RE: [Vo]:Transient superconductivity in palladium hydrides

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

Here are the links to obtain the titled thesis, mentioned below:
https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/handle/10072/367614
https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/367614/Muhammad%20Hasnain_2016_01Thesis.pdf

- Mark Jurich

From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 3:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Transient superconductivity in palladium hydrides

For many years, a recurring theme  on vortex involves the idea that a local 
form of high temperature superconductivity could be the hidden  underlying 
modality which was needed to form a BEC condensate in palladium deuteride, and 
that this condensate was necessary as a prerequisite for a nuclear reaction  to 
occur at elevated temperature,, even if the state lasted  only picoseconds, as 
opposed to stability at  cryogenic conditions.

The argument could be worth renewed interest – given that transient HTSC has 
been found and reported in an authoritative study not involving LENR. That 
report turned up on LENR forum from poster Ahlfors  - as the subject of a PhD  
thesis by M. Syed from an Australian University.

http://web.tiscali.it/pt1963.home/publist.htm

“Transient High-Temperature Superconductivity in Palladium Hydride”

The nano-magnetism concept of Ahern, for instance, was  predicated on 
high-temperature local superconductivity for reducing randomness, arguably in 
the form of a ‘transient condensate.’ As to why a pulse of magnetism would be 
important – very simply this gets back to structural uniformity and  Boson 
statistics.

Two bound deuterons in a cavity exist at identical ‘compreture’ due to the 
cavity containment but that is not enough. Magnetism can thereafter align spin, 
so immediately you have a near-condensate in the sense of extreme DFR 
("Divergence From Randomness") in the physical properties of those atoms in the 
matrix.  From this highly structured but non-cryogenic state – a “virtual BEC” 
need  last only picoseconds if there us sequential recurrence.

This is from one of the earlier threads on vortex - with a SPAWARS citation 
linking to further details on LENR-CANR.org.

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg89480.html

RE: [Vo]:Calcium as a Mills catalyst

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

Here's a blurb on Ethanol Purification:
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ethanol#Purification

... So it now seems there are a couple ways of not using Benzene to remove the 
remaining water.  I am not sure how Rossville is now performing their 
purification, so inquiring would be useful if interested.

- Mark

From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 12:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Calcium as a Mills catalyst

ROSSVILLE GOLD SHIELD ETHYL ALCOHOL C2H5OH 200 POOF
ONE U.S. Pint (473 ML)
GOLD SHIELD CHEMICAL CO.
HAYWARD, CA 94545
D.S.P. - CALIF. - 151

(Use to be in a Glass Container, now Plastic :( )
(STAMP SEAL, but the purification process usually leaves trace amounts of 
benzene, so please do NOT drink it!)

Happy Hunting,
Mark Jurich

RE: [Vo]:Calcium as a Mills catalyst

[Mark Jurich]

ROSSVILLE GOLD SHIELD ETHYL ALCOHOL C2H5OH 200 POOF
ONE U.S. Pint (473 ML)
GOLD SHIELD CHEMICAL CO.
HAYWARD, CA 94545
D.S.P. - CALIF. - 151

(Use to be in a Glass Container, now Plastic :( )
(STAMP SEAL, but the purification process usually leaves trace amounts of 
benzene, so please do NOT drink it!)

Happy Hunting,
Mark Jurich

From: AlanG 
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 11:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calcium as a Mills catalyst

Ethanol is usually available in the US only as denatured Ethanol, even as 
"reagent grade". The additives are usually Methanol and Isopropyl, at up to 10% 
by volume. For that reason, I have not done the test using pure Ethanol, and we 
don't know what Mizuno used anyway. I did confirm that CaCO3 is insoluble in 
alcohols. I have also added a reference in my document related to the complex 
ionic chemistry of CaCO3 in aqueous solution.

Regarding your second comment, note that Methanol is not added to the water 
soak solution, but is only used as a final rinse following the soak at 90°C, as 
specified by Mizuno. Such final rinsing is often done in chemical processes to 
remove residual water.

AlanG
On 7/31/2019 9:06 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
wrote:
Alan should make sure ethanol vs =methnol does not make any difference  in the 
deposition of caco3 crystals on the Ni mesh.Jed should ask Mizuno about this 
question.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10


From: Axil Axil <mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 9:15:19 PM
To: vortex-l <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calcium as a Mills catalyst

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16dP_SmSP8SuQbZ7p9eGoCwf1vwJKh7KPL7NAYv7j13o/edit

Calcium as a LENR catalyst???

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:43 PM JonesBeene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
Thanks Jeff -

This could be important. Limelight - as old-fashioned as it may seem at first - 
has long been claimed to have a number of optical properties which look like 
they are related to hydrino creation.

On a related topic, and looking at Fig.3 in the first cited paper, which is the 
emission spectra of calcium sulfate, the peak is at 580 nm.

Coincidentally (or not) the palladium optical anomaly where the metal switches 
sharply from photon reflector to perfect absorber is at 590 nm. That would only 
be relevant if calcium carbonate has its peak at about the same value.

There are a number of reasons to think the Mizuno breakthrough relates more to 
Mills' theory than to LENR.

Jones


From: Jeff Driscoll<mailto:jef...@gmail.com>

and calcium oxide is a candoluminescent material where limelight is given off 
when hydrogen is exposed to the material at high temperature:

http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Candoluminescence-of-cave-gypsum.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXl6H7G6BMU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limelight

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:26 PM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
For those who have not carefully followed Mills' work on dense hydrogen 
(hydrino) - calcium is listed as a favored catalyst. This could be important 
(or not) in the context of the recent Mizuno breakthrough ... certainly it has 
not been mentioned before but perhaps it should be (at least listed as a 
possibility) due to a few other related details.

The Rydberg level for Ca is the fifth - 1/5 as it is inverted and notably 
calcium is the one of the few for this level of shrinkage. There is 
complementary catalysis with the other potential catalysts present, since there 
is palladium - first level, oxygen/carbonate ion - 2nd level, nickel 7th and 
11th and now calcium in the middle - so that there is a deepening progression 
which could set up a cascade of some kind.

If one is not tied down to any particular M.O. or theory - then this spread of 
catalysis values could be relevant in the context of Alan Goldwater's new 
report on his early stage effort at replication where he finds calcium:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16dP_SmSP8SuQbZ7p9eGoCwf1vwJKh7KPL7NAYv7j13o/edit

Really nice insight by Alan.



--
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

[Vo]: Mizuno's Q and A to a person who wants to replicate

[Mark Jurich]

Arnaud wrote:
The reactor R20 is made of 2 standard conflat flanges and one pipe with 2 
conflats (on each side).  The flanges are available from the shelf of any 
vacuum supplier. On the other hand, the pipe is not not from the shelf. It 
needs to be built on demand. But maybe, this is from the shelf of the Mizuno’s 
supplier. In this case it would be nice to have the name of the supplier. So 
the replicator would have same SS tube (Size and composition).

Hi Arnaud:

FYI:

It is most likely that the R20 housing is simply a UHV Mass Spec Section and is 
an off-the-shelf component.  Many suppliers of Mass Specs will sell such a 
Section with a Mass Spec (I have an older Quadrupole Mass Spec that has almost 
the same dimensions for the housing) … If I find some additional time, I will 
respond back with a supplier or two, but nothing beats an exact response from 
Mizuno.

- Mark Jurich

RE: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration

[Mark Jurich]

Bob C.:

   FYI: If you snag the actual research paper (Nature, CLAS Collaboration) that 
the MIT Summary by Jennifer Chu is based upon, you will see that at least 3 of 
the 4 authors of the review paper you site below, are co-authors of the recent 
Nature Paper (O. Hen is from MIT), and they reference the review paper 
(Reference 1).

- Mark

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration

The link to the  MIT paper discussion is a qualitative bunch of fluff IMHO.

It assumes that quarks have "speed" avoiding consideration of velocity, nor a 
change in relativistic mass.  It tries hard to reflect the "primary 
(fundamental) particle"  characteristic of a virtual feature  of the standard 
model,  SM.

A better discussion of the EMC effect is contained in the following link:

Nucleon-Nucleon Correlations, Short-lived Excitations, and the Quarks 
...



https://arxiv.org > 
nucl-ex


I would suggest review of the theory starting on  page 44 and ending with the  
section entitled  " The way we think it is and the ways to check" on page 45.  
(Note the idea of "light quarks" is introduced at the end.)

Bob Cook


From: Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 12:33:28 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration

http://news.mit.edu/2019/quark-speed-proton-neutron-pairs-0220

Another article about the The EMC effect, but with more detail from MIT.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
 Axil,

Yes, clearly dense hydrogen is necessary, and their IP does not limit the power 
going in to lasers. They have made a great effort to avoid reference to Mills 
version of dense hydrogen, but there is little doubt that patents will be 
contested if there is a commercial success.

The company Norront Fusion Systems is very well funded and is using laser 
irradiation but does not want to broadcast that fact due to the IP which is 
already out there, mostly held by National labs in the US.  BTW this company 
Norront - in Norway, says that they have 3 operating reactors producing muons, 
now! For all we know they could be months away from a big announcement.

http://www.norrontfusion.com/

Holmlid seems to be fond of exaggeration at times and has said several things 
he would probably like to take back or clarify, such as the muon effect 
happening with fluorescent lighting and other nonsense. This is one of the 
reasons that some physicists refuse to even consider the validity of his 
experiments. They will get a big surprise soon IMO.

Now that Holmlid has gone full tilt commercial and has big money involved - 
almost nothing said can be believed, except details in the patent which if 
false would jeopardize the legal protection.


Axil Axil wrote:

Jones,

You may be placing too much emphasis on the laser reaction mechanism with Ultra 
dense hydrogen here. Holmlid has found that the laser pulse can be replaced 
with a spark and that spark can still get the same reactions to occur as that 
low powered laser pulse can. The indispensable role that Ultra dense hydrogen 
plays in this quark confinement disruption reaction is to reformat the 
stimulant EMF energy into the proper strong force disruption format.

[Vo]:High-temperature pairing in a strongly interacting two-dimensional Fermi gas

[Mark Jurich]

FYI (First appeared on arXiv in May, 2017):

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171222092504.htm
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/12/20/science.aan5950
https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.10577

"The nature of the normal phase of strongly correlated fermionic systems is an 
outstanding question in quantum many-body physics. We use spatially resolved 
radio-frequency spectroscopy to measure pairing energy of fermions across a 
wide range of temperatures and interaction strengths in a two-dimensional gas 
of ultracold fermionic atoms. We observe many-body pairing at temperatures far 
above the critical temperature for superfluidity. In the strongly interacting 
regime, the pairing energy in the normal phase significantly exceeds the 
intrinsic two-body binding energy of the system and shows a clear dependence on 
local density. This implies that pairing in this regime is driven by many-body 
correlations, rather than two-body physics. Our findings show that pairing 
correlations in strongly interacting two-dimensional fermionic systems are 
remarkably robust against thermal fluctuations."

Some excerpts from/following above links:

"We perform our experiments with a two-component mixture of 6Li atoms with 
approximately 3 × 104 particles per spin state that are loaded into a single 
layer of an anisotropic harmonic optical trap."

"Using a technique known as radio-frequency spectroscopy, the researchers 
measured the response of the atoms to a radio-wave pulse. From this response, 
they could tell exactly whether or not the particles were paired and in what 
way."

"Beyond this previously explored regime, our measurements reveal that many-body 
effects enhance the pairing energy far above the critical temperature, with the 
maximum enhancement occurring at ln(kFa2D) ≈ 1, where a reliable mean-field 
description is not available."

[Vo]:IBM Raises the Bar with a 50-Qubit Quantum Computer

[Mark Jurich]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609451/ibm-raises-the-bar-with-a-50-qubit-quantum-computer/

RE: [Vo]:Measurement of low deuterium levels

[Mark Jurich]

Hi Nigel:

  I believe Evans Analytical Group (EAG) Labs (or other analytical lab) can do 
a Gas Chromatography Measurement and determine the deuterium depletion:

  https://www.eag.com/

  This paper used the technique to measure a slight deuterium in water 
depletion:

   http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/ie101820f

Mark Jurich

-Original Message-
From: Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk] 
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 3:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Measurement of low deuterium levels

I wish to measure the deuterium levels in some deutero depleted water, where I 
expect the levels to be in the range 1 to 10 ppm. Does anyone have any 
suggestions?  I was hoping that someone might offer this as a service, but 
Google didn't find anything Nigel

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Mark Jurich]

I wrote:
Yes, we (MFMP) did pursue the “Gamma Ray Thing” (we made an unsuccessful 
replication attempt, and I myself have not given up on it), and we cannot say 
there was excess heat, because the apparent excess heat   was less than the 
error of the crude calorimeter measurement…

… I am still trying to convince the group to take another crack at it, with 
a more sophisticated radiation measurement that requires some building and a 
small amount of funding.

Kevin writes:
That means you have not been pursuing it.   It's been 4 years and basically 
no mention on the MFMP blog.

I assume here that “you” means MFMP.  MFMP’s Bob Higgins is currently 
performing a series of automated experiments (at least 2 are completed) which 
utilize a NaI Detector (as well as other detectors), also looking for the 
“Gamma Ray Thing” (X-ray signal).  As far as I’m aware, nothing has shown up, 
so far.  Have you been following the experiments on LENR-Forum?  Each 
experiment not showing any signal, is interesting information.  We still don’t 
know if the signal could have been an artifact unless we reproduce it…

The Signal (or Gamma Ray Thing), occurred in February of 2016.  The replication 
attempt ended in late May, 2016.  The analysis ended about a month after that.  
It’s been about 12 months since then. During those 12 months, MFMP has spent 
time building Neutron Detectors, beefing up the experiment automation for the 
subsequent experiment (not a replication attempt but using the same NaI 
Detector setup) using the built-up equipment (reported on QuantumHeat.Org, but 
no signal seen), prepping for the Me356 & Ecco Tests and performing the Me356 
Test (amongst other things)…

… If “you” meant myself, I’ve been spending every bit of my available time in 
those 12 months, working on a follow-up experiment with a better shot at seeing 
the signal once again, if the group doesn’t see it. I suppose that there will 
come a time when the group realizes that this is the direction we should go in, 
and we all work towards that goal.  In the meantime,  I think it’s important 
for me to give MFMP the space/time it needs to pursue other directions it deems 
as fruitful, until we are all back on the same page.  If not, I am happy to 
continue towards the goal of increasing the success of seeing the signal when 
we are ready to do it.  If there is anyone else out there interested in helping 
out, I am quite open to any suggestions and can put you to good use, if 
desired!  It’s going to require yet another round of funding, I’m afraid…

Kevin further writes:
Even if there is no excess heat, it still was the most promising lead -- 
there is actually an endothermic reaction that lets out radiation.   The fact 
you can throw H2 and Nickel atoms together and end up with a nuclear product 
would change EVERYTHING.

I agree that this was the most promising lead so far and is the reason I have 
not lost sight of it (and won’t).  I see this signal (if real) as a precursor 
to excess heat, or a bifurcation that leads to no excess heat.  We have the 
resources to understand it, if we can only replicate it.  We’ve taken a few 
shots at replication under different conditions using similar detection, 
without success.  Either the signal was an artefact, we need to improve the 
recipe leading up to the event or we need to build a better mouse trap.

Mark Jurich

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

Yes, we (MFMP) did pursue the “Gamma Ray Thing” (we made an unsuccessful 
replication attempt, and I myself have not given up on it), and we cannot say 
there was excess heat, because the apparent excess heat was less than the error 
of the crude calorimeter measurement…

… I am still trying to convince the group to take another crack at it, with a 
more sophisticated radiation measurement that requires some building and a 
small amount of funding.

Mark Jurich

From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 7:57 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Frustratingly, they never pursued the Gamma ray thing.   They just dropped it 
without explanation.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Axil Axil 
<janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
A gamma ray burst was detected in a MFMP experiment just before excess heat 
began. So yes, a nuclear event occurred in the MFMP's apparatus for at least 
that short time.
[https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif]

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
<kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Celani detected gamma rays when Rossi's reactor got started, and Rossi came 
down hard on him for bringing a Geiger counter.   So yes, there was a Nuclear 
event occuring in Rossi's apparatus for at least that short time.



On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Che 
<comandantegri...@gmail.com<mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alain Sepeda 
<alain.sep...@gmail.com<mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I with the crook will be prevented to be a nuisance again...
whoever you think it is (I have an opinion).

I truly doubt matters are that simple.

Was there, or was there not, cold fusion occurring, in Rossi's apparatus? At 
any time?

[Vo]:FYI: SKINR gets Positive Heat Results, On-Going Contract Continues

[Mark Jurich]

Can't elaborate much more, just heard it through the LENR GrapeVine.  Perhaps 
it's somewhat old news (weeks old?), but thought I'd mention it in passing.

... Congrats to SKINR!

Cheers,
Mark Jurich

Re[2]: [Vo]:Neutrons produced by sonication of metal

[Mark Jurich]

The paper is experimental.

Without rehashing it, check out this link if you're having trouble taking a 
look at it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub

- Mark Jurich

-- Original Message --
From: "Russ George" <russ.geo...@gmail.com<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: 10/11/2016 3:28:19 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Neutrons produced by sonication of metal

Well since Taleyarkhan was found innocent and truthful and his detractors were 
shown to be the evil doers perhaps such criticism speaks highly for Cardone et 
al. This new paper appears to be just now published but I don’t have a copy as 
of yet.

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Neutrons produced by sonication of metal

There are several papers by Cardone which we discussed here about 5 years ago 
which are similar … on the subject of "Piezonuclear neutrons” from the 
fracturing of stone and other solids.

The Italian physics establishment have been accusing Cardone and Carpinteri of 
incompetency and academic fraud for many years, similar to the situation of 
Rusi Taleyarkhan in the USA.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.1863

From: Russ George [mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]:Neutrons produced by sonication of metal

Has anyone read this paper, is it experimental evidence or theory? “Energy 
spectra and fluence of the neutrons produced in deformed space-time conditions” 
Rather astonishing that production of neutrons by 40khz ultrasound… Might well 
offer a path to explain how my work demonstrating sonofusion accompanied by 
massive heat with commensurate 4He production is initiated when deuterating 
metals via ultrasound stimulated asymmetric cavitation.

Read More: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217984916503462

Re[2]: [Vo]: Mats Lewan on LENR theory

[Mark Jurich]

This is certainly a wonderful [possible] explanation for Piantelli's 
observations and great piece of work, but there is this nagging question 
that Piantelli has mentioned that adding Deuterium kills/poisons the 
reaction as far as heat and particle production.  Perhaps just a slight 
increase in Deuterium Concentration is beneficial.

Unfortunately we have little more to go on from Piantelli concerning 
this point. (AFAIK)

I believe that MFMP has at least 2 experiments lined up to answer 
differences in hypothesis/theories: inclusion of LAD (Lithium Aluminum 
Deuteride) and an O-18 Tracer Experiment.  These have been the works for 
some time.

Mark Jurich

-- Original Message --
From: mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: 8/29/2016 12:32:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Mats Lewan on LENR theory

>In reply to  mix...@bigpond.com's message of Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:59:40 
>+1000:
>Hi,
>
>BTW, after distribution of reaction energy over both the new Ni59 
>nucleus and
>the proton, the proton ends up with 6.66 MeV which rounds nicely to 6.7 
>MeV.
>
>[snip]
>>If the measured energy of the proton is 6.7 MeV, then a more likely 
>>reaction is:
>>
>>D + 58Ni => 59Ni + 1H + 6.775 MeV
>>
>>with the D being a minor contaminant in ordinary Hydrogen. 58Ni makes 
>>up the
>>majority of all Ni atoms. The 59Ni is only very mildly radioactive (ec 
>>=>
>>neutrino), but produces no significant gamma rays. The proton would 
>>carry most
>>of the energy of the initial reaction, which it would lose primarily 
>>through
>>ionizing other atoms, resulting mostly in heat. However it would also 
>>produce
>>some secondary gammas during a direct hit on a nearby nucleus.
>[snip]
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

Re: [Vo]:The Seventh Segment Signal

[Mark Jurich]

The radiation extends above 0.511 MeV in Trace #7 and this doesn't seem to fit 
with Hirsch's Theory (i.e., Hole Superconductivity as described in DOI: 
10.1088/0953-8984/19/12/125217 ).  Perhaps if the electrons were heavy 
(dressed) it could be valid.  I would need to take a closer look.

Also, I don't see Hirsch justifying Brems during creation of HSC, but a peak @ 
0.511 MeV.

... I'm just glancing over things right now, so I may chime back.

- Mark Jurich

-- Original Message --
From: "Axil Axil" <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>>
To: "vortex-l" <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: 8/4/2016 10:19:44 PM
Subject: [Vo]:The Seventh Segment Signal

The x-radiation seen in the MFMP experiment called the "seventh segment signal" 
may have been caused by the initiation of "hole superconductivity" when the 
meissner effect expels electrons from the center of the superconducting 
material thereby producing x-rays through Bremsstrahlung. Also when the Hole 
superconductor is quenched, the same process produces electron collapse into 
the center of the dying superconductor also producing Bremsstrahlung.

[Vo]:Improved flywheel

[Mark Jurich]

GB1610204.8 - Rotating mass energy store

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1610204.8


Abigail Carson was in the news for a Spring Suspension System back in 
October/November 2015, and that may be related to this application.

- Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Re: Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Mark Jurich]

Folks, you send “water” through a hole in the wall, and back comes something.  
You can’t assume it’s water.  You have to analyze it. 
Want me to give you a few dozen more examples of this, where you can’t assume? 
... Knowing what the customer is doing with the water 
educates one in what to look for and what may be suspect in the test.

- Mark Jurich 

[Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Mark Jurich]

Hi Eric/Jones/Vortex:

  This topic was discussed several months ago via the MFMP FaceBook Page as 
well as ECW (if I recall correctly) by myself and 
several others.  At the time, I suggested that the Ni was extracted from a 
Russian Meteor Site.  Heck, there’s no need to dig deep 
for it and the cost to process/refine it that way, might be cheaper, if huge 
amounts weren’t being sold...

  There was a web link to the exact source of the bottle sold (from Russia, 
with Love!)...

  Also, people may recall that the initial MFMP Isotope Ratio Analysis (which I 
believe may have used the same Parkhomov source?) 
initially came up with a result that seemed, “out of this world”, but soon was 
buried by further analysis by other parties (the 
double-blind test), that didn’t agree with the result, and I never really heard 
the end result of all that analysis (which I am sure 
someone will chime in with).

... More stuff for you guys/gals to speculate on.

- Mark Jurich

From: Eric Walker
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:


  I think we all agree that more information is needed, and that both 64Zn and 
64Ni are unlikely to be seen in such large 
percentage – especially without the author of the paper taking notice. 
Resolution of this mystery depends on more information. The 
fact that the other data is spot-on refutes the notion of measurement error.

I think I'm caught up on the fact that the fuel, prior to running the 
experiment, had an elevated amount of a rare isotope.  I 
personally won't feel comfortable concluding anything further from the 
Parkhomov slides until the question is sorted out.  If 
Parkhomov expected the surplus 64Ni in the fuel, he should mention this and why 
it was there.  If he did not expect it, he should 
look into it.  It would be better if he expected it to be there, because then 
we could have some confidence that the other 
measurements were accurate.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Mark Jurich]

  Stephen Cooke wrote:
  “Was it confirmed the pulse was only a few seconds? I thought they only 
spotted it in the spectrum at the
   end of longer session but are not sure exactly when and how long it lasted 
once initiated?”
We (MFMP/myself) believe that there was a few second burst about 3 minutes at 
the end of Spectrum #7.
The evidence for this is circumstantial.  We know that the Power Analyzer 
“hiccupped” for a few seconds
(3 or 4) then recovered at this time.  We also know that Spectrums #8 had some 
residual radiation, suggesting
that the emissions continued for at least 3 or 4 minutes.  We also see 
something in Spectrum #10,
later.
We know that in Spectrum #7, there was a significant rise in “pulse overlap” 
hence the burst hypothesis.
Until we replicate, we will not be able to really pin all this down.
I hope this helps clarify what is currently known. Stay tuned.
- Mark Jurich 

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Mark Jurich]

Hi Bob:

Back when Alan used a Nickel Capsule/Container (it’s now SS), I used SRIM/TRIM 
and assuming the possibility of 6 MeV Protons 
emanating from the core, I demonstrated that all the protons wouldn’t be 
stopped in the capsule.  If it was slightly thicker, they 
would.

This is not to say that the Piantelli picture is what is happening, just that 
if such energetic particles of this type were around, 
some would still escape the capsule.  At the time, I was concerned that if the 
reaction was a two-step process where Li was 
involved, and somehow if the Li was escaping the confines of the capsule (for 
example, coating the Alumina walls), then the capsule 
might stop/inhibit the secondary reaction...

I would encourage people to try SRIM/TRIM or GEANT4 and start playing with them 
if you’re interested in modeling this type of stuff 
(they’re free).  There are Wikipedia Pages for both.

- Mark Jurich

From: Bob Cook
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons that 
cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of 
the can (or alumina) and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the 
loss of energy per scattering event is proportional to Z 
^2 for the nucleus that is doing the scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at 
Z=26 the intensity of the Bremsstrahlung signal would 
be about a factor of 4 different.  The mean length of the path of an electron 
is a good parameter to know for any given substance 
(basically its density) vs the incident energy of the electron.  Shielding 
engineering curves provide this information I believe. 
Iron being significantly more dense than Al2O3 would be much better at slowing 
electrons and thus producing Bremsstrahlung IMHO.

At high electron energies the change of direction of the electron going through 
SS can would be less than for a low energy electron. 
For slow electrons scattering can significantly change the direction of an 
incident electron such that all Bremsstrahlung would be 
emitted from the material that stopped the electron.

I think with a SS can present in the system vs no can and only Alumina stopping 
the electrons, one would expect to see a more 
intense signal at high energy  compared to the spectrum from the Alumina 
reactor chamber.  The absorption of the EM Bremsstrahlung 
by the respective media would also have to be considered.  Neither Alumina nor 
SS may transmit some of the Bremsstrahlung spectrum 
very well.  Thus the effective shielding of the EM radiation considering a 
distributed source would have to be evaluated for the 
resulting high energy EM and the signal intensity corrected accordingly.  The 
cut off at the high energy spectrum will be a useful 
value to know to understand the maximum energy of the electron source.  This 
may provide information about the reaction producing 
the electrons.   The change of the intensity of the Bremsstrahlung signal as a 
function of the magnetic field would also provide 
information as to whether or not the lattice orientation of the nano fuel was 
important.   One might expect that the electrons being 
produced by the respective LENR reaction would produced in some preferred 
direction.

Bob Cook
From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 6:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

I don't know if other Vorts thought of this already... but I had a minor 
epiphany regarding the radiation that MFMP measured in 
GS5.2.  We identified this radiation tentatively as bremsstrahlung.  This has 
certain implications.  Bremsstrahlung requires that 
the high speed electrons impact on a high atomic mass element so as to be 
accelerated/decelerated quickly to produce the radiation. 
It could be that the stainless steel can that contained the fuel was an 
important component in seeing the bremsstrahlung.  Without 
the can, there would still be the Ni for the electrons to hit, but the Ni is 
covered with light atomic mass Li.  If the electrons 
were to strike alumina (no fuel can present), I don't think there would be 
nearly as much bremsstrahlung because alumina is 
comprised of light elements.

Thus, the stainless steel can for the fuel may be an important component for 
seeing the bremsstrahlung.


Bob Higgins

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Mark Jurich]

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiationThe Lead Cave must be nearby (with the 
scintillator in it) to replicate.  If another scintillator 
is secured, it is quite possible to run it without immediate lead surrounding 
it, but it will be close to the Lead Cave, I’m afraid 
(within a couple feet away, tops).  Actually, we do not have enough Lead to 
house two scintillators anyway, at the moment, but I am 
digressing...

Although a run could be done with the lead and a run could be done without the 
lead, this would require another experiment and a 
huge delay in confirmation unless Alan were to duplicate parts ahead of time...

Also keep in mind that when it happens, we cannot be near it moving things 
until we assess it’s safe to do so.  We can automate a 
few things and we will.

It is our understanding that if this is NOT an artifact, that we only have one 
chance to see it during an experiment, unless we 
master controlling it.

Last time, we set a mouse trap and caught a mouse ... This time, we are hoping 
to watch as the mouse gets caught, with everything we 
can throw at it.

Right now it’s Mouse 4, MFMP 1 (this is GS 5 Series) ... It’s the Bottom of the 
Sixth Inning and we are about to take our bat.  We’re 
not out of this yet!

- Mark Jurich

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 8:19 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

From: Eric Walker


Ø  To play devil's advocate, the hypothetical neutron flux could have 
produced short-lived beta radioisotopes when they 
activated something in or near the experiment.

Eric,


Even without activation - the neutron itself is a beta emitter. Free neutrons 
have a half-life of about 10 min and are almost gone 
in 15. The usual beta electron is .78 MeV and is charged so it will not look 
like a gamma. And there is no evidence of an 
accelerated decay in a well-investigate field.

However, a fraction of free neutrons do produce a gamma ray on decay. This 
gamma ray is sometimes called “internal bremsstrahlung” 
but is soft. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung#Inner_and_outer_bremsstrahlung


If Bob’s procedure is to test the ongoing reaction with no shielding and then 
with shielding, and compare the two - then many of 
these issues can be resolved. If no shielding gives significantly more counts, 
then cosmic rays can be blamed. However, my 
prediction is that no shielding will show fewer, not more gammas. That is 
especially true if the reaction itself is making muons 
(the Holmlid effect).


IMO - the most important finding which could come out of this next test is to 
see significantly more gammas in the cave than with no 
shielding - and to see a variance from inverse square drop-off, when the cave 
is moved back from the reactor. Lastly, the peaks can 
be matched with the temperature differential.

If a gamma burst is  correlated with apparent endotherm, as happened in the 
last test – then it would be a significant indication 
that Holmlid is correct.

Jones

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Mark Jurich]

Here's a top view of the NaI Scintillator Head and the reactor/cell, with 
rulers (courtesy of Alan):

http://tempid.altervista.org/GS5-2_test_setup2.jpg

The [Detector/Lead Cave] are on a separate, heavy duty cart which may be rolled 
back if things get too hot or for repositioning.

- Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Russ George

Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

A much better test might be to add a more efficient 'crazy muon' receptor occluding perhaps half of the detector. Say a foil of 
silver or gadolinium. With such material the count rate might go up.  How many cm away was the NaI from the source?  Of course this 
presumes the signal can be reproduced at will. 

[Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Mark Jurich]

Hi Harry:

 The radiation level detected in the MFMP Reactor is very low.  The Geiger Counter on the setup apparently did not detect it.  The 
current calc/estimate shows the dosage was comparable (in some ways) to way less than a panoramic dental X-ray, anywhere over a 
total dosage period of from 3.9 hours to perhaps 4 seconds... The signal was about an order of magnitude above the Natural 
Background Radiation Level in a Lead Cave, which dropped the open Natural Background Radiation Level by almost an order of magnitude 
in the low energy X-ray Region where the signal was mainly observed...


... There is speculation that this EM Radiation is what is typically seen at the start of the anomalous heat process in early Rossi 
Designs.  It may be related to cracking or reorganization or some initial Nuclear Reaction and is believed to be a one-time "deal" 
during a run.  But this is all speculation ... There is also speculation that Rossi had found ways to get rid of it or preprocess it 
away, so that it would never show up during the actual run.  The evidence for all this is kind of shaky but is based on the some 
strange isotope ratios and elements in the assays.


- Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: H LV

Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray
emissions at more than 50 cm from the reactor. (see Appendix 1)
http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
I don't understand all the jargon but over the 32 day duration test it
looks like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background.
If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the
dosimeters register any radiation?

harry

[Vo]:Re: Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Mark Jurich]

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?Sorry, Russ ... You’re right.  The emoticon 
went missing ... My bad ...

Please keep in mind that the detector signal-to-noise was enhanced by dropping 
the noise floor by almost an order of magnitude in 
the region of interest in this experiment.  Although I haven’t seen a solid 
estimate of the peak intensity, it is estimated to be 
not a whole lot more than that order of magnitude ... I am dancing on thin ice 
here, but you questions are good ones.

The experiment was in another room and the human distances from the actual 
experiment were many meters, but who knows.

I hope someone will spend the time and answer your Qs from a Health Physics 
point of view.  We really don’t have enough of them 
versed in Muon Irradiation and the like. :)

From: Russ George
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 3:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

You might at least use an appropriate emoticon ;) I have posed the dose 
question is to discover some idea of context. Clearly what 
has been stated in this recent experiment is a dose orders of magnitude beyond 
‘natural background.’

In another context for example if Rossi feels it is necessary to provide 5 cm 
of lead shielding in his e-cats that is a stunning 
amount of gamma/x-ray shielding. For example 1mm of lead is more than 
sufficient to give 99.9% protection from medical x-rays for 
some common human context.



From: Mark Jurich [mailto:jur...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?



Hi Russ:



   I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this experiment, 
very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m 
not talking about Alan, here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even 
realize he got irradiated until the analysis, weeks 
later ... He’s resting, not because of the apparent irradiation, but because he 
didn’t get much sleep during the experiment.  I 
think the dose estimate was something like this ... A few minutes after the 
event, he received more radiation from the Natural 
Radiation Background than all that was currently estimated during the supposed 
burst...



I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.





From: Russ George

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?



If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does this 
infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? 
Clearly that person is both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to 
the source, and has a long exposure from this and many 
similar experiments. It would seem likely the ‘human detector dose’ is some 
orders of magnitude more than what the detector has 
recorded.

Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Mark Jurich]

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?Hi Russ:

   I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this experiment, 
very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m 
not talking about Alan, here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even 
realize he got irradiated until the analysis, weeks 
later ... He’s resting, not because of the apparent irradiation, but because he 
didn’t get much sleep during the experiment.  I 
think the dose estimate was something like this ... A few minutes after the 
event, he received more radiation from the Natural 
Radiation Background than all that was currently estimated during the supposed 
burst...

I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.


From: Russ George
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does this 
infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? 
Clearly that person is both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to 
the source, and has a long exposure from this and many 
similar experiments. It would seem likely the ‘human detector dose’ is some 
orders of magnitude more than what the detector has 
recorded.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Mark Jurich]

Or Attenuate at the source and/or detector with a known response 
material (as suggested by Bob G)...

... We should have another scintillator at our disposal, thanks to Stanford!

From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 7:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

Yes, we need to rig the MFMP “Mouse Trap” to see lower in energy and resolve it:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0305310
From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

This is conceptually what we are thinking the distribution probably looks like, 
but I will have to see it in log scale.  I will 
check.  The peak would have to be below the 30keV cutoff seen in the GS5.2 
spectrum.  In the region of the GS5.2 spectrum just above 
30keV, the slope just above 30keV has a slope of 1/x^2.13 .


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:




  A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation plot. It is 
the release of energy by particles based on a random 
release process. This is seen when a particle gives up its kinetic energy to a 
thin film as the particles interact randomly with the 
matter in the thin film.

  If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or based 
on a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution 
of energy release will be seen.

  On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:22 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:12:37 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>What LENR theories presently can account for MeV electrons?  Actually, 
there appears to be energy out to over 1.4 MeV in the 
Bremsstrahlung.

During f/H (thanks Jones ;) capture, the energy may be carried away by the
shrunken electron.

Of course, that implies a reaction where the fusion energy is 1.4-1.5 MeV.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Mark Jurich]

Yes, we need to rig the MFMP “Mouse Trap” to see lower in energy and resolve it:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0305310
From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

This is conceptually what we are thinking the distribution probably looks like, 
but I will have to see it in log scale.  I will 
check.  The peak would have to be below the 30keV cutoff seen in the GS5.2 
spectrum.  In the region of the GS5.2 spectrum just above 
30keV, the slope just above 30keV has a slope of 1/x^2.13 .


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:




  A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation plot. It is 
the release of energy by particles based on a random 
release process. This is seen when a particle gives up its kinetic energy to a 
thin film as the particles interact randomly with the 
matter in the thin film.

  If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or based 
on a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution 
of energy release will be seen.

  On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:22 PM,  wrote:

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:12:37 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>What LENR theories presently can account for MeV electrons?  Actually, 
there appears to be energy out to over 1.4 MeV in the 
Bremsstrahlung.

During f/H (thanks Jones ;) capture, the energy may be carried away by the
shrunken electron.

Of course, that implies a reaction where the fusion energy is 1.4-1.5 MeV.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Mark Jurich]

The paper is well known to myself (I’ve studied it extensively several months 
ago in regards to the new peaks), but it’s good to 
bring it up again.  I’m a little surprised that no one here has realized that 
Holmlid/Olafsson have also reported the broad low 
energy spectrum in one of their recent papers.  Ecco actually brought this up 
within a few minutes/seconds after displaying the 
Trace #7 anomaly.  I know this paper is more encompassing than just a broad low 
energy background, but the truth is that there have 
been others that have reported electromagnetic radiation and I don’t think that 
MFMP ever denied that ... MFMP has just replicated 
it.  Which is important (and the main part of their existence is to replicate 
the work leading to excess anomalous heat).

- Mark Jurich

From: Stephen Cooke
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 1:22 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

Great find Axil.

Did you already forward it to MFMP?

It's interesting that they use Boron as a neutron shield too. That might be 
important for them to know too.



On 25 Feb 2016, at 05:25, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:


  
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf


  Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems


  This MFMP radiation observation is nothing new.

  On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Where is the big surprise?

I woke this morning with anticipation - expecting to see proof from MFMP of 
a 5 hour self-sustained reaction. Instead, we get 
graphs of modest gain at the noise level and radiation counts peaking in the 
few hundred per second – when we need to seeing a 
million times more - if the radiation does indeed relate to excess heat at 
kilowatt level. Yawn. Let’s hope there is much more 
forthcoming than this.

What am I missing?

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Mark Jurich]

Yes, Figure 3 looks like it’s not properly normalized before background 
subtraction and only shows >= 500 keV, but if properly 
processed all the peaks should disappear ... Its also appears much stronger 
above 500 keV than the current result, suggesting even 
more radiation in the low energy region.

For those trying to follow Figure 3, the curves are mislabeled in the 
key/legend.  The lowest plot is the subtracted one.

- Mark Jurich

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

From: Axil Axil



http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf



Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems. This MFMP radiation 
observation is nothing new.







Figure 3 in this report is rather reminiscent of what we see today… Focardi 
must have been on PST as well.

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Mark Jurich]

You make some good points about MFMP.

I’m not an immediate member of MFMP.  I’m volunteering my time/resources 
when/where I can. If MFMP had more resources, they could 
certainly do a better job.  Do they deserve the resources?  I think so.  I have 
nothing but mutual respect for them and what they’re 
doing.  I am sure Bob G has his reasons for making certain statements and I 
cannot answer for him.

All I know is... We have a strange radiation signal and it needs to be 
investigated further.  First it needs to be reproduced, then 
it needs to be understood.  Once that happens, it may be possible to 
produce/increase excess heat. We either came across a 
mistake/error or have possibly unearthed a signal that others have found in the 
past.  This is what Research/Science is all about, 
isn’t it?

Maybe someone out there will now try to replicate this, too.  I understand the 
disappointment of many about what was done with the 
announcements here.  All I can say is, “Hang in there.”  We are ... We’re not 
finished with this yet and there’s more to come.

- Mark Jurich

From: Eric Walker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com> wrote:


  The Geiger Counter was essentially brain dead during this part of the run and 
also with a post Ba calibration on the low end... 
The detected radiation wasn’t shown to be sourced from the active cell.


I am a big fan of the MFMP.  But there are many questions that still need to be 
sorted out.  I would suggest that this was an 
interesting run that highlighted some things that can be focused on and whose 
measurements should be tightened up for future runs.

Here are some statements I'm seeing in Mats Lewan's recent blog post [1]:

  "The character of the x-ray signal is, according to MFMP, the best way to 
detect that the replication is successful. The energy of 
the x-ray photons are between 0 and 300 keV (medical radiography typically uses 
x-rays between 5 and 150 keV), and there’s a brief 
but massive burst of x-rays when the reaction starts." (Mats.)

  "We have said that only two paths would satisfy us: Statistically significant 
Isotopic or elemental shifts from Fuel to Ash ... 
Statistically significant emissions commensurate, correlating, or anti 
correlating to excess heat ... We are happy to tell you that 
we believe we have satisfied our condition 2" (Bob Greenyer's letter.)

  "To our extreme surprise, the onset of excess heat followed the massive 
anomaly in emissions and the minor anomalies were during 
and only during excess heat." (Bob Greenyer.)

I worry that MFMP were premature in making this announcement.  The people on 
LENR Forum are not going to be nice.

Eric


[1] 
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/02/24/breaking-the-e-cat-has-been-replicated-hers-the-recipe/

[Vo]:Re: MFMP "crude calorimeter"

[Mark Jurich]

It’s difficult for me to answer all your Qs at this point in time (due to time 
constraints), but let me try to add a few things (and 
Alan can certainly chime in here if he has the time)...

These cells were never really designed as accurate calorimeters to the level 
that I think you are suggesting. They were designed to 
see huge COPs as were suggested by the initial Rossi Cell and Lugano Report.  a 
COP of 1.2 is right on the edge but possibly doable 
if things like the post calibration could successfully be done as was planned.  
I believe Alan has some ideas on a better 
calorimeter design and Bob H is working on a full-blown calorimeter setup, as 
far as I know...

There is more than one thermocouple on this beast.  There are two near each 
other on the active side, one on the dummy side (on the 
heater covers) and previously there was one inserted into the middle of the 
active cell until the sealing requirement stopped that. 
There are also thermometers measuring ambient temperature and sometimes one is 
placed near the pressure transducer to check it, but 
I am digressing here...

Alan has placed the experimental uncertainty somewhere around 10 or 20% 
depending on what happens during a given experiment.  There 
is a chance at times to perform local, differential calorimetry if one is 
clever.  The calorimetry can be made relative to where the 
calorimeter “sits” at any given time.  Actually if you’re interested, you may 
want to take a look at the data and perform some 
differential analysis on it ... I was trying to do this during the pulsing part 
of the experiment...

Yes, the uncertainty is increased in this run relative to previous runs.

