subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Review of Ed Storms book\: \"The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\""

Kivin--


My grasp is based on intuition--not existing theory.  I happen to agree with 
Don Hodson’s concern about basic physics teachings that do not account for the 
energy associated with spin in the mass of the proton and other particles.  
Spin energy has always been neglected in my opinion in nuclear energy 
calculations.   




I think there is a lot of data that show spin energy is quantized and 
associated with angular momentum, and maybe linear momentum as well--I do not 
know.  Plank’s constant connects spin angular momentum with linear momentum of 
a particle via the particles wave function frequency.  Most people assume that 
momentum and kinetic energy are connected, even at relativistic conditions. 




Bob












Sent from Windows Mail





From: Kevin O'Malley
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎22‎, ‎2014 ‎9‎:‎09‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com










Bob:



I think you have a good grasp on what in the end will have been considered 
important to look at.  Please see my comments embedded in your email as 3 
asterisks***.  





On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:





Axil--

Axil, you are getting warm--changing spin energy--angular momentum--into EM and 
then heat energy is the key. 


***This is a great concept to pursue.  If the Nuclear Reaction of LENR turns 
out to be harnessing spin energy changes, then everyone wins.  It wasn't 
fusion, so the hot-fusion boys save face.  But it was nuclear, so 
ponsfleischmann were right after all.  




 





As we have discussed before, Cooper pairing is key to the reaction of changing 
spin energy to heat.

***I have been avoiding coming up to speed on Cooper pairing because I do not 
understand it.  But you have changed my resolve.



 





  

Bob

Chemical effects to modify the spin of hydrogen is a doorway through which the 
LENR reaction must pass before the LENR reaction can occur. Hydrogen is NMR 
active, its nuclear spin is non zero. A chemical reaction must occur before 
hydrogen can undergo fusion. The spin of hydrogen must be reduced to 0. 

The transformation of hydrogen into Rydberg matter is how the spin of hydrogen 
is made 0.

***So, right here it would appear that you finally stepped off the curb and 
said something quite controversial.  





 





This is accomplished by the production of a hydrogen plasma and its subsequent 
cooling.

***I have been noticing some of this in the literature.   For instance, it is 
possible that the first set of reactions of NiH are actually ENDOthermic, 
cooling things down, and possibly encouraging the formation of Luttinger Liquid 


1Dimensional BECs.  You state plainly that a plasma is present.  Plasma physics 
change EVERYTHING.  They are so complicated that basically no one understands 
it.  I have never met a single person who can understand a flame to me, let 
alone the special case of a plasma flame.  



Now, another thing about cooling.  Right here on Vortex, Ed Storms did not 
realize that KP Sinha was using lasers to COOL the environment rather than heat 
it up.  Sinha was using laser cooling in a similar fashion as Dr. Hu, who was 
Obama's Science Advisor for several years after getting his Nobel Prize for 
creating the first BEC with laser cooling.  It all sorta comes together once 
you put on the endothermic laser cooling glasses.



 





A one dimensional crystal structure of hydrogen dust

***ONE dimensional!  Crystal structure!  Hydrogen!  Sounds like my V1DLLBEC 
theory!  




 





will form in which the nuclear spin of hydrogen is reduced to zero through 
cooper pairing. 

***Damn you, you're gonna make me come up to speed on Cooper pairing.



 






It is cooper paired hydrogen that can be a reaction component in the LENR 
reaction. The LENR reaction will always accompany hydrogen plasma formation 
either through heat or arc discharge. 

***Here's another blinking red light:  Arc Discharge.   What do you think of my 
associated theory?  






Posted elsewhere


What do you think of my theory?

To: *All; y'all; et al*
Here’s my theory.
On either side of a crack in the substrate material, you’ve got electrons
moving at different speeds, creating a microscopically small differential
capacitor. The vibrations push the differential charge “upward”, which is
to say from the smallest separation of the crack to the largest. When the
charge differential gets to a certain point, a spark is generated. This
spark is what creates the Nuclear Active Environment. But it is not due to
plasma physics, it is due to a force generated by a spark that goes across
the anode  cathode of a capacitor. In the below Quantum Potential article,
a propulsive force was found that matches these conditions (except that
we’re seeing it on a microscopic level).

Asymmetric
Capacitor
Thruster
http://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf
An earlier SBIR study commissioned by the Air Force reported a propulsive
force caused by a spark between ACT electrodes [3]. The

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

What does a near-zero K temperature phenomenon have to do with LENR or the
price of wheat?

You are talking about a BEC of Rydberg atoms. That BEC is very heavy and
can only happen at low temperatures. A BEC of Zero mass or near zero mass
bosons can exist at vey high temperatures. So your inbreed assumptions are
not correct.


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Kivin--

 My grasp is based on intuition--not existing theory.  I happen to agree
 with Don Hodson’s concern about basic physics teachings that do not account
 for the energy associated with spin in the mass of the proton and other
 particles.  Spin energy has always been neglected in my opinion in nuclear
 energy calculations.

 I think there is a lot of data that show spin energy is quantized and
 associated with angular momentum, and maybe linear momentum as well--I do
 not know.  Plank’s constant connects spin angular momentum with linear
 momentum of a particle via the particles wave function frequency.  Most
 people assume that momentum and kinetic energy are connected, even at
 relativistic conditions.

 Bob



 Sent from Windows Mail

 *From:* Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 *Sent:* ‎Tuesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎22‎, ‎2014 ‎9‎:‎09‎ ‎PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com



 Bob:

 I think you have a good grasp on what in the end will have been considered
 important to look at.  Please see my comments embedded in your email as 3
 asterisks***.


 On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Axil--

 Axil, you are getting warm--changing spin energy--angular momentum--into
 EM and then heat energy is the key.

 ***This is a great concept to pursue.  If the Nuclear Reaction of LENR
 turns out to be harnessing spin energy changes, then everyone wins.  It
 wasn't fusion, so the hot-fusion boys save face.  But it was nuclear, so
 ponsfleischmann were right after all.




 As we have discussed before, Cooper pairing is key to the reaction of
 changing spin energy to heat.

 ***I have been avoiding coming up to speed on Cooper pairing because I do
 not understand it.  But you have changed my resolve.





 Bob

 Chemical effects to modify the spin of hydrogen is a doorway through
 which the LENR reaction must pass before the LENR reaction can occur.
 Hydrogen is NMR active, its nuclear spin is non zero. A chemical reaction
 must occur before hydrogen can undergo fusion. The spin of hydrogen must be
 reduced to 0.
 The transformation of hydrogen into Rydberg matter is how the spin of
 hydrogen is made 0.

 ***So, right here it would appear that you finally stepped off the curb
 and said something quite controversial.





  This is accomplished by the production of a hydrogen plasma and its
 subsequent cooling.

 ***I have been noticing some of this in the literature.   For instance, it
 is possible that the first set of reactions of NiH are actually
 ENDOthermic, cooling things down, and possibly encouraging the formation of
 Luttinger Liquid
 1Dimensional BECs.  You state plainly that a plasma is present.  Plasma
 physics change EVERYTHING.  They are so complicated that basically no one
 understands it.  I have never met a single person who can understand a
 flame to me, let alone the special case of a plasma flame.

 Now, another thing about cooling.  Right here on Vortex, Ed Storms did not
 realize that KP Sinha was using lasers to COOL the environment rather than
 heat it up.  Sinha was using laser cooling in a similar fashion as Dr. Hu,
 who was Obama's Science Advisor for several years after getting his Nobel
 Prize for creating the first BEC with laser cooling.  It all sorta comes
 together once you put on the endothermic laser cooling glasses.



  A one dimensional crystal structure of hydrogen dust

 ***ONE dimensional!  Crystal structure!  Hydrogen!  Sounds like my
 V1DLLBEC theory!




  will form in which the nuclear spin of hydrogen is reduced to zero
 through cooper pairing.

