Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jack Cole]

By "our" last experiments I mean you and I.  The idea was mostly yours if I
recall correctly.  I don't have the site up anymore, but you can see it
here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20180613041630/http://lenr-coldfusion.com/

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 7:45 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Jack Cole wrote:
>
> It is also hard to not see some parallels with our last experiments (2016)
> with TiH2, nickel sheets, and light.
>
>
> Jack
>
> Do you have an online citation for this work?
>

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jones Beene]

Jack Cole wrote:  
 It is also hard to not see some parallels with our last experiments (2016) 
with TiH2, nickel sheets, and light. 

Jack
Do you have an online citation for this work?
  

RE: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

One additional note: In my terminology x-rays originate from atomic electronic 
structure and gamma ray originate from isotope energy transitions.

Bob Cook


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 12:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice 
Confinement Fusion

Jones—

Peter’s  ideas are not much different tan t mine.  He looked for inner 
electrons of various atoms and their x-ray spectrum that had resonant energy 
transitions  that couple with nuclear gamma isomeric
energy states of a single isotope.

I am not clear if Peter’s model considered all isomeric energies of all nuclear 
species in an entangled  system.

I do not consider that the physical model Peter considers valid for nucleons 
and their pertinence to the structure of larger isotopes matches nine which 
assumes that electrons, positrons and neutrinos are the primary entities that 
make up nucleons and heavier constituent particles.

Bob Cook






From: Jones Beene
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:17 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice 
Confinement Fusion

bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:

The reason why there is no gamma stems from the transfer of spin energy in 
small quanta of angular momentum—nuclear to electric—with the same entangled 
system—the crystalline lattice of the host material.  The time frame may be 
very short—less than a femto- second.

Bob

OK. How is that explanation different from Hagelstein?

RE: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

Peter’s  ideas are not much different tan t mine.  He looked for inner 
electrons of various atoms and their x-ray spectrum that had resonant energy 
transitions  that couple with nuclear gamma isomeric
energy states of a single isotope.

I am not clear if Peter’s model considered all isomeric energies of all nuclear 
species in an entangled  system.

I do not consider that the physical model Peter considers valid for nucleons 
and their pertinence to the structure of larger isotopes matches nine which 
assumes that electrons, positrons and neutrinos are the primary entities that 
make up nucleons and heavier constituent particles.

Bob Cook






From: Jones Beene
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:17 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice 
Confinement Fusion

bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:

The reason why there is no gamma stems from the transfer of spin energy in 
small quanta of angular momentum—nuclear to electric—with the same entangled 
system—the crystalline lattice of the host material.  The time frame may be 
very short—less than a femto- second.

Bob

OK. How is that explanation different from Hagelstein?

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jones Beene]

 bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:  
 The reason why there is no gamma stems from the transfer of spin energy in 
small quanta of angular momentum—nuclear to electric—with the same entangled 
system—the crystalline lattice of the host material.  The time frame may be 
very short—less than a femto- second.  
Bob
OK. How is that explanation different from Hagelstein? 



 
  
 
  
   

RE: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

The reason why there is no gamma stems from the transfer of spin energy in 
small quanta of angular momentum—nuclear to elecroic—with the same entangled 
system—the crystalline lattice of the host material.  The time frame may be 
very short—less than a femto- second.

The new entangled system in effect changes phase with  to a quasi stable 
condition.The potential energy of the nuclear components  is lower and the 
kinetic l energy of the atomic electrons is higher with total energy being the 
same.The higher kinetic energy (thermal energy) is then shared with the 
universe by radiation of EM energy until it comes to a thermal equilibrium with 
the environment at a slow pace compared to a femto-second or shorter pace.

>From my standpoint LANT  (lattice assisted nuclear transmutation) is a more 
>accurate description of the phenomena that occurs in the entangled system,  
>and the 2nd law of TD does not apply

Bob Cook






From: Jones Beene
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 8:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice 
Confinement Fusion

H LV wrote:

> Remember 10-12 years ago the buzz around x-rays from peeling tape?
https://youtu.be/r63e5y3Z3R8
> If this way of generating x-rays could be harnessed it would make this 
> lattice confinement fusion more economical.


