RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:06 in response to Terry Blanton, Jones Beene wrote [snip]Based on what is admittedly too little evidence my feeling is that first you want densify or convert molecules to pycno or the inverse Rydberg state which is even denser. For some strange reason the molecule does not permit this, but the monatomic atom does permit it and at the normal ground state. Go figure.[/snip] Jones, are you talking relativistic? If molecular bonds oppose conversion to pycno but monatomic atoms do permit the formation of pycno molecules then the only way it could accomplish this and still remain at the normal ground state would be from a local perspective in an equivalent relativistic environment. I happen to agree with that interpretation but if you really meant the atom remains at normal ground state from any perspective then I would counter that the pycno or dense molecules are also at normal ground state from their local perspective. [snip]A good spillover catalyst (in terms of promoting secondary densification) merely makes the molecule monatomic but without bonding, or without ionization. This molecule splitting process is energetically unfavorable at STP, and is a near-field phenomenon on the catalyst itself, so usually these catalysts work better at moderate but not high temperature; and in a situation where the atom can be spilled onto a ceramic. [/snip] Ok - I can see where this would allow the atom to assume a fractional value (from our perspective not locally) based on the local energy density but being ceramic it is dependent on the suppression of the surrounding grains of metal powder still being of nano geometry. I only recently discovered that zeolites of microporous 2nm and possibly even mesoporous 2-10 nm could meet this requirement in a mix of nano powders. I am not saying that dihydrinos or f/h2 can't form in the smaller cavities where zeolites don't fit - in fact I would suspect the smaller cavities could produce the most dense f/h2 but an interim ashless chemical reaction of f/h1f/h2 might benefit from the added surface area where the geometry doesn't effect the ambient suppression or threaten ionization. My guess is that it accelerates relative motion to the suppression gradient which the covalent bonds oppose leading to disassociation. I also suspect the ceramic might help the f/h2 to migrate into the lattice structure just like a normal ground state atom during gas loading. At this point any mechanical oscillation or heat in the lattice structure could threaten to release the f/h2 from confinement and let it slowly leach out as h1. Life after death? Regards Fran
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
No, not relativistic. This is an interpretation of Miley, with respect to Lawandy. It is a dimensional thing. Dense hydrogen only accumulates in two dimensions. After it accumulates, it may move in 3-space as a bound unit, but the effect would be similar to the way Mills' describes the 'orbitsphere' which is 2D but encompassing 3-space as a wrap-around, essentially. Now let me backtrack - it is possible that time itself is also distorted in 2D, but that is not part of picture, at least not so far. It is fair to ask why an proton can be considered 2D while an H2 molecule is 3D. The best I can tell, this relates to freedom of movement. Lawandy seems to be saying that the proton which is about 1.6 fm in diameter, is essentially 2D since its attachment to a dielectric is via a mirror charge in the dielectric and not really atomic at all. Miley takes this further with IRH where electrons do intersperse with protons but NOT in orbitals. It would be helpful if he had used the term 'deflation', but if he did - I missed it. In contrast the Bohr radius is 53 pm, which in effect makes a molecule thicker by a factor of 50,000 or far more, depending on orientation. Yes - technically speaking even femtometers is not 2D, since there is some thickness, but apparently it is close enough for practical applications [snip]Based on what is admittedly too little evidence my feeling is that first you want densify or convert molecules to pycno or the inverse Rydberg state which is even denser. For some strange reason the molecule does not permit this, but the monatomic atom does permit it and at the normal ground state. Go figure.[/snip] Jones, are you talking relativistic? If molecular bonds oppose conversion to pycno but monatomic atoms do permit the formation of pycno molecules then the only way it could accomplish this and still remain at the normal ground state would be from a local perspective in an equivalent relativistic environment. I happen to agree with that interpretation but if you really meant the atom remains at normal ground state from any perspective then I would counter that the pycno or dense molecules are also at normal ground state from their local perspective.
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:06 in response to Terry Blanton, Jones Beene wrote: -[snip] It would seem to me that the hydrogen molecule must first be dissociated before being robbed of its atom's electron by Ni. That would be hydriding, if I understand where you are going, and this is what one wants to avoid initially. This is all in the formative stage of hypothesis, and not simple to verbalize, plus my viewpoint is a minority, but in the event that it helps anyone - here goes. I may be pushing the meaning of spillover here, as it is a rather complex subject with many overtones, going back to its origins in petrochemical processing - but in general, nickel is not a good spillover catalyst as it wants to retain hydrogen as a hydride. A good spillover catalyst (in terms of promoting secondary densification) merely makes the molecule monatomic but without bonding, or without ionization. This molecule splitting process is energetically unfavorable at STP, and is a near-field phenomenon on the catalyst itself, so usually these catalysts work better at moderate but not high temperature; and in a situation where the atom can be spilled onto a ceramic. This is Lawandy's great insight. Could this catalyst assist in dissociation? If so, could it be Pd? Pd works with deuterium but for some reason, less well with H2. That is a great mystery. If not dissociation, what is the function of the catalyst? Some intermediate energy state a la Mills? That doesn't seem right since we are trying to ionize the hydrogen. Not at this stage. And it is similar to Mills. If you look carefully in his patents, you will find the term spillover being used. However, much of what Mills mistakes for hydrinos is instead pycno or dense hydrogen at ground state, but in a quasi-BEC form and it is only stable in a cavity. Based on what is admittedly too little evidence my feeling is that first you want densify or convert molecules to pycno or the inverse Rydberg state which is even denser. For some strange reason the molecule does not permit this, but the monatomic atom does permit it and at the normal ground state. Go figure. ---[end snip]-- Jones - I think I am in whole agreement with what you have said but the way you said it is easily misinterpreted! Yes I agree molecules do not permit CONVERSION to different densities of pycno but it almost sounded like you were saying h2 can't form pycno which I would disagree with because pycno h1 can form pycno h2 where the only limitation on the pycno h2 is that it must remain near the same pynco/fractional value at which it was formed. I think this is why we will never see a dihydrino in the real world but always need to infer it's existence inside a cavity or lattice or view it astrophysically at high spatial velocity being ejected from the suns corona.