 ***Damn you, you're gonna make me come up to speed on Cooper pairing.



  It is cooper paired hydrogen that can be a reaction component in the
 LENR reaction. The LENR reaction will always accompany hydrogen plasma
 formation either through heat or arc discharge.

 ***Here's another blinking red light:  Arc Discharge.   What do you think
 of my associated theory?


 Posted elsewhere


 What do you think of my theory?

 To: *All; y'all; et al*
 Here’s my theory.
 On either side of a crack in the substrate material, you’ve got electrons
 moving at different speeds, creating a microscopically small differential
 capacitor. The vibrations push the differential charge “upward”, which is
 to say from the smallest separation of the crack to the largest. When the
 charge differential gets to a certain point, a spark is generated. This
 spark is what creates the Nuclear Active Environment. But it is not due to
 plasma physics, it is due to a force generated by a spark that goes across
 the anode  cathode of a

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

2014-07-23 Thread Eric Walker

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

What does a near-zero K temperature phenomenon have to do with LENR or the
 price of wheat?

 You are talking about a BEC of Rydberg atoms. That BEC is very heavy and
 can only happen at low temperatures. A BEC of Zero mass or near zero mass
 bosons can exist at vey high temperatures. So your inbreed assumptions are
 not correct.


Although I'm skeptical about the BEC stuff, I'm not saying you're incorrect
on this one.  I do think you have the burden of showing that such a
zero-mass or near-zero-mass BEC exists and is relevant to LENR.  In order
to be convincing, I think you would need to come up with a simple,
cost-effective experiment that we can all agree is falsifiable and that
will establish your claim.  It would not be enough to point to promising
articles on phys.org, as the starting points of such research are usually
too far removed from the kinds of systems we're interested in.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

By what train of careful experimentation was it shown that magnetism has a
huge effect on the fusion or fission cross sections in the kinds of
contexts we're looking at?

ICF via lasers want to get to 6*10^23 electrons per cm-3 to achieve Hot
fusion.
See:

https://news.slac.stanford.edu/announcement/siegfried-glenzer-exploring-physical-properties-matter-extreme-conditions-simes-seminar

For example, Glenzer and colleagues have recently compressed aluminum up to
a mass density of 7 g/cm3 (approaching three times solid density) with
a *free-electron
density of ne = 4.7 x 1023 cm-3* and a temperature of 35,000K.

Electron density is a key parameter for fusion. Cold Fusion needs to get to
that number too.

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:

Yes, data is missing, but there is also ALOT of data available, too.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to even agree on what the facts are!

Like you mention, it's difficult even to agree on what the facts are.
Certainly on this list. The situation creates a breeding ground for
endless speculation. Here are some of the questions I've had trying to
read the primary source material as well as commentaries on it:

- Is the quality of the article or report any good? Sometimes there
are potential sources of error in plain view (e.g., the initial heat spike
in a gas loading experiment being counted as excess heat, or a long period
of endotherm that is ignored). There are rarely error bars, and in some
cases little evidence that the author is aware of error bars.
- Is the article saying something new? Sometimes a researcher seems
to recycle the same material over and over for years.
- Has the author's own bias as to what is going on resulted in
inadvertent self-censorship on what he or she reports?
- Is a review turning a few, ambiguous or inchoate patterns into basic
principles too quickly? (E.g., the importance of cracks.)
- Has a pet experiment for idiosyncratic reasons been cast as one of
fundamental importance?
- What is going on with the NiH/NiD systems, anyway? For nickel we
basically have Rossi, Piantelli, Mizuno, and, if you like, Thermacore, to
look to, and for Rossi we don't have much of substance beyond the Elforsk
report. Presumably the nickel people are doing much better than the
palladium people right now; at least, this is what we're given to believe,
without much to back up this impression. Hopefully Mizuno will help us out
here, since I hear he's been seeing some promising things.

Concerning the theorizing, both off and on this list:

- What does a near-zero K temperature phenomenon have to do with LENR
or the price of wheat?
- How can you have something as delicate as a molecule both serve as a
guide for the strong interaction and keep from breaking apart in a hot
metal lattice, while keeping electrons and protons evenly spaced along it?
- By what train of careful experimentation was it shown that magnetism
has a huge effect on the fusion or fission cross sections in the kinds of
contexts we're looking at?
- How can one in humility put forward a theory to explain excess heat
that simultaneously implies that the last 80 years of physics be wrong?
Even Einstein was just tying together some loose ends that were already
being discussed by others before he came along.
- Why does such-and-such theory seem to ignore about 80 percent of the
LENR research that has been done and focus on a possible mechanism
involving neutrons?

What we need are predictions from these theories, predictions that can be
tested. Please make a post on each of the theories and what their
predictions are. That would be helpful.

A series of summaries is an excellent idea, perhaps sent to this list,
perhaps compiled into a book. There could be two sections -- a summary
written in such a way that the primary author or authors of the theory
could agree with the wording, and a second section that highlights some of
the non-tendentious implications of the theory (e.g., things that would
make it falsifiable). The second section would pay little heed to the
theorist's sensibilities and would just state things as the author of the
summaries sees things. But it would also be written in with a certain
minimalism and not involve complex and questionable trains of logic of the
kind found in earlier efforts to do this type of thing. Rather than
presenting claims about physics and chemistry in dogmatic, black and white
terms -- this theory cannot be right because if this were happening you
would see all kinds of gamma activity -- the second section for a theory
being highlighted would say things like, in order to have 4He result from
dd fusion, the theory has the burden of showing that there's a way for the
energy of the

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

Such an experiment is not easily done. A fellow got a Nobel prize for that
type of experiment not too long ago.

If you want me to build a polariton laser, that is over my head. Since you
don't want to read about it, we might need to wait for Rossi's big reveal.


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 What does a near-zero K temperature phenomenon have to do with LENR or the
 price of wheat?

 You are talking about a BEC of Rydberg atoms. That BEC is very heavy and
 can only happen at low temperatures. A BEC of Zero mass or near zero mass
 bosons can exist at vey high temperatures. So your inbreed assumptions are
 not correct.


 Although I'm skeptical about the BEC stuff, I'm not saying you're
 incorrect on this one.  I do think you have the burden of showing that such
 a zero-mass or near-zero-mass BEC exists and is relevant to LENR.  In order
 to be convincing, I think you would need to come up with a simple,
 cost-effective experiment that we can all agree is falsifiable and that
 will establish your claim.  It would not be enough to point to promising
 articles on phys.org, as the starting points of such research are usually
 too far removed from the kinds of systems we're interested in.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

Jones and Bob--


I like this line of thought.


I think the current Mills theory and data indicate that a shrunken  hydrogen 
molecule can also form.  However, I would think it would be likely advance to a 
 Cooper pair and a Boson as a result.  This would make fusion possible.  
Shrunken H and D however would not form a Cooper pair.  It may take 2 H and 2 D 
to get together in a Boson configuration (integral spin).  The reaction may 
occur in small energy steps associated with the energy of spin quanta,  and do 
away with the large gammas associated with strong force nuclear energy changes.


Does anyone know what Kim has to say about the formation of BEC’s  with respect 
to normal temperatures associated with LENR.  I thinks he considers that more 
than one particle type can form BEC’s. Thus Cooper pairs  of H and D could 
condense to a  duplex BEC (maybe even adding Axil’s solitons) with overlapping 
wave functions and resulting in fusion (or fission) as the case may be on  
occasion.  Who knows the statistics for the various fusion options in such a 
mix.   The concept would be one super atom changing into various smaller 
ones--a fission of a BEC.  I assume the balancing of the quarks and gluons 
making up the super atom BEC would be a necessary consideration.  However a new 
separate particle with 1/2 integer spin could destroy the BEC and the 
conditions to allow additional reactions.  


Bob Cook





From: Jones Beene 
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎22‎, ‎2014 ‎3‎:‎00‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





Bob,

Good point, and we did discuss some of this before. However, there are two
differences which could be important. Not sure if they came up earlier.

