff On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Hello collective, Is Thorium really safer? And is it reallya a feasible solution? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628905.600-indias-thoriumbased-nuclear-dream-inches-closer.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news Regards, Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Uranium vs Thorium Nuclear Energy Generation
Thorium itself cannot be used directly. Natural thorium is mostly composed of a single isotope, Th-232, that is only fertile, not fissile. Use of thorium in a power reactor or weapon requires that the natural Th-232 be transmuted within an already-operating reactor to U-233, which is fissile. This breeding of U-233 is analogous to the way plutonium is bred in a reactor from natural uranium. The difference is that in addition to the merely-fertile U-238, natural uranium contains a nontrivial amount of fissile U-235 which can be extracted (at significant expense) and used directly to make weapons. With thorium, the only path to weapons-grade material requires an operating reactor to produce fertile U-233 by transmutation. This requirement for an operating reactor makes the process much easier for the international community to monitor, among other things. U-233 is known to be suitable for weapons use - there is one document example of the U.S. building and successfully detonating a weapon with a U-233 pit (bomb core). So it's false to say that the thorium fuel cycle is completely weapons material clean. But I think it's true to say that the risk of weapons proliferation is lower compared to starting with U. I found this document which has everything you could ever want to know about this - although wikipedia seems good enough to answer almost any lay person question in this case. http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1450_web.pdf Jeff On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks Jeff. Can enriched Thorium also be used for nuclear weapons? On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I've looked at this a little. It's been under study for over 30 years, so the pros and cons are pretty well understood. The wikipedia page (thorium fuel cycle) covers them. It's definitely feasible, probably an economic win for countries with a lot of thorium (e.g. India), and arguably a little safer. But for me, bottom line is that it doesn't change the fundamentals. There are still waste handling issues and reactor design issues and nuclear economy/proliferation issues. So moving from U to Th is a difference (in the technology sphere) that doesn't really make a difference (in the public policy sphere). Jeff On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: Hello collective, Is Thorium really safer? And is it reallya a feasible solution? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628905.600-indias-thoriumbased-nuclear-dream-inches-closer.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news Regards, Patrick -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:High energy protons emissions/Nov.1 Piantelli Patent
There's actually a whole spectrum of these ideas, correct? For example Robin's concept of using an MCF device as a source of 14.1MeV neutrons to force fission in actinides (e.g. nuclear waste). Has anyone tried to summarize or assemble a list of these? It could span from the completely mainstream (I think Robin's concept is completely mainstream from a physics standpoint) to the completely, well, you know. ;-) Jeff On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Eric Walker Maybe there is an [IRH] application to be found in *reducing* the fusion cross section. ;) It was suggested years ago that a hybrid of Hot Fusion and LENR might be possible, especially with so-called desktop accelerators and extreme loading ratios characteristic of cold fusion. The overhead cost of hot fusion must come down by an order of magnitude before it makes sense. Perhaps the easiest way to imagine this kind of hot-cold-hybrid would be based on ICF (inertial confinement) ... where the cost savings comes from using LENR loading techniques to manufacture implosion pellets for irradiation via coherent beam compression; such as to implode targets with semiconductor laser arrays or electron beams based on small Wakefield accelerators. This kind of device could conceivably fit in a modified airplane, for instance, if the reactions were largely neutron free. The Winterberg/Bae plan was mentioned here a few years ago, and then went quiet; but seems not to have languished ... but also not to have made a breakthrough. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg34994.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/conjectured-metastable-super-explosives.htm l http://ykbcorp.com/news.html Jones
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation on nuclear events in lightning
LOL! I totally agree! Every time another set of those slides comes out, I cringe at the thought of attempting to read them. On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: He sure can fit a lot of words into one sentence... Also, his powerpoint slide density matches the density of a black hole. On Monday, November 12, 2012, wrote: Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has recently posted the presentation - Electroweak Neutron Production and Capture in Lightning Discharges -ANS Meeting San Diego Nov 2012 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/larsen-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-in-lightning-dischargesans-meeting-san-diego-nov-2012 Summary: This presentation is part of a November 13, 2012, panel session Discussion of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions at the American Nuclear Society 2012 Winter Meeting in San Diego, CA. Enabled by many-body, collective effects and appropriate forms of required input energy (e.g., electric currents and/or organized magnetic fields with tubular geometries can be used to produce ‘catalytic’ neutrons via an electroweak reaction: e + p -- n + #957; ), LENRs involve elemental nucleosynthetic transmutation reactions very much like stars, only at vastly lower temperatures and pressures that are found in laboratory apparatus such as electrolytic chemical cells and many natural processes such as lightning discharges.
[Vo]:Improving Neutron Detection
A friend (Mike, one of our little group here in Portland) found a relatively low-cost way to rent a neutron detector: http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.817517/sc.7/category.13851/.f So I have a question. Is it possible that a lot of neutrons have gone undetected in LENR experiments over the past 20+ years because of the relative expense and difficulty of neutron detection? And that the recent spate of neutron results (which Jed commented upon on in another thread this past week) is the result of the decreasing cost and increasing ubiquity of neutron detection equipment? It's all about instrumentation ... says the guy who lives where the local tech community started with Tektronix in 1946. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Supersonic shockwave acceleration processes
Sorry, I cannot resist, though I'm sure it's appeared here before. *Buzz http://www.imdb.com/name/nm741/*: I need to repair my turbo boosters. Are you still using fossil fuels, or have you discovered crystallic fusion? *Woody http://www.imdb.com/name/nm158/*: Well, let's see, we got double-A's. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114709/quotes Jeff On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: “Whatever it is, it seems that the presence of the metal/water surface is important for this second effect to be self sustaining. It appears that there is feedback which results in the projectile neither burrowing into the metal or leaving the metal surface. I feel there is a clue here somewhere” Standard scientific doctrinaire says that the positive highly charged ionic crystal will immediately gain electrons and become neutral in charge when the crystal hits the substrate. If this charge neutralization process does not happen, the positive ionic charge is maintained almost indefinitely. More interesting, LeClair says he has seen damage from these crystals in his walls and in trees outside his windows. Something is keeping these crystals charged. If these crystals can be produced on demand and in mass in a handy handheld system they would make for a formidable weapon; a disruptor beam. We have until the 24th century to figure this thing out so that we can keep to the “STAR TRAC” technology development timeline. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: Having discussed what he appears to have seen with Mark L, I ended up coming to the conclusion that there are possibly two separate effects that we may need to consider. First there is whatever it is that happens within the cavitation bubble that starts the process off. In situations where cavitation causes damage to nearby surfaces this is probably the only effect in town. In LeClairs later experiment where there are score lines across the surface of metal, I suspect that there is a second self sustaining effect, possibly involving bow waves and casimir forces, although I was not left totally convinced by LeClair's casimir force explanation. Whatever it is, it seems that the presence of the metal/water surface is important for this second effect to be self sustaining. It appears that there is feedback which results in the projectile neither burrowing into the metal or leaving the metal surface. I feel there is a clue here somewhere Nigel On 11/11/2012 03:39, Axil Axil wrote: I am interested in the possible association of zero-point-energy/**electrostatic based supersonic shockwave acceleration processes that occur as a consequence of ionic crystal formation during cavatation bubble collapse and the closely related plasma reaction in the Papp engine which might occur in the plasmoid formation process in heavy noble gases. The Plasmoid that is formed by the spark discharge in a noble gas mix might be analogous to what happens in the collapse of a single large cavatation bubble. The Plasmoid both acts like and might be thought of as a manifestation of a single large collapsing cavitation bubble. In more detail, what Mark LeClair has observed as positive ionic crystallization formation in water that is catalyzed in the high pressure plasma generation during cavatation in water may also be happening in ionic positively charge krypton and xenon crystal formation in the Papp reaction. I believe that this idea is justifiable since cavatation damage also occurs in liquid sodium and molten salt pumps at levels of up to ten times more intense as is happening in water. Positive ionic crystallization formation can happen in many types of ionic elements and chemical compounds in both liquids and gases. Here is a recent YouTube based interview covering cavitation with Mark LeClair. http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=a7Gqd34R5OQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7Gqd34R5OQ In this interview, Mark LeClair believes that LENR happens in cavatation. But a deeper level of abstraction is needed in his thinking. LENR actually is based on the action of positively charged ionic super-atomic crystals.