That is a QM effect which does not scale up. The same could be said for much of 
LENR. In addition, it would seem that the Lawson criterion of hot plasma fusion 
would also apply, in a modified (reworded) way to the new and improved 
semantics for lattice enhanced but no longer "cold" fusion. i.e. when we 
observe effective temperature and pressure on the femtoscale.

As for input - an external electron beam of hot fusion could be modeled as 
internal k-shell or l-shell resonant electron. Here is the Wiki site for Lawson.

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

IOW - one needs only to reduce the geometry of the active site to its actual 
minimal dimension to see the similarity to plasma fusion, except for one big 
distinction.. The lack of gamma radiation remains the main difference between 
hot and (formerly) cold -- and this is where the lattice itself comes into play.

We have to assume that Hagelstein got that part right, or close - and that the 
lattice carries away most of the downshifted excess instead of gamma radiation. 
With that addition, the old "cold fusion" becomes the new QM-lattice-fusion.

It never was cold, was it?

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jones Beene]

H LV wrote:  
> Remember 10-12 years ago the buzz around x-rays from peeling 
> tape?https://youtu.be/r63e5y3Z3R8
> If this way of generating x-rays could be harnessed it would make this 
> lattice confinement fusion more economical.

That is a QM effect which does not scale up. The same could be said for much of 
LENR. In addition, it would seem that the Lawson criterion of hot plasma fusion 
would also apply, in a modified (reworded) way to the new and improved 
semantics for lattice enhanced but no longer "cold" fusion. i.e. when we 
observe effective temperature and pressure on the femtoscale. 

As for input - an external electron beam of hot fusion could be modeled as 
internal k-shell or l-shell resonant electron. Here is the Wiki site for Lawson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion
IOW - one needs only to reduce the geometry of the active site to its actual 
minimal dimension to see the similarity to plasma fusion, except for one big 
distinction.. The lack of gamma radiation remains the main difference between 
hot and (formerly) cold -- and this is where the lattice itself comes into play.

We have to assume that Hagelstein got that part right, or close - and that the 
lattice carries away most of the downshifted excess instead of gamma radiation. 
With that addition, the old "cold fusion" becomes the new QM-lattice-fusion. 

It never was cold, was it?

  

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Brian Ahern]

This is just a variant of TRIBOLUMINESCENCE.

From: H LV 
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 10:36 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice 
Confinement Fusion


Remember 10-12 years ago the buzz around x-rays from peeling tape?
https://youtu.be/r63e5y3Z3R8
If this way of generating x-rays could be harnessed it would make this lattice 
confinement fusion more economical.

Harry


On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 9:56 AM Jack Cole 
mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It is also hard to not see some parallels with our last experiments (2016) with 
TiH2, nickel sheets, and light.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:58 PM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
Ha! The new and improved new wording is interesting in a semantic sense... but 
get real...

Of course it is the demon cold fusion, but now we can pivot around that stigma 
and instead present it all in on a different geometry... very little changes 
but the word salad.

IOW it is the same old cold fusion (of P/F) that we know and lover ... no 
substantial difference at all... but now we differentiate so that it is very 
hot at the femtoscale and warm everywhere else... exactly like it has been for 
the past 31 years when the perspective is the much larger dimensional frame of 
reference.

I think Larry Forsley must be getting a big laugh out of this  :-)




On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 7:31:16 PM PDT, Jack Cole 
mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>> wrote:


They are careful to say it's not CF.  Sure seems like it originated in CF 
methods.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusiontokamak-not-included

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[H LV]

Remember 10-12 years ago the buzz around x-rays from peeling tape?
https://youtu.be/r63e5y3Z3R8
If this way of generating x-rays could be harnessed it would make this
lattice confinement fusion more economical.

Harry


On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 9:56 AM Jack Cole  wrote:

> It is also hard to not see some parallels with our last experiments (2016)
> with TiH2, nickel sheets, and light.
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:58 PM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Ha! The new and improved new wording is interesting in a semantic
>> sense... but get real...
>>
>> Of course it is the demon cold fusion, but now we can pivot around that
>> stigma and instead present it all in on a different geometry... very little
>> changes but the word salad.
>>
>> IOW it is the same old cold fusion (of P/F) that we know and lover ... no
>> substantial difference at all... but now we differentiate so that it is
>> very hot at the femtoscale and warm everywhere else... exactly like it has
>> been for the past 31 years when the perspective is the much larger
>> dimensional frame of reference.
>>
>> I think Larry Forsley must be getting a big laugh out of this  :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 7:31:16 PM PDT, Jack Cole <
>> jcol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> They are careful to say it's not CF.  Sure seems like it originated in CF
>> methods.
>>
>>
>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusiontokamak-not-included
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jack Cole]