Deuterium is a nuclear boson. We do not need to invoke BEC at all for
tunneling of one nuclear boson into another nuclear boson. Therefore the BEC
state at elevated temps is NOT relevant for tunneling of bosons, we do not
need it. That is a big plus. 

However, the BEC could be important for the other complex theories which try
to avoid the 24 MeV gamma by suggesting that 4 deuterons fuse to 2 alphas
(Takahashi). Anyway, let’s move on to protium.

The highly shrunken neutral hydrogen atom would be a composite boson, which
is not exactly a nuclear boson - in the sense that two half spins would
including the electron make the species bosonic. However, for nuclear
tunneling of one proton into another proton where we need the bosonic
statistics at the nuclear level – Pauli exclusion would still apply, and
thus tunneling is forbidden. However, it is an open question whether two DDL
can form a BEC and do an end-run to avoid Pauli that way. Personally, I
doubt that it can happen at high temperature.

The second problem is that dropping all the way from ground state to DDL
does not really release all that much energy, in advance. There is still MeV
levels to dispose of after the fusion. So the mitigation of the gamma is not
really accomplished by the Mills method.

For those reasons, it seems to me that fusion can be justified as an
explanation for bosons (deuterons); but as to whether the DDL, as a
composite boson, would still qualify for nuclear tunneling, that is doubtful
– and anyway, Ed has already invoked P-e-P - which is incompatible with the
near field of the DDL. 

From: Bob Higgins 

Jones, 

You are positing that Ni-H fusion must be something
completely different than a Pd-D fusion due to the fact that a hydrogen
nucleus (proton) is a fermion and a deuterium nucleus (proton + neutron) is
a boson.  

Integer spin particles, Bosons, are not subject to the Pauli
exclusion principle and have a far easier time fusing in condensed matter,
at high probability due to tunneling - especially since they have inherent
coulomb screening from the neutron. Deuterons are Bosons. And even if Ed
does not like tunneling, it is the only reason that his theory has a leg to
stand on. LENR in the hydroton scenario is possible with Bosons and
impossible with Fermions. It is as simple as that. 
That could be at least partly true and I would like to ask
for some discussion.  Isn't a neutral hydrogen atom (proton + electron) a
boson?  We have discussed on Vortex the concept that the energy from the
hydrogen isotope must be released before fusion can occur (Ed's proposal).
This is necessary to prevent (in advance) the high energy photon released
after the LENR fusion occurs.  If we do not reject summarily the Mills
concept of inverse Rydberg states for the hydrogen atom (even if it turns
out he doesn't have it quite right), then the advance energy being taken out
of the atoms to be fused could be taken out by successive reduction in
orbital size during the resonance process, with corresponding emitted lower
energy photons.  The result of resonance could be highly shrunken neutral
hydrogen atoms which are still bosons.  Ejected shrunken hydrogen would
likely pass

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\

2014-07-23 Thread Peter Gluck

Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo.
It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question:

What is the essential difference between the classic LENR
with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT
with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level?

My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis
of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed
active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continous
generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the
active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones
that
appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence
of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated
temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of
the LENR+ progress.
The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at
the surface of the metal, changes.

I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please:
http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858

Axil describes a part of the details- the coming LENR_ events will reveal a
lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites-
with details that can help us to go from principles to theories.

Peter



On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
wrote:

   In all this talk about the NAE being a Nanowire, a nanotip, a
 nanoantenna, a nanomesh, a nanospike, a nano coating on a nano particle,  a
 nano-this and a nano-that; people seems to be forgeting the fact that
 whatever nano structure the NAE is, it will not survive the temperatures
 we've seen being demonstrated; especially with Rossi's hotcat.

 Is it not obvious to anyone that whatever whatever the NAE is, it couldn't
 possibly be a nanostructure of Nickel.  Nickel will be a homogenous blob of
 partly molten metal at the temperatures we are talking about. And it is
 known,  that it will sinter and reshape itself even at temperatures
 significantly below its melting temp.   In other words, GOODBYE NAE.  At
 best, it is a one-use NAE.  An NAE that is a nanostructure Nickel appears
 to be highly unlikely and improbable.

 That is why, I'm with Ed on this.  People come up with theories that
 conveniently ignore the chemical environment.  In this case, the physical
 melting or sintering point of Nickel.

 Axil's theory while sounding erudite and well-researched, has a big hole
 in the middle of it.  Big enough to drive a Mack truck thru.  Unless Axil
 can explain how his Nano antenna NAE can survive the temps, It is my
 opinion that his theory is dead.

  I broke my self-imposed exile just to say this.  It seems that there are
 many theories being bandied around that simply breaks very important
 principles.  Whatever you think of Ed's book, he makes a very important
 point, we should not simply ignore the chemical environment, or physical
 properties of metals, or thermodynamic principles, etc if they do not fit
 our theories.


 Jojo






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

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\

2014-07-23 Thread Jojo Iznart

Peter, thank you for the kind words.

Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to 
bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction?  Your NAE is dynamically created?  Do you 
propose nano structures also for your NAE?  If you are, you also have to 
explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps or 
be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels of heat. 
 Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels.



Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Gluck 
  To: VORTEX 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy 
Nuclear Reaction\


  Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo.
  It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question:


  What is the essential difference between the classic LENR
  with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT
  with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level?


  My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis
  of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed
  active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continous
  generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the 
active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that
  appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence
  of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated 
temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of the 
LENR+ progress.
  The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at 
the surface of the metal, changes.


  I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please:
  http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858



  Axil describes a part of the details- the coming LENR_ events will reveal a 
lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites- with 
details that can help us to go from principles to theories.


  Peter





  On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

In all this talk about the NAE being a Nanowire, a nanotip, a nanoantenna, 
a nanomesh, a nanospike, a nano coating on a nano particle,  a nano-this and a 
nano-that; people seems to be forgeting the fact that whatever nano structure 
the NAE is, it will not survive the temperatures we've seen being demonstrated; 
especially with Rossi's hotcat.

Is it not obvious to anyone that whatever whatever the NAE is, it couldn't 
possibly be a nanostructure of Nickel.  Nickel will be a homogenous blob of 
partly molten metal at the temperatures we are talking about. And it is known,  
that it will sinter and reshape itself even at temperatures significantly below 
its melting temp.   In other words, GOODBYE NAE.  At best, it is a one-use NAE. 
 An NAE that is a nanostructure Nickel appears to be highly unlikely and 
improbable.

That is why, I'm with Ed on this.  People come up with theories that 
conveniently ignore the chemical environment.  In this case, the physical 
melting or sintering point of Nickel.  

Axil's theory while sounding erudite and well-researched, has a big hole in 
the middle of it.  Big enough to drive a Mack truck thru.  Unless Axil can 
explain how his Nano antenna NAE can survive the temps, It is my opinion that 
his theory is dead.

I broke my self-imposed exile just to say this.  It seems that there are 
many theories being bandied around that simply breaks very important 
principles.  Whatever you think of Ed's book, he makes a very important point, 
we should not simply ignore the chemical environment, or physical properties of 
metals, or thermodynamic principles, etc if they do not fit our theories.


Jojo







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

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\

2014-07-23 Thread Peter Gluck

The simplest answer to these question is YES.
A bit longer one;
- as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive
and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they
are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have
to see
what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in
diversity
or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what
i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace
of cracks can be ACTIVE

- yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve
to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process
(let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the
complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion)

- i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity
of the active sites- it is a captivating story

Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that
nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete
scenario.

peter



.


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
wrote:

  Peter, thank you for the kind words.

 Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to
 bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction?  Your NAE is dynamically created?  Do you
 propose nano structures also for your NAE?  If you are, you also have to
 explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps
 or be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels
 of heat.  Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels.



 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 *To:* VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low
 Energy Nuclear Reaction\

 Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo.
 It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question:

 What is the essential difference between the classic LENR
 with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT
 with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level?