Re: [Vo]:Supersonic shockwave acceleration processes
Kidding aside, I'm going to channel Mary Yugo here for a minute. Back in Februrary, NanoSpire ...announced that its investigative study on fusion created by cavitation in water has come to an end. http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=44551 (Dr. Storms is mentioned.) These experiments apparently go back to 2007. If I understood the video correctly the one in which the principals of the company were injured by radiation was done in 2009. They say the produced a huge range of elements up through transuranics. Years ago. So I must be missing something here. Put up some shielding. Put some detectors and live plants behind the shielding and run the device. Invite people to come watch them fry. Put up a webcam. Whatever. It's not that hard. The HUG guys in Minnesota are doing it. Or for that matter, scrape up the remains and sell them. Lots of the elements in that wide range are valuable. Transuranics are fantastically valuable. Something. Note that none of these ideas compromise their IP in the slightest. The HUG replication is not compromising Celani's IP related to fabrication of the wire. So don't even start about how they're preserving their valuable IP. But no, nothing along these lines - just earth-shattering news of a breakthrough in physics, with no reproduction instructions, no apparent demonstration, and no attempt (that I can see) to extract economic value from the consequences. Sorry, no. Not interested in a Nobel or in boundless wealth. Happy to be a small IP holding company and keep chugging along. Help me out here. What am I missing. Jeff On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, I cannot resist, though I'm sure it's appeared here before. *Buzz http://www.imdb.com/name/nm741/*: I need to repair my turbo boosters. Are you still using fossil fuels, or have you discovered crystallic fusion? *Woody http://www.imdb.com/name/nm158/*: Well, let's see, we got double-A's. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114709/quotes Jeff On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: “Whatever it is, it seems that the presence of the metal/water surface is important for this second effect to be self sustaining. It appears that there is feedback which results in the projectile neither burrowing into the metal or leaving the metal surface. I feel there is a clue here somewhere” Standard scientific doctrinaire says that the positive highly charged ionic crystal will immediately gain electrons and become neutral in charge when the crystal hits the substrate. If this charge neutralization process does not happen, the positive ionic charge is maintained almost indefinitely. More interesting, LeClair says he has seen damage from these crystals in his walls and in trees outside his windows. Something is keeping these crystals charged. If these crystals can be produced on demand and in mass in a handy handheld system they would make for a formidable weapon; a disruptor beam. We have until the 24th century to figure this thing out so that we can keep to the “STAR TRAC” technology development timeline. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: Having discussed what he appears to have seen with Mark L, I ended up coming to the conclusion that there are possibly two separate effects that we may need to consider. First there is whatever it is that happens within the cavitation bubble that starts the process off. In situations where cavitation causes damage to nearby surfaces this is probably the only effect in town. In LeClairs later experiment where there are score lines across the surface of metal, I suspect that there is a second self sustaining effect, possibly involving bow waves and casimir forces, although I was not left totally convinced by LeClair's casimir force explanation. Whatever it is, it seems that the presence of the metal/water surface is important for this second effect to be self sustaining. It appears that there is feedback which results in the projectile neither burrowing into the metal or leaving the metal surface. I feel there is a clue here somewhere Nigel On 11/11/2012 03:39, Axil Axil wrote: I am interested in the possible association of zero-point-energy/**electrostatic based supersonic shockwave acceleration processes that occur as a consequence of ionic crystal formation during cavatation bubble collapse and the closely related plasma reaction in the Papp engine which might occur in the plasmoid formation process in heavy noble gases. The Plasmoid that is formed by the spark discharge in a noble gas mix might be analogous to what happens in the collapse of a single large cavatation bubble. The Plasmoid both acts like and might be thought of as a manifestation of a single large collapsing cavitation bubble. In more detail, what Mark LeClair has observed as positive ionic
Re: [Vo]:Taylor Wilson
It would be fun to ask him. Perhaps he doesn't believe in CF/LENR. More likely he has his own list of priorities and doesn't care. The fusion reactor he constructed himself was/is a Fusor. There's lots of information on Fusors on the web. Jeff On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Drowning Trout drowningtro...@gmail.comwrote: Where is he? and why isn't he contributing to the Vortex collective? On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/taylor-wilson/309132/
[Vo]:Amusing analysis of CF/LENR in the world
I have a friend, very smart guy, who I've been working on over time with occasional CF/LENR tidbits and arguments. Lately he wrote this, and gave me permission to send it along. - - - So, let's identify all the groups involved here, from the seekers to the suckers. :-) We have the seekers, people like Jeff who think this just might be real, more likely than not that LENR can be used for some good, but are aware of all the hucksters out there. We have the hopefuls, like me, that hope it can be found but don't have a whole lot of faith, will be tickled to death (by a large neutron beam) if it is found to be possible. We have the sloppy scientists who want it to be true but are so sloppy in their work they can't tell, but claim they have actually done it and are open about how. Some want investors, some don't. Some scientists can't reproduce the results, other sloppy scientists can sort of on occasion tend to kinda verify the results. We have the hucksters (used to sell water powered cars) who claim to be able to do it, but always leave out some details so no one can actually try to reproduce their results. They want investors! They almost exclusively have something they are putting energy into and claim to be getting more out (says the math). We have the naysayer scientists who just know it isn't possible, and dismiss anything without such inspection, just as I wouldn't spend too much time looking over a new perpetual motion machine. Can't be done, don't waste anyone's time. We may have the evil forces of the current energy cartel that want us to buy their gasoline and coal, the same guys that bought and buried the 150 MPG carburetor. They want no discussion And last, we may have the good scientists that really have found how to do this, and are fighting their way through all the bad press the sloppies and the hucksters create. Can't speak in public forums because they have been tarred with the same brush used on the hucksters. I think that's it? Who do you think shuts down discussions -- the naysayers or the evil forces? Do you think they even go so far as to spawn hucksters to help discredit the whole field? - - - Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Transmutations
Heh. It's 23 years for some of the old timers on this alias (not me). I'm particularly fond of this older transmutation paper: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Castellanonucleartra.pdf There are various reasons to criticize the paper (only EDX was used for analysis, other complaints) but I like it because it is simple, direct, limited in scope, and because they describe pretty good technique with respect to controlling contaminants. Other very interesting transmutation results are Iwamura's: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatioa.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYlowenergyn.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatioc.pdf etc. I'm unsure what to think about the carbon arc stuff. It takes tremendous procedural care to eliminate contaminants. A complete experiment would involve procuring ultra pure carbon from a chemical supply house, doing an assay of a fraction (control sample) with at least three analytical techniques (e.g. EDX, XRD, mass spec), performing the experiment under near-clean-room conditions using materials that are distinct from anticipated transmutation products, capturing the detritus in similarly distinct materials, and running the same three analytical techniques on the detritus, preferably with the same three instruments. It's a big undertaking. Jeff On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: I have lost track of all of the claims of LENR and transmutations.. Are there known reproducible LENR experiments that shows real evidence of a nuclear transmutation? Trying to detect radiation above background, excess heat, etc. is clearly difficult.. But turning an element in LENR fuel into new element(s) would demand attention. Piantelli shows the nuclear process in his patent as does Rossi.. but any real evidence? After two years of following LENR, do we really have no hard evidence that fusion or fision is happening? Is it because XRD or Mass Spectrum is too expensive, or because of impurities in most fuels? I know George Egely has said he has done XRD on samples before and after in his carbon in a microwave plasma fusion... but no replication, as far as I know... - Brad
[Vo]:Taylor Wilson
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/taylor-wilson/309132/
[Vo]:A claim that NRL bought an E-Cat
Can be found in here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/11/sven-kullander-on-the-e-cat/ Jeff
Re: [Vo]:A claim that NRL bought an E-Cat
In side email, someone pointed out that NRL rumor is a year old. I misread the first part of the article and missed that. I wouldn't even have bothered forwarding the link. Jeff On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: All I can say is: heh More appropriate, Meh.
Re: [Vo]:The Greenland High
Actually, I can attest that the National Weather Forecast Discussion for Hurricane Sandy did indeed describe this ridge of high pressure over Greenland. This was as it was moving north past Florida and the Carolinas, several days before it made (second) landfall in New Jersey. They called this area of high pressure anomalous or extremely anomalous or some words to that effect. Jeff On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:57 AM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.comwrote: People who get rich off of climate change research (academics and green fund-raisers/politicians) like to claim that climate change leads to more 'extreme weather' like hurricanes, droughts etc, but they only get away with it because of short human memories. Actual data shows that there is no upwards trend and the last few years have been very quiet. In fact for hurricanes the cycle appears to follow the 60year Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and if anything the trend is downwards with increasing temperature: http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/03/29/global_hurricane_energy_1974_2011.png http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/28/warming-reduces-landfalling-hurricanes-again/ On 5 November 2012 11:06, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Hurricane Sandy grabbed matter and energy from the atmosphere around her. Climate change gives her more energy to consume and she formed an accretion disk around her orbiting particle center. She was organized by the mass and angular momentum of the orbiting particle and was steered into the location near Albion New York where she first entered the Earth and shutdown the Erie Canal for repairs this summer.. As she had a closed string orbit at sub, relativistic speeds, she attracted other particles orbiting in the area and they all followed string interactions according to M Theory, resulting in some of the beautiful photos of ice halos and rainbows interacting before she arrived, all aligning/interacting with the more massive Sandy Particle. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Monday, November 5, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: The first clearly recognizable consequence of global warming has insinuated itself into our lives, and as we have all feared these consequences will not be good. This weather feature is called the “Greenland High” a stationary dome of high pressure. It has taken up residence over Greenland and this weather pattern was the guiding force that steered and strengthened the nor’easter/hurricane Sandy forcing it ashore onto the Mid-Atlantic shoreline. Another nor’easter is due to form in the middle of this week and be guided by the jet stream once again up the eastern sea board. This year’s winter will be abnormally cold due to the diving jet stream. Any low pressure system moving across the country will be redirected south then north following the same storm track as Sandy: These weakly repeating nor’easters will dive into the Southern states, where they will pick up moisture from the Gulf of Mexico, next they will strengthen off of the coast of the Carolina’s and then proceed up the East Coast, dumping rain and wind, then when the cold of the winter sets in, snows in prodigious amounts. For those who live in the eastern third of the US, you will be in for a hard and snowy winter, so get your snow blowers and emergency generators serviced and in good working order, get in a lot of wood in for your stoves and enjoy an extended case of cabin fever. If you own a place on the Atlantic shoreline, you will be in for some major problems and loss. The weakly precession of these coastal storms one worse than the next will erode the beaches well inland taking many find beach houses with it. P.S. To advance your best interest in this upcoming period of repeated serial disasters, you might not want to elect leaders that espouse the political philosophy “every man jack for himself” because you will need competent help and plenty of it. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:lorenhe...@aol.com blocked from vortex: political hatred
I have been relaxed about off-topic postings because I'm relatively new to the group and was following the lead of others. If there's a desire to enforce that rule more strictly I will be happy to stop doing it. Jeff On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: May I also suggest that you crack down on off-topic posts also. Only a few people are chronic offenders and they won't listen to reason since they have been here a long time and are simply gabbing with friends, and of course, they make up the rules as we go. I strongly believe that off-topic post clearly destroy this forum and its science value and I strongly advocated for moderation of such behavior only to be ignored and ostracized. You need to enforce your rule 2, even if the offender is popular here. No one should be beyond the rules no matter how well loved and popular he may be in this forum - that is if you want your forum to remain useful and relevant. But if you are interested in mob rule here, then so be it. Jojo - Original Message - From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 1:23 PM Subject: [Vo]:lorenhe...@aol.com blocked from vortex: political hatred I've moved lorenhe...@aol.com to vortex...@eskimo.com For everyone's information: vortex-L has no anti-flamewars rule, but in the long term, I take action on Internet Trolls who attract multiple complaints from other users here. How to avoid getting thrown off vortex? Same as with any forum: use vortex-L for its listed range of topics, and try to avoid the well-known troll topics such as: - politics - religion If in doubt, clearly label all your mentions of politics/religion as OFF TOPIC. Also remember to take any complaints from other Vortex-L users very seriously. Apologize to the group when they start objecting to your postings. PS I have a big personal thing against fake names or anonymous email IDs on science forums. A hint: if you want to get away with misbehaving on vortex-L, STOP HIDING BEHIND A FAKE NAME. Always use your genuine full name, and include a sig with your real-world contact info. Let everyone search your online behavior from years past, and make sure that it all will stick to you forever. This sort of thing is part of science ethics, not to mention basic honesty and mature adulthood, and it gives you lots of points here in your favor. (Notice how many users on vortex-L are doing this. Why not try it?) On the other hand, I recognize that users from academia may be forced to hide their IRL identity on a crackpot forum. But then, professional researchers probably aren't trying to use Vortex as their personal soapbox for religion or political activism, nor are trapped in the Flamer Personality Disorder :) http://amasci.com/weird/**flamer.htmlhttp://amasci.com/weird/flamer.html (( ( ( ( ((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]:Whence Willard?