I know I’m probably not answering/commenting that well on you points, but hey, 
I tried.  Good questions, though ... Hanging out in 
the chat during the run is always enlightening, to say the least.

- Mark Jurich

From: Eric Walker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: MFMP "crude calorimeter"

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com> wrote:


  Not sure what you mean by “full-blown calorimetry”, but I can tell you this 
(having been assisting Alan rather closely for the 
last several months).

By "full-blown calorimetry," I have in mind mass flow calorimetry, isoperibolic 
calorimetry, etc.  Using a single thermocouple for a 
cell is something different.  That does not to suggest that it cannot be made 
to work.  But I assume your experimental uncertainty 
is going to be a lot higher.  (Was the experimental uncertainty calculated?)


  We know that the calorimetry changes (it’s a moving target), but we had no 
dummy post calibration to check it against.

Yes -- I remember seeing comments about the behavior of the thermocouples 
changing over time.  I would imagine that knowing this and 
not being able to do a post-calibration check on the dummy would disqualify the 
temperature results.  (I recall reading that Alan 
has specifically not claimed excess heat in this case.)

Eric

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Mark Jurich]

The Geiger Counter was essentially brain dead during this part of the run and 
also with a post Ba calibration on the low end... 
There were very few Gammas above 200 keV for this particular event (see the 
linear graph, for example... A more sensitive (to low 
energy X-ray/Gammas) donut Geiger tube will be employed.  Yes, one can 
correlate a scintillator with a GMC by making the necessary 
adjustments, which will be done.  We are also working on acquiring an 
additional scintillation crystal head/electronics for 
Coincidence/Veto and perhaps pointing it at the dummy side of the cell.

The detected radiation wasn’t shown to be sourced from the active cell.  The 
Lead Cave opening for the scintillator was positioned 
on the active cell as opposed to the dummy side of the cell, but radiation from 
the dummy side could have made it into the 
scintillator, albeit at a reduced level, due to the lead bricks only partially 
obstructing it.  External Radiation could also have 
entered the Scintillator opening, beyond the cell...

Trace 7 spanned about a 4 hour period where the cell temperature was increased, 
dropped, then increased higher again and held there. 
Unfortunately, we don’t have much evidence where the semi-bursting occurred but 
we suspect it happened during the last leveling off 
at high temp, because we see remnants of it in the subsequent Trace #8.  Since 
we had never raised the cell to such a high temp 
before this, we suspect there is a temperature correlation in regards to this 
radiation onset. Each time the temperature was 
increased to a new, higher level we suspect that radiation may have been 
emitted, but this is conjecture.  There seems to be some 
threshold temperature, that’s about all we can say at this time ... We have 
plans for nailing this down in the next run, which most 
likely will be a pure replication attempt, but a better mouse trap to catch 
this mouse.

- Mark Jurich

From: Eric Walker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 7:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com> wrote:


  Right now, we are working on beefing up the Geiger Counting Sensitivity, 
Coincidence Detection and obtaining another detector to 
confirm.  It’s only one instrument, we need another to confirm.  Temporary High 
Voltage Short??? ... Radon Gas Burst??? ... Cosmic 
Ray Anomaly??? ... ???

Since the photons in the NaI detector had energies up to 1500 keV, and the GM 
detector has a lower threshold of ~ 100 keV, it seems 
like it should be possible to obtain a strong correlation between the signals 
from the two detectors.

One thing that I did not understand was how the detected photons in the NaI 
detector were shown to be sourced at the live tube. 
There was no evident correlation between the temperature of the active side and 
the photon signal.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: MFMP "crude calorimeter"

[Mark Jurich]

Not sure what you mean by “full-blown calorimetry”, but I can tell you this 
(having been assisting Alan rather closely for the last 
several months).

Typically Alan would first characterize the GlowStick Cell by inserting a 
thermocouple dead center, on the active side with a dummy 
loaded fuel cartridge there, but in order to insert the thermocouple, the cell 
could not be sealed completely.  Then a formal 
calibration would also be done after the experiment as well as before, and note 
any change.

With this particular run (5.2), the cell had to be sealed to protect the 
fuel/charge and was done under Hydrogen Gas, so the 
previous calibration (with the center thermocouple data) had to be used as an 
estimation of the core temperature.  A formal 
calibration was done without charge (dummy loads on each side) to a fairly high 
temperature.  Then the dummy charge on the active 
side was removed and replaced with the fuel/charge for the actual run.

The hope was to be able to remove the active fuel capsule after the run, 
replace it with a dummy loaded (Alumina Powder) 
cartridge/capsule, and perform a post calibration, but the active cartridge 
refused to exit once again, even with some elaborate 
tools Alan made to do it.  We know that the calorimetry changes (it’s a moving 
target), but we had no dummy post calibration to 
check it against.  Of course, a post calibration was done as best as possible 
with the active cartridge in there, with attempts made 
to kill any possible lingering reaction with Argon Gas...

Alan can elaborate on this more if there are any further questions.

- Mark Jurich


From: Eric Walker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 7:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP "crude calorimeter"

I get the impression the Glowstick 5-2 test did not use full-blown calorimetry, 
and instead just used two thermocouples, one for the 
live tube and one for the blank.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:MFMP "crude calorimeter"

[Mark Jurich]

Yes, exactly.  1.2 would be very close to the limits of the GlowStick, and Alan 
can fill you in on the exact values if you join the 
chat at:

http://magicsound.us/MFMP/video/

The description is here:

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/515-glowstick-5-2

- Mark Jurich


From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:MFMP "crude calorimeter"

Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com> wrote:


  We (Team MFMP) did not see much heat (if/any) above the noise level of this 
crude calorimeter . . .

I am sorry to hear this is a crude calorimeter. Where is it described?

If it is quite crude, perhaps the heat of 1.2 times input is a mistake.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

[Mark Jurich]

Folks, it is true that Bob G might have overhyped this, but you have to realize 
the number of years he has devoted to this and the 
knowledge he has acquired over those years.  I do not blame him for doing it.

Yes, the Spectrum Result has to be verified/replicated.  We (Team MFMP) did not 
see much heat (if/any) above the noise level of this 
crude calorimeter, but what we may have seen is an indication of how the 
process gets started.  It is now up to the Open Science 
Community to build upon this result (MFMP included) and verify/replicate, and 
ultimately obtain large amounts of excess heat.

This could be just some mistake.  As an experimenter, that’s what you 
understand.  And you try to prove it wrong.  Tirelessly.

Right now, we are working on beefing up the Geiger Counting Sensitivity, 
Coincidence Detection and obtaining another detector to 
confirm.  It’s only one instrument, we need another to confirm.  Temporary High 
Voltage Short??? ... Radon Gas Burst??? ... Cosmic 
Ray Anomaly??? ... ???

Is it something to get excited about? ... Sure ... Will we be hugely 
disappointed if it doesn’t pan out?  Not really.  Disappointed, 
yes.

We must get the word out and see who can reproduce it in short order (with any 
help they need)...

... Open Science is an Open Book.  We are just beginning to turn the pages.

- Mark Jurich 

[Vo]:An Argument for a 2.3 pm Inter-nuclear Distance in D(0) (latest Holmlid-Olafsson paper)

[Mark Jurich]

A recent paper (article in press) has appeared (about a month ago?), submitted 
just before the Olafsson talks in the SF Bay Area, a 
couple months ago:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319915304687

In it, the authors attempt to address an argument posed by some that an 
Inter-nuclear Distance of 2.3 pm in D(0) is unphysical, and 
I thought I would open this up to comment/debate on Vortex-L (section of paper 
reproduced as best as possible, below):

   Contrary to expectation, the argument that the measured short distances in 
D(0) (in general H(0)) are unphysical is sometimes 
met.  The basic idea behind this argument appears to be that the inter-nuclear 
Coulomb repulsion would prevent the clusters to reach 
such small inter-nuclear distances.  Amazingly, the same argument is also put 
forward for the electrons, which are said to repel 
each other strongly.  In Ref. [1] these points are already answered: “A pair 
D-D or p-p contains two electrons and two ions.  No 
inner electrons of course exist for hydrogen, and thus the ions are bare 
protons or deuterons, of very small size relative to the pm 
sized interparticle distances.  The pair-wise interactions between the four 
particles, with the interaction distances of similar 
size, are two repulsive terms (++ and --

) and four attractive terms (+-
).  
Thus, such a pair increases its stability with shorter 
distance scale as 1/r.  At a typical inter-particle distance of 2.3 pm, the 
total electrostatic energy is of the order of 
1 keV 
thus a bound state.  With different spin states for the two electrons, they may 
fill the same space and one of the repulsive terms 
(

--) disappears effectively.  Thus, the stability of a pair of atoms in the 
ultra-dense form is increased by different electron 
spin states.”  Of course, the bound state energy of 
1 keV is directly 
calculable from the Coulomb energy terms.

   To clear the thinking, consider that each positive nuclei in the D-D pair is 
closer to its electron, thus giving two almost 
neutral entities.  In that case, there are no repulsive forces of importance at 
all, and the system can be shrunk at will, always 
keeping the attractive (+-) distances smaller than the repulsive distances.  
This means that there is no electrostatic problem to 
form a D-D pair of pm size.  Such a D-D pair can shrink transiently almost 
indefinitely to a neutral particle of nuclear size. 
Since the deuterons are bosons, and the electrons which are fermions pair with 
different spins in the same volume, there is neither 
any quantum mechanical effects which prevent the formation of a pair D-D in 
D(0).  It must be remembered that the D(0) material is 
not a plasma but a condensed material formed by pairs D-D attached together in 
chain clusters [1].  Such clusters have the form D 
subscript(2N) with the D-D pairs rotating around the central axis of the 
cluster [5].  A related problem is the nature of the 
cluster bonding.  It is apparent from the numerous studies that D(0) is in a 
stationary state, since otherwise the bond distance 
would vary strongly in the experiments.  That D(0) is in a stationary state 
means that the applicable Heisenberg uncertainty 
relation is (Delta E)(Delta t) >= h-bar/2, with Delta t large (at least seconds 
- weeks [34]) and thus Delta E small. Thus, there is 
no fundamental quantum mechanical effect which prevents the formation of stable 
D(0) with its 2.3 pm bond distances.

[1] Holmlid L. Excitation levels in ultra-dense hydrogen p(
1) and d(
1) 
clusters: structure of spin-based Rydberg Matter. Int J 
Mass Spectrom 2013;352:1-8.
[5] Holmlid L. Experimental studies and observations of clusters of Rydberg 
matter and its extreme forms. J Clust Sci 2012;23:5-34.
[34] Badiei S, Andersson PU, Holmlid L. Production of ultra-dense deuterium, a 
compact future fusion fuel. Appl Phys Lett 
2010;96:124103.

Mark Jurich 

Re: [Vo]:An Argument for a 2.3 pm Inter-nuclear Distance in D(0) (latest Holmlid-Olafsson paper)

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

In order to facilitate the discussion and allow those viewing via the Vortex-L 
Mail Archive Site, here is an image of the typeset 
paragraphs from the paper:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8JYGNuoJRzFWFNnaVhjY0VRZVU/view

From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:13 PM
To: Vortex-L
Subject: [Vo]:An Argument for a 2.3 pm Inter-nuclear Distance in D(0) (latest 
Holmlid-Olafsson paper)

A recent paper (article in press) has appeared (about a month ago?), submitted 
just before the Olafsson talks in the SF Bay Area, a 
couple months ago:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319915304687

In it, the authors attempt to address an argument posed by some that an 
Inter-nuclear Distance of 2.3 pm in D(0) is unphysical, and 
I thought I would open this up to comment/debate on Vortex-L (section of paper 
reproduced as best as possible, below):

   Contrary to expectation, the argument that the measured short distances in 
D(0) (in general H(0)) are unphysical is sometimes 
met.  The basic idea behind this argument appears to be that the inter-nuclear 
Coulomb repulsion would prevent the clusters to reach 
such small inter-nuclear distances.  Amazingly, the same argument is also put 
forward for the electrons, which are said to repel 
each other strongly.  In Ref. [1] these points are already answered: “A pair 
D-D or p-p contains two electrons and two ions.  No 
inner electrons of course exist for hydrogen, and thus the ions are bare 
protons or deuterons, of very small size relative to the pm 
sized interparticle distances.  The pair-wise interactions between the four 
particles, with the interaction distances of similar 
size, are two repulsive terms (++ and --

) and four attractive terms (+-
).  
Thus, such a pair increases its stability with shorter 
distance scale as 1/r.  At a typical inter-particle distance of 2.3 pm, the 
total electrostatic energy is of the order of 
1 keV 
thus a bound state.  With different spin states for the two electrons, they may 
fill the same space and one of the repulsive terms 
(

--) disappears effectively.  Thus, the stability of a pair of atoms in the 
ultra-dense form is increased by different electron 
spin states.”  Of course, the bound state energy of 
1 keV is directly 
calculable from the Coulomb energy terms.

   To clear the thinking, consider that each positive nuclei in the D-D pair is 
closer to its electron, thus giving two almost 
neutral entities.  In that case, there are no repulsive forces of importance at 
all, and the system can be shrunk at will, always 
keeping the attractive (+-) distances smaller than the repulsive distances.  
This means that there is no electrostatic problem to 
form a D-D pair of pm size.  Such a D-D pair can shrink transiently almost 
indefinitely to a neutral particle of nuclear size. 
Since the deuterons are bosons, and the electrons which are fermions pair with 
different spins in the same volume, there is neither 
any quantum mechanical effects which prevent the formation of a pair D-D in 
D(0).  It must be remembered that the D(0) material is 
not a plasma but a condensed material formed by pairs D-D attached together in 
chain clusters [1].  Such clusters have the form D 
subscript(2N) with the D-D pairs rotating around the central axis of the 
cluster [5].  A related problem is the nature of the 
cluster bonding.  It is apparent from the numerous studies that D(0) is in a 
stationary state, since otherwise the bond distance 
would vary strongly in the experiments.  That D(0) is in a stationary state 
means that the applicable Heisenberg uncertainty 
relation is (Delta E)(Delta t) >= h-bar/2, with Delta t large (at least seconds 
- weeks [34]) and thus Delta E small. Thus, there is 
no fundamental quantum mechanical effect which prevents the formation of stable 
D(0) with its 2.3 pm bond distances.

[1] Holmlid L. Excitation levels in ultra-dense hydrogen p(
1) and d(
1) 
clusters: structure of spin-based Rydberg Matter. Int J 
Mass Spectrom 2013;352:1-8.
[5] Holmlid L. Experimental studies and observations of clusters of Rydberg 
matter and its extreme forms. J Clust Sci 2012;23:5-34.
[34] Badiei S, Andersson PU, Holmlid L. Production of ultra-dense deuterium, a 
compact future fusion fuel. Appl Phys Lett 
2010;96:124103.

Mark Jurich 

[Vo]:[OT]: Toward a More Scientifically Literate Public

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

I think this opinion is crying out for a well written and thought out response.  Are you up to the task?  Not sure if replies get 
posted or they are just submitted to the web master:


http://today.ucf.edu/toward-a-more-scientifically-literate-public/ 

[Vo]:Heating Mechanism Could Make Materials Hotter Than Sun: How This Could Impact Energy Production

[Mark Jurich]

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/107119/20151118/heating-mechanism-could-make-materials-hotter-than-sun-how-this-could-impact-energy-production.htm

Ultrafast collisional ion heating by electrostatic shocks:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151113/ncomms9905/full/ncomms9905.html
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151113/ncomms9905/pdf/ncomms9905.pdf 

[Vo]:YAAOCF (Yet Another Article On Cold Fusion)

[Mark Jurich]

http://fcnp.com/2015/11/10/the-peak-oil-crisis-the-next-keystone-debate/

Re: [Vo]:Check this out - Nature 1999

[Mark Jurich]

Check this out - Nature 1999FYI:

Just in passing, I would like to note (to others, at least) that this Nature 
Paper is Reference [4] in Holmlid’s 2014 Paper:

Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(−1) as the Cause of Instabilities in Laser 
Compression-Based Nuclear Fusion
http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf

and that I don’t believe the term “Ultra-dense Hydrogen” or the material itself 
(as Holmlid characterizes it) was 
understood/identified back in 1999 when the Nature Paper came out.

Mark Jurich


From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 7:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Check this out - Nature 1999

This is from the journal Nature in 1999 – and it reads like “déjà vu all over 
again”… since it was done with a table top laser and 
clusters of deuterium - but is hot fusion on a small scale – ICF … and way 
ahead of its time … since it is also very much like 
Holmlid’s claims, with one notable difference …

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6727/abs/398489a0.html

… one of the authors, Ken Wharton was present at the Ólafsson SRI colloquium 
and indicated that he had not been successful making 
the dense deuterium, but it is really only that one “detail” which ties 
everything together into a game changer technology.

Which is to say that LENR and ICF hot fusion are so very close to becoming a 
hybrid, and now we see that they have been close since 
1999 – such that a hybrid with LENR, using even lower energy - will be readily 
accepted by the mainstream (after all this is 
Nature) … if and when … the dense deuterium for ICF targets is replicated.

Everything else is in place… essentially.

It is mind boggling, in a way that the wording of the 1999 Letter is so similar…

[Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

[Mark Jurich]

I wrote:

  please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper:
  http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf
  [along with other stuff including an explanation of the figure]

to which Dave replied:

   I assume that any significant energy release must be due to true fusion 
since the potential energy of both states(H(1) or H(0)) 
are comparable.   Is there some other source of energy release contemplated?  
Does it not seem strange that an effect as significant 
as this one remained hidden from physicists for so long?  I remain skeptical 
since it appears to be too good to be true.  And, the 
extreme density of this compressed hydrogen should have revealed itself.
Dave, these are very good questions.  What do you mean by “true fusion”?  I 
assume you mean hot fusion but I may be wrong.  Even 
that term means different things to different people.  In this particular case, 
I would say that it is unconventional hot fusion, 
since particles such as muons/mesons are apparently seen coming from the 
material (which is yet another (related) topic to debate in 
itself).
With respect to some other source of energy release ... Sure, perhaps with the 
“right” ingredients, LENR (i.e., non-hot fusion) may 
occur, if that’s what you are addressing here.
Yes, it’s very strange that an apparent effect as significant as this seems to 
be “hidden” and I’m not aware (at this time) of any 
good arguments opposing it, other than the usual things like, “this isn’t a 
real scientist” and “if it isn’t published in PRL, it’s 
not worth looking into”.  Are you aware of any data/experiments that refute 
this?  I’d love to see/hear them...
I believe I am as skeptical as you are.  I am open to trying to understand what 
is happening, as I am sure you are...
It is my understanding that milligrams of this “stuff” may be possible to 
create.  Perhaps shining a variable frequency probe laser 
or X-Rays into it may reveal something, I don’t know.  Do you have an ideas how 
we can  possibly prove that it’s happening, 
density-wise?
Please take a look at what looks like Leif’s reply to something along the lines 
of your questions, recently (search in the comments 
for “Leif Holmlid”):
http://hackaday.com/2015/10/05/deuterium-powered-homes-and-the-return-of-cold-fusion-hype/
Let us know what you think!
- Mark
 

[Vo]: Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

[Mark Jurich]

Bob Cook wrote:
Holmlid does not refer to normal molecular hydrogen as H(0) as best I can tell 
from reading his paper.  I would think that normal 
molecular hydrogen could have more than one orbital spin state for its two 
electrons.  Thus, a notation of H(0) would not be correct 
for some normal hydrogen.
Please take a look (for example) at:
Nuclear particle decay in a multi-MeV beam ejected by pulsed-laser impact on 
ultra-dense hydrogen H(0)
Leif Holmlid
International Journal of Modern Physics E, 24:11 (2015) 1550080 (18 pages)
>From the paper:
“Two different forms of ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) exist, namely ultra-dense 
protium
p(0)1 and ultra-dense deuterium D(0).2,3 The names of these materials have
recently been changed from p(−1) and D(−1) to indicate that the orbital angular
momentum of the electrons is zero.3”

Mark Jurich
 

[Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

All, please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper:

http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf

I think it will help explain how Holmlid had viewed/grasped the energy levels 
back in early 2014.  Also keep in mind that H(-1) is 
now called H(0).  It was thought that the apparent Ultra-dense state was 
Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen (IRH, hence the “-1”), but now 
this state is seen as somewhat different. The “0” reflects that the orbital 
angular momentum of the electrons is zero.  The picture 
in Fig 1 may need some modification to take into account the various apparent 
spin states of H(0).  Winterberg’s earlier description 
has slightly fallen out of favor in regards to more recent data, but I am not 
sure what the latest findings suggest.  Reading more 
of literature should help clear up the current understanding of H(0).

Mark Jurich 

[Vo]:Re: Colloquium at SRI

[Mark Jurich]

Here are the slides for Sveinn’s presentation, courtesy of Sveinn:

http://tempid.altervista.org/SRI.pdf

Bob Greenyer or some one: Please create a mirror and provide the link (via 
QuantumHeat.Org), as some may not be able to DownLoad 
from this site, easily.

Thanks,
Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Re: Colloquium at SRI

[Mark Jurich]

Hi Bob (All):

I can answer some of your questions now, but we are going to be continuing 
discussions of the talks at San Jose State University 
in an open discussion headed by Ken Wharton in the Science Building at 10:30 AM 
today (Friday) ... I will make sure all your 
questions are addressed as well as others.  Due to lack of time, I cannot 
respond properly at the moment, but will do so soon.