 My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis
 of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed
 active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continous
 generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the
 active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones
 that
 appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence
 of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated
 temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of
 the LENR+ progress.
 The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms
 at the surface of the metal, changes.

 I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see
 please:
 http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858

 Axil describes a part of the details- the coming LENR_ events will reveal
 a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites-
 with details that can help us to go from principles to theories.

 Peter



 On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
 wrote:

   In all this talk about the NAE being a Nanowire, a nanotip, a
 nanoantenna, a nanomesh, a nanospike, a nano coating on a nano particle,  a
 nano-this and a nano-that; people seems to be forgeting the fact that
 whatever nano structure the NAE is, it will not survive the temperatures
 we've seen being demonstrated; especially with Rossi's hotcat.

 Is it not obvious to anyone that whatever whatever the NAE is, it
 couldn't possibly be a nanostructure of Nickel.  Nickel will be a
 homogenous blob of partly molten metal at the temperatures we are talking
 about. And it is known,  that it will sinter and reshape itself even at
 temperatures significantly below its melting temp.   In other words,
 GOODBYE NAE.  At best, it is a one-use NAE.  An NAE that is a nanostructure
 Nickel appears to be highly unlikely and improbable.

 That is why, I'm with Ed on this.  People come up with theories that
 conveniently ignore the chemical environment.  In this case, the physical
 melting or sintering point of Nickel.

 Axil's theory while sounding erudite and well-researched, has a big hole
 in the middle of it.  Big enough to drive a Mack truck thru.  Unless Axil
 can explain how his Nano antenna NAE can survive the temps, It is my
 opinion that his theory is dead.

  I broke my self-imposed exile just to say this.  It seems that there
 are many theories being bandied around that simply breaks very important
 principles.  Whatever you think of Ed's book, he makes a very important
 point, we should not simply ignore the chemical environment, or physical
 properties of metals, or thermodynamic

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

2014-07-23 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Bob,
  This line of thought also brings back Lyne atomic oven and MAHG theory of 
operation where a shrunken molecules forms between the shrunken atoms… what 
happens to this molecular bond when the “shrinkage” factor changes.. if the 
disassociation threshold is reduced you have yet another route to excess 
energy. If Naudts is correct about these shrunken forms being relativistic then 
the basic principle would be similar  to an elatic tether between 2  near C 
space craft traveling through areas where there are sudden  shifts in gravity 
except we don’t need rocket fuel or deep gravity wells. IMHO Casimir 
confinement provides dynamic gravity HILLS / warps at the nano level which 
provide equivalent acceleration while at a smaller more local scale the atoms 
are still slaves to HUP for random gas motion between different regions / 
geometry [DCE]. I also believe this is the mechanism behind the shrunken / 
inverted Rydberg formation and that locally the hydrogen atoms are unaware of 
their shrunken state- it is a product of the longer vacuum wavelengths  
attempting to fit between the Casimir boundaries making the observation 
relativistic in the same fashion as the near C paradox twin would see the earth 
as greatly accelerated and shrunken from his perspective.
Fran

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:49 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low 
Energy Nuclear Reaction

Jones and Bob--

I like this line of thought.

I think the current Mills theory and data indicate that a shrunken  hydrogen 
molecule can also form.  However, I would think it would be likely advance to a 
 Cooper pair and a Boson as a result.  This would make fusion possible.  
Shrunken H and D however would not form a Cooper pair.  It may take 2 H and 2 D 
to get together in a Boson configuration (integral spin).  The reaction may 
occur in small energy steps associated with the energy of spin quanta,  and do 
away with the large gammas associated with strong force nuclear energy changes.

Does anyone know what Kim has to say about the formation of BEC’s  with respect 
to normal temperatures associated with LENR.  I thinks he considers that more 
than one particle type can form BEC’s. Thus Cooper pairs  of H and D could 
condense to a  duplex BEC (maybe even adding Axil’s solitons) with overlapping 
wave functions and resulting in fusion (or fission) as the case may be on  
occasion.  Who knows the statistics for the various fusion options in such a 
mix.   The concept would be one super atom changing into various smaller 
ones--a fission of a BEC.  I assume the balancing of the quarks and gluons 
making up the super atom BEC would be a necessary consideration.  However a new 
separate particle with 1/2 integer spin could destroy the BEC and the 
conditions to allow additional reactions.

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beenemailto:jone...@pacbell.net
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎22‎, ‎2014 ‎3‎:‎00‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com

Bob,

Good point, and we did discuss some of this before. However, there are two
differences which could be important. Not sure if they came up earlier.

Deuterium is a nuclear boson. We do not need to invoke BEC at all for
tunneling of one nuclear boson into another nuclear boson. Therefore the BEC
state at elevated temps is NOT relevant for tunneling of bosons, we do not
need it. That is a big plus.

However, the BEC could be important for the other complex theories which try
to avoid the 24 MeV gamma by suggesting that 4 deuterons fuse to 2 alphas
(Takahashi). Anyway, let’s move on to protium.

The highly shrunken neutral hydrogen atom would be a composite boson, which
is not exactly a nuclear boson - in the sense that two half spins would
including the electron make the species bosonic. However, for nuclear
tunneling of one proton into another proton where we need the bosonic
statistics at the nuclear level – Pauli exclusion would still apply, and
thus tunneling is forbidden. However, it is an open question whether two DDL
can form a BEC and do an end-run to avoid Pauli that way. Personally, I
doubt that it can happen at high temperature.

The second problem is that dropping all the way from ground state to DDL
does not really release all that much energy, in advance. There is still MeV
levels to dispose of after the fusion. So the mitigation of the gamma is not
really accomplished by the Mills method.

For those reasons, it seems to me that fusion can be justified as an
explanation for bosons (deuterons); but as to whether the DDL, as a
composite boson, would still qualify for nuclear tunneling, that is doubtful
– and anyway, Ed has already invoked P-e-P - which is incompatible with the
near field of the DDL.

From: Bob Higgins

Jones,

You are positing that Ni-H fusion must be something
completely different than a Pd-D fusion due

RE: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

From: Bob Cook 

Jones and Bob-- I like this line of thought.

I think the current Mills theory and data indicate that a
shrunken  hydrogen molecule can also form.  However, I would think it would
be likely advance to a  Cooper pair and a Boson as a result.  This would
make fusion possible.  

Shrunken H and D however would not form a Cooper pair.  It
may take 2 H and 2 D to get together in a Boson configuration (integral
spin).  The reaction may occur in small energy steps associated with the
energy of spin quanta,  and do away with the large gammas associated with
strong force nuclear energy changes.

This seems possible, Bob – and it explains the lack of tritium. I agree that
the BEC is a fiction at elevated temperature, and that the Cooper pair
solves that problem, but to return to the subject heading, if it happened
this way, then it is outside of Ed’s hydroton model of an electron modulated
reaction (P-e-P) which requires a heavy “deflated” electron. In fact both
the electrons of f/H are locked and cannot participate in fusion.

However, if there is found to be an alternative way(s) to harness large
amounts of energy (way above chemical energy) then why add another “miracle”
into the mix so as to claim the name “fusion”? Cannot another kind of
nuclear reaction suffice? As I interpret what you are saying we have to have
all of these things happen to get fusion of protium.

1)  Hydrogen shrinks below ground state to a redundant ground state
called fractional hydrogen (f/H).
2)  Two f/H combine into a Cooper pair and the species is very compact
3)  The pair migrate into a crack (NAE)

Thus far everything looks promising, but then…

4)  An extremely rare kind of fusion occurs. Note than on the sun, only
one in every 10^20 proton collisions results in fusion, even with the
intense heat and pressure, since it requires a spontaneous beta decay at the
exact instance of the collision for the two to fuse and conserve spin.
5)  The energy release of this fusion is lower than normal, since the
f/H has given up mass in order to shrink, thus no gamma is seen. But since
significant energy has already been released – why do we need this fusion
reaction at all? 