Off topic. On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:21 PM, lorenhe...@aol.com wrote: This is for all the devoted Demo-rats, which can be confused with a small furry rodent that lives in subways sewers, and can spread diseases to the human population. The Rats used in many laboratories along with it's less-developed Mouse cousin (of which are the first to develope/evolve after the E.L.E. 65 million years ago) are used in various experiments and adapted to man-made enclosed environment that cause it's genes to mutate or grow White Hair or Fur. Their purpose is to aid human beings in their plight to live healthy or free from deadly viruses or bacteria that can transform into more serious diseases, or a plague. Sadly, for many of these somewhat cuddley little virmen producing creatures, it's too late, because they're unaware of their demise about to be administered to them via endless testing of pain tolerances and/or extreme conditons for endurance, of which usually leads to a shortened lifespan. Their Wanabe Chemosloppy BO Bwana From Kenyya Nairobi, that thinks highly of himself and/or either as a Man, or a President, is actually a terrorist-loving anti-whitey-american, anti-economy, anti-freedom, or anti due-process, anti justice, and/or anti everything this Country means, represents, or stands for, except maybe for what has enabled the malodorous BO to mingle in with a so-called community of people that befriended Mr Stinkey One. These useful tools would go on to serve BO's purpose, because they simply couldn't resist the overpowering spell put upon them. BO filled them with anger resentment even hatred toward the humans their establishment. They were under a hypnotic trance-like mindless state of obedience, having no choice but to Support this Greatly Disappointed Self Annointed Messiah Genius w/ a IQ so high, it couldn't' even be measured. Yeah anyway, so, looking back on BO's history of how he had managed to navigate the tree tops into this Country, starting all the way back in his original birth place in Kenya Africa, as just a wee small innocent primate learning how to recognize and/or detest whitish looking skin he was born to a Whitey Mother, which tends to be a certain undesireable color thats associated with intelligence and/or characteristic of a civilized human being. BO's Father's side of the Family Clan mostly regarded these very unnatural traits as being offensive, unacceptable and/or unapproved of, and so, the actual truth of what happened to his BO's Whitey Mother is w/o transparency and/or likely involved some type of foul-play, or some way in which muzzleheaded piritives deal with troubling issues. Now, early on in BO's life, Big Oil Banking (Big Money) had essentially taken him Out Of Africa into a certain area of Jacarta Indonesia, where he went to school and learned the lame teachings of the correct way to stone, torture, or kill people, and/or earned a Degree in Dictatorship. From there he moved to another upscale white dis-liking or despising residence in Hawaii, where he obtained his highly prized (much like the White House) forged birth certificate. Back in that time-period, the State of Hawaii had somewhat lapsed loopholds or laws that enabled those seeking illegalcitizenship the opportunity to obtain a forged birth certificate, and so, BO's Uncle (a genuine card-carrying communist) being a Legal (?) Guardian, had taken BO there for the specific purpose of establishing citizenship of America, the evil empire,,, which was the apple of BO's eye! Now, looking into BO's past since illegally misoccupying this Country... he spent a lot of his time fitting-in with the so-called people, and proceeded to learn of their gullible ways. He began to organize their efforts, and acquired much support for his noble effort to gain power by rnnning for a senate seat (test run). He had his sight set on the Presidency, because he was sure that nothing could stop him from obtaining power wealth, which America so generously offered. His promise of hope change was essentially a plan to fundamentally change this country for his very own personal gain. So back when BO was (illegal) sworn-in by taking The Oaf For The Office Of The Presidency, I had noticed how BO seemed to stumble on some of the Oafish words being recited, and he almost seem to laugh or scoff at it. Of course, it's because he needed to let his fellow clan members and/or BS (black support) know that he was not sincere,,, and they wouldn't have to worry about his (ill)intentions, or lack of thereof the,, which was very
Re: [Vo]:Home made data logging ammeter
Thanks Arnaud. The goal of the diodes is to protect the board - it cost more than the resistors did. But yeah, I know. Your point is especially true because those 1N5400s are odd - they list a forward voltage around 1.2v, rather than 0.6v as you would expect for a typical silicon diode. I guess they have two junctions in series? Otoh, they are spec'd to carry up to 200 amps forward for half a cycle (8ms) You can't protect semiconductors with MOVs or fuses either ... too slow. Just a question of curiosity, but is there a good answer? Jeff On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: Nice job ! ** ** But let me explain that your protection diodes aren’t effective for current overrun on sensing resistances. As you said, the voltage drop on forward current of the diode is around 1V maybe a bit less … let’s say 500mV. At 500mV, the resistance will dissipate (U^2/R) (0.5)^2/0.05 = 5 W. At 1V, the power dissipated at resistance is 20W! So the resistance will burn even if the diodes are closed, because maximum power rating of the resistance is 1W. ** ** To have 500mV at the resistance, current flow will be 10A. Diodes are only 3A … ** ** The protection will be effective only for non repetitive small spikes, but rather more to protect your phidgets. ** ** Arnaud -- *From:* Jeff Berkowitz [mailto:pdx...@gmail.com] *Sent:* dimanche 28 octobre 2012 02:42 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:Home made data logging ammeter ** ** Hi all, I built this USB-connected ammeter so we could log current flow accurately and rapidly while doing electrolysis and also electroplating.** ** ** ** http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-pretty-good-data-logging-ammeter.html ** ** Jeff ** **
Re: [Vo]:A Halloween scare for real
Yes. Leaving aside nightmare scenarios like nanobot infestations and genetically modified diseases and the rest, sticking strictly to the economic consequences of computer and mechanical technologies: there's some evidence we're seeing these effects right now, in the unemployment numbers. I came up with the image below to suggest the sort of self-perpetuating or positive feedback nature of what may be going on. The image uses a few concepts. One is reach, by which I mean the ability of the lucky few winners using modern technology to supply the services that formerly required the work of many - reach is the consequence of the idea of scalability discussed in Taleb's book The Black Swan. Reach causes concentration of wealth as the lucky few (e.g. Google) replace the services previously provided by (e.g.) many local newspapers. The image also relies on my belief that concentration of wealth in fewer hands tends to reduce overall economic activity, as explained in the blog entry I posted here previously. Accepting these ideas, we get the nasty positive feedback cycle shown in the image. Jeff On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The Atlantic sets the stage for the 'scary season' (the election, not Halloween) with a piece on machine intelligence, echoing Bill Joy's classic article http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-ma chine-intelligence/264066/ No Joy here: Why the Future Doesn't Need Us http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html And now that the Governator is back on the streets, and the real Terminator is being perfected faster than suspected ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFGfq0pRczYfeature=etp-pd-nxx-62 W Just in time for the LENR power module to make it fully autonomous (as long as it avoids metal stamping presses)... ... so all in all - I'd have to opine that future is pretty scary, even without hundreds of little gremlins and witches prowling the streets with bags full of candy... and the scare may not be that far away - no matter who gets elected. attachment: ProductivtyTrap.png
Re: [Vo]:Home made data logging ammeter
Thanks, Arnaud. Here our goal was to include a computer interface for logging, and the Phidget was convenient for that; unfortunately, it only measures up to 75 millivolts, which creates problems of its own as you point out. Phidgets also have a purpose-built voltmeter, but its resolution is only 0.073v, which we didn't feel was sufficient. If I could find another fairly high-resolution voltmeter with a computer interface I could design to it. Of course there are plenty of $30 multimeters with RS-232 outputs, but I don't know if I trust them over a range and the resulting solution is somewhat clunky, e.g. bulky, among other things. Jeff On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: You should use a higher resistance value. I use 0.39 Ohm to measure 0 - 4A range. Which lead to 1.6 V at resistance when a current of 4A is passing through it. Then it becomes easier to protect over current. The resistance must be able to handle a power of 7W. There is no need here for a precision resistance, but a constant resistance value over temperature. Measure the resistance value with an accurate/precision multimeter to convert volt into ampere. ** ** Arnaud -- *From:* Jeff Berkowitz [mailto:pdx...@gmail.com] *Sent:* dimanche 28 octobre 2012 16:24 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Home made data logging ammeter ** ** Thanks Arnaud. ** ** The goal of the diodes is to protect the board - it cost more than the resistors did. But yeah, I know. ** ** Your point is especially true because those 1N5400s are odd - they list a forward voltage around 1.2v, rather than 0.6v as you would expect for a typical silicon diode. I guess they have two junctions in series? ** ** Otoh, they are spec'd to carry up to 200 amps forward for half a cycle (8ms) ** ** You can't protect semiconductors with MOVs or fuses either ... too slow.** ** ** ** Just a question of curiosity, but is there a good answer? ** ** Jeff On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote: Nice job ! But let me explain that your protection diodes aren’t effective for current overrun on sensing resistances. As you said, the voltage drop on forward current of the diode is around 1V maybe a bit less … let’s say 500mV. At 500mV, the resistance will dissipate (U^2/R) (0.5)^2/0.05 = 5 W. At 1V, the power dissipated at resistance is 20W! So the resistance will burn even if the diodes are closed, because maximum power rating of the resistance is 1W. To have 500mV at the resistance, current flow will be 10A. Diodes are only 3A … The protection will be effective only for non repetitive small spikes, but rather more to protect your phidgets. Arnaud -- *From:* Jeff Berkowitz [mailto:pdx...@gmail.com] *Sent:* dimanche 28 octobre 2012 02:42 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:Home made data logging ammeter Hi all, I built this USB-connected ammeter so we could log current flow accurately and rapidly while doing electrolysis and also electroplating.** ** http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-pretty-good-data-logging-ammeter.html Jeff ** **
Re: [Vo]:Home made data logging ammeter
I have wondered the same thing. I guess the Phidgets folks are somewhat in this space - if you look at the prices of the modules here, for example: http://www.phidgets.com/products.php?category=8 and scroll down to the green blocks, that's going to add up if you try to configure a system with a bunch of channels. Especially considering $100 will buy three inexpensive DMMs that can each be used for voltage or current and each provide a single RS-232 data channel with updates at maybe 1Hz. Possibly the software problem is more interesting - I'm surprised there isn't an open source LabView clone effort given all the universities that could benefit. Something that includes a sort of software module buss with well defined interfaces for modules of all types. Or maybe there is something like this and I just missed it. Jeff On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It sounds like at the present time getting set up with research-quality measurement data acquisition is either a do-it-yourself affair or something that requires a large capital expenditure on high-end instrumentation and LabView, and there's not much of a middle tier of solid but affordable components and software. I wonder where the hobbyist/inventor/small-business market is going in this regard -- whether there will be an increased demand for these things. You may have happened upon an interesting business opportunity. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Superparamagnetism + DCE + magnons = Nanomagnetism