Thanks,
Mark Jurich

From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?
  a.. That a dense hydrogen layer could form at all at room temperatures- and 
with a catalyst that is not even on the surface?  So 
these catalyzed hydrogen atoms travel from the catalyst body to the receptor 
surface in some magic form that doesn't change en route 
despite many molecular collisions and arrive able to form this magic layer.
  a.. That the dense hydrogen layer could be so stable that it would accumulate 
over weeks?  Ed Storms suggested that if metallic 
hydrogen formed it would fuse immediately.  Holmlid's dense hydrogen sounds an 
awful lot like a layer of metallic hydrogen.  What he 
describes may be even more dense than metallic hydrogen.
  a.. That a laser could induce a disintegration of a deuterium nucleus into 
sub-nucleonic matter?  That sound like a magic feather 
being able to move a mountain.
  a.. That such a Rydberg assemblage of deuterons could survive even a single 
energetic event without being completely disrupted 
back into gas.
While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these nervous 
concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a 
patho-skeptic.


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> 
wrote:

  Thank a lot Jones Beene for this great and interesting report.

  If Holmlid process was some how creating dense material that enhanced the 
Stella type proton proton chain reaction, from deuteron 
proton reactions onwards that would already be amazing. That nucleons may 
actually disintegrate is nothing short of astonishing! Is 
this what they are actually saying? Did they really observe such huge amounts 
of energy?

  900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and proton (938 
MeV), Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus!

  When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this:

  1) Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to Pions to 
Muons to electrons and neutrinos and gamma? If so could 
it be the just the Neutron or Proton or either one that can disintegrate?

  2) Did they imply this came the disintegration of both nucleons to Pions i.e 
(939 MeV + 938 MeV) - (6 * 139 MeV). If so even more 
energy would be released as the pions decay to muons and eventually 
Electron/Proton and neutrinos or gamma?

  3) Did they imply something else.

  Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release in one 
reaction almost up there with matter antimatter 
annihilation.



--
  From: jone...@pacbell.net
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:16:42 -0700
  Subject: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI


  Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key and 
optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. 
Alan Goldwater also presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of 
Rossi/Parkhomov. At first glance, there would appear 
to be no connection between the two … but read on.

  Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon and 
Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 
and before. However, most of the proof is by process of elimination. This will 
be even more controversial than cold fusion until 
proven. Again, what was demonstrated is NOT cold fusion and not really hot 
fusion either. Copious amounts of radiation would 
expected in such a laser driven reaction when it gets up to the kilowatt level 
of thermal gain. Now it is subwatt.

  However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which 
is dense deuterium clusters) could explain P cold 
fusion, and explain the lack of radiation in circumstances where a laser does 
not disintegrate the reactant. IOW, there can be a 
range of circumstances– all involving dense deuterium bound at a few picometers 
separation - where other outcomes are expected: 
other than disintegration to mesons -> pions -> muons etc. With the laser as 
the input power, when a deuteron disintegrates in a 
laser pulse, over 900 MeV or ~ 40 times MORE energy is released than in fusion !

  There were about 35 people in attendance including  a few heavy hitters who 
prefer not to be identified. The venue is a stone’s 
throw from Sand Hill Road. A video crew filmed the whole thing. Holmlid 
apparently wants to call the phenomenon “Cold Spallation” 
but I think that is 

[Vo]:Hadronic (Exotic) Atoms

[Mark Jurich]

With the lifetime of charged pions being approximately 26 nanoseconds (recall that the speed of light is approx. 1 foot / 
nanosecond), there is still a "workable" amount of time using them to do "chemistry."


Here are some useful online papers/references to Hadronic Atoms, namely Pionic Hydrogen/Deuterium (in addition to those already 
uncovered by others, here):


http://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.3965.pdf
http://www.radiochem.org/paper/JN11/j011Shinohara.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947497004661
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/cssm/workshops/60-fest-talks/Phillips.pdf

- Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Ólafsson (Goldwater) LENR Public Talk in the San Francisco Bay Area, Thursday, Oct 22, 10:30 AM - Topics: Muons, Ultra-dense Hydrogen (MFMP)

[Mark Jurich]

Public Announcement

 On Thursday, October 22nd, 2015 (10:30 AM PDT), Sveinn Ólafsson of the Science
Institute,  Physics Department,  University of Iceland will present a  40 minute
seminar/colloquium at SRI International  (SRI, founded as Stanford Research  In-
stitute) in Menlo Park, California entitled, "Ultra-dense Hydrogen and Low Ener-
gy Nuclear Reactions"  (LENR),  representing research he has conducted with Leif
Holmlid  from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.  The talk will be geared to-
wards a  scientific/technical audience  but Sveinn will make every effort to ad-
dress those that have little or no previous knowledge of Muon/Particle Detection
and Ultra-dense Hydrogen. For about 10 minutes after Sveinn’s presentation, Alan
Goldwater representing the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project  (MFMP, headed by
Bob Greenyer), will present experimental work/techniques being conducted  on re-
producing/replicating results obtained from  researchers such as Andrea Rossi  &
Alexander Parkhomov. The final  10 minutes of the 1 hour colloquium will be open
to asking questions.

 Although there is no  direct evidence at this time that  Ultra-dense Hydrogen/
Materials are responsible for the  replication attempts being conducted by MFMP,
the project  is closely considering  these possible materials  in their  ongoing
open-ended research,  as a cause of anomalous heat in replicating  those experi-
ments,  amongst other explanations.  So far, there is no conclusive  evidence of
anomalous heat by MFMP.

 Originally,  these talks were  planned to be held  at  IBM's Almaden  Research
Center in San Jose, CA hosted by myself,  but a change in venue has occurred and
Fran Tanzella  at SRI International  has graciously accepted  hosting the  talks
there.

 If you  would like to attend the colloquium,  Fran says the conference room is
available  directly from a parking  lot outside the SRI  fenced area.  Since the
conference room holds ~75 people we don’t think space will be an issue,  however
if you e-mail  me with your name/etc., I will eventually pass on a list of names
of attendees  (responding back to you) to Fran.  An arrival time of around 10 AM
should be appropriate.  Here is a Google Maps link  (870 Laurel St., Menlo Park)
at the entrance to SRI’s Building G parking lot:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/870+Laurel+St,+Menlo+Park,+CA+94025/@37.4552459,-122.176274,18z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x808fa4ad8270a115:0xcff2fac60e770ffe

 Attendees should NOT come to either the front desk (333 Ravenswood Ave) or the
employee entrance.  If there is no parking in the Building G  parking lot, there
usually is some across the street at the Menlo Park city parking lot.

 Here are identical links to the  actual SRI International Announcement  of the
CML Seminar  (Room G-124)  that has been posted locally  (courtesy of Fran & at-
tached to the end of this document in PDF Form):

http://WWW.MagicSound.US/Seminar_-_Olafsson_SRI.pdf

  http://tempid.altervista.org/Seminar_-_Olafsson_SRI.pdf

FYI:

 Sveinn will be presenting his research (which he has collaborated on with Leif
Holmlid),  on October 20th, in a 20 minute talk,  at the American Vacuum Society
Society (AVS) Meeting, San Jose Convention Center, in San Jose,  California.  It
is my understanding that he will also be attending the 2015  Fall Meeting of the
APS Division of Nuclear Physics in Santa Fe, NM from Oct 28th-31st.

 Alan will most  likely discuss  current/future experiments  to be conducted by
MFMP during  later conversations.  The  next planned GlowStick Run  is scheduled
shortly after these talks in Santa Cruz,  and will be broadcast live (as always,
along with data)  on the Internet.  Before this next major experiment, a "shake-
out run"  may be performed live.  Stay tuned to the MFMP  Web Pages for more de-
tails, exactly when!

Mark Jurich  jur...@hotmail.com 20151013

   The latest revisions (if any) of this documant are at (identical links):

   http://WWW.MagicSound.US/SRI_Seminar_Olafsson__Public_Announcement_.pdf

 http://tempid.altervista.org/SRI_Seminar_Olafsson__Public_Announcement_.pdf


Ultra-dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
Sveinn Ólafsson, Science Institute, Physics Department, University of Iceland
   L. Holmlid, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

For over  the last 25 years the science of cold fusion/LENR  has been researched
around the world with a slow pace of progress.  Modest quantities of excess heat
and  signatures of nuclear  transmutation and helium production  have been  con-
firmed in experiments and  theoretical work has resulted in a  flora of possible
theoretical scenarios. [1-2]

Here we present  energy production in  several stages of surface  processes that
result first in the formation of  Rydberg matter of Hydrogen  [3] that can later
condense in a new  ultra-dense Hydrogen p

[Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

Here's a movie of a Proton-Proton Collision Event, eventually resulting in 4 
Muons (Actual Event, but the movie is a simulation, of course) seen in the 
ATLAS Detector.  Unfortunately I could not easily find one with CMS. 
Perhaps someone will and all the future Hate Mail will stop!


Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:07:03 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

Let me try to be more specific on this point:

Ø

Ø  Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough (as 
at CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not 
absolutely mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of 
some kind of cross-identity... The reason there are 4 instead of 9 may 
relate to antimuon annihilation.




Here is a reference from CERN on the Higgs boson process in which protons 
are collided at high energy to form muons.




http://home.web.cern.ch/images/2014/01/higgs-boson-decay-four-muons


Note that according to the caption under the picture this is a simulation. 
If I
understand the meaning of the word correctly, then it's a mathematical model 
of
what they think would happen based on the standard model. Hence none of us 
can

use it as evidence for anything.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Mark Jurich]

http://www.atlas.ch/multimedia/4-muon-event.html

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

FYI:

Here's a movie of a Proton-Proton Collision Event, eventually resulting in 4
Muons (Actual Event, but the movie is a simulation, of course) seen in the
ATLAS Detector.  Unfortunately I could not easily find one with CMS.
Perhaps someone will and all the future Hate Mail will stop!

Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:07:03 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

Let me try to be more specific on this point:

Ø

Ø  Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough (as 
at CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not 
absolutely mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of 
some kind of cross-identity... The reason there are 4 instead of 9 may 
relate to antimuon annihilation.




Here is a reference from CERN on the Higgs boson process in which protons 
are collided at high energy to form muons.




http://home.web.cern.ch/images/2014/01/higgs-boson-decay-four-muons


Note that according to the caption under the picture this is a simulation.
If I
understand the meaning of the word correctly, then it's a mathematical model
of
what they think would happen based on the standard model. Hence none of us
can
use it as evidence for anything.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Mark Jurich]

... And here's a ZZ --> 4 Muons CMS [Candidate] Event:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/1378103?ln=en

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

http://www.atlas.ch/multimedia/4-muon-event.html

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

FYI:

Here's a movie of a Proton-Proton Collision Event, eventually resulting in 4
Muons (Actual Event, but the movie is a simulation, of course) seen in the
ATLAS Detector.  Unfortunately I could not easily find one with CMS.
Perhaps someone will and all the future Hate Mail will stop!

Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:07:03 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

Let me try to be more specific on this point:

Ø

Ø  Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough (as 
at CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not 
absolutely mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of 
some kind of cross-identity... The reason there are 4 instead of 9 may 
relate to antimuon annihilation.




Here is a reference from CERN on the Higgs boson process in which protons 
are collided at high energy to form muons.




http://home.web.cern.ch/images/2014/01/higgs-boson-decay-four-muons


Note that according to the caption under the picture this is a simulation.
If I
understand the meaning of the word correctly, then it's a mathematical model
of
what they think would happen based on the standard model. Hence none of us
can
use it as evidence for anything.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Mark Jurich]

RE: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri LabBob Cook wrote:

 |  The bigger question is how did Rossi get enriched Ni fuel in the first 
place.  Who produces such a commodity?
Not sure I can dig up a reference in time before I head out a bit, but Rossi 
did mention that he/Focardi? came up with a rather inexpensive way to lightly 
enrich, which he never disclosed.  I am sure that while I’m away, someone else 
will chime in with this.  If not, I will try to dig up where I read it.
- Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Re: Bob Greenyer's thoughts on what the "cat" and "mouse" are

[Mark Jurich]

Axil Axil wrote:

 |  A muon track could look like a proton track in a cloud chamber.
 |  How can you tell the difference?

One can tell the difference by observing the Track Density and Curvature in a 
known, Large Magnetic Field, especially near the end of the track.  

| We can use a magnetic field to see which way the particle bends,
| either positive for the proton or negative for the muon. I don't think
| that Piantelli has proved the the particle he is seeing is a proton. It
| could be any number of other subatomic particle types including mesons.

Basically a cloud chamber can directly detect [anti-]protons, 
electrons/positrons, alpha particles, muons, and to a degree, mesons (i.e., any 
particle that is “charged”).  For example, mesons are normally detected in a 
cloud chamber, by what happens when they penetrate thin Pb, Fe and Al Foils.

  Sure, Piantelli could have made a mistake, but I find that difficult to 
imagine.  Of course he should supply further proof than just which way a cloud 
chamber track bends, if that is indeed his only evidence.

- Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:The SPP as black holes and Dark Matter

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

The actual paper that this article is based on, is here:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150827/ncomms9069/pdf/ncomms9069.pdf

Mark Jurich

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:13 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: [Vo]:The SPP as black holes and Dark Matter

Science has discovered how the movement of electrons inside of EMF soliton can 
produce a dark mode that is an effective EMF black hole. The absence of 
radiation is the result of the current being divided between two different 
components, a conventional electric dipole (this is the plasmon in the SPP) and 
a toroidal dipole (this is the polariton in a SPP) (associated with poloidal 
current configuration), which produce identical fields at a distance.

https://38.media.tumblr.com/122c3dc97f96e686d79f47c56f370d5e/tumblr_mmfvja84Kd1r25psio1_500.gif

If these two configurations are out of phase then the radiation will be 
cancelled out, even though the electromagnetic fields are non-zero in the area 
close to the currents.

This also expains how SPPs are dark matter.





Read more at: 
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-theory-radiationless-revolution.html#jCp 

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR question (one) and info- for Aug. 17, 2015

[Mark Jurich]

FYI: Not sure where the included paper is, but I believe this is it:

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/25/10062.full.pdf?with-ds=yes [1]

[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/108/25/10062.full

Mark Jurich

From: Bob Cook 
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 5:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: LENR question (one) and info- for Aug. 17, 2015

The link below includes a paper regarding superatoms of Fe and 8 Mg atoms.  It 
acts magnetically like Fe but has an electronic structure that can have various 
spin states of electrons spaced throughout the superatom’s electronic 
structure.  Such A feature may allow spin coupling with nuclear spin states in 
resonant RF conditions and a B field.

http://www.news.vcu.edu/article/Researchers_Discover_Superatoms_with_Magnetic_Shells

Bob Cook


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 7:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: LENR question (one) and info- for Aug. 17, 2015

Bob - There are some exceptional recent papers on superatomic nickel as a 
molecular catalyst. It could be a huge breakthrough in LENR if there is a 
cross-connection to its catalytic properties and its ability to densify 
hydrogen. 

 

The structure is intriguing in the context of fractional hydrogen, since both 
Ni and O are Mills catalysts, but – in contrast to normal nickel oxides, there 
could be a major advantage in the superatomic spacing which is completely 
different from the natural oxides. 

 

Surprisingly (since nickel is hexavalent) there are only two main natural 
varieties of nickel oxide: Nickel(II) oxide, NiO, green in color and 
Nickel(III) oxide, Ni2O3, which is black. 

 

Nickel Dioxide, NiO2 is rarer in nature as is the tetroxide NiO4. 
Nickelo-nickelic Oxide is the chemical name of Ni3O4. 

 

I am wondering if one could take Ni2O3 along with nickel powder and grind in 
high speed ball mill for an extended time to arrive at a decent percentage of 
the superatomic version?

 

From: Bob Cook 

 

The superatoms of Ni and O may many have inner shell electrons that are 
captured more easily (electron capture) than happens with regular Ni atoms.  It 
would be nice to know, if the superatoms that are like Pd have the same ability 
to absorb H or D and to confine them in a lattice structure better suited to a 
fusion or other nuclear reaction involving mass energy transition to phonic 
energy.

 

I wonder what the magnetic properties of the superatoms are?

 

Bob Cook

 

From: Bob Cook 

Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 5:31 PM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: [Vo]:Re: LENR question (one) and info- for Aug. 17, 2015

 

Hafnium is refined with Zr from ocean sands, I think.  It has been used as 
reactor control rod with a large cross section for neutrons.  I do not think it 
is too expensive.

 

Bob ook

 

From: Jones Beene 

Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 3:05 PM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR question (one) and info- for Aug. 17, 2015

 

It wasn’t mentioned, but recently Rossi has been claiming to see anomalous heat 
from nickel  - at higher temperature than the melting point of nickel – say in 
the range of 1500 C.

 

If this is found to be true, then it could be evidence of superatomic nickel, 
which has the formula of Ni2O2 – as opposed to NiO or NiO2. Rossi may have 
formed superatomic nickel inadvertently, since he does not mention that this 
was deliberate. In fact he doesn’t mention superatomic at all. Nickel powder is 
known to oxidize in contact with alumina, so in addition to some of it melting 
at 1500C, some of it would oxidize. The superatom thus could from in situ.

 

The reason for the superatom formula being Ni2O2 instead of NiO is in the Wiki 
entry. And it is worth noting that the normal oxide of nickel has a melting 
point which is a whopping 500 degrees C higher than the metal, so this fits the 
circumstances. BTW – the Russians are laying claim to the nickel superatom, as 
well (not sure if Peter mentioned this):

 

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/russian-scientists-discover-new-kind-superatomic-nickel-1450987

 

I cannot find a reference for the m.p. of the nickel superatom, but it is 
probably in the range of 2000C like the other oxides – so yes, Rossi could be 
right for the wrong reason… in that he thinks the catalyst is still only nickel 
which has melted - when instead the active part is the nickel superatom Ni2O2 
which by the way, mimics hafnium.

 

Hafnium has been called a “supercatalyst” but is toxic and extremely expensive. 
It is mentioned in several LENR patents including that of the German mystery 
company PURRATIO AG.

 

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

Why do these compounds work as a LENR catalysts?

 

http://www.pnnl.gov/science/highlights/highlight.asp?id=803

 

Superatoms are clusters of atoms that mimic elements through isoelectric 
configurations of their valence electrons. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superatom

 

Element replacements

 

Titanium monoxide (TiO) = nickel

 

Zirconium

[Vo]:Re: The appearance of muons are explained by SPP theory.

[Mark Jurich]

RE: [Vo]:Re: The appearance of muons are explained by SPP theory.Yes, it does 
Jones.  I think what is happening, is that a substantial number of muons are 
starting to decay (about 5-6 GeV, 2.2 us half life, but relativistic, and Earth 
frame of reference), unloading/depositing the bulk of their energy in the 
covered levels of the Parking Garage, or after 3 blocks/plates of lead 
thickness or so.  It’s not good to be under the first several tiers (less than 
about a meter or two of concrete) of a Parking Garage as far as cosmic muons, 
go.  If you’re on top of the garage, the number of muons decaying in you 
(depositing damaging radiation), will be less than the impeded muons by 
moderate amounts of concrete ... Of course if the amount of concrete is 
substantial, then the brunt of muons will have decayed away.  If you check out 
the thesis/reference I placed at the bottom, you will see in the simulations 
based mainly on the Bethe-Bloch Equation (for radiation stopping power of heavy 
particles like muons) etc., that radiation dose increases with small amounts of 
concrete above the human body.

Another interesting factoid from the thesis: Outside, your stomach (torso) area 
takes the most radiation dosage from vertically-delivered cosmic muons... ugh...

... As far as densities go, the whole Earth atmosphere is about equal to 10 
meters of water (Human Body?), 2 m of Rock (Concrete?) or 0.9 m of Lead. Recall 
that the speed of light in vacuum is about 1 foot per nanosecond.  That’s about 
all ya need (besides the stuff mentioned above) to crunch it all out, roughly...

http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013context=phy_astr_diss

- Mark Jurich
From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 3:21 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: The appearance of muons are explained by SPP theory.

From: Mark Jurich 

 

One of the references below, demonstrates what happens when you let some Purdue 
Students loose in/on a Concrete Parking Garage.  

 

Mark, this reference agrees to some extent with the earlier one (with lead 
plates to absorb muons, or not). 

 

Quote: “It was expected that the count rate would be highest on the rooftop 
when there was no obstruction between the sky and the detector; however, it was 
measured to be significantly lower...”  

 

Go figure…

 

[Vo]:Re: The appearance of muons are explained by SPP theory.

[Mark Jurich]

RE: [Vo]:Re: The appearance of muons are explained by SPP theory.From: Jones 
Beene 
||   From: Bob Cook 

||   Muons appear in Cosmic rays AFAIK.  They must be relativistic to exist 
as long as it take to travel from the Sun to Earth, given their low energy 
decay rate at non-relativist energies.  Cosmic ray muons would be even more 
relativistic with longer apparent lifetimes. 



| Muons are actually made in Earth’s atmosphere from Cosmic ray impact with 
air. They aren’t coming from the Sun. 

| Wiki sez: About 10,000 muons reach every square meter of the earth's surface 
a minute; these charged particles form as by-products of cosmic rays colliding 
with molecules in the upper atmosphere. Traveling at relativistic speeds, muons 
can penetrate tens of meters into rocks and other matter before attenuating as 
a result of absorption or deflection by other atoms.[5]




I would further like to add that the majority of Cosmic Rays (somewhat a 
misnomer since the term mainly represents High Energy Particles, approx. 89% of 
which are protons) are believed to originate outside our Solar System (from 
supernovae).