I’m not saying that it cannot happen that way, and it does look better than
P-e-P, but it seems to me that we are invoking extra miracles, merely to
retain the name “fusion” when there are other ways to convert mass-to-energy
which do not involved fusion. At any rate, if this applies to the Elforsk
run of 6 months, then we should find that large amounts of hydrogen
converted to deuterium. If that happens, then the puzzle is solved and we
can move on.

OTOH, if no anomalous deuterium is seen after a long run, which is my
prediction, then your favorite suggestion – which you have sold me on – spin
coupling of the proton to the electron (as it reduces its orbital) fits the
bill perfectly without fusion. Yet, in contrast to Mills, the energy is
still nuclear. Since the energy gain is nuclear – coming from reduced mass
of the proton, or ultimately from spin coupling to a nickel isotope, there
is no gamma from the start. 

It is all magnetic, in effect. Spin coupling is the key. No need to jump
ship for the sake of using the name “fusion”.

Why do many observers on this forum have a problem with the likelihood that
energy can be extracted from a nucleus without fusion? (when in fact, the
nucleus supplying the spin energy could be the nickel atoms or the protons
or both, and no permanent change is required for spin coupling.)






 
attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\

One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas
formed in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the
reaction are the nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy
output is increased, then the reaction sites may form in the spaces between
nano-particles.



The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the
temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction
sites will melt and be destroyed by the high heat.



However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10
seconds, when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C
to 2000C and produces a power output of a megawatt.



During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from
primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen
containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles.



The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be
carried. At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will
denominate.



*By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is
reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his
collection of experimental results.*






On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 The simplest answer to these question is YES.
 A bit longer one;
 - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive
 and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they
 are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have
 to see
 what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in
 diversity
 or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered,
 what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very
 surace of cracks can be ACTIVE

 - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve
 to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process
 (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the
 complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion)

 - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity
 of the active sites- it is a captivating story

 Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that
 nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete
 scenario.

 peter



 .


 On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Peter, thank you for the kind words.

 Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to
 bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction?  Your NAE is dynamically created?  Do you
 propose nano structures also for your NAE?  If you are, you also have to
 explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps
 or be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels
 of heat.  Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels.



 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 *To:* VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low
 Energy Nuclear Reaction\

 Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo.
 It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question:

 What is the essential difference between the classic LENR
 with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT
 with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level?

 My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis
 of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed
 active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a
 continous
 generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the
 active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones
 that
 appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence
 of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated
 temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of
 the LENR+ progress.
 The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms
 at the surface of the metal, changes.

 I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see
 please:
 http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858

 Axil describes a part of the details- the coming LENR_ events will reveal
 a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites-
 with details that can help us to go from principles to theories.

 Peter



 On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
 wrote:

   In all this talk about the NAE being a Nanowire, a nanotip, a
 nanoantenna, a nanomesh, a nanospike, a nano coating on a nano particle,  a
 nano-this and a nano-that; people seems to be forgeting the fact that
 whatever nano structure the NAE is,

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\

2014-07-23 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of plasma in 
the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self destruction would bring 
the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does  point to the continued run 
away reaction even after the geometry has melted. Like they say it gets worse 
before it gets better :_)
Fran

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low 
Energy Nuclear Reaction\

One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed 
in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the 
nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then 
the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles.

The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the 
temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites 
will melt and be destroyed by the high heat.

However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, 
when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and 
produces a power output of a megawatt.

During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from 
primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen 
containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles.

The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. 
At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate.

By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is reaction 
mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his collection of 
experimental results.

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck 
peter.gl...@gmail.commailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
The simplest answer to these question is YES.
A bit longer one;
- as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive
and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they
are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see
what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity
or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i 
am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of 
cracks can be ACTIVE

- yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to 
learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process
(let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the
complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion)

- i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity
of the active sites- it is a captivating story

Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that
nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete 
scenario.

peter

.

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart 
jojoiznar...@gmail.commailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter, thank you for the kind words.

Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to 
bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction?  Your NAE is dynamically created?  Do you 
propose nano structures also for your NAE?  If you are, you also have to 
explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps or 
be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels of heat. 
 Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels.

Jojo

- Original Message -
From: Peter Gluckmailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com
To: VORTEXmailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy 
Nuclear Reaction\

Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo.
It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question:

What is the essential difference between the classic LENR
with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT
with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level?

My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis
of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed
active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continous
generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active 
sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that
appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence
of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated 
temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of the 
LENR+ progress.
The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the 
surface of the metal, changes.

I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please:

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\

More...

The nanowire sites are fixed and permanent and the nanoparticle sites are
dynamic an possibly destroyed after the reaction but not necessarily(to be
determined).


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas
 formed in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the
 reaction are the nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy
 output is increased, then the reaction sites may form in the spaces between
 nano-particles.



 The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the
 temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction
 sites will melt and be destroyed by the high heat.



 However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10
 seconds, when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C
 to 2000C and produces a power output of a megawatt.



 During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from
 primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen
 containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles.



 The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be
 carried. At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will
 denominate.



 *By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is
 reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his
 collection of experimental results.*






 On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 The simplest answer to these question is YES.
 A bit longer one;
 - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive
 and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they
 are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have
 to see
 what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in
 diversity
 or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered,
 what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very
 surace of cracks can be ACTIVE

 - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we
 ahve to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the
 process
 (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the
 complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion)

 - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity
 of the active sites- it is a captivating story

 Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that
 nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the
 complete scenario.

 peter



 .


 On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Peter, thank you for the kind words.

 Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to
 bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction?  Your NAE is dynamically created?  Do you
 propose nano structures also for your NAE?  If you are, you also have to
 explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps
 or be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels
 of heat.  Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels.



 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 *To:* VORTEX vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low
 Energy Nuclear Reaction\

 Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo.
 It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question:

 What is the essential difference between the classic LENR
 with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT
 with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level?

 My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis
 of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed
 active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a
 continous
 generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the
 active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones
 that
 appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence
 of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated
 temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of
 the LENR+ progress.
 The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms
 at the surface of the metal, changes.

 I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see
 please:
 http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858

 Axil describes a part of the details- the coming LENR_ events will
 reveal a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active
 sites- with details that can help us to go from principles to theories.

 Peter



 On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Jojo Iznart

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

2014-07-23 Thread Bob Higgins

Jones and Bob,

Jones, you said that:

I agree that the BEC is a fiction at elevated temperature,


I don't think Yeong Kim proposes a classical cold temperature BEC as the
source of his fusion.  He told me that the condensates he has postulated
form in magnetic traps in the material.  So, at elevated temperature, the
atoms are coupled by the magnetic field that is trapping them.  I cannot
say that I understand the rigor of the trap that he proposes, or what it
would take to make such a trap.  However, I believe Rossi's nano-catalyst
is nano-metric iron alloyed into the Ni particles.  Such alloys can have
extremely high permeability and in nanoscale Ni-Fe spots, who knows what
kind of magnetic (trapping) properties could be found.  I am not willing to
rule out such magnetically trapped condensates as a possibility.

Also, I am not sure the DDL H (H#) combining to D is that far off in
energy.  Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511 keV
less than H in normal ground state.  The mass energy difference between 2
ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV (if I calculated
correctly).  Now suppose we had this scenario:

1) H2 molecule within a resonant coupled string, coupling energy out of the
H2 by evanescent coupling (perhaps within a crack)

2) Each of the atoms decrease in energy simultaneously and fractionally
until reaching the DDL in each atom while still a molecule

3) The actual energy of each of the H atoms would have decreased by more
than 2 x (511 keV) because of the Gibbs energy loss in the formation of the
H#2 molecule.  In fact, when the H atoms are in the DDL state, the Gibbs
energy forming the H#2 molecule may be very large (guess 100 keV).  So, now
the H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than
the ground state D.  Also, the H# is regarded as 50x smaller than a muonic
H atom - and more much more likely to enter another nucleus.