- I think the covalent bond can accumulate some limited amount of opposition before the molecule disassociates and that the pycno h2 - once formed- may be able to migrate into the confinement of the lattice and oscillate back and forth between fh2 and fh1 when in the appropriate narrow thermal band. The Cavities may act like ice houses to condense the pycno but the lattice confinement may be needed to actually extract the energy. A careful reading of your statement reveals you are specifying the CONVERSION of H2 not the Formation. This also happens to be the key behind the MAHG theory and other Langmuir derived theories. You observed that For some strange reason the molecule does not permit this conversion - something which may also be going on inside the Pd membrane of a hydrogen generator as well, have you found any citations to support this observation? Regards Fran
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Fran - I am working on a 'spillover' essay which may help pull some of these questions together. FWIW - It's curious that Arata was focusing on spillover 17-18 years ago, and not many people took notice. It took the progression to nano materials to really make this insight stand out. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYanewenergya.pdf The important thing to discover, now - is whether pycno, Miley's IRH and the Mills' hydrino, and Horace's deflated electron fusion are either different aspects of the same phenomenon - or merely involved together as stages of a progression, or if they are fundamentally different. For instance, AFAIK - Mills does not mention clusters of hydrinos, and yet when you combine Robin's version of redundancy being the equivalent of loss of electron charge, then it makes perfect sense that dozens of atoms of fractional orbital hydrogen, all having slightly more positive than negative charge, would nucleate around a deflated electron in such a way that a strong bond exists at a greatly reduced dimensions - and also there is a net neutral charge even though there is an 'extra' electron . . with the result that essentially we have Miley's dense IRH - which, in effect, is a smaller than neutron, denser than lead, and completely neutral - which is also Arata's 'pycno'. A dense cluster of neutral hydrogen could additionally be the species which has fooled Larsen and Widom into believing it is an ultra-low momentum neutron. It is low momentum, energy poor, dense and neutral and a net gain or even a interaction - from another nucleus is NOT guaranteed without some kind of coherency with that nucleus. Jones From: francis -[snip] It would seem to me that the hydrogen molecule must first be dissociated before being robbed of its atom's electron by Ni. That would be hydriding, if I understand where you are going, and this is what one wants to avoid initially. This is all in the formative stage of hypothesis, and not simple to verbalize, plus my viewpoint is a minority, but in the event that it helps anyone - here goes. I may be pushing the meaning of spillover here, as it is a rather complex subject with many overtones, going back to its origins in petrochemical processing - but in general, nickel is not a good spillover catalyst as it wants to retain hydrogen as a hydride. A good spillover catalyst (in terms of promoting secondary densification) merely makes the molecule monatomic but without bonding, or without ionization. This molecule splitting process is energetically unfavorable at STP, and is a near-field phenomenon on the catalyst itself, so usually these catalysts work better at moderate but not high temperature; and in a situation where the atom can be spilled onto a ceramic. This is Lawandy's great insight. Could this catalyst assist in dissociation? If so, could it be Pd? Pd works with deuterium but for some reason, less well with H2. That is a great mystery. If not dissociation, what is the function of the catalyst? Some intermediate energy state a la Mills? That doesn't seem right since we are trying to ionize the hydrogen. Not at this stage. And it is similar to Mills. If you look carefully in his patents, you will find the term spillover being used. However, much of what Mills mistakes for hydrinos is instead pycno or dense hydrogen at ground state, but in a quasi-BEC form and it is only stable in a cavity. Based on what is admittedly too little evidence my feeling is that first you want densify or convert molecules to pycno or the inverse Rydberg state which is even denser. For some strange reason the molecule does not permit this, but the monatomic atom does permit it and at the normal ground state. Go figure. ---[end snip]-- Jones - I think I am in whole agreement with what you have said but the way you said it is easily misinterpreted! Yes I agree molecules do not permit CONVERSION to different densities of pycno but it almost sounded like you were saying h2 can't form pycno which I would disagree with because pycno h1 can form pycno h2 where the only limitation on the pycno h2 is that it must remain near the same pycno/fractional value at which it was formed. I think this is why we will never see a dihydrino in the real world but always need to infer it's existence inside a cavity or lattice or view it astrophysically at high spatial velocity being ejected from the suns corona.- I think the covalent bond can accumulate some limited amount of opposition before the molecule disassociates and that the pycno h2 - once formed- may be able to migrate into the confinement of the lattice and oscillate back and forth between fh2 and fh1 when in the appropriate narrow thermal band. The Cavities may act like ice houses to condense the pycno but the lattice