It is also hard to not see some parallels with our last experiments (2016)
with TiH2, nickel sheets, and light.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:58 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Ha! The new and improved new wording is interesting in a semantic sense...
> but get real...
>
> Of course it is the demon cold fusion, but now we can pivot around that
> stigma and instead present it all in on a different geometry... very little
> changes but the word salad.
>
> IOW it is the same old cold fusion (of P/F) that we know and lover ... no
> substantial difference at all... but now we differentiate so that it is
> very hot at the femtoscale and warm everywhere else... exactly like it has
> been for the past 31 years when the perspective is the much larger
> dimensional frame of reference.
>
> I think Larry Forsley must be getting a big laugh out of this  :-)
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 7:31:16 PM PDT, Jack Cole 
> wrote:
>
>
> They are careful to say it's not CF.  Sure seems like it originated in CF
> methods.
>
>
> https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusiontokamak-not-included
>

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Robin]

Hi,

Consider this, to split a deuteron costs 2.2 MeV. Hot fusion of two deuterons 
yields about 4 MeV. At best this would
never yield more than about a factor of 2and that's not taking into account 
any of the losses. And those losses will
be very significant. 

1) Maybe 1% of the electrons will create significant x-rays, of which only a 
fraction will have the requisite minimum
energy of 2.2 MeV. => most of the electron energy ends up as heat.
2) Only a fraction of the 2.2 MeV or greater x-rays will split a deuteron 
(1%?). The rest just ionize atoms and end up
as heat.
3) Of the split deuterons, only a fraction will produce neutrons with even the 
minimal energy required to fuse two
deuterons (5 keV? - but the more the better).
4) Of those neutrons, only a fraction will actually accelerate a deuteron 
resulting in a fusion reaction.
5) A fusion reaction will primarily create two energetic particles, both of 
which can further accelerate other
deuterons, however only a tiny fraction of them will actually do so. Most will 
simply lose energy ionizing surrounding
atoms, and end up as heat.

In all, I think they would be lucky to get even one part in a million of the 
electron beam energy out as fusion energy,
if the proposed method were actually an accurate description of what happens in 
their reactor.

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Robin]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Thu, 6 Aug 2020 02:58:16 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]
> Ha! The new and improved new wording is interesting in a semantic sense... 
> but get real...
>
>Of course it is the demon cold fusion, but now we can pivot around that stigma 
>and instead present it all in on a different geometry... very little changes 
>but the word salad.

The difference is the energetic electron beam. They are now getting dangerously 
close to my invention, or at least the
version of it that I dropped 10 years ago. :)

I doubt they will have much luck increasing the efficiency. Too many different 
ways for a fast neutron to avoid
colliding with and accelerating a deuteron. Also too many ways for the x-rays 
to avoid splitting a deuteron.
Also too few bremsstrahlung x-rays with enough energy to split a deuteron (2.2 
MeV). All loss paths lead to
inefficiency.

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Robin]

In reply to  Jack Cole's message of Wed, 5 Aug 2020 21:28:45 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>They are careful to say it's not CF.  Sure seems like it originated in CF
...sounds a bit like Let Us Confuse You. ;)

>methods.
>
>https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusiontokamak-not-included

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jones Beene]

 Ha! The new and improved new wording is interesting in a semantic sense... but 
get real...

Of course it is the demon cold fusion, but now we can pivot around that stigma 
and instead present it all in on a different geometry... very little changes 
but the word salad.

IOW it is the same old cold fusion (of P/F) that we know and lover ... no 
substantial difference at all... but now we differentiate so that it is very 
hot at the femtoscale and warm everywhere else... exactly like it has been for 
the past 31 years when the perspective is the much larger dimensional frame of 
reference.

I think Larry Forsley must be getting a big laugh out of this  :-)



On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 7:31:16 PM PDT, Jack Cole  
wrote:  
 
 They are careful to say it's not CF.  Sure seems like it originated in CF 
methods.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusiontokamak-not-included