I'm glad you said it and I didn't. I keep coming back to the idea that there must be more than one physical phenomenon. Among other things, it would explain the difficulty in reproducing results. If you've ever been responsible for troubleshooting a complex system that just happens to have developed multiple truly unrelated failures around the same time, you know what I mean: it's not twice as difficult, or even 2^n times as difficult - it's more like 10^n. You keep trying and trying to make your debugging observations fit one cause, and this becomes a huge handicap to identifying any one of the explanations. In other words it feels like CF/LENR over the past two decades. Unfortunately, the conservation of miracles counter-argument is also very strong. Jeff On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This article below is one many recently about information-storage using “superparamagnetism” – and not about the energy aspects; but this subject area of superparamagnetism is becoming a major part of a hypothesis for explaining the gain seen in some Ni-H systems, so it is worth mentioning again in that context. http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Nature_Molecule_Changes_Magnetism_and_Co nductance_999.html This evolving theory of nanomagnetism accepts that there can be several completely different methods for nuclear and quasi-nuclear gain with hydrogen at the nanoscale, and especially with deuterium. Here are the gainful metal-hydride reactions which have substantial experimental evidence behind them (in roughly chronological order): 1) The original LENR of PF which is seen with palladium and deuterium, and involves fusion to helium or tritium. 2) The original f/H (fractional hydrogen) mechanism of Mills, now expanded by Miley and others as Rydberg hydrogen. No radioactivity involved. 3) A Focardi/Rossi mechanism involving the transmutation of nickel into copper or other metals. This is probably a version of the W-L beta decay mechanism, but little radioactivity is seen. 4) The Storms mechanism, which is similar to 1) and is true LENR with fusion of protons, and involves beta decay. 5) A nano-magnetism mechanism which is quasi-fusion related (QCD reversible-proton-fusion and a strong force reaction – Not beta). This is QM based, and can leave trace radioactivity and transmutation. 6) Any combination or permutation of the above - since none of them are mutually exclusive. This list is NOT what most theorist want to accept: that there could be many mechanisms for gain in hydrogen loaded cavities. In fact, the mainstream hates this scenario of “several gainful mechanisms“ worse than the original cold fusion shocker intruded on their complacency, since it multiplies their errors of omission. But essentially we must ask - why not many mechanisms? After all most of the universe is hydrogen, and there is no law or logical reason that quantum interactions of hydrogen should be simple – because the atom seems simple at first glance. The nanomagnetism theory is the only one (of the above) which can account for endotherm, which has been seen in some hydride systems - and is perhaps more of a shocking anomaly than excess heat. Endotherm in this case means that when a certain amount of outside heat is put into the system, a substantial fraction of that heat seems to physically disappear, as if there was a magic internal heat sink. Celani, Technova and others have seen this physical feature – but have not pursued it. DCE, the dynamical Casimir effect was introduced by Julian Schwinger in 1992: “Casimir Energy for Dielectrics,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 89 4091–3. Although he was a proponent of cold fusion, it is not clear to what extent Schwinger himself was fully promoting DCE as an alternative explanation for gain (or else as a predecessor condition for nuclear reactions). He simply did not have all the pieces to the puzzle then, but was suggesting the idea that electron tunneling and QM effects such as the Lamb shift can account for some excess energy. The Lamb Shift, superparamagnetism, and the DCE are interleaved and together portend both anomalous heating AND anomalous cooling. All you need is the correct material in the correct geometry in the same way that the Casimir force itself can be either attractive or repulsive. The explanation of internal thermal loss is a huge surprise to many observers. The Lamb shift is a small difference in energy between two energy levels of the hydrogen atom in quantum electrodynamics (QED) so it can go either way if asymmetric. It is basically a spin-flip. It was the harbinger of modern QED as developed by Schwinger and others. The Lamb shift is tiny in each instance, but lattice phonons move a terahertz frequencies and higher, so the “transaction rate” for tiny incremental gain or loss in contained hydrogen, due to the Lamb shift, is staggering… same with the
[Vo]:Home made data logging ammeter
Hi all, I built this USB-connected ammeter so we could log current flow accurately and rapidly while doing electrolysis and also electroplating. http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-pretty-good-data-logging-ammeter.html Jeff
[Vo]:Hybrid Ni-H reproduction buried in the link forwarded by Alan -
Almost casually, buried in what appears to be a theoretical article, on p. 117 of the link forwarded by Alan Fletcher ( http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol9.pdf), Takahashi describes a reproduction of excess heat in a hybrid Ni-H system: Now we refer some typical experimental data of heat evolution by H(D)-gas loading with CNZ (Cu0.08Ni0.35/Zr0.57) sample (Cu–Ni binary nano-particles dispersed into many ZrO2 flakes), currently on-going at Kobe–Technova group [18,19]. Heat production is endothermic for T 200oC sample temperature, but exothermic for T 250oC and heat-enhancing trend for higher temperature. At 300oC, they have observed 1–1.5 W/g-Ni level average heat by Hgas- loading for a week of run continuously. The D-gas loading gave smaller level heat power (0.2–0.3 W/g-Ni) also continuously. I had missed this work completely ... there is so much going on, now, you cannot keep up with it. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Hybrid Ni-H reproduction buried in the link forwarded by Alan
Following up on Eric's mail, I have gotten other feedback on the side suggesting the excess heating can all be accounted for chemically in this particular case. I cannot comment on your analysis, Jones, but it seems caution may be called for here. (Unfortunately what received was actual pdf's which I cannot blast out to the alias for copyright reasons. I will see if there are links to said pdfs when I get a chance and post the links, if so.) Jeff On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jones, I am reading your discussion of the Curie point of the alloy and have a question for you. Is it safe to assume that each individual atom continues to exhibit its local magnetic effects? If so, the Curie point must be a result of geometrical considerations for the entire sample. I can see how your description of superparamagnetism can get complicated. This post and others imply that there likely are a wealth of discoveries lurking within the realm of nano sized particles. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 26, 2012 12:35 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hybrid Ni-H reproduction buried in the link forwarded by Alan This is fully consistent with an emerging nanomagnetism theory. It is also related to the “Reiter effect” with nickel-manganese or cobalt hydriding reactions. I have a strong suspicion that the key to the thermal anomaly in many experiments involving nickel and even palladium involves “superparamagnetism”, which is a form of magnetism found only in nanoparticles or thin-films which are ~10 nanometer thickness. How superparamagnetism translates into thermal gain is relatively easy to imagine – and a way to maximize it is also apparent. In sufficiently small nanoparticles, ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic magnetization can randomly flip direction under the influence of temperature. The typical time between two flips is called the Néel relaxation time (typically below 1 nano-sec). The result would be the same kind of inductive heating which is seen electromagnet cores, except on steroids, so to speak, due to the extreme spin flipping. QM nuclear effects are expected to occur at the same time – but to be hundreds of time lower than the heat anomaly. These alloys often contain nickel or cobalt. However, palladium easily forms superparamagnetic alloys– for a reason not yet known. When palladium and deuterium are involved – the thermal anomaly due to superparamagnetism can be masked by an eventual QM fusion reaction. The expected helium yield is expected to be a small fraction of the net heat derived from magnetic spin-flipping and in any event to be less than with protium. A problem with this hypothesis is the high temps seen 400C which are often around or over the Curie point of the alloy. Of course, that could be a vital part of the puzzle, in that this is often a “trigger temperature” when exotherm is seen. The larger problem is “where does anomalous heat come from?” Jones
Re: [Vo]:Hybrid Ni-H reproduction buried in the link forwarded by Alan
Jones and Jed, thanks. Very interesting. I found that the two possible refutation-type papers I received on the side are available, one on the archive, one on New Energy Times (and maybe also on the archive, I didn't check). Again, I recognize this was/is all probably well known to both of you, just doing a bit of diligence here in case it helps or is interesting to others. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dmitriyeva-Using-Bakeout-Paper.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dmitriyevacontrolofe.pdf Jeff On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: I give this more credence than anything from Rossi, DGT, Brillouin or Piantelli, for instance. Me too. That's not to say that DGT and Piantelli lack any credence. Rossi is on a planet by himself. Impossible to judge. I have no technical reason to doubt him but by every other metric I have no reason to believe him. If Celani, Brillouin and others had not reported high power density Ni-H reactions I would not believe Rossi. He inspired these others, yet in the course of inspiring these others, he did *nothing* to improve his own credibility. Nothing! When he might easily convince the world his claims are true. This is why Mike McKubre and I are convinced that Rossi does not want credibility, for the same reason Patterson did not want it. That seems to be the only explanation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mr. Rossi says something is up at Leonardo
My own guess is that this comment will end up being another overwhelming promise followed by another underwhelming delivery. It just seems to be a pattern common to Mr. Rossi. I hope I'm wrong. Again, I'm trying to play the dispassionate commentator here. I have no position on whether he has anything, whether there will be commercial significance, etc. There just isn't enough information. I don't know is an excellent answer to most questions, especially when it's true. Jeff On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:12 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: An unequivocal acceptance of cold fusion by the establishment (say, GE comes out in full support of Rossi) next week would more likely inure to the benefit of Romney than Obama given the vicious role government has played in opposing cold fusion, Romney's statemet in support of cold fusion research (however ignorant it was of the definition of cold fusion) and Obama's manifest idiocy in picking winners in the energy field. On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:24 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Oops! Just to be clear on this point, Rossi did NOT say that. He did NOT say he has a planned press conference with Obama. That was pure speculation. I should have read the statement more mroe clearly. My apologies. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Aliens Favour Romney