4) Suppose now that the H#2 fuses to D.  There would be 538 keV for the
nucleus to release.  However, remember that the electron is in tight DDL
orbit and it will take 511 keV to get that electron back to the ground
state.  So, if the H#2 fuses and transfers its energy to the electron, most
of it will go into getting the electron back to the ground state, and then
the left over would be a high kinetic energy electron (22 keV in this
example) that did NOT come from the nucleus, but as ionization energy of
the left over electron after the fusion.

5) When this electron is captured it gives up its 22 keV of energy along
with some minor Bremsstrahlung low energy x-rays.  However, the total
energy given off before fusion and after will be the 1.66 MeV with much of
that going into the formation of the H#2 and only a little given off when
the fusion occurs.

6) Sometimes a single H# or an H#2 gets ejected and becomes the strange
radiation capable of activating materials external to the test apparatus
that has been reported by Storms.


As you say, if deuterium enrichment is found in analysis of Rossi's 6-month
test (don't know if they will be allowed to test for this), then it would
be a very insightful report.

I could easily have bungled this proposition.  Please set me straight.

Bob Higgins

RE: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

Bob,

 

I agree with most of what you say. The devil is in the details and we are short 
on details.

 

My great hope is that we will get the data we need from the Swedes this time 
around.

 

Jones

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Jones and Bob,

 

Jones, you said that:

 

I agree that the BEC is a fiction at elevated temperature, 

 

I don't think Yeong Kim proposes a classical cold temperature BEC as the source 
of his fusion.  He told me that the condensates he has postulated form in 
magnetic traps in the material.  So, at elevated temperature, the atoms are 
coupled by the magnetic field that is trapping them.  I cannot say that I 
understand the rigor of the trap that he proposes, or what it would take to 
make such a trap.  However, I believe Rossi's nano-catalyst is nano-metric iron 
alloyed into the Ni particles.  Such alloys can have extremely high 
permeability and in nanoscale Ni-Fe spots, who knows what kind of magnetic 
(trapping) properties could be found.  I am not willing to rule out such 
magnetically trapped condensates as a possibility.

 

Also, I am not sure the DDL H (H#) combining to D is that far off in energy.  
Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511 keV less than H in 
normal ground state.  The mass energy difference between 2 ground state H atoms 
and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV (if I calculated correctly).  Now suppose 
we had this scenario:

 

1) H2 molecule within a resonant coupled string, coupling energy out of the H2 
by evanescent coupling (perhaps within a crack)

 

2) Each of the atoms decrease in energy simultaneously and fractionally until 
reaching the DDL in each atom while still a molecule

 

3) The actual energy of each of the H atoms would have decreased by more than 2 
x (511 keV) because of the Gibbs energy loss in the formation of the H#2 
molecule.  In fact, when the H atoms are in the DDL state, the Gibbs energy 
forming the H#2 molecule may be very large (guess 100 keV).  So, now the H#2 
molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the ground 
state D.  Also, the H# is regarded as 50x smaller than a muonic H atom - and 
more much more likely to enter another nucleus.

 

4) Suppose now that the H#2 fuses to D.  There would be 538 keV for the nucleus 
to release.  However, remember that the electron is in tight DDL orbit and it 
will take 511 keV to get that electron back to the ground state.  So, if the 
H#2 fuses and transfers its energy to the electron, most of it will go into 
getting the electron back to the ground state, and then the left over would be 
a high kinetic energy electron (22 keV in this example) that did NOT come from 
the nucleus, but as ionization energy of the left over electron after the 
fusion.

 

5) When this electron is captured it gives up its 22 keV of energy along with 
some minor Bremsstrahlung low energy x-rays.  However, the total energy given 
off before fusion and after will be the 1.66 MeV with much of that going into 
the formation of the H#2 and only a little given off when the fusion occurs.

 

6) Sometimes a single H# or an H#2 gets ejected and becomes the strange 
radiation capable of activating materials external to the test apparatus that 
has been reported by Storms.

 

As you say, if deuterium enrichment is found in analysis of Rossi's 6-month 
test (don't know if they will be allowed to test for this), then it would be a 
very insightful report.

 

I could easily have bungled this proposition.  Please set me straight.

 

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

Fran--


The fact that particles are relativistic in many cosmic reactions and two 
particles may be traveling side by side suggests that either gravity or maybe 
static (relative to the particles) magnetic fields can cause the shrinking and 
fusion to a lower dark state, and this is responsible for dark matter and maybe 
dark energy. 


What is the controlling mechanism--nature trying to reduce angular momentum to 
zero or the temperature and associated kinetic energy and its momentum or both?


As I have suggested before, I think that angular momentum and linear momentum 
must be connected at a Planck scale.  


Bob








Sent from Windows Mailh?


From: Roarty, Francis X
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎6‎:‎52‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com






Bob,

  This line of thought also brings back Lyne atomic oven and MAHG theory of 
operation where a shrunken molecules forms between the shrunken atoms… what 
happens to this molecular bond when the “shrinkage” factor changes.. if the 
disassociation threshold is reduced you have yet another route to excess 
energy. If Naudts is correct about these shrunken forms being relativistic then 
the basic principle would be similar  to an elatic tether between 2  near C 
space craft traveling through areas where there are sudden  shifts in gravity 
except we don’t need rocket fuel or deep gravity wells. IMHO Casimir 
confinement provides dynamic gravity HILLS / warps at the nano level which 
provide equivalent acceleration while at a smaller more local scale the atoms 
are still slaves to HUP for random gas motion between different regions / 
geometry [DCE]. I also believe this is the mechanism behind the shrunken / 
inverted Rydberg formation and that locally the hydrogen atoms are unaware of 
their shrunken state- it is a product of the longer vacuum wavelengths  
attempting to fit between the Casimir boundaries making the observation 
relativistic in the same fashion as the near C paradox twin would see the earth 
as greatly accelerated and shrunken from his perspective.

Fran

 



From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:49 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low 
Energy Nuclear Reaction

 



Jones and Bob--


 


I like this line of thought.


 


I think the current Mills theory and data indicate that a shrunken  hydrogen 
molecule can also form.  However, I would think it would be likely advance to a 
 Cooper pair and a Boson as a result.  This would make fusion possible.  
Shrunken H and D however would not form a Cooper pair.  It may take 2 H and 2 D 
to get together in a Boson configuration (integral spin).  The reaction may 
occur in small energy steps associated with the energy of spin quanta,  and do 
away with the large gammas associated with strong force nuclear energy changes.


 


Does anyone know what Kim has to say about the formation of BEC’s  with respect 
to normal temperatures associated with LENR.  I thinks he considers that more 
than one particle type can form BEC’s. Thus Cooper pairs  of H and D could 
condense to a  duplex BEC (maybe even adding Axil’s solitons) with overlapping 
wave functions and resulting in fusion (or fission) as the case may be on  
occasion.  Who knows the statistics for the various fusion options in such a 
mix.   The concept would be one super atom changing into various smaller 
ones--a fission of a BEC.  I assume the balancing of the quarks and gluons 
making up the super atom BEC would be a necessary consideration.  However a new 
separate particle with 1/2 integer spin could destroy the BEC and the 
conditions to allow additional reactions.  


 


Bob Cook


 



From: Jones Beene 
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎22‎, ‎2014 ‎3‎:‎00‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


 



Bob,

Good point, and we did discuss some of this before. However, there are two
differences which could be important. Not sure if they came up earlier.

Deuterium is a nuclear boson. We do not need to invoke BEC at all for
tunneling of one nuclear boson into another nuclear boson. Therefore the BEC
state at elevated temps is NOT relevant for tunneling of bosons, we do not
need it. That is a big plus. 

However, the BEC could be important for the other complex theories which try
to avoid the 24 MeV gamma by suggesting that 4 deuterons fuse to 2 alphas
(Takahashi). Anyway, let’s move on to protium.