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:45:48 -0800: Hi Jones, [snip] For instance, AFAIK - Mills does not mention clusters of hydrinos, and yet when you combine Robin's version of redundancy being the equivalent of loss of electron charge, then it makes perfect sense that dozens of atoms of fractional orbital hydrogen, all having slightly more positive than negative charge, would nucleate around a deflated electron in such a way that a strong bond exists at a greatly reduced dimensions - and also there is a net neutral charge even though there is an 'extra' electron . I think you are putting words into my mouth here. Not that they aren't interesting words, but not exactly mine. ;) Mills states that outside the H atom (or hydrino for that matter) the electric field is zero because the charge on the proton and the charge on the electron exactly cancel. I think he is almost right. In fact I don't think either charge is completely masked until the two particles are in the same place at the same time. :) What I do say is that field energy is lost as the two get closer together, but this is essentially a loss of electron mass not charge. Furthermore, I'm not sure where you get this extra electron from. Note that as Hydrino molecules shrink, the protons get closer together, so their magnetic fields get stronger. If the magnetic field increases with the inverse cube of the distance, and the distance itself goes with the inverse square of the primary quantum number, then that means that the magnetic field goes as the inverse sixth power of the primary quantum number. That means that as Hydrinos shrink, the magnetic field between the protons grows very rapidly such that molecules can be bound together by the proton magnetic fields, while being electrically neutral overall. These magnetic bonds can rapidly reach a strength well beyond normal chemical energy bonds. IOW such a cluster is not easily torn apart by normal thermal energy, i.e. it can have a high melting point. . with the result that essentially we have Miley's dense IRH - which, in effect, is a smaller than neutron, denser than lead, and completely neutral - which is also Arata's 'pycno'. A dense cluster of neutral hydrogen could additionally be the species which has fooled Larsen and Widom into believing it is an ultra-low momentum neutron. It is low momentum, energy poor, dense and neutral and a net gain or even a interaction - from another nucleus is NOT guaranteed without some kind of coherency with that nucleus. ...what exactly do you mean by coherency here? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
From Robin: ... Note that as Hydrino molecules shrink, the protons get closer together, so their magnetic fields get stronger. If the magnetic field increases with the inverse cube of the distance, and the distance itself goes with the inverse square of the primary quantum number, then that means that the magnetic field goes as the inverse sixth power of the primary quantum number. That means that as Hydrinos shrink, the magnetic field between the protons grows very rapidly such that molecules can be bound together by the proton magnetic fields, while being electrically neutral overall. These magnetic bonds can rapidly reach a strength well beyond normal chemical energy bonds. IOW such a cluster is not easily torn apart by normal thermal energy, i.e. it can have a high melting point. Just a brief side-comment... Some of this lingo is fascinating stuff to me. Having performed a lot of theoretical computer simulation work on my own using good'ol fashion Newtonian based Celestial Mechanics algorithms, where typically I use a = 1/r^2, I noticed orbital pattern behavior transforms into something RADICALLY different, such as if I were to change the classical algorithm to something like a = 1/r^3. You can also combine both of them like a = 1/r^2 +/- 1/r^3 within the same computer algorithm. That produces interesting side effects too. I'm still trying to get a handle on it all. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:19: Robin van Spaandonk wrote [snip]Radioactivity produces fast particles which can trigger an avalanche Hydrino creation mechanism that rapidly converts local H into Hydrinos of whatever size was originally at hand. If these are small enough to result in fusion/fission reactions, then these reactions can in turn create more fast particles. The process stops when the local micro supply of H is consumed, and the net result is an extremely hot spot resulting in melting of the immediate material, hence Mizuno's craters, and Rossi's zones.[/snip] Robin, I agree with your net Result- which is an extremely hot spot resulting in melting of the immediate material, hence Mizuno's craters, and Rossi's zones but not so much the way you arrived at it. Radiation may trigger an avalanche hydrino RE-CREATION mechanism but the hydrinos and dihydrinos already existed before the trigger was introduced as a function of the catalyst geometry. The sudden trigger just pushes any stressed dihydrinos (in the lattice?) over their disassociation threshold and allows the freed hydrinos to reform a dihydrino at some new fractional value. The newly formed dihydrino can release more energy in the form of heat then you invested in the trigger if the change in energy density induced by random gas motion relative to Casimir geometry(ZPE)is strong enough. IMHO the trigger short stops this opposition to the covalent bond before the energy can be converted into kinetic energy Repelling the molecule away from the change in energy density. Because this is an ashless chemical reaction you can average the thermal cost of bringing the gas up to near disassociation level over countless cycles between H1 and H2 such that you only need to make a small Gain over the trigger energy to accumulate a profit. There is however a need to collect your profit very carefully to keep the system In a very narrow thermal range relative to the threshold. I won't speak to the nuclear paths which are beyond my skill set but I am convinced the interim step is of ashless chemistry of fh1 - fh2 where nature provides energy for both directions. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:20:42 -0500: Hi Fran, I suspect that my original post (a few years back) was before you joined Vortex. The mechanism I was talking about works like this:- 1) Take a well shrunken Hydrino molecule. 2) Hit it with a fast particle breaking it into two Hydrinos. 