Krugman anticipate this. http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf Jeff On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:39 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Vorl Bek's message of Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:46:19 -0400: Hi, [snip] It looks like Aliens (interstellar types) favour Romney for President. http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/romney-temp/ ...maybe they're just predicting the winner, to prove who they are? ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Aliens Favour Romney
Sorry for not including this in the first mail, but I have to follow up because it gives the flavor of the thing: The remainder of this paper is, or will be, or has been, depending on the reader's inertial frame, divided into three sections. ;-) Jeff On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Krugman anticipate this. http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf Jeff On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:39 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Vorl Bek's message of Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:46:19 -0400: Hi, [snip] It looks like Aliens (interstellar types) favour Romney for President. http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/romney-temp/ ...maybe they're just predicting the winner, to prove who they are? ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A123 systems goes bankrupt
I haven't followed this story carefully, but a friend of mine (who has) wrote the following: Uh, you should look into A123 Systems, who started it and what they did before criticizing them. These guys developed and improved the Lithium Iron Phosphate battery chemistry while at MIT, then spun out a startup company to commercialize their advances. They were chosen by GM to engineer and build the Volt batteries. These guys aren't some fly by night outfit who just blew smoke up some government officials asses to get that loan. They were a prime startup candidate and had already received many millions of dollars in venture capital backing. And they are being purchased by Johnson Controls for $125 Million, they have assets of $460 Million and debts of $376 Million, plus patents in the battery technology field. It's disappointing to see stuff like this turned into a political football for electioneering purposes. And even more disappointing to see educated people swallowing it whole... Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:04 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Before I started forecasting earthquakes, hurricanes and sinkholes I predicted A123 was a loser. I think Terry jumped in and told me they had new investors and might be a great buy. I hope he did not buy the stock... They were providing Fisker's batteries, another colossal Obama losermobile company. If they go under too Justin Bieber might have to ride a bicycle to work, which would be safer for everyone... Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Wgat is happening of the LiFePO4 battery family. It was looking very promising. Robust Li batteries that don't explode even under fire, crash or explosion... comparable energy density. good power density... good endurance... are there other palyes ? did A123 battery division colapse too? or is it only the solar side? (NB: I've been interested in LiFePO4 for hi-power bike lighting) 2012/10/21 fznidar...@aol.com The great green solar and battery society that our goverment has put its hopes on is going bankrupt one player at a time. I was going to buy A-123 stock. I am glad I did not. I was going to by Bezer Home for 30 cents a share, I could kick myself to missing 80 times my investment. Who knows! Maybe someday I'll get lucky. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the ...slow erosion of the psuedoskeptic position... that Abd described in email to the group some time back? Possible answer - read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his references ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer? Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Jed, Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell) was the best ever? Peter On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs. Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section: The author wrote: Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone, the best so far and they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a serious scientist. This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in 60 Minutes. The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there was no input, so the ratio was infinite. Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold standard of established science. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A123 systems goes bankrupt
Although your reference isn't specific enough to be certain, it appears that Johnson Controls is purchasing that. http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2012-10/johnson-controls-to-acquire-a123-analyst-blog.aspx?storyid=183182#.UIQ1x2_d1kM Johnson Controls will also buy A123's facilities in Livonia and Romulus, Michigan; cathode powder manufacturing facilities in China; equity interest in Shanghai Advanced Traction Battery Systems Co.; *as well as its joint venture with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC).* Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Some Chinese company bought a 49% stake in A123 very recently, so is that in addition to Johnson Controls??? -Mark ** ** ** ** *From:* Jeff Berkowitz [mailto:pdx...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:16 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:A123 systems goes bankrupt ** ** I haven't followed this story carefully, but a friend of mine (who has) wrote the following: ** ** Uh, you should look into A123 Systems, who started it and what they did before criticizing them. These guys developed and improved the Lithium Iron Phosphate battery chemistry while at MIT, then spun out a startup company to commercialize their advances. They were chosen by GM to engineer and build the Volt batteries. These guys aren't some fly by night outfit who just blew smoke up some government officials asses to get that loan. They were a prime startup candidate and had already received many millions of dollars in venture capital backing. And they are being purchased by Johnson Controls for $125 Million, they have assets of $460 Million and debts of $376 Million, plus patents in the battery technology field. ** ** It's disappointing to see stuff like this turned into a political football for electioneering purposes. And even more disappointing to see educated people swallowing it whole... ** ** Jeff ** ** On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:04 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Before I started forecasting earthquakes, hurricanes and sinkholes I predicted A123 was a loser. I think Terry jumped in and told me they had new investors and might be a great buy. I hope he did not buy the stock... They were providing Fisker's batteries, another colossal Obama losermobile company. If they go under too Justin Bieber might have to ride a bicycle to work, which would be safer for everyone... ** ** Stewart Darkmattersalot.com ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Wgat is happening of the LiFePO4 battery family. It was looking very promising. Robust Li batteries that don't explode even under fire, crash or explosion... comparable energy density. good power density... good endurance... are there other palyes ? did A123 battery division colapse too? or is it only the solar side? (NB: I've been interested in LiFePO4 for hi-power bike lighting) 2012/10/21 fznidar...@aol.com ** ** The great green solar and battery society that our goverment has put its hopes on is going bankrupt one player at a time. ** ** I was going to buy A-123 stock. I am glad I did not. ** ** I was going to by Bezer Home for 30 cents a share, I could kick myself to missing 80 times my investment. ** ** Who knows! Maybe someday I'll get lucky. ** ** Frank Z ** ** ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
For the technical reader, this has already been done, here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf I would be interested in cooperating to put something aimed at non-technical readers together. Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a list that includes: - where - when - technology - run time - COP - experimenters and affiliations - observers and affiliations - references I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the reality of cold fusion. [mg] On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the ...slow erosion of the psuedoskeptic position... that Abd described in email to the group some time back? Possible answer - read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his references ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer? Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Jed, Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell) was the best ever? Peter On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs. Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section: The author wrote: Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone, the best so far and they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a serious scientist. This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in 60 Minutes. The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there was no input, so the ratio was infinite. Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold standard of established science. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
I should add that I don't have the training or experience to take the lead on such an effort. I am just a basically competent writer with an interest in the subject matter. Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: For the technical reader, this has already been done, here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf I would be interested in cooperating to put something aimed at non-technical readers together. Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a list that includes: - where - when - technology - run time - COP - experimenters and affiliations - observers and affiliations - references I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the reality of cold fusion. [mg] On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.comwrote: Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the ...slow erosion of the psuedoskeptic position... that Abd described in email to the group some time back? Possible answer - read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his references ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer? Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Jed, Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell) was the best ever? Peter On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs. Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section: The author wrote: Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone, the best so far and they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a serious scientist. This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in 60 Minutes. The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there was no input, so the ratio was infinite. Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold standard of established science. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Godes / Brillouin patent thoughts, with Spice simulation
Hi all, I finished writing up a few thoughts about the Godes / Brillouin patent application, and published them on our blog: http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/thoughts-about-godes-brillouin-patent.html In the posting I acknowledge Abd directly and the rest of vortex. Thanks again for helping get over a couple of spots I couldn't scratch my head hard enough to get past on my own. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Godes / Brillouin patent thoughts, with Spice simulation