The highly shrunken neutral hydrogen atom would be a composite boson, which
is not exactly a nuclear boson - in the sense that two half spins would
including the electron make the species bosonic. However, for nuclear
tunneling of one proton into another proton where we need the bosonic
statistics at the nuclear level – Pauli exclusion would still apply, and
thus tunneling is forbidden. However, it is an open question whether two DDL
can form a BEC and do an end-run to avoid Pauli that way. Personally, I
doubt that it can happen at high

RE: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

From: Bob Higgins 

Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511
keV less than H in normal ground state.  The mass energy difference between
2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV… So, now the
H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the
ground state D.  

Agreed. This 538 keV is still too large to go unnoticed without a step-down
process but it does bring to mind the other possibility which itself is the
downshifting mechanism itself – especially if the this DDL state is, in
essence – dark matter. Mills and others believe this to be true.

The reason that is important for LENR is that there is this emerging meme in
mainstream cosmology - that dark matter emits (possibly as a decay) at 3.5
keV. This signal is picked up all over the cosmos as a mystery line, and the
emerging view is that it comes from dark matter.

If you google [“3.5 keV” “dark matter” ] you will be amazed at the mainline
articles out there, not to mention the fringe - or at least I was amazed
because of the cross connection to DDL. Of course, almost no one in
cosmology has yet made that precise connection.

You heard it first on vortex :-)

If we consider that a bound pair of DDLs with 538 keV excess can decay by
emitting x-rays at 3.5 keV, then either fuse or something else - our problem
is solved. Actually the spectra is probably higher energy in condensed
matter, higher due to red shift of what is seen in cosmology. But in any
case, radiation abound 4 keV is not going to be seen with typical meters,
whereas 538 keV would be obvious. 

Thus the 3.5-4 keV x-ray could be the signature of the Rossi effect, and no
one yet realizes it.

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

Bob and Jones--




Rossi has designed his reactor tubes to avoid departure from nucleate boiling 
and thus melting of the jacket.  The internal nickel has a high heat tolerance 
and can stand high temperatures.  Gas formation is apparently not a problem for 
him and has suggested to me that He is not formed in his reaction.  (I use my 
long time experience in the development of fission reactors as a basis for this 
conclusion. )  The engineering knowhow for temperature control is well known 
and easy if there is little or no internal pressure developed during the 
reaction.  This would be a design objective for me in any reactor design.  




I would think that Rossi is now working on  a 100 kw reactor that is merely a 
tube 10x longer.  Higher water flows would be necessary to avoid dnb, departure 
from nucleate boiling.  A little increase in steam pressure may be desirable to 
avoid such a condition.  In fact the control of pressure and hence temperature 
of the reactor may be a useful control mechanism.  If there is a negative 
temperature coeff. for the reactor, i.e., higher temperature lower power, the 
feed back mechanism that Axil has worried about could be resolved.   




Bob




 






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Bob Higgins
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎8‎:‎04‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





Jones and Bob,



Jones, you said that:







I agree that the BEC is a fiction at elevated temperature, 




I don't think Yeong Kim proposes a classical cold temperature BEC as the source 
of his fusion.  He told me that the condensates he has postulated form in 
magnetic traps in the material.  So, at elevated temperature, the atoms are 
coupled by the magnetic field that is trapping them.  I cannot say that I 
understand the rigor of the trap that he proposes, or what it would take to 
make such a trap.  However, I believe Rossi's nano-catalyst is nano-metric iron 
alloyed into the Ni particles.  Such alloys can have extremely high 
permeability and in nanoscale Ni-Fe spots, who knows what kind of magnetic 
(trapping) properties could be found.  I am not willing to rule out such 
magnetically trapped condensates as a possibility.




Also, I am not sure the DDL H (H#) combining to D is that far off in energy.  
Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511 keV less than H in 
normal ground state.  The mass energy difference between 2 ground state H atoms 
and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV (if I calculated correctly).  Now suppose 
we had this scenario:








1) H2 molecule within a resonant coupled string, coupling energy out of the H2 
by evanescent coupling (perhaps within a crack)










2) Each of the atoms decrease in energy simultaneously and fractionally until 
reaching the DDL in each atom while still a molecule










3) The actual energy of each of the H atoms would have decreased by more than 2 
x (511 keV) because of the Gibbs energy loss in the formation of the H#2 
molecule.  In fact, when the H atoms are in the DDL state, the Gibbs energy 
forming the H#2 molecule may be very large (guess 100 keV).  So, now the H#2 
molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the ground 
state D.  Also, the H# is regarded as 50x smaller than a muonic H atom - and 
more much more likely to enter another nucleus.










4) Suppose now that the H#2 fuses to D.  There would be 538 keV for the nucleus 
to release.  However, remember that the electron is in tight DDL orbit and it 
will take 511 keV to get that electron back to the ground state.  So, if the 
H#2 fuses and transfers its energy to the electron, most of it will go into 
getting the electron back to the ground state, and then the left over would be 
a high kinetic energy electron (22 keV in this example) that did NOT come from 
the nucleus, but as ionization energy of the left over electron after the 
fusion.










5) When this electron is captured it gives up its 22 keV of energy along with 
some minor Bremsstrahlung low energy x-rays.  However, the total energy given 
off before fusion and after will be the 1.66 MeV with much of that going into 
the formation of the H#2 and only a little given off when the fusion occurs.










6) Sometimes a single H# or an H#2 gets ejected and becomes the strange 
radiation capable of activating materials external to the test apparatus that 
has been reported by Storms.




 




As you say, if deuterium enrichment is found in analysis of Rossi's 6-month 
test (don't know if they will be allowed to test for this), then it would be a 
very insightful report.




I could easily have bungled this proposition.  Please set me straight.




Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

2014-07-23 Thread Bob Higgins

Jones,

I think you did not understand or agree with what I said previously in
bullet 4).

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 From: Bob Higgins


 Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511

keV less than H in normal ground state.  The mass energy difference between

2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV… So, now the

H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the

ground state D.


 Agreed. This 538 keV is still too large to go unnoticed without a step-down

process but it does bring to mind the other possibility which itself is the

downshifting mechanism itself – especially if the this DDL state is, in

essence – dark matter. Mills and others believe this to be true.


What I previously explained in 4) was that when the H#2 fuses, one electron
ends up becoming part of a neutron (inverse beta) and the other electron is
still in a fractional DDL orbital.  When the nucleus gives off its residual
538 keV, it does so by giving it to the electron in that degenerate
orbital.  It will take 511 keV of the 538 keV to elevate the electron back
to the ground state, so at that point, there is only 27 keV left in
electron kinetic energy (in my previous post I made a stupid mental
subtraction error and came out with 22 keV, but in this example, it is 27
keV).  Since it only takes about 16 eV to ionize the atom, the electron
continues on its way with essentially 27 keV of energy and the deuterium
ion is left.  I am not sure how and when the kinetic energy will be divided
between the deuterium nucleus and the electron  [Would the two only divide
the 27 keV?].

Even still, this is much closer to the 3.5 keV x-ray in the dark matter.

Bob H.

RE: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

Bob,

 

I do not necessarily disagree so much as am presenting another option. Since 
the electron antineutrino has been overlooked in your hypothesis, there could 
be a more accurate way for this to unfold. The half integer spin would be a 
problem, as would the source of the antineutrino. It the fusion of two protons 
is to be symmetrical with the photofission of deuterium, then the neutrino 
should be included or accounted for otherwise. 

 

For radiation energy - I see the dividing line about what “would have been 
noticed” in the past 24 years of study as being in the range of 10 keV. Higher 
would have shown up, especially with glass electrolysis cells – lower than 10 
keV could have been overlooked. 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Jones, 

 

I think you did not understand or agree with what I said previously in bullet 
4).

 

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

From: Bob Higgins

 

Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511

keV less than H in normal ground state.  The mass energy difference between

2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV… So, now the

H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the

ground state D.