Here’s a nice description regarding Cosmic Ray Muons – 
http://uncw.edu/phy/documents/CosmicRayMuons.pdf

- Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Re: The appearance of muons are explained by SPP theory.

[Mark Jurich]

RE: [Vo]:Re: The appearance of muons are explained by SPP theory.Hi Bob/All:

Not sure what the questions are, but here are some thoughts/info...

Muon ionization occurs as it passes through matter/tissue.  The degree of 
ionization will (amongst many factors) depend on muon energy.  Your/my bodies 
are amazing at compensating for defects caused by radiation...

From the following references, Terrestrial Muons are about 4 GeV.  One of the 
references below, demonstrates what happens when you let some Purdue Students 
loose in/on a Concrete Parking Garage.  Yet another is a patent for Muon 
Particle Therapy.  These should lead to further interesting 
conversations/obfuscations, to which I will join you all in a few hours, after 
I finish playing some soccer  :

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2022
http://www2.fisica.unlp.edu.ar/~veiga/experiments.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html
http://www.i2u2.org/elab/cosmic/posters/display.jsp?name=purdue_parking_garage_project.data
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168583X12002911
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_therapy
http://www.google.com/patents/US6705984

- Mark Jurich


From: Bob Cook 
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 1:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: The appearance of muons are explained by SPP theory.

Mark--

Per your reference I note the following:

The reference suggests to me that normal shielding of a mass should stop muons, 
their reactions being primarily, ionization and Brehmsstralung.   I think even 
6 GEV protons are stopped by less than ten’s of meters of rocks per the wiki 
reference---???

Bob Cook  

From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 1:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: The appearance of muons are explained by SPP theory.

From: Jones Beene 
||   From: Bob Cook 

||   Muons appear in Cosmic rays AFAIK.  They must be relativistic to exist 
as long as it take to travel from the Sun to Earth, given their low energy 
decay rate at non-relativist energies.  Cosmic ray muons would be even more 
relativistic with longer apparent lifetimes. 



| Muons are actually made in Earth’s atmosphere from Cosmic ray impact with 
air. They aren’t coming from the Sun. 

| Wiki sez: About 10,000 muons reach every square meter of the earth's surface 
a minute; these charged particles form as by-products of cosmic rays colliding 
with molecules in the upper atmosphere. Traveling at relativistic speeds, muons 
can penetrate tens of meters into rocks and other matter before attenuating as 
a result of absorption or deflection by other atoms.[5]




I would further like to add that the majority of Cosmic Rays (somewhat a 
misnomer since the term mainly represents High Energy Particles, approx. 89% of 
which are protons) are believed to originate outside our Solar System (from 
supernovae).

Here’s a nice description regarding Cosmic Ray Muons – 
http://uncw.edu/phy/documents/CosmicRayMuons.pdf

- Mark Jurich

[Vo]:CIHT POWER SYSTEM (US20150171455A1, Publication Date: 06/18/2015, File Date: 05/21/2013, Mills)

[Mark Jurich]

FYI: This showed up on a web search today:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20150171455.pdf

Re: [Vo]:MFMP has presented the strongest evidence of excess heat due to LENR so far

[Mark Jurich]

Hi Alberto:

   Great job on the plotting.  I am going to refrain commenting about excess 
heat at this time, but I have a few suggestions/comments:

1) It is my understanding that the Coil Resistance is 8.5 ohms cold (Room 
Temperature) and the largest value I heard Alan mention during the experiment 
was 9.1 ohms.  At this point, I would assume a linear relationship with 
temperature of the Coil Resistance, and using the two data points given (9.1 
ohm at the maximum obtained temperature), replot the power curve taking into 
account the Coil Resistance Variation.

2) Annotate the two “Y” Axis (Left/Right) as Temperature [C] and Power [W].

3) Compute/Estimate the Heat Capacity of the Null Reactor/Cell and the Fueled 
Cell, and divide the two.  This will give us an idea how large the Cells are 
off from each other.  The Null Cell has the same pressure as the Fueled Cell, 
but is “filled” with an Alumina Plug with a “Press Fit”.  The Fueled Cell has 
Nickel and much more Hydrogen Gas by Volume than the Null Cell.  Hydrogen Gas 
has a Heat Capacity Value, itself.  Those are the differences in Heat Capacity 
and Thermal Mass.  You can start with a Heat Capacity of an Alumina Cylinder 
and Kanthal Heater Coil of given diameter (sorry, I don’t recall the diameter 
off the top of my head).  There is a rather nice drawing Alan made with the 
dimensions.  If you need some help, post and I am sure we will help out where 
we can.

Also, unfortunately Heat Capacity is a function of temperature and we will have 
to dig up some data on that, to make a better estimate.

Thanks and keep up the good work!

- Mark


From: Alberto De Souza 
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 8:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:MFMP has presented the strongest evidence of excess heat due to 
LENR so far

In the graph attached, I have plotted data made public by the MFMP. The graph 
shows the temperature in a (null hypothesis) empty reactor (that was run in 
series with a loaded reactor), the temperature of the loaded reactor, and the 
power applied to both; both reactors were heated by the resistances of the same 
value. The three variables were plotted according to a moving average of 1000 
samples. The power was computed by squaring the voltage and dividing it by 8.6 
(the resistance of the heater). As the graph shows, there is strong evidence of 
excess heat - the power applied to the system reduces, but the active reactor 
increases its temperature. IMHO, this experiment is the best proof of excess 
heat due to LENR so far.


Alberto.


ps. link to graph: 
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=914302228591022set=p.914302228591022type=1

Re: [Vo]:Re: Parkhomov Ash Analysis Discussion - Preliminary

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

Since I didn’t want to taint the Parkhomov Spreadsheet I made without 
additions, I created a new one and included Wikipedia and Oct ‘14 Lugano 
Analysis:

http://tinyurl.com/nz4gjdh

Mark Jurich


From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 2:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Parkhomov Ash Analysis Discussion - Preliminary

FYI: Typo Fixed (30.1 – 30.9 in Natural State 65Cu Cell)

From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 1:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov Ash Analysis Discussion - Preliminary

FYI:

Here is a link to the latest updated Elemental  Isotope Analysis in
Excel XLSX SpreadSheet (Sheets 1  2) Format:

http://tinyurl.com/lcnudcv

Mark Jurich

From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:02 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Parkhomov Ash Analysis Discussion - Preliminary

As many of you know, some preliminary Elemental Analysis (SIMS?)
and ICP-MS of Parkhomov Ash/Fuel were released during ICCF-19 in
Padua, Italy. At the FaceBook MFMP Site, some pictures of the analysis
were taken and posted:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/21/mfmp-publishes-parkhomovs-fuel-analysis-video-of-parkhomov-discussion/

From the Elemental Analysis, it roughly looks like Ni is lost with a 
gain in Cu, but we all know how careful one has to be analyzing this.
Some of the Nickel might have coated something other than the “ash.”
Due to some issue, the Li Analysis is incomplete and will most likely be
resolved soon.  I believe Parkhomov has 2 more Fuel/Ash Analysis being
undertaken at this time, also (EDX and ?).

An incomplete picture of the ICP-MS Analysis roughly shows the following
(amongst other things  if we assume Rows 1  2 are Ash Analysis and
Row 3 is the Fuel Analysis):

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.959743037389729/959743037389729

  6Li –  7Li
58Ni –  64Ni

Obviously, it’s not as simple as this, but I wanted throw a “bone” out
there for us to chew on.

My guess is that Row 1 is a Best Run, Row 2 is a Pretty Good Run and
Row 3 is the Starting Fuel (since Li, Ni  Cu are at almost Natural Abundances).
Tomorrow morning I will talk to a Russian American and try to decipher the 
Cyrillic,
since no one at the MFMP Site has done it yet...

6Li is depleted by half, with the difference showing up as 7Li.
64Ni shows a gain of about 5 with the loss roughly showing up in 58Ni.
65Cu Values  ? seem to be cut off in the picture, and hopefully we will get
this data soon.

What do YOU think is happening?

As soon as I get a chance, I will post further links from the MFMP and E-Cat
World Sites for the Internet-Challenged amongst us.

Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Re: Parkhomov Ash Analysis Discussion - Preliminary

[Mark Jurich]

Bob wrote:

   | It would appear the generation of Li-7 from Li-6 or Li-6 from Li-7
   | are reversed in the Lugano and Parkhomov experiments. Am I missing
   | something?

Bob, we are still not sure what “Sample 1”,  “Sample 2”  “Natural State” 
represent
in the Parkhomov Data.  Sheet 1 is the Parkhomov Elemental Analysis via SIMS? 
(this
hasn’t been fully verified) and what is located in the table on Sheet 2, is the 
Parkhomov
ICP-MS Analysis.  Everything outside the table/box are from Wikipedia or the 
Lugano
Report found here for comparison:

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

Arnaud has suggested that instead of “Sample 1”  “Sample 2” being Ash Analysis
for 2 different runs or parts of a run, “Sample 1” is the Fuel Analysis and 
“Sample 2”
is the “Ash Analysis”.  If that’s the case (and it seems to fit with what you 
just
discovered above, then “Natural State” is not the Starting Fuel Analysis but an 
Analysis
done on some sample taken to represent Natural Abundances, independently.  This
would also tend to agree with the analysis reported in the Lugano Paper.

If I discover anything differently than this, I will report it here.  Once 
again, the latest
Spreadsheet with all the data collected together, is here:

http://tinyurl.com/nz4gjdh

Thanks,
Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov Ash Analysis Discussion - Preliminary

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

Here is a link to the latest updated Elemental  Isotope Analysis in
Excel XLSX SpreadSheet (Sheets 1  2) Format:

http://tinyurl.com/lcnudcv

Mark Jurich

From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:02 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Parkhomov Ash Analysis Discussion - Preliminary

As many of you know, some preliminary Elemental Analysis (SIMS?)
and ICP-MS of Parkhomov Ash/Fuel were released during ICCF-19 in
Padua, Italy. At the FaceBook MFMP Site, some pictures of the analysis
were taken and posted:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/21/mfmp-publishes-parkhomovs-fuel-analysis-video-of-parkhomov-discussion/

From the Elemental Analysis, it roughly looks like Ni is lost with a 
gain in Cu, but we all know how careful one has to be analyzing this.
Some of the Nickel might have coated something other than the “ash.”
Due to some issue, the Li Analysis is incomplete and will most likely be
resolved soon.  I believe Parkhomov has 2 more Fuel/Ash Analysis being
undertaken at this time, also (EDX and ?).

An incomplete picture of the ICP-MS Analysis roughly shows the following
(amongst other things  if we assume Rows 1  2 are Ash Analysis and
Row 3 is the Fuel Analysis):

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.959743037389729/959743037389729

  6Li –  7Li
58Ni –  64Ni

Obviously, it’s not as simple as this, but I wanted throw a “bone” out
there for us to chew on.

My guess is that Row 1 is a Best Run, Row 2 is a Pretty Good Run and
Row 3 is the Starting Fuel (since Li, Ni  Cu are at almost Natural Abundances).
Tomorrow morning I will talk to a Russian American and try to decipher the 
Cyrillic,
since no one at the MFMP Site has done it yet...

6Li is depleted by half, with the difference showing up as 7Li.
64Ni shows a gain of about 5 with the loss roughly showing up in 58Ni.
65Cu Values  ? seem to be cut off in the picture, and hopefully we will get
this data soon.

What do YOU think is happening?

As soon as I get a chance, I will post further links from the MFMP and E-Cat
World Sites for the Internet-Challenged amongst us.

Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Re: Parkhomov Ash Analysis Discussion - Preliminary

[Mark Jurich]

FYI: Typo Fixed (30.1 – 30.9 in Natural State 65Cu Cell)

From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 1:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov Ash Analysis Discussion - Preliminary

FYI:

Here is a link to the latest updated Elemental  Isotope Analysis in
Excel XLSX SpreadSheet (Sheets 1  2) Format:

http://tinyurl.com/lcnudcv

Mark Jurich

From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:02 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Parkhomov Ash Analysis Discussion - Preliminary

As many of you know, some preliminary Elemental Analysis (SIMS?)
and ICP-MS of Parkhomov Ash/Fuel were released during ICCF-19 in
Padua, Italy. At the FaceBook MFMP Site, some pictures of the analysis
were taken and posted:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/21/mfmp-publishes-parkhomovs-fuel-analysis-video-of-parkhomov-discussion/

From the Elemental Analysis, it roughly looks like Ni is lost with a 
gain in Cu, but we all know how careful one has to be analyzing this.
Some of the Nickel might have coated something other than the “ash.”
Due to some issue, the Li Analysis is incomplete and will most likely be
resolved soon.  I believe Parkhomov has 2 more Fuel/Ash Analysis being
undertaken at this time, also (EDX and ?).

An incomplete picture of the ICP-MS Analysis roughly shows the following
(amongst other things  if we assume Rows 1  2 are Ash Analysis and
Row 3 is the Fuel Analysis):

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.959743037389729/959743037389729

  6Li –  7Li
58Ni –  64Ni

Obviously, it’s not as simple as this, but I wanted throw a “bone” out
there for us to chew on.

My guess is that Row 1 is a Best Run, Row 2 is a Pretty Good Run and
Row 3 is the Starting Fuel (since Li, Ni  Cu are at almost Natural Abundances).
Tomorrow morning I will talk to a Russian American and try to decipher the 
Cyrillic,
since no one at the MFMP Site has done it yet...

6Li is depleted by half, with the difference showing up as 7Li.
64Ni shows a gain of about 5 with the loss roughly showing up in 58Ni.
65Cu Values  ? seem to be cut off in the picture, and hopefully we will get
this data soon.

What do YOU think is happening?

As soon as I get a chance, I will post further links from the MFMP and E-Cat
World Sites for the Internet-Challenged amongst us.

Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Re: Parkhomov Ash Analysis Discussion - Preliminary

[Mark Jurich]

Arnaud wrote:
   If other Ni isotopes don’t react then the quantities of Ni for each isotope 
stay the same except for 64Ni:
   58Ni: 64.03   60Ni: 26.34   61Ni: 1.22 62Ni: 3.99 
64Ni: 2.85 Total = 98.43 (1.57 is assumed to be converted into 65Cu)

   And in percentage, it gives then: 58Ni: 65.05 60Ni: 26.76   61Ni: 
1.24 62Ni: 4.05



   Those values are in the range of the sample2 data for the Ni, except a 
slight deviation for 60Ni … more 60Ni found in the ash than calculated.





FYI:

There seems to be a noticeable error in the Sample 2 Ni ICP-MS Sum which might 
lend some argument to your analysis.  It adds up to 100.2% so that 60Ni could 
really be 26.87% ... Still not there but closer.  I need to debate the rest of 
your thoughts later, after some sleep.



- Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Parkhomov Ash Analysis Discussion - Preliminary

[Mark Jurich]

As many of you know, some preliminary Elemental Analysis (SIMS?)
and ICP-MS of Parkhomov Ash/Fuel were released during ICCF-19 in
Padua, Italy. At the FaceBook MFMP Site, some pictures of the analysis
were taken and posted:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/21/mfmp-publishes-parkhomovs-fuel-analysis-video-of-parkhomov-discussion/

From the Elemental Analysis, it roughly looks like Ni is lost with a 
gain in Cu, but we all know how careful one has to be analyzing this.
Some of the Nickel might have coated something other than the “ash.”
Due to some issue, the Li Analysis is incomplete and will most likely be
resolved soon.  I believe Parkhomov has 2 more Fuel/Ash Analysis being
undertaken at this time, also (EDX and ?).

An incomplete picture of the ICP-MS Analysis roughly shows the following
(amongst other things  if we assume Rows 1  2 are Ash Analysis and
Row 3 is the Fuel Analysis):

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.959743037389729/959743037389729

  6Li –  7Li
58Ni –  64Ni

Obviously, it’s not as simple as this, but I wanted throw a “bone” out
there for us to chew on.

My guess is that Row 1 is a Best Run, Row 2 is a Pretty Good Run and
Row 3 is the Starting Fuel (since Li, Ni  Cu are at almost Natural Abundances).
Tomorrow morning I will talk to a Russian American and try to decipher the 
Cyrillic,
since no one at the MFMP Site has done it yet...

6Li is depleted by half, with the difference showing up as 7Li.
64Ni shows a gain of about 5 with the loss roughly showing up in 58Ni.
65Cu Values  ? seem to be cut off in the picture, and hopefully we will get
this data soon.

What do YOU think is happening?

As soon as I get a chance, I will post further links from the MFMP and E-Cat
World Sites for the Internet-Challenged amongst us.

Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Re: Widom-Larsen Theory

[Mark Jurich]

Jones wrote:

  For the record, Fred Sparber started talking about surface plasmons in 
LENR on vortex in 2006 if not before. It is a mistake to credit this to WL.
FYI:
It’s not my intent to get involved in the whole Widom-Larsen Theory 
Controversy, but I think it would be disingenuous if one did not reference the 
following paper in May 2005 which refers to “surface plasma modes”:
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505026
I was quite aware of this preprint back in 2005, hence the comment.
Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Re: Widom-Larsen Theory

[Mark Jurich]

Jones wrote:

| Oops, as you can see the Conference was in Cambridge. (where Violante’s 
2003 paper was first presented)
| Letts and Cravens also presented similar work there with lasers but 
apparently did not use the phrase
| “surface plasmon”… or if they did, then maybe they are the first.
 

|so the $64 question is: did Widom present his version of surface plasmons 
earlier than this date – or did

|he copy Violante or Letts/Cravens ? W-L certainly do not give attribution 
to either Violante or L/C in their

|2005 paper.

 

|   Yet, there is little doubt that Widom / Larsen now wish to take credit for 
this important detail –

|   and it is a big deal, so if they are the first to recognize surface 
plasmons, then they deserve the credit;

|   or if not … Violante, or Letts/Cravens, are the researchers whose name 
should be mentioned.

|   At least they did real experiments.





Thanks Jones for mentioning all of this, as it brings back memories of all the 
great

work at the time...



You might find the following report/interview that Krivit made with Larsen

in 2010, interesting:



http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35915development.shtml



In it, it appears that Larsen mentions the above work.



Again, it is not my intention to bring up soar wounds of the past

especially with Krivit, but it appears that at least by 2010

(about 5 years later), Larsen acknowledges this work of others

in the field. 



Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi/Parkhomov reaction and the hydrogen anion

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

   Ryan was kind enough to reply back and stated that the Alumina Reactor Tube 
had over 0.1” tolerance in diameter inside the SiC Heating Element, so it 
appears that this expansion is not a concern.  When I get some free time, I 
will try to formally go through the analysis and post it here, for future 
design work.

Mark Jurich


From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 11:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Rossi/Parkhomov reaction and the hydrogen anion

Thanks for the info, Bob.

For the last week, I have been concerned about the Elastic Expansion of the 
Reactor Tube due to the approximately 5000 psi pressure change that could 
occur.  A back-of-the-envelope calculation revealed a 0.010” expansion.  This 
is about an order of magnitude greater than the thermal expansion (If both 
tubes were the same Alumina Material, the thermal expansion would “track” each 
other and essentially cancel, but not the elastic expansion of the Reactor Tube 
due to the pressure.).  If there wasn’t enough Free Tolerance for the Reactor 
Tube to “breathe” it would jam against the alumina heater tube surrounding it, 
creating small pressure points, possibly cracking both tubes.

... I’ll pass this note on to Ryan and perhaps he can rest my fears on this.

- Mark Jurich


From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 7:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi/Parkhomov reaction and the hydrogen anion

Ryan Hunt would better to ask this question.  I believe the reactor tube in the 
Bang! experiment was from CoorsTek.  The other dogbone alumina tubes were also 
from CoorsTek.  They have an online store. 

It is the dogbone Lugano HotCat replica that has the heater coil wrapped around 
a second alumina heater tube and then overmolded with the finned convection 
surface.  The design called for a heater tube ID of 7.95mm and a reactor tube 
OD of 6.35mm.  I don't know what the actual tube measurements were.  

However, the Bang! experiment did not use the dogbone as the tube furnace for 
the experiment.  Bob Greenyer had gotten some sample SiC tube heaters that 
could go to very high temperature.  They tried molding one into a dogbone, but 
it was too fragile and just shattered during the molding process.  The 
closed-one-end reactor tube was slipped into the SiC tube heater with no 
convection surface other than the bare SiC heater tube.  I don't know what the 
clearance was for the SiC heater tube, but it was probably about 4-5mm in 
diameter.  The SiC heater could go easily to 1500C, so there was no problem in 
getting the reactor tube as hot as they wanted.  It would have been difficult 
to measure a real COP for that experiment.  The thermocouple was attached to 
the reactor tube and it was also measured using the Williamson pyrometer.  When 
the alumina tube exploded in the Bang! experiment, it completely shattered the 
SiC heater tube around it and that was the last sample.  Future experiments 
will likely be in the dogbone.


On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Bob, what was the Free Tolerance between the Reaction Tube OD
  and the Heater Tube ID in the MFMP Bang! Experiment?