Awesome. Glad. I thought about putting more words in about this symmetrical thing, but decided the posting was long enough already. In Mr. Godes' design, the driver circuitry (the part similar to my toy circuit, shown on the left in figure 3C) and the electrolytic cell (the back end, on the right in 3C) are not connected electrically. They are literally air-gapped by isolation transformer T8. The gap is crossed only in the sense of the electromagnetic coupling inside the transformer, which is shown in the middle of figure 3C. This means that in particular, the entire system can contain more than one ground. If you look at my circuit, the pulses shown in Figure 1 are about 25 volts tall, but they are referenced to the supply voltage: they never go below 0 volts. My toy circuit has no transformer isolation. It includes only one ground, which serves as ground for both the digital input signal and the Q-pulses. My circuit shows no electrolytic cell, no back end part. Now look at paragraph 0045 in the patent application. What he actually says there is a bit more complicated, but what he's getting at is that he wants the core to see Q-pulses that alternate between some +V and some -V, symmetrically around ground. But the ground in this case is what the core sees, which is separate from the ground of the digital input / driver / primary of T8. This is shown more clearly in both of his figures 3A and 3B, where it's easy to see that the whole electrolytic cell is a completely separate loop from the controller and driver. I should note a further complication. The electrolytic back end is shown as providing feedback signals to the controller. You can see these signals at lower left in figure 3B, e.g. the lines labelled 50a, 50b, 50c. I believe, though not sure, that all of these feedback signals will have to be similarly isolated from the computer / microcontroller ground, perhaps using optical isolation. If they are not so isolated, they will force the computer and drive circuitry to have a common ground with the back end, which screws up all the reasoning above. And these are analog signals, which means the suggested optical isolation will introduce error. A personal side note: in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I worked on sonar systems that had some characteristics in common with Mr. Godes design. A sonar makes noise in the water with a piezo transducer, which requires high voltages. But transistor amplifiers are generally low-voltage, high current. So a step-up / isolation transformer was required, and like Mr. Godes design, its primary coil could be leveraged to act as an inductor, providing signal shaping across the amplifier output in addition to isolation. The problem was actually harder back then, because we didn't have the benefit of these amazing power FET devices that appear in Mr. Godes design and in my toy design. I guess this was all quite serendipitous because it was easy for me to recognize what was going on here, despite the fact that I'm not a trained electronic engineer. And in closing I can say that I recognize one other thing too. It took that sonar company quite a while to polish the designs I'm referring to, and the folks working on it were very good indeed. So I can say with some authority that Mr. Godes is deadly, deadly good at what he does. This is a deeply complex design, one that I could never even imagine doing for myself, although I can recognize it. We are very fortunate that Mr. Godes is pursuing LENR. Even if this isn't the design that prevails (the patent has other embodiments), I have high hopes for Brillouin. I would love to hear more about where you take this. We here in Portland are also considering such things. Our biggest issue is lack of instrumentation (we can't afford it). Even tiny parasitic capacitance or inductance on the load - and I mean tiny, like the inductance that might result from sloppy wiring - change the behavior of that circuit. Without decent instrumentation, I think it will be very difficult to figure out exactly what the core is seeing. It's the usual CF/LENR issue: no money. Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff, thanks for this. I had considered something like this with a microcontroller that I have which will generate square waves of 3.3V up to 120Khz. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this: My circuit contains no remedy for the lack of symmetry about ground in the electrolysis cell. According to the text of the patent application, this is a show stopper that would need to be remedied before my design could be used in a real cell, even for experimentation. What do you mean by lack of symmetry about the ground? I want to try to build this, and your work is helpful in deconstructing how to do it. Thanks, Jack On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I finished writing up a few thoughts about the Godes / Brillouin patent application
Re: [Vo]:Potential Rossi Patent Battle
The Santilli patent claims an electric arc. It's entirely unclear whether that is the same invention or a different invention. If we're going afield, we can also include Godes, who focuses on quite a different design but claims a number of different embodiments. Godes first filed way back in 2005. And then we have the issues of US versus EU patents, WTO reciprocity, ... If the PTOs starts granting these patents, these issues will likely be in the courts literally for the rest of our lives. Jeff On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Appears that Ahern beat Santilli to file by several months http://www.google.com/patents/US20110233061?dq=ahern,+Brianhl=ensa=Xei=2v5_UKz9IcjAiwKwsoGQBwved=0CC4Q6AEwAA -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa On 2012-10-18 10:42, Mint Candy wrote: *Take note: Check Patent bottom right. http://lenr.scienceontheweb.net/ A more convenient link to the patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120033775 Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Potential Rossi Patent Battle
There is a history surrounding the apparent production of iron from arcs between carbon rod electrodes. Extremely high voltages are not required. You can find some material from obvious web searches. Jeff On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: See http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Jx78YcF-F8U/TBNnrA0L3WI/CN4/_tuQ1t6BT5w/s1600/neutron_yield_in_dpfs.gif On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Focus fusion among a few others has been at this for many years. They produce a plasmoid using a high current formed spark. They get a trillion neutrons from fusion per shot using deuterium. Focus fusion uses a light magnetic field and a low pressure gas. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:01 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Akira - Thanks for the link to Santilli's patent application. A more readable pdf-format version is at - http://images3.freshpatents.com/pdf/US20120033775A1.pdf Santilli is making very specific claims of observed transmutations, and at measurable levels - e.g., Deuterium + Carbon -- Nitrogen. He also predicts the byproducts for various reactions. To defend the patent, I assume he is confident he can replicate this. His method involves morphing atomic electron orbitals with very strong magnetic fields ( 10^10 Gauss) in intense current arcs in gases during dielectric breakdown which permit nuclei to be forced near enough for fusion. LENRs have been reported in other arcing and electron beam experiments. Has anyone looked at his approach and have any opinions? -- Lou Pagnucco Akira Shirakawa wrote on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:59:10 -0700 On 2012-10-18 10:42, Mint Candy wrote: [...] A more convenient link to the patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120033775
Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started
It's possible that as the electrolyte evaporates, and there is not sufficient electrolyte to make a fully-immersed path from anode to cathode (you'll have to confirm that), there are moments when the liquid withdraws from point(s) on one of the electrodes - because of the tendency of water to form minimum-area surfaces due to surface tension, for example. At this moment, even a relatively low voltage might be enough to arc across the tiny, just-formed air gap between the exposed cathode and the withdrawing electrolyte. The arc would be visible as a tiny spark. The spark could vaporize a tiny bit of the withdrawing water, and the conductivity of the microscopic puff of steam could kill the arc a moment later. This effect could occur repeatedly and rapidly. Jeff On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It would be nearly impossible to catch the spark in the act with single frame photography since the duration is so short. I am confident that anyone could get similar results if they use sodium carbonate along with a supply like I am using. All they need do is dissolve plenty of the carbonate in the bath and allow the water to vaporize. It happens on every experiment now, even with new nickels. During certain spark events I see two or three sparks appear simultaneously at different locations around and upon the nickel attached to the negative supply terminal. This reminds me of lightning streamers. Many times the flash appears to be underneath the thick white deposit that coats most of the test nickel. I do not recall ever seeing a spark or flash at the other nickel and they are both coated and separated by a distance of about 1 to 1.5 inches. I am not sure what the sparks represent, but the fact that it can be obtained so easily leads me to believe that it is most likely not LENR related. My suspicion is that this is some chemical reaction that occurs as a result of intense heating at the point where the released electrical energy is focused. Could it be the result of a plasma reaction within the hydrogen gas and carbonate? I have added water after the sparking phenomena finally concludes and the thick nickel deposits dissolve back into the solution. There is no additional sparking after these deposits are gone and the bath level increased. On occasion, I have seen a long burst of sparking from the edge of the test nickel when water has just been added to the bath but before the deposit has started to dissolve. On a couple of occasions, I was afraid a fire would begin at the point of intense spark emission. Fortunately, this never lasts for a significant length of time. The sparking and flashing phenomena continues to occur within the same experimental setup after the freshly added water has vaporized again. I performed this test several times, each taking a couple of hours. The main clue I detect is that the sparks are always associated with the negative connected nickel which should be emitting hydrogen gas. For this reason, I suspect that the gas may become ignited by some high intensity of heat or local electrical spark or plasma due to the high open circuit voltage of my supply. The vapor that often arises during the bright flashes has a strong odor but dissipates quickly. I hope that this description of my observations is helpful. I can go into more details if you wish. Dave -Original Message- From: Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:56 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started Dave, can you take some pictures and post? On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:26 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, I am running 3 amps of DC through my system. The sparks occur when the electrolyte is getting low, deposits are collecting on both nickels, and the supply voltage is varying a lot. I would guess that I am getting a couple of amps per square cm due to the deposits covering nickel area and many large bubbles as the electrolyte is boiling. There are sparks and bright yellow looking flashes that are very near or on the negative terminal connected nickel. I also see puffs of smoke rising after a large flash. These displays are quite interesting to watch. My supply most likely has a large capacitor connected across its output since I found that the two nickels will stick together with a bright flash if I allow them to touch when out of the cell. I wonder if the excess burst of energy due to capacitor discharge is evolved in the activity. This behavior appears every time I allow the electrolyte to boil until the cell is almost dry. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 16, 2012 11:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 4:35 PM, David Roberson
[Vo]:How long?