3) Let each of those Hydrinos bind to a proton from a local Hydrogen plasma. You now have two positively charged Hydrino molecular ions. 4) Each Hydrino molecular ion picks up an electron, e.g. through contact with an ordinary atom, or also from the plasma. You now have two identical Hydrino molecules, where originally you had only one. The second has been constituted from free protons and electrons completely bypassing the slow Mills catalytic process for the creation of Hydrinos. The whole process, steps 1-4 can happen in nano-seconds. If those Hydrinos are small enough to undergo nuclear reactions, then new fast particles can be created from the nuclear reaction which can substitute in step (2). Note that the energy required to split the molecule is on the order of keV, whereas the energy of fast particles from a nuclear reaction can be on the order of MeV, so a single such fast particle could in theory split thousands of Hydrino molecules. The Hydrino creation process is energy positive (by about a factor of 3?) even without the nuclear reaction. In an environment where fast particles are present, these will inevitably also create a plasma population for the Hydrino multiplication process to draw from. You can see that even if only a small proportion of the Hydrinos underwent a nuclear reaction, the whole could easily be self sustaining, and even run-away under certain conditions. Steps 3 4 are ion reactions that are common in ordinary chemistry. The binding energies of a proton to a Hydrino and of an electron to a Hydrino molecular ion are on the order of keV, depending on the shrinkage level, so it may be possible for either to steal whatever it needs from ordinary matter, implying that a plasma may not even be needed. The binding energy of the proton to the Hydrino, and of the electron to the Hydrino molecular ion would probably be released as VUV or soft x-rays, neither of which is useful in splitting Hydrino molecules, so the fast particle is necessary (thus explaining why all Hydrogen doesn't immediately collapse). Note that this process breeds Hydrinos from a starting population. That initial population has to be created the slow way (with catalysis), and if your Hydrino molecules escape or get used up rapidly, then when first starting your reactor you won't have any so you need a while for the catalytic process to create Hydrinos that are small enough to do the job (1/2 - 1 hours? ;-). You may also need an initial injection of fast particles from an external radioactive source to jump start the process. :) On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:19: Robin van Spaandonk wrote [snip]Radioactivity produces fast particles which can trigger an avalanche Hydrino creation mechanism that rapidly converts local H into Hydrinos of whatever size was originally at hand. If these are small enough to result in fusion/fission reactions, then these reactions can in turn create more fast particles. The process stops when the local micro supply of H is consumed, and the net result is an extremely hot spot resulting in melting of the immediate material, hence Mizuno's craters, and Rossi's zones.[/snip] Robin, I agree with your net Result- which is an extremely hot spot resulting in melting of the immediate material, hence Mizuno's craters, and Rossi's zones but not so much the way you arrived at it. Radiation may trigger an avalanche hydrino RE-CREATION mechanism but the hydrinos and dihydrinos already existed before the trigger was introduced as a function of the catalyst geometry. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
[Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Everyone now seems to be looking ahead and focusing on replication. Good. If anyone thinks that replication of this device is a wicked problem now, or in an abstract way, then they will learn soon that it becomes diabolical why? The device only works with a secret catalyst, together with the nickel. Rossi say this himself. My colleague asked Focardi directly do you know what the catalyst is? He said without hesitation that he did not know, and that no one except Rossi knows. How can the device be replicated successfully without that detail, and do you really want to see a lot of null results ? The patent rejection notice from the WIPO for the original filing states that he must disclose the catalyst or drop the reference to it, yet in his revised filing he did not disclose. This indicates that it will remain a trade secret and that the patent is essentially worthless except as an threat of litigation. I think Peters wishful solution to the wicked problem is therefore naïve. Who will attempt a meaningful replication without disclosure of relevant details? Rossi (LTI) cannot have it both ways; and he is free to keep the catalyst a trade secret or to patent it, but replication could be impossible without that detail. More likely, the risk to Rossi is that someone in an attempted replication will discover it, or find a better one, and they will patent it. Jones From: Peter Gluck Dear Jed, You are right. I am working out- in the frame of my blog a system for real life problem solving. The painful puzzle of CF's bad reproducibility seemed to be a wicked problem (see Wikipedia etc- it is an fundamental concept) Now it has one solution.
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: My colleague asked Focardi directly “do you know what the catalyst is?” He said without hesitation that he did not know, and that no one except Rossi knows. Yup. That's what I have heard too. Typical of the inventor's disease. If Rossi drops dead today he will take the secret of this device to the grave, just as so many others have done. How can the device be replicated successfully without that detail, and do you really want to see a lot of null results ? That is the subject of vigorous debate by many people behind the scenes at this moment. The patent rejection notice from the WIPO for the original filing states that he must disclose the catalyst or drop the reference to it, yet in his revised filing he did not disclose. This indicates that it will remain a “trade secret” and that the patent is essentially worthless except as an threat of litigation. I would say perfectly worthless. Not worth the electrons it is displayed with on your screen. The patent is yet another example of Rossi's strange behavior and what looks like faulty judgement to most people. The trade secrets and patents worry me far more than the allegations that Rossi has been involved in questionable business deals, mysterious fires, or that he claims a degree from a fake university. In the big picture, that stuff makes no difference. If Rossi is right, not only will he get dozens of honorary degrees, they will name a university after him. No one will care that he was a scoundrel -- or at least, a scamp -- before he became famous. Many famous people have disreputable pasts. You can read about that in obscure biographies, but no one gives a hoot. Nor should anyone care, since the good Rossi may do will outweigh the bad by a huge margin. I say the good he *may* do. So far he has not accomplished anything of practical use, and because he seems infected with the inventor's disease, he may never accomplish anything, and this breakthrough may yet be lost forever. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Thank you Jones! However may I have a few simple questions to you: 0) have you really read about *wicked problems* in the Wikipedia? (they are not what we say in the usual language- see Rittel et al) a) who is focusing now on replication? How can you replicate without reverse engineering and copying? b) have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with soo many critical parameters? c) have you accepted my idea that a *process patent* is missing the critical facts and know how, has a lot of false data, and is in no way sufficient to replication? Or not and do you believe that story with those skilled enough...? d) not question- the last thing Rossi or an other inventor wants is that somebody should replicate the generator- they don't want confirmation- they want to sell and make money, they sell 10 units- thse work well OK, then 100 and so on. if they don't work- finita la commedia! e) are you absolutely sure that your friend has spoken to Focardi and not to Levi? f) and he spoke to Focardi, why should Focardi tell him a trade secret? g) In my understanding naive is an euphemism for stupid- OK, I have to admit that I am not infailible- but where exactly is my naivete manifest? h) in case we have both forgotten, I repeat my questions -who wants to replicate, and why should Rossi at co be happy for the replication of their precious process? I have worked 40 years in the industrial practice, many times we have bought a process have read the patents - and then after we havae payed- have learned the know-how, have discovered some things, got experience, made errors, corrected them and have used the process trying constantly to improve it. Best wishes, Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Everyone now seems to be looking ahead and focusing on replication. Good. If anyone thinks that replication of this device is a “wicked problem” now, or in an abstract way, then they will learn soon that it becomes diabolical … why? The device only works with a secret catalyst, together with the nickel. Rossi say this himself. My colleague asked Focardi directly “do you know what the catalyst is?” He said without hesitation that he did not know, and that no one except Rossi knows. How can the device be replicated successfully without that detail, and do you really want to see a lot of null results ? The patent rejection notice from the WIPO for the original filing states that he must disclose the catalyst or drop the reference to it, yet in his revised filing he did not disclose. This indicates that it will remain a “trade secret” and that the patent is essentially worthless except as an threat of litigation. I think Peter’s wishful solution to the wicked problem is therefore naïve. Who will attempt a meaningful replication without disclosure of relevant details? Rossi (LTI) cannot have it both ways; and he is free to keep the catalyst a “trade secret” or to patent it, but replication could be impossible without that detail. More likely, the risk to Rossi is that someone in an attempted replication will discover it, or find a better one, and they will patent it. Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Dear Jed, You are right. I am working out- in the frame of my blog a system for real life problem solving. The painful puzzle of CF's bad reproducibility seemed to be a *wicked problem (*see Wikipedia etc- it is an fundamental concept) Now it has one solution.
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: e) are you absolutely sure that your friend has spoken to Focardi and not to Levi? f) and he spoke to Focardi, why should Focardi tell him a trade secret? I do not think Focardi would lie, or dissemble. He would just say I can't tell you; it is a trade secret. Or he would say I don't want to tell you. These people have no compunction about keeping secrets. They feel no obligation to reveal anything. I confirm that their primary, immediate goal is to make commercial products. I do not know if that is because they want to make money, or they feel that is the best way to convince the world they are right. I think there are better ways to accomplish both goals without going to the trouble of making a working power reactor. If they would heed my advice, I think they could make billions of dollars, whereas they may only make hundreds of millions. But it is not my decision, and what they are doing is fine with me. I will be thrilled if they demonstrate a 1 MWh reactor. (MWh = megawatt-heat. I do not know the projected electric power output.) Their plans are much better than the development plans of many other researchers, such as Patterson. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Dear Jed, Let's see first if if was Focardi. So much is lost in translations! This is the reason for which- working in research I have learned the important European languages- German, Russian, French, Italian- a bit of Spanish. This was very useful for my work. I have envied you for reading, speaking Japanese- I couldn't however my former secretary, a very intelligent lady has learned it at a high level. And says it has a wonderful logic. Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: e) are you absolutely sure that your friend has spoken to Focardi and not to Levi? f) and he spoke to Focardi, why should Focardi tell him a trade secret? I do not think Focardi would lie, or dissemble. He would just say I can't tell you; it is a trade secret. Or he would say I don't want to tell you. These people have no compunction about keeping secrets. They feel no obligation to reveal anything. I confirm that their primary, immediate goal is to make commercial products. I do not know if that is because they want to make money, or they feel that is the best way to convince the world they are right. I think there are better ways to accomplish both goals without going to the trouble of making a working power reactor. If they would heed my advice, I think they could make billions of dollars, whereas they may only make hundreds of millions. But it is not my decision, and what they are doing is fine with me. I will be thrilled if they demonstrate a 1 MWh reactor. (MWh = megawatt-heat. I do not know the projected electric power output.) Their plans are much better than the development plans of many other researchers, such as Patterson. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Yes - definitely Focardi. They have been in touch previously by telephone, so there was no mistake in identity. There is NO hedging on this point. This catalyst is a trade secret. As to the identity of the catalyst being known only to Rossi, that may not be literally true, since this work was first performed in conjunction with Leonardo Technologies in New Hampshire USA, and there was a small staff involved. Jones From: Peter Gluck Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem Dear Jed, Let's see first if was Focardi. So much is lost in translations!