  Who was the manufacturer of the alumina tubes?

  Thanks,
  Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Re: Rossi/Parkhomov reaction and the hydrogen anion

[Mark Jurich]

Thanks for the info, Bob.

For the last week, I have been concerned about the Elastic Expansion of the 
Reactor Tube due to the approximately 5000 psi pressure change that could 
occur.  A back-of-the-envelope calculation revealed a 0.010” expansion.  This 
is about an order of magnitude greater than the thermal expansion (If both 
tubes were the same Alumina Material, the thermal expansion would “track” each 
other and essentially cancel, but not the elastic expansion of the Reactor Tube 
due to the pressure.).  If there wasn’t enough Free Tolerance for the Reactor 
Tube to “breathe” it would jam against the alumina heater tube surrounding it, 
creating small pressure points, possibly cracking both tubes.

... I’ll pass this note on to Ryan and perhaps he can rest my fears on this.

- Mark Jurich


From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 7:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi/Parkhomov reaction and the hydrogen anion

Ryan Hunt would better to ask this question.  I believe the reactor tube in the 
Bang! experiment was from CoorsTek.  The other dogbone alumina tubes were also 
from CoorsTek.  They have an online store. 

It is the dogbone Lugano HotCat replica that has the heater coil wrapped around 
a second alumina heater tube and then overmolded with the finned convection 
surface.  The design called for a heater tube ID of 7.95mm and a reactor tube 
OD of 6.35mm.  I don't know what the actual tube measurements were.  

However, the Bang! experiment did not use the dogbone as the tube furnace for 
the experiment.  Bob Greenyer had gotten some sample SiC tube heaters that 
could go to very high temperature.  They tried molding one into a dogbone, but 
it was too fragile and just shattered during the molding process.  The 
closed-one-end reactor tube was slipped into the SiC tube heater with no 
convection surface other than the bare SiC heater tube.  I don't know what the 
clearance was for the SiC heater tube, but it was probably about 4-5mm in 
diameter.  The SiC heater could go easily to 1500C, so there was no problem in 
getting the reactor tube as hot as they wanted.  It would have been difficult 
to measure a real COP for that experiment.  The thermocouple was attached to 
the reactor tube and it was also measured using the Williamson pyrometer.  When 
the alumina tube exploded in the Bang! experiment, it completely shattered the 
SiC heater tube around it and that was the last sample.  Future experiments 
will likely be in the dogbone.


On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Bob, what was the Free Tolerance between the Reaction Tube OD
  and the Heater Tube ID in the MFMP Bang! Experiment?

  Who was the manufacturer of the alumina tubes?

  Thanks,
  Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Re: Rossi/Parkhomov reaction and the hydrogen anion

[Mark Jurich]

Bob, what was the Free Tolerance between the Reaction Tube OD
and the Heater Tube ID in the MFMP Bang! Experiment?

Who was the manufacturer of the alumina tubes?

Thanks,
Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR

[Mark Jurich]

Hi Bob:

   Thank you so much for the rather concise/informative update involving the 
Dog Bone Explosion Run.  I have a couple comments and questions to ask and I am 
hoping you know the answers to them or can direct me or this note to someone 
who might know.

The “hoped” (or planned) weight % of Ni Powder in the fuel/charge was indeed 
90%.  My current estimate puts it at slightly above 84%.  I realize that when 
you wrote 90% the implied error is +/- 10%, but I believe we are narrowing in 
to this value.  Of course, this is based on the latest MFMP Information and is 
still subject to review.  We are all anxiously awaiting the next update 
concerning the fuel/charge amount.

Do you know what Alumina Tube Inside Diameter and Wall Thickness is?  I would 
like to verify these values and attempt to determine whether the Hydrogen Gas 
Pressure (or what Hydrogen Gas Pressure) might cause the Alumina Tube to 
fracture.  A link to the Alumina Tube Material Data Sheet would be extremely 
helpful.

If you follow some of the links here at Vortex-L, my current estimate for the 
maximum pressure is 9641 psi +/- at least 10% error.

Do you know what the Outside Diameter of the Sintered Ni Rod was?  I know it 
may have been mentioned before.  I am curious if there was any noticeable gap 
between the rod and the Alumina Wall.

FYI:

Here are the links to the fuel/charge materials used in this experiment, as far 
as I know:

http://www.vale.com/EN/business/mining/nickel/NickelProducts/T255%20-%20Premium.pdf
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/199877

Thanks,
Mark Jurich


From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR

I received the broken shards of the alumina tube from the MFMP Parkhomov-like 
experiment from Ryan Hunt.  The intent was to have analyzed the metal film on 
the inside of the alumina to see if it is Li-Al alloy and to try to re-assemble 
the pieces to form at least one full circumference of the tube.  So far, 
piecing the tube together has been unsuccessful; however, I have found 2 pieces 
each having a large portion of the circumference - in one case 94 degrees of an 
arc and in another 106 degrees.  In both cases, the ID of the alumina tube is 
completely covered with the metal film with no visual evidence at the 
boundaries of the metal tapering in thickness.  Statistically, there is nothing 
to suggest that these pieces were centered on the bottom of the tube.  Also, 
none of the shards show any transition from covered to uncovered with metal. 

Based on this, I surmise that the interior of the tube at 1057C had a complete 
circumferential ring of liquid Li-Al in a thin continuous layer.  It appears 
that the liquid Li-Al wetted to the alumina, perhaps with the hydrogen and high 
temperature cleaning of the alumina surface.  With the wetting, the surface 
tension of the liquid metal, and the high interior pressure, I believe the 
liquid metal was forced to cover the inner circumference of the tube while it 
was liquid.  The chemical effect of the Li on the alumina may also have been 
instrumental in the wetting of the metal solution to the ceramic.  There is no 
supporting evidence for a gravity fed river of liquid Li-Al metal at the bottom 
of the tube.

Visual examination under the microscope shows the supposed Li-Al film to be 
developing small white crystals, well distributed upon its surface.  These are 
probably LiOH from exposure to the humidity in the air.  Alan Goldwater is 
being sent sample shards with the metal coating to do a microscope video of an 
etch in water.  

The Vale T255 Ni, that was 90% by weight of the fuel, sintered into a porous 
rod the shape of the interior of the tube.  After the explosion, the sintered 
rod of Ni was found intact in the remains of the SiC heater.  There is no 
evidence that this Ni was ever bonded or immersed in the Li-Al metal.  Though 
contact was likely, it appears that the molten Li-Al did not wet to the Ni.

The samples will also be examined in the SEM and with XRF.

Bob Higgins


On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote:

  I am going to re-assemble the pieces of the reactor tube to determine more 
about the metal film deposited on the inside of the tube.  In one shard, it 
looks to be about 0.0037 in thickness and appears as a cooled, once liquid 
metal.  It is probably a Li-Al alloy.  The liquid Li-Al alloy may form a 
gravity fed river on the bottom of the reactor tube.  Reconstruction of the 
tube will tell us whether this was a gravity fed river or if it was deposited 
around the complete circumference.  Also, we will be having, at minimum, XRF 
done on both the metal on the alumina, and the sintered Ni rod that was left 
after the experiment (in combination with SEM views). 

  Another observation is that there is NO evidence of alumina chemical erosion 
by the Li.  There is no evidence yet

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

 I wrote:

   |  With this LAH mass, the Ideal Gas Law Maximum Pressure comes out as  8388 
psi,
   |  and using the van der Waals equation of state, approx. 1.07 times that, 
or 8976 psi.

I just went thru the van der Waals equation of state calculation, and the 
pressure comes
out to be 9641 psi or 15% more (not 8976 psi or 7% more).

The van der Waals Equation of State for this case is:

p[psi] = 14.6959488 psi  +  ((wR(T+273.15)) / (v-wb))  –  a(w/v)^2

where
R = 0.06355261 [ml][psi] / ([K][mgLAH])
a[H2] = 0.0099592 [ml^2][psi] / [mgLAH^2]
b[H2] = 0.001402 [ml] / [mgLAH]

and the parameters specific to this experiment/test are:

w = 105 mgLAH
v = 1.06 ml
T= 1057 C

Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

I indeed found an error I had made in the calculation directly below, but the 
discrepancy between the first MFMP revision still exists.

Here is what I believe is the equation Alan would use, neglecting the value of 
the delivered volume of total charge to the cell:

mLAH  = mtotal  /  (1 + VRxDR)

where mLAH = Mass of Lithium Aluminum Hydride,
   mtotal = TOTAL charge/fuel Mass (0.67 g),
   VR = Volume Ratio (Ni Volume) / (LAH Volume) (2.5)
DR = Density Ratio (Ni Density) / (LAH Density) (2.1545 = 1.06/0.492)

Using this equation, I calculate the mass of LAH at 0.105 g (or 105 mg)
and the Ni mass at 0.67 g – 0.105 g = 0.565 g (or 565 mg),
instead of the mistakes of 124 mg  546 mg, in the post directly below.

... In the first MFMP Revision, DR = 9.714 (8.908/0.917), so I calculate the 
mass of LAH at 0.0265 g
(instead of the mistake 0.0276 g, below), in disagreement with the value of 
0.0197 g.

It would be nice if we can resolve this discrepancy.

With this LAH mass, the Ideal Gas Law Maximum Pressure comes out as  8388 psi,
and using the van der Waals equation of state, approx. 1.07 times that, or 8976 
psi.

This is using 1.06 ml as the free volume and 1057 C as the temperature.

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 6:00 PM 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project 

If one takes the MFMP measured densities along with the volume ratio 2.5 
(neglecting the delivered volume value as data), one gets:

mass Li(AlH4) = 124 mg
mass Ni = 0.67 - .124 = 546 mg

This is similar to the way Alan calculated it in the Revision, but I 
couldn't recreate his exact value in that revision ( 0.0197 g; I get 0.0276 
g), so I may have an error in the above values

The maximum pressure comes out to be approx. 9480 psi ... If one uses the 
van der Waals Equation of State instead of the Ideal Gas Law, the maximum 
pressure will be approx. 1.07 times that (10,144 psi).

... Anything over 10,000 psi is not good.  Consider the fact that an abrupt 
pressure change may cause the Alumina to crack (just like an abrupt 
temperature change causes glass to crack).  If the pressure rushed up to 
such a value, it may be the cause.  I believe this data is probably 
tabulated somewhere for Alumina, at high temperatures.  We need to find a 
paper or some values.

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 5:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Correction (typo) on Mass Ni (Original Message) ... Should be 563.3 mg ...

The Measured Density by MFMP for Li(AlH4) is 0.492 g/cc.  If I use that
value instead of 0.74 times 0.917 g/cc (0.74 is theoretical maximum packing
density for identical spheres), which is 0.679 g/cc, I get:

   Mass Li(AlH4) = 77.3 mg
   Mass Ni = 592.7 mg
   Density Ni = 1.509 g/cc

I need to double-check these.

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

FYI:

I just made a calculation where I assumed the Li(AlH4) Powder density to be
0.74 times 0.917 g/cc.  I then calculated the remaining 3 unknowns:

   Mass Li(AlH4) = 106.6 mg
   Mass Ni = 6282.6 mg
   Density Ni = 1.434 g/cc

I assumed the delivered volume was 0.55 cc (0.5 to 0.6 cc)

I then went searching for the Ni Density by the manufacturer of the actual
Ni used, by first trying to identify the manufacturer at the MFMP Site (via
EverNote).  I then saw that MFMP have determined the density to be 1.06 g/cc
just a short while ago .  This is close...

...More when I find out more.

Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: AlanG
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also
inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had
available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor
was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative
density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the
respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each
of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so
assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.

The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components
used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod
and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my
calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not
included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which
we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.

Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined
accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from
the glove box. This was divided

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

I just made a calculation where I assumed the Li(AlH4) Powder density to be 
0.74 times 0.917 g/cc.  I then calculated the remaining 3 unknowns:


  Mass Li(AlH4) = 106.6 mg
  Mass Ni = 6282.6 mg
  Density Ni = 1.434 g/cc

I assumed the delivered volume was 0.55 cc (0.5 to 0.6 cc)

I then went searching for the Ni Density by the manufacturer of the actual 
Ni used, by first trying to identify the manufacturer at the MFMP Site (via 
EverNote).  I then saw that MFMP have determined the density to be 1.06 g/cc 
just a short while ago .  This is close...


...More when I find out more.

Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: AlanG

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also
inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had
available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor
was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative
density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the
respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each
of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so
assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.

The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components
used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod
and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my
calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not
included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which
we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.

Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined
accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from
the glove box. This was divided by the volume mix ratio, then by the
estimated relative density ratio of the two powders to get the mass of
the LiAlH4 in the cell. The amount of H was then found simply by the
ratio of standard atomic weights. As you correctly pointed out earlier,
the equivalent molar amount must be based on the H2 molecules in the
gas, and that was the final figure used to calculate the pressure.

If I missed something important in my analysis, I'd be happy to know,
and make further corrections.

AlanG

On 2/10/2015 11:30 PM, Mark Jurich wrote:

New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:

http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)

This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values (first 
analysis):


Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml -- 1.06 ml (not a large change) (Recall that 
Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg -- 19.7 mg (!!!)(Recall 
that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)


With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 psi, 
which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of Li(AlH4) 
is totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that this 
pressure is in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I 
understand, using far less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I have 
ever seen stated by Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 times more, by 
weight.


Am I missing something here?  This is a tremendous change that I'm having 
a hard time comprehending.  I'm looking into the MFMP Calculation further, 
right now.


Thanks,
Mark Jurich

-Original Message- From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

I believe there maybe an error in this pressure estimate and that the
calculated pressure will be exactly half of 19,861 psi (i.e., 9,930.5 
psi).

Although 0.0141 moles of Hydrogen are released, 0.00706 moles of Hydrogen
Gas (H2) are released.  I don't believe that free H atoms/ions contribute 
to

the gas pressure in the free volume of the cell, and that the actual gas
there is H2 Gas.

Please see the following post for the details:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg101557.html

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- From: Craig Haynie
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 1:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Pressure inside the dog bone is calculated to have been near 19,861 psi
at the time of failure.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWYbi6tBHcjZ4PyQ0BaWn-G1NkdQdkirb-_Qx2HypKs/edit

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

Correction (typo) on Mass Ni (Original Message) ... Should be 563.3 mg ...

The Measured Density by MFMP for Li(AlH4) is 0.492 g/cc.  If I use that 
value instead of 0.74 times 0.917 g/cc (0.74 is theoretical maximum packing 
density for identical spheres), which is 0.679 g/cc, I get:


  Mass Li(AlH4) = 77.3 mg
  Mass Ni = 592.7 mg
  Density Ni = 1.509 g/cc

I need to double-check these.

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

FYI:

I just made a calculation where I assumed the Li(AlH4) Powder density to be
0.74 times 0.917 g/cc.  I then calculated the remaining 3 unknowns:

  Mass Li(AlH4) = 106.6 mg
  Mass Ni = 6282.6 mg
  Density Ni = 1.434 g/cc

I assumed the delivered volume was 0.55 cc (0.5 to 0.6 cc)

I then went searching for the Ni Density by the manufacturer of the actual
Ni used, by first trying to identify the manufacturer at the MFMP Site (via
EverNote).  I then saw that MFMP have determined the density to be 1.06 g/cc
just a short while ago .  This is close...

...More when I find out more.

Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: AlanG

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also
inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had
available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor
was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative
density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the
respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each
of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so
assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.

The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components
used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod
and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my
calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not
included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which
we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.

Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined
accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from
the glove box. This was divided by the volume mix ratio, then by the
estimated relative density ratio of the two powders to get the mass of
the LiAlH4 in the cell. The amount of H was then found simply by the
ratio of standard atomic weights. As you correctly pointed out earlier,
the equivalent molar amount must be based on the H2 molecules in the
gas, and that was the final figure used to calculate the pressure.

If I missed something important in my analysis, I'd be happy to know,
and make further corrections.

AlanG

On 2/10/2015 11:30 PM, Mark Jurich wrote:

New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:

http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)

This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values (first 
analysis):


Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml -- 1.06 ml (not a large change) (Recall that 
Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg -- 19.7 mg (!!!)(Recall 
that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)


With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 psi, 
which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of Li(AlH4) 
is totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that this 
pressure is in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I 
understand, using far less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I have 
ever seen stated by Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 times more, by 
weight.


Am I missing something here?  This is a tremendous change that I'm having 
a hard time comprehending.  I'm looking into the MFMP Calculation further, 
right now.


Thanks,
Mark Jurich

-Original Message- From: Mark Jurich
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

I believe there maybe an error in this pressure estimate and that the
calculated pressure will be exactly half of 19,861 psi (i.e., 9,930.5 
psi).

Although 0.0141 moles of Hydrogen are released, 0.00706 moles of Hydrogen
Gas (H2) are released.  I don't believe that free H atoms/ions contribute 
to

the gas pressure in the free volume of the cell, and that the actual gas
there is H2 Gas.

Please see the following post for the details:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg101557.html

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- From: Craig Haynie
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 1:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Pressure inside the dog bone is calculated to have been near 19,861 psi
at the time of failure.

https://docs.google.com/document/d

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

If one takes the MFMP measured densities along with the volume ratio 2.5 
(neglecting the delivered volume value as data), one gets:


mass Li(AlH4) = 124 mg
mass Ni = 0.67 - .124 = 546 mg

This is similar to the way Alan calculated it in the Revision, but I 
couldn't recreate his exact value in that revision ( 0.0197 g; I get 0.0276 
g), so I may have an error in the above values


The maximum pressure comes out to be approx. 9480 psi ... If one uses the 
van der Waals Equation of State instead of the Ideal Gas Law, the maximum 
pressure will be approx. 1.07 times that (10,144 psi).


... Anything over 10,000 psi is not good.  Consider the fact that an abrupt 
pressure change may cause the Alumina to crack (just like an abrupt 
temperature change causes glass to crack).  If the pressure rushed up to 
such a value, it may be the cause.  I believe this data is probably 
tabulated somewhere for Alumina, at high temperatures.  We need to find a 
paper or some values.


Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 5:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Correction (typo) on Mass Ni (Original Message) ... Should be 563.3 mg ...

The Measured Density by MFMP for Li(AlH4) is 0.492 g/cc.  If I use that
value instead of 0.74 times 0.917 g/cc (0.74 is theoretical maximum packing
density for identical spheres), which is 0.679 g/cc, I get:

  Mass Li(AlH4) = 77.3 mg
  Mass Ni = 592.7 mg
  Density Ni = 1.509 g/cc

I need to double-check these.

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

FYI:

I just made a calculation where I assumed the Li(AlH4) Powder density to be
0.74 times 0.917 g/cc.  I then calculated the remaining 3 unknowns:

  Mass Li(AlH4) = 106.6 mg
  Mass Ni = 6282.6 mg
  Density Ni = 1.434 g/cc

I assumed the delivered volume was 0.55 cc (0.5 to 0.6 cc)

I then went searching for the Ni Density by the manufacturer of the actual
Ni used, by first trying to identify the manufacturer at the MFMP Site (via
EverNote).  I then saw that MFMP have determined the density to be 1.06 g/cc
just a short while ago .  This is close...

...More when I find out more.

Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: AlanG

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Mark, the powders were already inside the glove box when the scale (also
inside the box) failed, so volume measurements were the only data I had
available. As a result, precise mass measurement was not possible, nor
was determination of exact densities by measurement. The relative
density of the powders was taken from the bulk densities as given in the
respective Wikipedia entries. Unknowns include the packing ratio of each
of the powders. They are both finely divided but not nano scale, so
assuming a similar packing seems reasonable in the absence of other data.

The volumes were calculated from dimensions of the actual components
used, measured with a digital caliper. The space between the filler rod
and the ID of the tube is significant and was included in my
calculation. The possible vacant volume within the powder mass was not
included, nor was the possible absorption of H2 into the nickel, which
we think was minimal given the time scale of the experiment.

Regarding the calculation itself, the mass of the fuel was determined
accurately by weighing the loaded cell after sealing and removal from
the glove box. This was divided by the volume mix ratio, then by the
estimated relative density ratio of the two powders to get the mass of
the LiAlH4 in the cell. The amount of H was then found simply by the
ratio of standard atomic weights. As you correctly pointed out earlier,
the equivalent molar amount must be based on the H2 molecules in the
gas, and that was the final figure used to calculate the pressure.

If I missed something important in my analysis, I'd be happy to know,
and make further corrections.

AlanG

On 2/10/2015 11:30 PM, Mark Jurich wrote:

New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:

http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)

This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values (first 
analysis):


Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml -- 1.06 ml (not a large change) (Recall that 
Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg -- 19.7 mg (!!!)(Recall 
that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)


With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 psi, 
which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of Li(AlH4) 
is totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that this 
pressure is in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I 
understand, using far less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I have 
ever seen stated by Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 times more, by 
weight

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

New MFMP Charge Analysis regarding the Explosion Run:

http://bit.ly/1z61hEB  (5 hours ago)

This is a shocker to me.  Here are the changes to the last values (first 
analysis):


Free Volume for Gas: 1.09 ml -- 1.06 ml (not a large change)  (Recall that 
Parkhomov estimates 2 ml in his experiment(s))
Weight Amount of Li(AlH4): 134 mg -- 19.7 mg (!!!)(Recall 
that Parkhomov/Translation states 100 mg)


With these new values, the calculated pressure become approx. 1500 psi, 
which agrees with my calculation.  But this new weight amount of Li(AlH4) is 
totally strange to me.  The analysis goes on to state that this pressure is 
in line with Parkhomov's estimates, but as far as I understand, using far 
less Li(AlH4) than Parkhomov.  The only value I have ever seen stated by 
Parkhomov is 100 mg, or a factor of 5 times more, by weight.