Eventually, Mr. Rossi will have to show something that can be independently examined and verified completely outside of his control, or the inevitable media and marketplace counter-reaction will set in because of the very public nature of the claims. I'm sure even Mr. Rossi himself would agree with this assertion. I'm not taking a position on the likely outcome, but I wonder: how long does he have? Jeff
Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started
It's a great description. I forgot about the fact that the H2 would still be evolving at the cathode and the sparks would likely ignite it. Combine that with the deposits formed by the electrolysis and a wide variety of results are possible. We'll try with sodium carbonate sometime soon. Unfortunately, we lack a good place to run experiments continuously for long periods of time. We are working on that, and also on better instrumentation (to be described on the blog eventually). Thanks very much for your detailed explanations! Jeff On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The flashes of light that emit a puff of smoke may be occurring somewhat like you describe. The fact that they are located only in the vicinity of the negative supply connected nickel suggests that hydrogen is also a factor or perhaps the emission of electrons from that electrode is important. I agree that the bubbles are envolved as they are causing the voltage to vary significantly during this event. I also wonder if sparks due to the large electric field across the bubbles are igniting hydrogen in the area? I suppose the puffs of smoke could have been condensed water vapor. It was evident that the cell content was boiling vigorously between the electrodes during that episode and a far smaller quantity of vapor was always being emitted due to the high liquid temperature. Perhaps small hydrogen explosions suppled enough energy to make the big puffs. The sparks that are of short duration and not directly associated with the flashes behave in a different manner. These tiny events appear to radiate away from the nickel or thick white deposit extremely rapidly and in a straight line. They have the appearance of being shot from a point on the surface outward. If I recall, they look as if they were traveling one to two inches before becoming invisible. When I saw a group of them synchronized it reminded me of the science fiction films of wild time machine emissions. In this strange case they originate in several different locations and travel is random directions. Each one moves independent of the others but synchronized very closely in time. On a few occasions I noticed that there appeared to be a single tiny region typically along one edge of the nickel from which a series of the short duration sparks would originate. These sparks would shoot out in a straight line away from the active region while each one headed in a semi random direction. Here I use the word semi random because they tended to head outward within a cone shaped pattern of perhaps 45 degrees span. During these bursts of sparks I became concerned as it looked like a flame would originate from there. A volcano erruption of hot cinders from its crater is somewhat similar in appearance. This behavior is quite difficult to put into words and I apologize for my poor description! You should perform a similar experiment if you want to add a small dose of excitement to your day. I am not sure of exactly what is occurring at this time but I suspect that it is of a chemical nature. If it is an LENR effect, then everyone should be able to experience it as it happens with regularity. (Poor Dave mumbles to himself as he experiences a short period of brain death due to his attempt to describe the indescribable.) Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 18, 2012 12:24 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started It's possible that as the electrolyte evaporates, and there is not sufficient electrolyte to make a fully-immersed path from anode to cathode (you'll have to confirm that), there are moments when the liquid withdraws from point(s) on one of the electrodes - because of the tendency of water to form minimum-area surfaces due to surface tension, for example. At this moment, even a relatively low voltage might be enough to arc across the tiny, just-formed air gap between the exposed cathode and the withdrawing electrolyte. The arc would be visible as a tiny spark. The spark could vaporize a tiny bit of the withdrawing water, and the conductivity of the microscopic puff of steam could kill the arc a moment later. This effect could occur repeatedly and rapidly. Jeff On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: It would be nearly impossible to catch the spark in the act with single frame photography since the duration is so short. I am confident that anyone could get similar results if they use sodium carbonate along with a supply like I am using. All they need do is dissolve plenty of the carbonate in the bath and allow the water to vaporize. It happens on every experiment now, even with new nickels. During certain spark events I see two or three sparks appear simultaneously at different locations around and upon the nickel
Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started
As others have pointed out, the only safe answer is to treat all electrolysis experiments with respect, doing them with adequate ventilation, whether that means under a fume hood or outdoors or the like. Of course we may break these rules and get away with many things, up until the unfortunate moment when we don't get away with it. Jeff On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 11:30 AM 10/16/2012, David Roberson wrote: I know that I will have sparks and small flames as with the open system so now I would like to know if there is significant danger of explosion. Is anyone aware of reports of a relatively low volume open to the air glass cell exploding and causing injury or damage to the surroundings? Most of the jar volume will likely be filled with a mix of hydrogen and oxygen plus room air. I have not calculated the amount of energy contained within the captured hydrogen since a bad calculation could be dangerous. Please give me guidance before I reconnect this beast as it now is on standby. This paper looks at various combinations http://conference.ing.unipi.it/ichs2005/Papers/120001.pdf H2-Air -- lower explosion limit is 4.3 mole% H2 H2-O -- lower explosion limit is 4 mole% H2 Can you put in a baffle or something to keep the H and O separate? Maybe a U-tube would be better than a jar.
[Vo]:Cracks me up
When I read vortex, Google is constantly trying to sell me a Ford Fusion. If only ... ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer Seized
Sure it can. I make such a comparison right here. http://pdxjjb-econ-politics.blogspot.com/2012/05/parable-of-smart-frugal.html It's not that your arguments are incorrect, but they are not very strong arguments, either. Jeff On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.comwrote: On 10/16/2012 11:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Gates himself, along with many other self-made wealthy people, including Buffet and me, are in favor of modest redistribution tax policy. We think it is not fair that people like Buffet pay lower taxes than a secretary or a bus driver. We are not socialists or communists. We have a right to our opinions. If you keep bringing up politics, then I have to keep challenging you on it. 'People like Buffet' pay lower income tax rates because their income is generally based on capital gains. This is not the same kind of an income as that of a bus driver, for these reasons: 1) A bus driver's income is consistent from year to year. A person who lives on capital gains, does not have a stable income. Frequently, years go by when he loses money. 2) Capital gains is not indexed for inflation. So, say there is a 7.2% inflation rate. If a piece of capital is held for ten years, and if it doubles in value over those ten years, then there is no increase in wealth over the increase created from the inflation rate. Yet, if the capital is sold, then it will incur a 15% tax rate on the difference in value from the purchase price and the sale price. So, in effect, the capital will be sold for the same price as that for which it was paid, and yet the owner will still pay a 15% tax on the difference in price. This is an effective loss, for which the owner is taxed. The two forms of income cannot be compared, and yet people still want to try. Sometimes, people will say that some of the wealthiest people pay no taxes, but what they are referring to is the special case that occurs when some people actually lose money over the course of a year. The US government has never had a wealth tax, and if wealth is lost during a year, then no tax is owed. The wealthiest Americans will frequently lose wealth during bad years, and pay no income tax. This is correct and expected. Buffet does not pay lower taxes. Rather, his tax rate cannot be compared to other forms of income in an honest fashion. Craig
Re: [Vo]:November Popular Science- not kind to Rossi
Mr. Krivit (New Energy Times) has also updated his critical comments about Mr. Rossi, and the result is not paywalled. FYI. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Andrea-Rossi-Energy-Catalyzer-Investigation-Index.shtml Jeff On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: How is it possible that anyone can be simply kind to Rossi if he always shoots his foot? 2012/10/15 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com Greetings Vortex, I just received an e-mail from a friend saying Popular Science November issue was not kind to Rossi, But I have not seen it yet. Any Vortex members have seen it? I will be going out to see it. Is Popular Science relevant? Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex..will update Popsci shortly after viewing it. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started
A couple of us tried electrolysis with nickels in Borax today. No excess heat was observed. There are details here: http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-heating-observed-while-electrolyzing.html Jeff On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You might try to erode the copper extrusions that erupt from the center of the coin. These copper eruptions have been produced by repeated heating. Remove this copper by etching the heat treated nickel in acid. This etching should produce the micro holes that we are interested in. Cheers: Axil On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Hi Jack, I am likewise interested in your results. The circulation pump might be an idea that I should incorporate since I am very carefully placing my temperature probe at the same location for readings. On occasions I get data that seems out of place by a couple of degrees C which might be due to the lack of mixing. Most of the time my data falls within a degree of the trend line using Excel. Today, I can definitely tell that I am not getting excess heat from my heat treated nickel. I substitute a fresh one as a control with the same current and placement. Today, the data from both samples are very close together within 1 watt out of 20 watts of heating. In my control run, the untreated nickel actually displays the slightly higher reading. My experimental setup consists of a medium sized salad container from Kroger food market surrounded by Styrofoam bottom and walls with the top open. The electrolyte is maintained at approximately one half the height of my sample nickels. I use small alligator clips and leads to connect to the supply which is a laboratory quality one that can output up to 60 volts DC if required. The sodium carbonate electrolyte typically allows me to drive 2 amps of current into the device with a voltage drop of 10 to 11 volts. My electrolyte bath is operating at 45 C at that current level. I generally make a calibration run by varying the current from 1 amp to 2.5 amps and accurately measuring the supply voltage. This gives me a range of temperatures versus power input points that form a curve. I can detect whether or not a point is out of line fairly easily by its deviation from the curve. When the calibration is acting up, I make several