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
From: Peter Gluck have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with so many critical parameters? I have certainly read everything in the public record, and much that is not public. And with all due respect, let me suggest that your comments lead to a conclusion that you are misinformed on the precise history of this present effort, Peter. This is NOT about Focardi in any relevant way. Of course, he would like to take as much credit as others will give him, why not? The effort that led to the presentation is barely three years old. I have nothing against anyone being a cheerleader for the LENR field - and you are quite good at that - keep up the good work, but please do not cloud the general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians. The motivation for including them now is not what you think. Certainly Focardi and the others have been at similar work for a long time, over 15 years in fact, and with limited success and terrible reproducibility. That failure to reproduce is what has drawn them to Rossi, who is a complete newcomer, but did stumble on two key things and they are probably the same two of Arata - nickel nanopowder and a spillover catalyst. Arata used palladium since deuterium only works with palladium. Rossi has found something that works equally well with hydrogen. It is that simple. Rossi has only recently got involved - and understanding how he got involved - with LTI and DARPA and as an outgrowth of the TEG project is absolutely critical to understanding the present situation. Surely, you have noticed that this is not an equal effort, and that Focardi is not, and never was, a full partner in Rossi's project. His contribution is merely lending the credibility of his name to the real inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
The catalyst may be several elements that operate to block, bind, impede, or remove the many impurities that necessitate thorough repeated cleaning to allow the initial reaction to happen -- likely the reaction itself produces harmful impurities, so that the catalysts are needed to allow the reaction to continue. If this is so, then it should be fairly obvious how to proceed to identify various impurities and test antidotes that plausibly might treat them. I suspect the stakes are so high for world security and progress that a clandestine operation will seize a working reactor and reverse engineer it. Logically, all facets of the Rossi network may have been under intensive surveillance for years, including moles. The reaction may well be straightforward new physics, just like fission in 1939, in which case it will apply to many elements and setups, and inevitably found and elucidated by the inevitable exponential expansion of science and technology. I suggest looking into the enormous body of research on metal hydrides, formed in diamond anvil ultrapressure tabletop experiments, up to the million bar level, the pressures at the center of Earth. Anomalous elements and heat may already have been found, but simply not cognized properly, in many experiments. Geology of minerals from the depths may also offer much of interest, as well as studies on minerals and melting from the early solar system. Laser implosion facilities should test tiny Ni balls full of H... Even small chemical explosion implosion experiments... Another avenue would be high current Z-pinch high current and voltage spark tests on tiny Ni tubes full of H, and then also combined with implosion from cylindrical symmetry chemical explosions. The facts about a possible new generation of simple, cheap nuclear weapons have to be kept in full view of all world citizens.
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Dear Jones, I like your scenario -if I understand correctly- Rossi is a real inventor who succeeded to transform a non-, or badly working device in this fine, functional generator? OK, do you have real information about that? However I would ask you to explain or to retract what you have said re *general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians* This sound very offending and I do not see any justification for it. Better let's discuss about patents, if... Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Peter Gluck have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with so many critical parameters? I have certainly read everything in the public record, and much that is not public. And with all due respect, let me suggest that your comments lead to a conclusion that you are misinformed on the precise history of this present effort, Peter. This is NOT about Focardi in any relevant way. Of course, he would like to take as much credit as others will give him, why not? The effort that led to the presentation is barely three years old. I have nothing against anyone being a cheerleader for the LENR field – and you are quite good at that – keep up the good work, but please do not cloud the general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians. The motivation for including them now is not what you think. Certainly Focardi and the others have been at similar work for a long time, over 15 years in fact, and with limited success and terrible reproducibility. That failure to reproduce is what has drawn them to Rossi, who is a complete newcomer, but did stumble on two key things and they are probably the same two of Arata – nickel nanopowder and a spillover catalyst. Arata used palladium since deuterium only works with palladium. Rossi has found something that works equally well with hydrogen. It is that simple. Rossi has only recently got involved - and understanding how he got involved – with LTI and DARPA and as an outgrowth of the TEG project is absolutely critical to understanding the present situation. Surely, you have noticed that this is not an equal effort, and that Focardi is not, and never was, a full partner in Rossi’s project. His contribution is merely lending the credibility of his name to the real inventor. Jones
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Rich, There is plenty of room for disagreement with all of this recent emphasis on impurities. This could be a giant red herring that first appeared in a couple of Japanese papers, and seems to have gone viral. I had to laugh when it showed up in the recent Rossi USPTO application, as it looked like a cut and paste from one of Arata's papers. Rossi clearly has followed the Japanese work. The jury is still out on whether the impurity issue is relevant or not, but in unpublished work I know of, impurities which were later identified, are actually the root cause of massive improvement, and without them the experiment could have failed. The cynic might argue that the inventor is sneaking that kind of red herring in to actually limit any chance of finding a better spillover catalyst by others, since indeed this kind of catalyst seems to work best in low percentage. Jones -Original Message- From: Rich Murray The catalyst may be several elements that operate to block, bind, impede, or remove the many impurities that necessitate thorough repeated cleaning to allow the initial reaction to happen -- likely the reaction itself produces harmful impurities, so that the catalysts are needed to allow the reaction to continue. If this is so, then it should be fairly obvious how to proceed to identify various impurities and test antidotes that plausibly might treat them. I suspect the stakes are so high for world security and progress that a clandestine operation will seize a working reactor and reverse engineer it. Logically, all facets of the Rossi network may have been under intensive surveillance for years, including moles. The reaction may well be straightforward new physics, just like fission in 1939, in which case it will apply to many elements and setups, and inevitably found and elucidated by the inevitable exponential expansion of science and technology. I suggest looking into the enormous body of research on metal hydrides, formed in diamond anvil ultrapressure tabletop experiments, up to the million bar level, the pressures at the center of Earth. Anomalous elements and heat may already have been found, but simply not cognized properly, in many experiments. Geology of minerals from the depths may also offer much of interest, as well as studies on minerals and melting from the early solar system. Laser implosion facilities should test tiny Ni balls full of H... Even small chemical explosion implosion experiments... Another avenue would be high current Z-pinch high current and voltage spark tests on tiny Ni tubes full of H, and then also combined with implosion from cylindrical symmetry chemical explosions. The facts about a possible new generation of simple, cheap nuclear weapons have to be kept in full view of all world citizens.