Am I missing something here?  This is a tremendous change that I'm having a 
hard time comprehending.  I'm looking into the MFMP Calculation further, 
right now.


Thanks,
Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

I believe there maybe an error in this pressure estimate and that the
calculated pressure will be exactly half of 19,861 psi (i.e., 9,930.5 psi).
Although 0.0141 moles of Hydrogen are released, 0.00706 moles of Hydrogen
Gas (H2) are released.  I don't believe that free H atoms/ions contribute to
the gas pressure in the free volume of the cell, and that the actual gas
there is H2 Gas.

Please see the following post for the details:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg101557.html

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Craig Haynie

Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 1:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Pressure inside the dog bone is calculated to have been near 19,861 psi
at the time of failure.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWYbi6tBHcjZ4PyQ0BaWn-G1NkdQdkirb-_Qx2HypKs/edit

Craig

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

I believe there maybe an error in this pressure estimate and that the 
calculated pressure will be exactly half of 19,861 psi (i.e., 9,930.5 psi). 
Although 0.0141 moles of Hydrogen are released, 0.00706 moles of Hydrogen 
Gas (H2) are released.  I don't believe that free H atoms/ions contribute to 
the gas pressure in the free volume of the cell, and that the actual gas 
there is H2 Gas.


Please see the following post for the details:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg101557.html

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Craig Haynie

Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 1:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Pressure inside the dog bone is calculated to have been near 19,861 psi
at the time of failure.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWYbi6tBHcjZ4PyQ0BaWn-G1NkdQdkirb-_Qx2HypKs/edit

Craig

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

The explosion occurs at approximately the 3:00:43 mark of the 4:00:04 video.

Mark Jurich

-Original Message- 
From: Craig Haynie

Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

They just ran a test with a live rossi core, and the reactor exploded
and broke just as it entered the range where they were expecting the
LENR effect to begin. Temp was around 1010C or thereabouts, around 3:45
on the clock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel%3A54c999f4--21a4-96a5-001a1142f4ecfeature=ivsrc_vid=bK6d3t4lSjMv=eP9l356ymg8

So, the test is over. No good result.

Craig

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

MFMP might also want to use this plumbing setup to pump out the headspace at 
the start of the run, pulling 30” of vacuum on it, to remove any 
nitrogen/oxygen/etc.

Mark Jurich


From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 1:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

I wouldn't call that bizarre, I would call that a sense of self-preservation 
kicking in.   

Remember that these fellows have come together for only a limited time to run 
these experiments.  It could be that the appropriate plumbing was not readily 
available to hook up the pressure sensor in a way that did not open up a large 
gas volume.  The volume inside the Parkhomov alumina tube is really small.  
Maintaining that small volume is important to generate the high pressures as 
the LiAlH4 decomposes.  To use the long tube (so as to get the compression 
fitting away from the heat), almost all of the volume must be filled with 
alumina rod and then what is connected on the end to the compression fitting 
must also be minimum volume.  Otherwise, the pressure measured would not be 
representative of what it was inside Parkhomov's reactor.  I am working on 
plumbing to make such measurements using 1/16 stainless tubing having a 0.006 
bore with appropriately small other fittings to minimize the dead gas volume in 
the plumbing.

What I particularly don't like about just using a cap on the end is that the 
really high pressure is likely to remain even after the reactor cools to room 
temperature.  How do you bleed out the gas to open the tube safely?

My objective is to measure the pressure over the course of the reaction, have a 
way to capture the product gas in a sample cylinder for analysis, and have a 
way to bleed off any remaining pressure when cool.

Bob Higgins


On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:41 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

  Bizarre that they would think to hide behind an explosion shield -- which is 
rational given prior pressure excursions -- but would not think to hook up the 
pressure sensor.

  On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

Bob Greenyer Obvious • 40 minutes ago 
The pressure sensor was not connected. this can be seen visually. The core 
was shown in pictures earlier in the evening on Facebook.


On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net 
wrote:

  Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?

  -mi



  From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
  Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
  To: vortex-l
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project



  The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the PSI read out 
in the video, which never reaches 1.0.



  On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net 
wrote:

  At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the 
right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And I 
use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure release. 
 Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently debatable...
  -mark iverson


  -Original Message-
  From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
  Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

  Good show,

  Thanks, Craig.

  Regards,
  Steven Vincent Johnson
  svjart.orionworks.com
  zazzle.com/orionworks

   Short segment showing the explosion.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_Afeature=youtu.be

   Craig

[Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

[Mark Jurich]

This is all true.  The only reason I mentioned this, is that MFMP has gone to 
the trouble of adding this beautifully working extension (which is 
non-Parkhomov), they might as well use it to research other deviations once 
some type of replication is done, especially if the design hasn’t been 
solidified yet...

... Perhaps bringing in H2 Gas or D2 Gas (if you’re rich!) would also be 
possible. 

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 2:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Well, this is only sort-of possible.  The capillary nature of the plumbing will 
make it difficult to get much of a vacuum on the portion of the reactor that 
has the bulk of the volume, but it could be possible to reduce the atmosphere 
by an order of magnitude. 

Then you have to deal with the fact that this is yet another departure from 
replication.  We don't really know that the oxygen, nitrogen, and argon are not 
involved in the reaction.  Removing these gasses will certainly alter the 
chemistry of the reaction. Neither Parkhomov nor Rossi removed the atmosphere.  
It might turn out to be something that improves the reaction, but it is another 
departure from replication.


On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com wrote:

  FYI:

  MFMP might also want to use this plumbing setup to pump out the headspace at 
the start of the run, pulling 30” of vacuum on it, to remove any 
nitrogen/oxygen/etc.

  Mark Jurich


  From: Bob Higgins 
  Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 1:57 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

  I wouldn't call that bizarre, I would call that a sense of self-preservation 
kicking in.   

  Remember that these fellows have come together for only a limited time to run 
these experiments.  It could be that the appropriate plumbing was not readily 
available to hook up the pressure sensor in a way that did not open up a large 
gas volume.  The volume inside the Parkhomov alumina tube is really small.  
Maintaining that small volume is important to generate the high pressures as 
the LiAlH4 decomposes.  To use the long tube (so as to get the compression 
fitting away from the heat), almost all of the volume must be filled with 
alumina rod and then what is connected on the end to the compression fitting 
must also be minimum volume.  Otherwise, the pressure measured would not be 
representative of what it was inside Parkhomov's reactor.  I am working on 
plumbing to make such measurements using 1/16 stainless tubing having a 0.006 
bore with appropriately small other fittings to minimize the dead gas volume in 
the plumbing.

  What I particularly don't like about just using a cap on the end is that the 
really high pressure is likely to remain even after the reactor cools to room 
temperature.  How do you bleed out the gas to open the tube safely?

  My objective is to measure the pressure over the course of the reaction, have 
a way to capture the product gas in a sample cylinder for analysis, and have a 
way to bleed off any remaining pressure when cool.

  Bob Higgins


  On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:41 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Bizarre that they would think to hide behind an explosion shield -- which 
is rational given prior pressure excursions -- but would not think to hook up 
the pressure sensor.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

  Bob Greenyer Obvious • 40 minutes ago 
  The pressure sensor was not connected. this can be seen visually. The 
core was shown in pictures earlier in the evening on Facebook.


  On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net 
wrote:

Do you believe the sensor, or your eyes?

-mi



From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 10:42 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project



The pressure release hypothesis is inconsistent with the PSI read out 
in the video, which never reaches 1.0.



On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

At 2:29/2:30 into the short segment posted by Craig, it looks like the 
right-side end-plug, or whatever is sticking out that end, blows out.  And I 
use that term specifically since one also sees some hint of a pressure release. 
 Whether that release is at an appropriate level is apparently debatable...
-mark iverson


-Original Message-
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
[mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

Good show,

Thanks, Craig.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

 Short segment showing the explosion.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_Afeature

[Vo]:Maximum Possible Pressures: The Ideal Gas Law, Parkhomov MFMP

[Mark Jurich]

Hello All:

   Please let me know if I've made any mistakes in the analysis which follows.  
Thank you...



Considering all the problems related to the Parkhomov Charge Amount and MFMP 
Replication, I have decided to formulate an Engineered Version of the 

Ideal Gas Law to calculate maximum theoretical pressures that may be obtained 
in an experiment.  This should be painstakingly simple but will 

serve as a reference...

Recall the Ideal Gas Law:

  PV = nRT, where P = Pressure, V = Volume, n = Number of Gas Species, R = 
Gas Constant  T = Temperature.

Typically, T is given in Kelvin, n in moles (of gas)  V in Liters.  Thus, if 
one would like the Pressure in Pascals, R (the Gas Constant) would 

be:

 R = 8.314462 [L][kPa] / ([K][mole])

This would result in the pressure being in kilo-Pascals.

Please note that the Ideal Gas Law assumes an Ideal Gas as opposed to a Real 
Gas, and is thus an approximation, valid in certain regimes...


Now let us take a look at the Relevant Parkhomov Experiment Values (or the 
values used to make a pressure estimation):

900 mg Ni  x  (1 g Ni / (1000 mg Ni   )) x  (1 mole Ni  
  / (58.69 g Ni   ))  =  0.01533   moles Ni
100 mg LiAlH4   x  (1 g LiAlH4  / (1000 mg LiAlH4)) x  (1 mole LiAlH4 / 
(37.95 g LiAlH4))  =  0.002635 moles LiAlH4
V = 2 ml  (please note that the calculated volume for the Parkhomov Cell is 
actually 2.3562 ml; cylinder diameter 5 mm  length 120 mm)
T = 1300 C = 1573.15 K (maximum Parkhomov temperature obtained, but away 
from the center and closer to the heater coils)
Starting Pressure: 1 Standard Atmosphere


If we assume the worst case scenario in which all of the Hydrogen evolves to H2 
Gas, and that gas does not permeate the Ni or the Vessel Housing 

(both unrealistic), then we will have twice as many moles of H2 Gas, as to 
moles of LiAlH4:

n = 0.005270 moles H2 Gas

We also note that we will obtain 4 times the atomic Hydrogen, if all the 
Hydrogen decomposes to H:

0.01054 moles H

If we compare this to the number of moles of Ni we see that we have less H 
atoms than Ni atoms; recall that the maximum loading ratio for Ni:H is 

1:1 .  This is important to note, scientifically.

Now let us crunch through the ideal gas law equation, and determine the 
Pressure.  I will leave this as an exercise to you.  Recall that:

   1 Pascal = 0.000145037738 pounds per square inch

If I’ve done the calculation correctly, you will obtain close to 4999 psi of 
pressure at T = 1300 C (1573.15 K).  If one uses the method described 

in the translation of Parkhomov's first set of slides (applying Boyle's Law, 
then hand waving through Amonton's Law), one will obtain a value of 

about 4548 psi.

   In order to make this calculation easier for the experimenter, I have 
reformulated the Ideal Gas Law into more manageable values:

   Pressure [psi]  =  delta[psi] + (0.063553 x (w[mg LiAlH4] x (273.15 + T[C])) 
 /  V[ml]

   where delta = starting pressure of 1 atmosphere = 14.6959488 pounds per 
square inch
, w = measured weight of LiAlH4 charge in milligrams
, V = Headspace Volume in milliliters
, T = Temperature in degrees C
   P = Vessel Pressure in psi

Here I've added an additional term (delta), reflecting a starting pressure and 
which introduces a small correction.

More succinctly,
 
   P = delta + ((0.063553 x w x (273.15 + T))  /  V)

delta = 14.6959488 psi
w = 100 mg
T = 1300 C
V = 2.3562 ml (Volume of a cylinder whose diameter is 5 mm (radius (r) = .25 
cm) and length (L) is 120 mm (L = 12.0 cm), V = L*pi*r**2)


Using this formula, the calculated pressure for the above Parkhomov parameters 
becomes 4258 psi.  This is calculated using the actual volume of 

2.3562 ml and assuming the solid charge takes up zero volume.

This form should be useful for quickly calculating maximum theoretical 
pressures in Parkhomov-type Experiments.

Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Dogbone BANG Geiger Counter Spiked

[Mark Jurich]

The Radiation Count Plot showed nothing strange through the whole incident.  
High Voltage Particle Instrumentation is very sensitive to noise, especially 
during explosions.  Any anomaly in Geiger Counting at the time of the explosion 
needs to address this.  A common technique is to run 2 (or more) different 
counting channels (interleaved).  If both (more) channels “burp” at the same 
time, then one can get serious about something occurring (as long as there is 
good isolation between the channels).

... Just some more thought.

Mark Jurich


From: James Bowery 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 7:32 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: [Vo]:Dogbone BANG Geiger Counter Spiked

Watch the Dogbone BANG run in HD to see these data points.


Geiger counter readings: 
6:14:13, 8e-6
6:16:46, 9e-6
6:17:15, 3.3e-4
a few seconds later BANG


The pressure went down initially from 0.7 to 0.5 the back up to 0.9 but at no 
point did the PSI exceed 1.0 so if that was measuring the build up of gas 
pressure energy, there wasn't enough to do anything like what we saw. It might 
have been a rapid conflagration of LiH coming in contact with atmospheric O2 if 
there was a breach just prior to the BANG but there was no indication of such a 
breach that I could see.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dogbone BANG Geiger Counter Spiked

[Mark Jurich]

YAM (Yet Another Mistake):

I wrote:

   Consider Charles’ Law for an Ideal Gas

should read:

   Consider Amontons' Law for an Ideal Gas

(named after Guillaume Amontons)

Mark Jurich


From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 8:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Dogbone BANG Geiger Counter Spiked

I wrote:

  Now let’s increase the Temperature from 273 K to 1273 K (increase of  4.6 
times)

should read:

  Now let’s increase the Temperature from 300 K to 1273 K (increase of  4.2 
times)

300 K is roughly Room Temperature.

Mark Jurich


From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 8:19 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dogbone BANG Geiger Counter Spiked

It is my opinion that the Pressure Transducer was not working during this run, 
at all.  Consider Charles’ Law for an Ideal Gas ( Pressure proportional to 
Temperature).  In other words, P = kT, where k is some arbitrary constant (Yes, 
you can start with the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT if you want to.).  Now let’s 
increase the Temperature from 273 K to 1273 K (increase of  4.6 times) ... 
Where was the pressure increase of 4.6 times during the run?  Was the vessel 
evacuated before the run? ... I don’t think it was.  If it was, what was the 
vacuum reading attained during evacuation?  I didn’t see any data that 
reflected that.

... In a previous run, we did see a Pressure Transducer that seemed to be 
“alive”, albeit a bit noisy...

... Just some thoughts.

Mark Jurich

From: James Bowery 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 7:32 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: [Vo]:Dogbone BANG Geiger Counter Spiked

Watch the Dogbone BANG run in HD to see these data points.


Geiger counter readings: 
6:14:13, 8e-6
6:16:46, 9e-6
6:17:15, 3.3e-4
a few seconds later BANG


The pressure went down initially from 0.7 to 0.5 the back up to 0.9 but at no 
point did the PSI exceed 1.0 so if that was measuring the build up of gas 
pressure energy, there wasn't enough to do anything like what we saw. It might 
have been a rapid conflagration of LiH coming in contact with atmospheric O2 if 
there was a breach just prior to the BANG but there was no indication of such a 
breach that I could see.

Re: [Vo]:Dogbone BANG Geiger Counter Spiked

[Mark Jurich]

It is my opinion that the Pressure Transducer was not working during this run, 
at all.  Consider Charles’ Law for an Ideal Gas ( Pressure proportional to 
Temperature).  In other words, P = kT, where k is some arbitrary constant (Yes, 
you can start with the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT if you want to.).  Now let’s 
increase the Temperature from 273 K to 1273 K (increase of  4.6 times) ... 
Where was the pressure increase of 4.6 times during the run?  Was the vessel 
evacuated before the run? ... I don’t think it was.  If it was, what was the 
vacuum reading attained during evacuation?  I didn’t see any data that 
reflected that.

... In a previous run, we did see a Pressure Transducer that seemed to be 
“alive”, albeit a bit noisy...

... Just some thoughts.

Mark Jurich

From: James Bowery 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 7:32 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: [Vo]:Dogbone BANG Geiger Counter Spiked

Watch the Dogbone BANG run in HD to see these data points.


Geiger counter readings: 
6:14:13, 8e-6
6:16:46, 9e-6
6:17:15, 3.3e-4
a few seconds later BANG


The pressure went down initially from 0.7 to 0.5 the back up to 0.9 but at no 
point did the PSI exceed 1.0 so if that was measuring the build up of gas 
pressure energy, there wasn't enough to do anything like what we saw. It might 
have been a rapid conflagration of LiH coming in contact with atmospheric O2 if 
there was a breach just prior to the BANG but there was no indication of such a 
breach that I could see.

[Vo]:Re: Dogbone BANG Geiger Counter Spiked

[Mark Jurich]

I wrote:

  Now let’s increase the Temperature from 273 K to 1273 K (increase of  4.6 
times)

should read:

  Now let’s increase the Temperature from 300 K to 1273 K (increase of  4.2 
times)

300 K is roughly Room Temperature.

Mark Jurich


From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 8:19 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dogbone BANG Geiger Counter Spiked

It is my opinion that the Pressure Transducer was not working during this run, 
at all.  Consider Charles’ Law for an Ideal Gas ( Pressure proportional to 
Temperature).  In other words, P = kT, where k is some arbitrary constant (Yes, 
you can start with the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT if you want to.).  Now let’s 
increase the Temperature from 273 K to 1273 K (increase of  4.6 times) ... 
Where was the pressure increase of 4.6 times during the run?  Was the vessel 
evacuated before the run? ... I don’t think it was.  If it was, what was the 
vacuum reading attained during evacuation?  I didn’t see any data that 
reflected that.

... In a previous run, we did see a Pressure Transducer that seemed to be 
“alive”, albeit a bit noisy...

... Just some thoughts.

Mark Jurich

From: James Bowery 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 7:32 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: [Vo]:Dogbone BANG Geiger Counter Spiked

Watch the Dogbone BANG run in HD to see these data points.


Geiger counter readings: 
6:14:13, 8e-6
6:16:46, 9e-6
6:17:15, 3.3e-4
a few seconds later BANG


The pressure went down initially from 0.7 to 0.5 the back up to 0.9 but at no 
point did the PSI exceed 1.0 so if that was measuring the build up of gas 
pressure energy, there wasn't enough to do anything like what we saw. It might 
have been a rapid conflagration of LiH coming in contact with atmospheric O2 if 
there was a breach just prior to the BANG but there was no indication of such a 
breach that I could see.

Re: [Vo]:Nanomagnetism,superparamagnetism and the Dogbone

[Mark Jurich]

Nanomagnetism,superparamagnetism and the Dogbone  Jones wrote:

 | “High Temperature Magnetic Properties of Transition Metal Oxides” by 
Baskar is online at Goggle books.
FYI:
“High temperature magnetic properties of transition metal oxides with 
perovskite structure” (Dinesh Baskar Dissertation):
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/9812/3318157.pdf
Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Re: Right-on AGP

[Mark Jurich]

[4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block  Gray (1964)
  http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009
  Page 1 – 
http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/inocaj/1965/inocaj.1965.4.issue-3/ic50025a009/production/ic50025a009.fp.png_v03
  Page 2 – http://www.tempid.altervista.org/Page2.png


From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 2:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Right-on AGP

Here are my references, in chronological order:

[1] The thermal decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride, Garner  Haycock 
(1951)
  
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/211/1106/335.full.pdf

[2] PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AS A HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL 
COOLANT, Modisette (1957)
  http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1957/naca-rm-l57f12a.pdf

[3] INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AND MAGNESIUM AS HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL 
COOLANTS WITH SEVERAL SKIN MATERIALS, Modisette (1958)
  
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc53069/m2/1/high_res_d/19660024045.pdf

[4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block  Gray (1964)
  http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009

[5] Desorption of LiAlH4 with Ti- and V-based additives, Blanchard, Brinks, 
Hauback  Norby (2004)
  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921510703005415

[6] Hydrogen, lithium, and lithium hydride production, US 20130047789 A1 (2013)
  http://www.google.com/patents/US20130047789

Notes
- [1] is the classic paper (1951) everyone seems to refer to.
- [2] is prelim of [3], with slightly different content, describing the 
reversible LiH decomposition reaction
- [4] if this isn’t referenced in any paper regarding LiAlH4 Thermal 
Decomposition, the paper is suspect (1964, 2 pages, but unfortunately behind a 
pay wall, maybe if someone searches hard enough, they’ll find it; I’ll look 
after I post this. Has DSC Plots, breaking down the H2 Evolution at various 
temps, but at standard pressures)
- [5] Behind a pay wall, but what you see on the page is good enough... The do 
NOT reference [4]!
- [6] Some nice Vapor Pressure curves in here!
- I also came across this book via the Internet (as well as Axil), but I do not 
have it (looks very useful):
http://www.bookmantraa.com/thermophysical-properties-lithium-hydride-deuteride-tritide-their-solutions-with-lithium-book-72683.html

- Mark Jurich


From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 11:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Right-on AGP

Hi Jones:

   Without going into all the details, your calculations are in line with the 
language-translated Parkhomov information.  At the point of estimating the 
corrected pressure due to heating, he simply multiplies the 50 bar/atmosphere 
pressure by 2, to obtain 100 atmospheres.  I’m not sure where you obtained the 
900 °K value for the temperature, but all current estimates are that the 
internal temperature for the Parkhomov Cell is no more than about 1000 °C 
(probably lower than this), based on where his thermocouple was located.  His 
plots approach 1300 °C where he was measuring at...