additional test runs of an hour each to determine the most likely value. I allow the setup to run for approximately 1 hour for each point to ensure that the system has stabilized. My plans are to continue to test the heat treated sample for a number of additional hours before I try an alternate technique to modify the surface of this nickel or others. One interesting observation is that my torched and quenched nickel now looks very much like a copper penny in appearance. The surface coloration can not be wiped off with vigorous rubbing of a paper towel. The raised letters have a shiny copper look that does not exhibit any of the standard nickel shine. You would think that this is a large sized weathered penny by appearance although the normal nickel features are intact. As always, my test nickel is connected with leads to the negative terminal of the supply. A second nickel acts as my positive supply electrode. This is the configuration that should expose the test nickel to hydrogen by electrolysis. Dave -Original Message- From: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 13, 2012 8:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Experiment Started Hi Dave, I will be interested to know your results. This evening, I started an experiment using my repeatedly-treated nickels (8) on a small thoriated tungsten rod. I'm using a penny connected to a chrome plated alligator clip for my anode (+). My last few runs seemed to show excess heat, but like you, I'm hesitant to make that claim without better measures and further experimenting. I was estimating heat loss by taking heat measurements of the bath after removing the electrodes to get the rate that the temperature of the bath was dropping. My current setup involves submerging the electrolytic cell in 1 gallon of water in a styrofoam minnow bucket. I have another 1 gallon of water in an identical minnow bucket to test temperature changes due to heat loss/gain from the environment. I will be taking measurements of voltage, current, temp of the water bath surrounding the electrolytic cell, and control cell for the next couple of hours. Tomorrow, I'll run all day and see what it can do over a longer period. I'm using borax for the electrolyte, and tracking the data in excel. The nickels have been treated at low current for 3 days as the cathode (after repeated heating with a torch and multiple prior experiments with the same set of nickels/tungsten). Monday, I should have a small submersible pump that I'll try in future
Re: [Vo]:A new economic system will be needed in the next 20 to 100 years - Easter Island
Yes, I agree. I believe that work originated here: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/rethinking-the-fall-of-easter-island/1 Feature article, so apparently not paywalled - I'm not a subscriber, but I can see it. Jeff On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote: On 10/9/2012 11:53 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: I had thought that they destroyed their own environment through overharvesting and overhunting, ie the population was to large to live sustainably. This is not a particualrly religious reason. I had also gathered that the statues etc were an attempt to appease their gods in the hope that the gods would get them out of the mess that they had got themselves into. No Gods appeared to wave their magic wands. I've had a quick look at some of the summaries of Collapse and that seems to be what J Diamond says as well Nigel On 09/10/2012 14:36, Jed Rothwell wrote: fznidar...@aol.com wrote: The Easter Island society ran out of wood and could not fish. The society died out. They did not die out. They were still there a century or two later when Europeans showed up. Granted, they were in dire straits. They destroyed their own environment, apparently for religious reasons. See J. Diamond, Collapse. - Jed Just read, in Nat. Geographic, article on Easter Island. The best going theory now is apparently that the rats that the first settlers brought with them (as food stock, probably) were wildly successful. (No natural enemies). They ate all the tree seeds and the forest died out. Has the sound of truth. Ol' Bab
Re: [Vo]:Replication of Chuck Sites Nickel/Boron Experiment
Here is an unrelated paper from ICCF that includes processing the electrode material with heat: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf Jeff On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for all of the ideas Chuck. I will be out of town for a few days, but will give this method a try when I get back. I just got to thinking if I clean the nickels using a torch, it might seal up the tiny cracks in the metal through melting. I can try it both ways. I have set up a styrofoam minnow bucket in which I will submerge a sealed cell for the electrolysis. I can then measure the temperature change in the surrounding water and get a more precise measure of energy output. I also plan to drill more holes through the nickels, and add additional thoriated tungsten rods through these holes. I'm also set up to be able to take voltage and current measurements in addition to temperature. I'm also working on setting up a control system with an Android smartphone to provide pulsed DC power. If I get some good results with manual measurements, I hope to be able to use the same setup for automated data logging. Take care, Jack On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jack, It's funny you said if this is resistive heating, then it highly efficient. I had a similar thoughts back in the day. Let me share some thoughts on the electrolysis of cupronickel in sodium carbonate. Sodium carbonate does make a for a good electrolyte in Hydrogen loading experiments where the goal is to embed as much hydrogen as possible in the cathode. It is gentle to the anode and does not attack metal, but allows for good conductivity through the cell. If your goal is to understand hydrogen embedded into the cupronickel via electrolysis, I think Sodium Carbonate would be an excellent choice for the electrolyte. Chemically Sodium Carbonate (washing soda) Na2[(CO)3] is similar in structure to Sodium Borate (borax) Na2[B4O5(OH)4]·8H2O and both are ionic compounds. Experiments like Rossi's and Calianti's use nano scale cupronickel powders in a hydrogen gas loading experiment. This implies, that nano scale features can bind and hold hydrogen in geometric arrangements that are not typically found in nature. So initially we want something that will etch the surface of the Cupronickel an make it nano porous. Two possible methods can be used here, electro-etching or chemical etching. Chemical etching would be the simplest method for creating the nano scale pore features. If the etching can get the surface from shiny to mat, that should have created enough porosity to effect the possible loading. Rinse and clean the metal well after etching. The process of electro-etching maybe the technique to us her as well. Electro-etching, the cupronickel would be attached to the positive side of the power supply, and etched using. One could use borax as an electrolyte in the beginning, and place the cupronickel on anode (+) side, etch the features, and then after a wash and rinse, use that nickel as the cathode (-) in an the Sodium Carbonate standard electrolysis. Anyway, the idea with sodium carbonate is to really load as much hyrdogen into the metal as possible. Under DC electrolysis, a large portion of the energy will expended in the separation of H2O into H gas and O gas. I think a better approach to a Rossi or Calieanti system would be to use AC electrolysis once a high-level of loading is achieved. So after running the system in DC-mode to load the nano features with H, switching to AC should move the H into an out of the nano features. If there is a tenancy for H to overcome the Coulomb barrier, in the AC environment, the changing polarity might give an extra push. Everyone seems to believe loading is a factor in successful excess heat. Given how large a nickel is, I would not be surprised at the system taking a long amount of time for DC electrolysis gas loading. Then switching to AC to initiate a Rossi, Caliani type H gas motion into and out of the metal nano etched surface structure. So the experiment protocol I would try would look something like this: Step 1) Etch the nickel. Either use a chemical etching or electro-etching or sand blast it. For chemical etching, PCB etching solution may work, just don't over do it. Also clean the nickel afterwards in water, ultra-sonic jewelry cleaner may be a useful step. Step 2) DC Electrolysis of Water and Sodium Carbonate, this is to load the metal. This may need to run several days, the Nickel should be on the negative terminal (cathode (-)). The anode could be graphite. Graphite shouldn't oxidize under the gas bubbling and is neutral to Na+ ions. (Note: an issue is the possible formation NaOH Sodium Hydroxide a strong base). Jack Cole is using thoriated tungsten rods, which is an interesting
Re: [Vo]:OT: Mars Rover Spots Small Bright- Metallic Object
I'm shocked, shocked I say. ;-) Thanks Jed. On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: False alarm. It was a piece of plastic that fell off the Rover. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Experimental Results with Nickel and Sodium Carbonate
This morning I found a link that may be related to the borax and nickels thing: http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/els/borax-el.htm I found it, believe it or not, here: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-159040.html I had thought mods generally ban CF/LENR topics there, but I guess not completely, or at least not completely back in 2007. (There's a mod comment about this at the end of the thread.) Jeff On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: A temperature change of 60F for 3.718 oz requires the following BTUs. 3.178 oz / 16 oz = .199 Yikes. I recommend you use SI (metric) units: joules, grams, degrees Celsius etc. Remember why NASA crashed a rocket into Mars. http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~gtan/bug/localCopies/marsOrbiter Engineers on the ground calculated the size of the rocket firing using feet-per-second of thrust, a value based on the English measure of feet and inches. However, the spacecraft computer interpreted the instructions in Newtons-per-second, a metric measure of thrust. The difference is 4.4 feet per second. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Experimental Results with Nickel and Sodium Carbonate
And, by golly, here's another interesting note: the energy required to split water molecules by electrolysis is dramatically reduced in the presence of ... nickel borate. http://phys.org/news193055742.html Jeff On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: This morning I found a link that may be related to the borax and nickels thing: http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/els/borax-el.htm I found it, believe it or not, here: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-159040.html I had thought mods generally ban CF/LENR topics there, but I guess not completely, or at least not completely back in 2007. (There's a mod comment about this at the end of the thread.) Jeff On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: A temperature change of 60F for 3.718 oz requires the following BTUs. 3.178 oz / 16 oz = .199 Yikes. I recommend you use SI (metric) units: joules, grams, degrees Celsius etc. Remember why NASA crashed a rocket into Mars. http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~gtan/bug/localCopies/marsOrbiter Engineers on the ground calculated the size of the rocket firing using feet-per-second of thrust, a value based on the English measure of feet and inches. However, the spacecraft computer interpreted the instructions in Newtons-per-second, a metric measure of thrust. The difference is 4.4 feet per second. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:nice cold fusion article
Another patent application, also with pulse generator circuitry. Since we all know cold fusion can't be real, it must be something in the water. ;-) ;-) Jeff On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:19 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/07/ahern-cancels-citi5-appearance/