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Dear Peter, There must be a language problem - no offense was intended. The point is that the genesis of Rossi's work did not have any remote connection to Focardi, nor even to LENR. LENR was NOT Rossi's field of interest, until recently. This began with a DARPA grant for an improved thermoelectric generator. Rossi, along with LTI, and researchers at the University of New Hampshire built a model that seemed to be a 400% improvement over anything else ever made. It used nano-nickel as the main component. The material turned out to be extremely energetic, and two lab fires resulted. The program was abandoned. But not the material! There was zero connection to the Italian LENR program until this point in time, about 4 years ago - and all of the advances came later with one further huge coincidence - it was all at about the same time as the Arata/Zhang experiments were making a major impact in the science News. Rossi is no fool. He can add 2+2 and get four. He immediately saw the connection, and then soon after found out about the Italian efforts, going back to the early 1990s. This is when it all came together with Focardi. The 800 pound gorilla in the closet is LTI. Essentially they will claim to own all rights to the invention, and since it was done through DARPA, who knows where it will end up? Jones From: Peter Gluck Dear Jones, I like your scenario -if I understand correctly- Rossi is a real inventor who succeeded to transform a non-, or badly working device in this fine, functional generator? OK, do you have real information about that? However I would ask you to explain or to retract what you have said re general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians This sound very offending and I do not see any justification for it. Better let's discuss about patents, if... Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Peter Gluck have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with so many critical parameters? I have certainly read everything in the public record, and much that is not public. And with all due respect, let me suggest that your comments lead to a conclusion that you are misinformed on the precise history of this present effort, Peter. This is NOT about Focardi in any relevant way. Of course, he would like to take as much credit as others will give him, why not? The effort that led to the presentation is barely three years old. I have nothing against anyone being a cheerleader for the LENR field - and you are quite good at that - keep up the good work, but please do not cloud the general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians. The motivation for including them now is not what you think. Certainly Focardi and the others have been at similar work for a long time, over 15 years in fact, and with limited success and terrible reproducibility. That failure to reproduce is what has drawn them to Rossi, who is a complete newcomer, but did stumble on two key things and they are probably the same two of Arata - nickel nanopowder and a spillover catalyst. Arata used palladium since deuterium only works with palladium. Rossi has found something that works equally well with hydrogen. It is that simple. Rossi has only recently got involved - and understanding how he got involved - with LTI and DARPA and as an outgrowth of the TEG project is absolutely critical to understanding the present situation. Surely, you have noticed that this is not an equal effort, and that Focardi is not, and never was, a full partner in Rossi's project. His contribution is merely lending the credibility of his name to the real inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
I just came upon Rossi at the blog of my friend Steve Krivit and his variant is like yours. The situation is interesting, how would you define it in a septoe? I would say: It was a triumph, real not ideal Real has many meanings, not all very positive. Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Dear Peter, There must be a language problem – no offense was intended. The point is that the genesis of Rossi’s work did not have any remote connection to Focardi, nor even to LENR. LENR was NOT Rossi’s field of interest, until recently. This began with a DARPA grant for an improved thermoelectric generator. Rossi, along with LTI, and researchers at the University of New Hampshire built a model that seemed to be a 400% improvement over anything else ever made. It used nano-nickel as the main component. The material turned out to be extremely energetic, and two lab fires resulted. The program was abandoned. But not the material! There was zero connection to the Italian LENR program until this point in time, about 4 years ago - and all of the advances came later with one further huge coincidence – it was all at about the same time as the Arata/Zhang experiments were making a major impact in the science News. Rossi is no fool. He can add 2+2 and get four. He immediately saw the connection, and then soon after found out about the Italian efforts, going back to the early 1990s. This is when it all came together with Focardi. The 800 pound gorilla in the closet is LTI. Essentially they will claim to own all rights to the invention, and since it was done through DARPA, who knows where it will end up? Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Dear Jones, I like your scenario -if I understand correctly- Rossi is a real inventor who succeeded to transform a non-, or badly working device in this fine, functional generator? OK, do you have real information about that? However I would ask you to explain or to retract what you have said re *general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians* This sound very offending and I do not see any justification for it. Better let's discuss about patents, if... Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Peter Gluck have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with so many critical parameters? I have certainly read everything in the public record, and much that is not public. And with all due respect, let me suggest that your comments lead to a conclusion that you are misinformed on the precise history of this present effort, Peter. This is NOT about Focardi in any relevant way. Of course, he would like to take as much credit as others will give him, why not? The effort that led to the presentation is barely three years old. I have nothing against anyone being a cheerleader for the LENR field – and you are quite good at that – keep up the good work, but please do not cloud the general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians. The motivation for including them now is not what you think. Certainly Focardi and the others have been at similar work for a long time, over 15 years in fact, and with limited success and terrible reproducibility. That failure to reproduce is what has drawn them to Rossi, who is a complete newcomer, but did stumble on two key things and they are probably the same two of Arata – nickel nanopowder and a spillover catalyst. Arata used palladium since deuterium only works with palladium. Rossi has found something that works equally well with hydrogen. It is that simple. Rossi has only recently got involved - and understanding how he got involved – with LTI and DARPA and as an outgrowth of the TEG project is absolutely critical to understanding the present situation. Surely, you have noticed that this is not an equal effort, and that Focardi is not, and never was, a full partner in Rossi’s project. His contribution is merely lending the credibility of his name to the real inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
So then it seems unlikely that Rossi will release any experimental ash for analysis. The results would likely expose any spillover supports, transmuted elements and ratios thereof that would expose the pathways. Perhaps the catalyst is radioactive -acting as a trigger? Rich Murray Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:34:02 -0800 The catalyst may be several elements that operate to block, bind, impede, or remove the many impurities that necessitate thorough repeated cleaning to allow the initial reaction to happen -- likely the reaction itself produces harmful impurities, so that the catalysts are needed to allow the reaction to continue. If this is so, then it should be fairly obvious how to proceed to identify various impurities and test antidotes that plausibly might treat them. I suspect the stakes are so high for world security and progress that a clandestine operation will seize a working reactor and reverse engineer it. Logically, all facets of the Rossi network may have been under intensive surveillance for years, including moles. The reaction may well be straightforward new physics, just like fission in 1939, in which case it will apply to many elements and setups, and inevitably found and elucidated by the inevitable exponential expansion of science and technology. I suggest looking into the enormous body of research on metal hydrides, formed in diamond anvil ultrapressure tabletop experiments, up to the million bar level, the pressures at the center of Earth. Anomalous elements and heat may already have been found, but simply not cognized properly, in many experiments. Geology of minerals from the depths may also offer much of interest, as well as studies on minerals and melting from the early solar system. Laser implosion facilities should test tiny Ni balls full of H... Even small chemical explosion implosion experiments... Another avenue would be high current Z-pinch high current and voltage spark tests on tiny Ni tubes full of H, and then also combined with implosion from cylindrical symmetry chemical explosions. The facts about a possible new generation of simple, cheap nuclear weapons have to be kept in full view of all world citizens.