  ... Crunching through all the possible numbers, I get a top end of 3425psi 
using all the “extreme” values.  Since the MFMP DogBone has Stainless Steel 
extension on it, the volume has now increased and I would be making a wild 
guess at the added volume, but I would say 30% more (perhaps Bob H./MFMP can 
give us some more accurate estimate)?

   I believe Parkhomov is assuming [virtual] loss/leaking of H2 when obtaining 
his factor of 2 pressure increase with temperature (and perhaps it has 
something to do with the equilibrium conditions that will be obtained when the 
2LiH  2Li + H2 reversible reaction occurs at the temperatures/pressures 
involved.  But this is all pure speculation on my part, since there are no 
remarks that I can find.  Please note that Parkhomov had no way of knowing the 
actual pressures, since he did not measure them, as far as I know...

... He does refer to “ 850 °C” for the above reversible reaction, but I 
believe he obtained this value from the Boiling Point of LiH (850 °C) at 
Standard Pressure.  Actually LiH starts to decompose before it boils (according 
to some literature), so for anyone to mention the Boiling Point of LiH (as I 
have just did), is highly questionable.  Other sources say that decomposition 
occurs from 900 – 1000 °C, with no solid reference that I can find to back it 
up...

... I have about 5 references here concerning all this, and will try to post 
them when I get more time...

- Mark Jurich


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 9:40 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Right-on AGP

Has anyone determined that the high internal pressure claimed by Parkhomov is 
even possible? Did he claim 500 psi? I cannot find the reference today, but the 
numbers are probably out there and at first glance – score one

[Vo]:Re: Right-on AGP

[Mark Jurich]

Here are my references, in chronological order:

[1] The thermal decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride, Garner  Haycock 
(1951)
  
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/211/1106/335.full.pdf

[2] PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AS A HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL 
COOLANT, Modisette (1957)
  http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1957/naca-rm-l57f12a.pdf

[3] INVESTIGATION OF LITHIUM HYDRIDE AND MAGNESIUM AS HIGH-TEMPERATURE INTERNAL 
COOLANTS WITH SEVERAL SKIN MATERIALS, Modisette (1958)
  
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc53069/m2/1/high_res_d/19660024045.pdf

[4] The Thermal Decomposition of Lithium Aluminum Hydride, Block  Gray (1964)
  http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ic50025a009

[5] Desorption of LiAlH4 with Ti- and V-based additives, Blanchard, Brinks, 
Hauback  Norby (2004)
  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921510703005415

[6] Hydrogen, lithium, and lithium hydride production, US 20130047789 A1 (2013)
  http://www.google.com/patents/US20130047789

Notes
- [1] is the classic paper (1951) everyone seems to refer to.
- [2] is prelim of [3], with slightly different content, describing the 
reversible LiH decomposition reaction
- [4] if this isn’t referenced in any paper regarding LiAlH4 Thermal 
Decomposition, the paper is suspect (1964, 2 pages, but unfortunately behind a 
pay wall, maybe if someone searches hard enough, they’ll find it; I’ll look 
after I post this. Has DSC Plots, breaking down the H2 Evolution at various 
temps, but at standard pressures)
- [5] Behind a pay wall, but what you see on the page is good enough... The do 
NOT reference [4]!
- [6] Some nice Vapor Pressure curves in here!
- I also came across this book via the Internet (as well as Axil), but I do not 
have it (looks very useful):
http://www.bookmantraa.com/thermophysical-properties-lithium-hydride-deuteride-tritide-their-solutions-with-lithium-book-72683.html

- Mark Jurich


From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 11:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Right-on AGP

Hi Jones:

   Without going into all the details, your calculations are in line with the 
language-translated Parkhomov information.  At the point of estimating the 
corrected pressure due to heating, he simply multiplies the 50 bar/atmosphere 
pressure by 2, to obtain 100 atmospheres.  I’m not sure where you obtained the 
900 °K value for the temperature, but all current estimates are that the 
internal temperature for the Parkhomov Cell is no more than about 1000 °C 
(probably lower than this), based on where his thermocouple was located.  His 
plots approach 1300 °C where he was measuring at...

  ... Crunching through all the possible numbers, I get a top end of 3425psi 
using all the “extreme” values.  Since the MFMP DogBone has Stainless Steel 
extension on it, the volume has now increased and I would be making a wild 
guess at the added volume, but I would say 30% more (perhaps Bob H./MFMP can 
give us some more accurate estimate)?

   I believe Parkhomov is assuming [virtual] loss/leaking of H2 when obtaining 
his factor of 2 pressure increase with temperature (and perhaps it has 
something to do with the equilibrium conditions that will be obtained when the 
2LiH  2Li + H2 reversible reaction occurs at the temperatures/pressures 
involved.  But this is all pure speculation on my part, since there are no 
remarks that I can find.  Please note that Parkhomov had no way of knowing the 
actual pressures, since he did not measure them, as far as I know...

... He does refer to “ 850 °C” for the above reversible reaction, but I 
believe he obtained this value from the Boiling Point of LiH (850 °C) at 
Standard Pressure.  Actually LiH starts to decompose before it boils (according 
to some literature), so for anyone to mention the Boiling Point of LiH (as I 
have just did), is highly questionable.  Other sources say that decomposition 
occurs from 900 – 1000 °C, with no solid reference that I can find to back it 
up...

... I have about 5 references here concerning all this, and will try to post 
them when I get more time...

- Mark Jurich


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 9:40 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Right-on AGP

Has anyone determined that the high internal pressure claimed by Parkhomov is 
even possible? Did he claim 500 psi? I cannot find the reference today, but the 
numbers are probably out there and at first glance – score one for AGP.

Btw – in a search of Vortex, it turns out Parkhomov was mention by Rothwell way 
back in 2012: Author: Y. Bazhutov … A. Parkhomov et al, Year of Conference: 
2012 Title: “Investigation of Radiation Effects at Loading Ni, Be and LaNi5 by 
Hydrogen”. Very appropriate.

Just in case no one else has done it– here are back of envelope calcs – 
rounding off slightly: molar volume of hydrogen gas (assuming ideal gas at 1 
atmosphere of pressure) is 24.5 liters (or dm3

Re: [Vo]:Right-on AGP

[Mark Jurich]

Hi Jones:

   Without going into all the details, your calculations are in line with the 
language-translated Parkhomov information.  At the point of estimating the 
corrected pressure due to heating, he simply multiplies the 50 bar/atmosphere 
pressure by 2, to obtain 100 atmospheres.  I’m not sure where you obtained the 
900 °K value for the temperature, but all current estimates are that the 
internal temperature for the Parkhomov Cell is no more than about 1000 °C 
(probably lower than this), based on where his thermocouple was located.  His 
plots approach 1300 °C where he was measuring at...

  ... Crunching through all the possible numbers, I get a top end of 3425psi 
using all the “extreme” values.  Since the MFMP DogBone has Stainless Steel 
extension on it, the volume has now increased and I would be making a wild 
guess at the added volume, but I would say 30% more (perhaps Bob H./MFMP can 
give us some more accurate estimate)?

   I believe Parkhomov is assuming [virtual] loss/leaking of H2 when obtaining 
his factor of 2 pressure increase with temperature (and perhaps it has 
something to do with the equilibrium conditions that will be obtained when the 
2LiH  2Li + H2 reversible reaction occurs at the temperatures/pressures 
involved.  But this is all pure speculation on my part, since there are no 
remarks that I can find.  Please note that Parkhomov had no way of knowing the 
actual pressures, since he did not measure them, as far as I know...

... He does refer to “ 850 °C” for the above reversible reaction, but I 
believe he obtained this value from the Boiling Point of LiH (850 °C) at 
Standard Pressure.  Actually LiH starts to decompose before it boils (according 
to some literature), so for anyone to mention the Boiling Point of LiH (as I 
have just did), is highly questionable.  Other sources say that decomposition 
occurs from 900 – 1000 °C, with no solid reference that I can find to back it 
up...

... I have about 5 references here concerning all this, and will try to post 
them when I get more time...

- Mark Jurich


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 9:40 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Right-on AGP

Has anyone determined that the high internal pressure claimed by Parkhomov is 
even possible? Did he claim 500 psi? I cannot find the reference today, but the 
numbers are probably out there and at first glance – score one for AGP.

Btw – in a search of Vortex, it turns out Parkhomov was mention by Rothwell way 
back in 2012: Author: Y. Bazhutov … A. Parkhomov et al, Year of Conference: 
2012 Title: “Investigation of Radiation Effects at Loading Ni, Be and LaNi5 by 
Hydrogen”. Very appropriate.

Just in case no one else has done it– here are back of envelope calcs – 
rounding off slightly: molar volume of hydrogen gas (assuming ideal gas at 1 
atmosphere of pressure) is 24.5 liters (or dm3/mol) at 300 °K, and the weight 
of a mole is two grams, so this gives 12 cc/mg for H2 at one bar and ambient - 
or 36 cc/mg at 900 °K elevated temperature.

The “fuel” of Parkhomov was said to be 1/10 gram of LiAlH4 which is about 10% 
by weight hydrogen. This means that the weight of hydrogen, if none escapes is 
about 10 milligrams at the start. This means that the expanded gas would occupy 
about ~120 cc at STP, if released from the hydride - correct? 

OK. The interior volume of the reactor appears to be about 2.4 cc. so cramming 
120 cc into 2.4 means that would require about 50-1 ratio... or 50 bar BUT if 
the reactor and gas is at 900 °K, then 150 bar or 2,175 pounds per square inch 
is possible. So the bottom line is yes, even with slight diffusion into the 
alumina and no leaks, 500 psi is not only possible but on the low side. The 
important detail is what is the pressure at 10,20,30 hours and so on? 

Apologies if this has been covered, or is not accurate but a lot of folks seem 
to second-guessing AGP, at least on a few points, and there appears to be no 
problem on this one.

As of now, in terms of “trustworthiness” of reported data, based on past work, 
openness, and freedom from an agenda which would cause one to fudge data or 
salt the ash to be tested - I would give AGP a much higher ranking than AR. 
Let’s hope we get isotope data. This reaction is nearing the level of 
understanding.

Jones

 

[Vo]:Re: live - grr... dogboneRe:

[Mark Jurich]

Does any1 have the GOOGLE+ Hangout URL? ... Thnx

From: a.ashfield 
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 3:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:live - grr... dogboneRe:

The second test is under way.  Temperature currently over 400C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=IQlqzLzQDUA

[Vo]:Re: live - grr... dogbone

[Mark Jurich]

A dual coil eddy current pressure transducer is way more immune to magnetic 
field, radiation and noise, but costs $6k instead of the $500 one they have.  
It also can go to 580C or so, instead of 85C as this one, in use.

- Mark Jurich


From: Bob Cook 
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 5:34 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:live - grr... dogbone

I think it would be interesting to test a similar pressure transducer to the 
one that they are using to understand how it operates under a varying magnetic 
or electric fields.  It may be that local conditions are affecting the 
transducer and are indicative of unexpected electric or magnetic conditions in 
the reactor.  They may be caused by LENR or SPP formation or something 
unexpected.   


Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Cook 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 5:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:live - grr... dogbone

  I am glad to see that with 30% pressure swings indicated, the operator 
decided to at least wear a face mask.  I think I heard that the tube was good 
for 1000 psi and they were getting indications of over 600 psi with large 
swings.  It appeared they did not believe their pressure sensor.  I think they 
should have a good bullet proof shield  around the dog bone. 

  I would worry about the integrity of an alumina pressure vessel.  Is such 
material commonly used for pressure containing vessels at high temperatures and 
pressures?  

  It seems they disconnected the pressure sensor at about 2 hrs. and 40 min. 
into the test, or at least discontinued the video of the signal.  I hope they 
keep the pressure data that since it may be real.  However, it would appear 
that it was correlated with heater power input.  

  Bob   
- Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:live - grr... dogbone

Ya' gotta love the 21st century.

This seems kind of pointless. Why not read the data a week later? Still, it 
is fun! 

The technical chatter makes it sound like NASA. Impressive!

I wish Arthur Clarke had lived to see this.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: live - grr... dogbone

[Mark Jurich]

Yes, it’s me ... Since Bob Greenyer reads over here, I will post the info for 
this beast, in a sec.

- Mark Jurich


From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 6:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: live - grr... dogbone

Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com wrote:


  A dual coil eddy current pressure transducer is way more immune to magnetic 
field, radiation and noise, but costs $6k instead of the $500 one they have.

In the YouTube talk window someone mentioned a $6,000 pressure meter:


Justa Guy 
MFMP: Can you budget in a $6k Pressure Transducer for a future run, or will 
that break the bank, at this point?


Was that you?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: live - grr... dogbone

[Mark Jurich]

KAMAN High Temperature Pressure Measuring Systems, KP-1911 and KP-2025 Series:

http://www.kamansensors.com/pdf_files/kaman_high_pressure_sensors_manual_web.pdf

... I’ll try to post more info on this, tonight.  I recall it’s just above $6k.

- Mark Jurich


From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 6:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: live - grr... dogbone

Yes, it’s me ... Since Bob Greenyer reads over here, I will post the info for 
this beast, in a sec.

- Mark Jurich


From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 6:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: live - grr... dogbone

Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com wrote:


  A dual coil eddy current pressure transducer is way more immune to magnetic 
field, radiation and noise, but costs $6k instead of the $500 one they have.

In the YouTube talk window someone mentioned a $6,000 pressure meter:


Justa Guy 
MFMP: Can you budget in a $6k Pressure Transducer for a future run, or will 
that break the bank, at this point?


Was that you?

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?

[Mark Jurich]

  James Bowery wrote:

   Since hydrino.org is dead as a discussion group (it just redirects 
to BLP's site) is there a forum where people are still talking about GUToCP 
etc.?
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages

[Vo]:Re: Optics, magnetics spinplasmonics

[Mark Jurich]

Bob Cook wrote:

| I am about 2/3 through the paper you identified on the transmission 
of a
| terahertz electric field wave form through Ni and Co particles  in a 
static

| magnetic field.

... Just to clarify, this is a reference that Jones cited and I just gave a 
link to it that wasn't behind a pay wall.  Perhaps Jones may comment also to 
your questions...


| Does the oscillating terahertz electric field produce a perpendicular
| oscillating magnetic field?  Or does that only happen with  photon
| propagation?

Yes it does.  The Terahertz Electromagnetic Field is a photon field, and 
it will induce a magnetization.  This is a very weak H Field compared to the 
applied static magnetic field, but the localized magnetic field strength 
would depend on any amplification produced by the generation of the Surface 
Plasmon-Polariton (SPP) or whatever quasi-particle coupling might occur...


| Would a terahertz  laser have a different effect?  And would you see
| a phase change in the transmission of the beam through the Ni and Co
| particles?

My guess is that a Terahertz (THz) Laser (being more intense) would increase 
the effect.  The technique used in the paper is indeed sensitive to phase 
changes.  The THz pulse-induced phase change of the probe beam is converted 
into an intensity modulation.  They are using a Ti:sapphire Mode-Locked 
Laser to initially generate the pulse beam fed into the THz Emitter and the 
probe beam.  I'm not sure I'm addressing your question, here.  Perhaps you 
can elaborate...


| If the changing electric field does in fact cause a changing magnetic 
field,

| it would seem that it may introduce some impedence in the transfer of
| the electric field and account for the slight unexplained phase 
change
| reported with respect to the electric field wave form after passing 
through

| the film of the particle assemblege.

... I'm not sure it's possible to disagree with your statements above.  Can 
you possibly point to the unexplained phase shift that you are referring to, 
so that I may comment?  I believe they see a phase shift for both uncoated 
and coated microparticles.  Are you referring to all of the results, given? 
The THz Probe Pulse is 800 nm Wavelength and could be exciting SPPs, 
optically (vs. Terahertz) if I understand the setup correctly.  Here is a 
link to Ref. 19 which describes the experimental setup (hopefully you can 
get to the paper):


http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-17-8-6600

| Do you know what the N metal film is that the authors stated was 
applied
| to the Ni and Co particles in discussing the experimental set-up? 
Should

| that be no metal film?

N-Metal Film in this case, refers to Nonmagnet Film (or Non-Ferromagnetic or 
Normal vs. Ferromagnetic, F).  This can be very confusing because 
hard-core Plasmonic people sometimes refer to N-Metal Films as Noble Metal 
Films (which are extensively used in the paper), but if they were to mention 
it this way they would be very clear about it, unlike Spin Freaks (just 
kidding!).


- Mark Jurich 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Optics, magnetics spinplasmonics

[Mark Jurich]

Mark Jurich wrote:

| The THz Probe Pulse is 800 nm Wavelength and could be
| exciting SPPs, optically (vs. Terahertz) if I understand the
| setup correctly.  Here is a link to Ref. 19 which describes
| the experimental setup (hopefully you can get to the paper):

| http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-17-8-6600

You idiot, look at Fig. 1 in Ref. 19 better and you will see that the Probe 
Pulse doesn't go through the Sample, so 800 nm radiation should never make 
it there, especially if one places a 800 nm Optical Rejection filter in the 
path! :)


... Table II is still puzzling with respect to the flip between Ni/Ag - 
Ni/Al Attenuation and Co/Ag - Co/Al Attenuation.  Somehow, I would expect 
the Ni Values to be correct and the Co ones to be the ones out of place...


Here are some crude e1/e2 Optical Constants I dug up, at the 0.75 THz Region 
(25 cm-1 (wavenumbers), or 400 um):


Ni:e1: -6E4 e2: 3E5

Au:   e1: -8.6E4  e2: 6.2E5
Ag:   e1: -3E5 e2: 1.5E6
Al:e1: -3E4 e2: 1E6

where e = e1 + i e2 .

... I'm still searching for the Co Values...

FYI: Here is a link to their earlier PRL Paper when they first introduced 
their Spintronic-Plasmonic Cobalt Media:


http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~dtngo/Article/PRL_98_133901_2007.pdf

The above paper mentions Co:  e1: -1E5 .

... Have fun, Spintronicating!

- Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Optics, magnetics spinplasmonics

[Mark Jurich]

Jones Beene wrote:

| Here is a mainstream paper that touches on the SP
| phenomenon but does not mention LENR.
| 
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/112/10/10.1063/1.4765028

[...]
| When photon upconversion was first discovered by François Auzel, he 
thought
| there was net gain. Of course, his peers cautioned him about 
publishing such

| “nonsense” as overunity. His patent has been expired for decades
| (http://patents.justia.com/inventor/francois-f-auzel) and never was
| commercially important.


FYI:

Paper: http://booksc.org/dl/18668679/66dc66
(extracted from: 
http://booksc.org/g/C.%20J.%20E.%20Straatsma;%20A.%20Y.%20Elezzabi )




Patent: http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US4032351

- Mark Jurich 

[Vo]:Re: LENR on the sun

[Mark Jurich]

 Bob Cook wrote:
 | Are you the Mark, Fischbach addresses several times in his presentation?


My guess is that is Mark Silverman from Trinity College (since he gave the 
previous talk at that session), but it is only based on the following two links:

Conference Schedule:
 http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/itamp/ScheduleHeavy.html

Mark Silverman, “Search for Nonrandom Behavior in Nuclear Decay:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7WhJaNh4pg

- Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Re: LENR on the sun

[Mark Jurich]

 Bob Cook wrote:

 | The bigger question is how would neutrinos change the half life of a 
nucleus in any case?
 | The reaction cross section must be very small.

 | Has Frishbach suggested any mechanism for the change in decay rate?


...At approximately the 29 minute mark of the previously posted video, he makes 
a rather provocative suggestion: Spin-dependent long range force coupling to 
neutrinos (and the last question asked after the talk is relevant to that 
suggestion):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzOOkR3a4vM

... Many of the slides for the presentation can be found here:

http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J11/transparents/fischbach.pdf

This is rather old stuff, actually.  If you head to arXiv and fish out the 
latest papers authored by Fischbach, you can catch up on latest in the nuclear 
decay rate situation.  I’m not aware of any further suggestions made by this 
collaboration of researchers.  Some further info on possible refutations are 
touched upon, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N76lx-4fN-g

Since this effect has apparently also been seen with Alpha Decay, it has raised 
more questions concerning suggestions such as Fischbach, et al.’s, above...

... The suggestion of a direct or catalytic effect had been made by Falkenberg 
back in 2001 (don’t think he’s the first to suggest this):

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO2PDF/V08N2FAL.pdf

The aphelion/perihelion solar neutrino flux variation is about +/- 3.2 or 3.3% 
and the effect he saw with tritium was +/- 0.37% or about 1/9th the variation.  
That data was taken in the 1981 timeframe.

- Mark Jurich