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Fran, Yes, there is little chance of getting hold of ash, same as with Mills/BLP. Anyone who looks into this deeply, and understands the Lawandy paper, can probably guess the kinds of catalysts which should work. Tests are already underway to verify the most likely possibility; and yes it is slightly radioactive, but not enough to account for the results claimed. BTW - many of the so-called Mills' catalysts are slightly radioactive, but that is probably irrelevant to the main way they are claimed to operate. Potassium is the prime example - a billion year half-life makes it tolerable to even ingest, in bananas, for instance. The big unknown, which is never mentioned by anyone else that I am aware of, is: does even slight radioactivity make a ZPE pathway more likely? I am convinced that it does, for reasons too complicated to elaborate now. From: francis So then it seems unlikely that Rossi will release any experimental ash for analysis. The results would likely expose any spillover supports, transmuted elements and ratios thereof that would expose the pathways. Perhaps the catalyst is radioactive -acting as a trigger?
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: After all we vorticians are not only pro bono but de Bono You too? or Edward R? It would seem to me that the hydrogen molecule must first be dissociated before being robbed of it's atom's electron by Ni. Could this catalyst assist in dissociation? If so, could it be Pd? If not dissociation, what is the function of the catalyst? Some intermediate energy state a la Mills? That doesn't seem right since we are trying to ionize the hydrogen. T
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that the hydrogen molecule must first be dissociated before being robbed of it's atom's electron by Ni. Could this catalyst assist in dissociation? If so, could it be Pd? If not dissociation, what is the function of the catalyst? Some intermediate energy state a la Mills? That doesn't seem right since we are trying to ionize the hydrogen. I mention this because the temperature and pressure limits mentioned in Rossi's writings do not seem sufficient to dissociate hydrogen. T
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:14:07 -0800: Hi, Everyone now seems to be looking ahead and focusing on replication. Good. If anyone thinks that replication of this device is a wicked problem now, or in an abstract way, then they will learn soon that it becomes diabolical why? The device only works with a secret catalyst, together with the nickel. Rossi say this himself. My colleague asked Focardi directly do you know what the catalyst is? He said without hesitation that he did not know, and that no one except Rossi knows. [snip] I suspect it's one of Mills' recent molecular catalysts. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:25:56 -0800: Hi, [snip] The big unknown, which is never mentioned by anyone else that I am aware of, is: does even slight radioactivity make a ZPE pathway more likely? I am convinced that it does, for reasons too complicated to elaborate now. [snip] Radioactivity produces fast particles which can trigger an avalanche Hydrino creation mechanism that rapidly converts local H into Hydrinos of whatever size was originally at hand. If these are small enough to result in fusion/fission reactions, then these reactions can in turn create more fast particles. The process stops when the local micro supply of H is consumed, and the net result is an extremely hot spot resulting in melting of the immediate material, hence Mizuno's craters, and Rossi's zones. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:11:33 -0500: Hi, [snip] On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: After all we vorticians are not only pro bono but de Bono You too? or Edward R? It would seem to me that the hydrogen molecule must first be dissociated before being robbed of it's atom's electron by Ni. Could this catalyst assist in dissociation? If so, could it be Pd? If not dissociation, what is the function of the catalyst? Some intermediate energy state a la Mills? That doesn't seem right since we are trying to ionize the hydrogen. Who says you are trying to ionize the Hydrogen? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Who says you are trying to ionize the Hydrogen? Not exactly accurate. If the electron capture concept is correct, then only dissociation is necessary. Further reading on my part shows that dissociation can occur on metal surfaces. I think Horace wrote on this. I'm looking over his stuff. Normally, we would have heard from Horace. I hope he is okay. T
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
In reply to Robin's message of Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:19 Hi [snip]Radioactivity produces fast particles which can trigger an avalanche Hydrino creation mechanism that rapidly converts local H into Hydrinos of whatever size was originally at hand. If these are small enough to result in fusion/fission reactions, then these reactions can in turn create more fast particles. The process stops when the local micro supply of H is consumed, and the net result is an extremely hot spot resulting in melting of the immediate material, hence Mizuno's craters, and Rossi's zones. [/snip] I think the radioactive catalyst may also form a gas that works inside the cavity where the relativistic environment has already resulted in dihydrinos - the alpha emissions could disassociate fractional h2 while it is discounted due to changes in Casimir force before the opposition to the h2 bond can translate into a physical repulsion. this would be a runaway ashless oscillation that could quickly melt the geometry into whiskers relieving the stiction forces. This would multiply the radioactive effect because of time dilation similar to reports where half lives are reversibly accelerated inside a catalyst. Regards Fran