 

Agreed. This 538 keV is still too large to go unnoticed without a step-down

process but it does bring to mind the other possibility which itself is the

downshifting mechanism itself – especially if the this DDL state is, in

essence – dark matter. Mills and others believe this to be true.


What I previously explained in 4) was that when the H#2 fuses, one electron 
ends up becoming part of a neutron (inverse beta) and the other electron is 
still in a fractional DDL orbital.  When the nucleus gives off its residual 538 
keV, it does so by giving it to the electron in that degenerate orbital.  It 
will take 511 keV of the 538 keV to elevate the electron back to the ground 
state, so at that point, there is only 27 keV left in electron kinetic energy 
(in my previous post I made a stupid mental subtraction error and came out with 
22 keV, but in this example, it is 27 keV).  Since it only takes about 16 eV to 
ionize the atom, the electron continues on its way with essentially 27 keV of 
energy and the deuterium ion is left.  I am not sure how and when the kinetic 
energy will be divided between the deuterium nucleus and the electron  [Would 
the two only divide the 27 keV?].

 

Even still, this is much closer to the 3.5 keV x-ray in the dark matter.

 

Bob H.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\

Rossi claims that he uses nano-nickel particles.  I have no idea what the 
sintering and melting temperatures of those structures.  We know that carbon 
nano structures have very good high temperature properties.  A Ni-H nano 
structure may even be better at high temperatures.  


I would not give up on Ni even in the hot cat performance.  Something Rossi 
introduced say white hot conditions.  Of course it may be a fake.  I think he 
has been honest with what he has said.  He may withhold information also, 
however.  


I learned much in reactor design due to early failures.  The new designs after 
failure generally allowed for higher temperature operations and greater power 
output.   I would bet Rossi is not beyond learning from his failures.


Bob









Sent from Windows Mail





From: Roarty, Francis X
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎51‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com






Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of plasma in 
the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self destruction would bring 
the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does  point to the continued run 
away reaction even after the geometry has melted. Like they say it gets worse 
before it gets better :_)

Fran

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low 
Energy Nuclear Reaction\

 


One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed 
in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the 
nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then 
the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles.

 

The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the 
temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites 
will melt and be destroyed by the high heat.

 

However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, 
when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and 
produces a power output of a megawatt.

 

During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from 
primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen 
containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. 

 

The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. 
At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate.

 

By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is reaction 
mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his collection of 
experimental results.

 

 


 


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:


The simplest answer to these question is YES.


A bit longer one;


- as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive


and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they


are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see


what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity


or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i 
am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of 
cracks can be ACTIVE


 


- yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to 
learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process


(let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the 


complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion)


 


- i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity


of the active sites- it is a captivating story


 


Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that


nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete 
scenario.


 


peter


 


 


 


.




 


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:



Peter, thank you for the kind words.


 


Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to 
bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction?  Your NAE is dynamically created?  Do you 
propose nano structures also for your NAE?  If you are, you also have to 
explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps or 
be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels of heat. 
 Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels.


 


 


 


Jojo


 


 


 




- Original Message - 


From: Peter Gluck 


To: VORTEX 


Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM


Subject: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy 
Nuclear Reaction\


 




Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo. 


It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question:


 


What is the essential difference between the classic LENR


with

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\

2014-07-23 Thread Bob Higgins

Bob,

This is a common misconception.  Rossi does NOT use nano-Ni.  Rossi uses Ni
particles (from the carbonyl process) that have a high external area and
particle diameter of 4-8 microns.  Rossi adds a catalyst, that is believed
to be a nanopowder, to the carbonyl Ni particles and then grows features
on the Ni.

Bob Higgins


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Rossi claims that he uses nano-nickel particles.  I have no idea what
 the sintering and melting temperatures of those structures.  We know that
 carbon nano structures have very good high temperature properties.  A Ni-H
 nano structure may even be better at high temperatures.

 I would not give up on Ni even in the hot cat performance.  Something
 Rossi introduced say white hot conditions.  Of course it may be a fake.  I
 think he has been honest with what he has said.  He may withhold
 information also, however.

 I learned much in reactor design due to early failures.  The new designs
 after failure generally allowed for higher temperature operations and
 greater power output.   I would bet Rossi is not beyond learning from his
 failures.

 Bob



 Sent from Windows Mail

 *From:* Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
 *Sent:* ‎Wednesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎51‎ ‎AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

  Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of
 plasma in the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self
 destruction would bring the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does
  point to the continued run away reaction even after the geometry has
 melted. Like they say it gets worse before it gets better :_)

 Fran



 *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM
 *To:* vortex-l
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation
 of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\



 One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas
 formed in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the
 reaction are the nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy
 output is increased, then the reaction sites may form in the spaces between
 nano-particles.



 The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the
 temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction
 sites will melt and be destroyed by the high heat.



 However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10
 seconds, when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C
 to 2000C and produces a power output of a megawatt.



 During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from
 primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen
 containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles.



 The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be
 carried. At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will
 denominate.



 *By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is
 reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his
 collection of experimental results.*







 On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 The simplest answer to these question is YES.

 A bit longer one;

 - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive

 and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they

 are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have
 to see

 what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in
 diversity

 or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered,
 what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very
 surace of cracks can be ACTIVE



 - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve
 to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process

 (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the

 complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion)



 - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity

 of the active sites- it is a captivating story



 Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that

 nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete
 scenario.



 peter







 .



 On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Peter, thank you for the kind words.



 Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to
 bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction?  Your NAE is dynamically created?  Do you
 propose nano structures also for your NAE?  If you are, you also have to
 explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps
 or be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels
 of heat.  Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels.







 Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

Jones and Bob--


The di-proton I suggested might be real.  Check out  CERN  below for evidence 
of what is called a dibaryon with a short lifetime.   Intense magnetic fields 
may improve the lifetime.  The “new” dibaryon seems like it could be a Cooper 
pair to me.


http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/57836


Bob






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Jones Beene
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎12‎:‎24‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com






Bob,

 

I do not necessarily disagree so much as am presenting another option. Since 
the electron antineutrino has been overlooked in your hypothesis, there could 
be a more accurate way for this to unfold. The half integer spin would be a 
problem, as would the source of the antineutrino. It the fusion of two protons 
is to be symmetrical with the photofission of deuterium, then the neutrino 
should be included or accounted for otherwise. 

 

For radiation energy - I see the dividing line about what “would have been 
noticed” in the past 24 years of study as being in the range of 10 keV. Higher 
would have shown up, especially with glass electrolysis cells – lower than 10 
keV could have been overlooked. 

 


From: Bob Higgins 

 


Jones, 


 


I think you did not understand or agree with what I said previously in bullet 
4).


 





On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:





From: Bob Higgins





 





Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511





keV less than H in normal ground state.  The mass energy difference between





2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV… So, now the





H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the





ground state D.





 





Agreed. This 538 keV is still too large to go unnoticed without a step-down





process but it does bring to mind the other possibility which itself is the





downshifting mechanism itself – especially if the this DDL state is, in





essence – dark matter. Mills and others believe this to be true.


What I previously explained in 4) was that when the H#2 fuses, one electron 
ends up becoming part of a neutron (inverse beta) and the other electron is 
still in a fractional DDL orbital.  When the nucleus gives off its residual 538 
keV, it does so by giving it to the electron in that degenerate orbital.  It 
will take 511 keV of the 538 keV to elevate the electron back to the ground 
state, so at that point, there is only 27 keV left in electron kinetic energy 
(in my previous post I made a stupid mental subtraction error and came out with 
22 keV, but in this example, it is 27 keV).  Since it only takes about 16 eV to 
ionize the atom, the electron continues on its way with essentially 27 keV of 
energy and the deuterium ion is left.  I am not sure how and when the kinetic 
energy will be divided between the deuterium nucleus and the electron  [Would 
the two only divide the 27 keV?].


 


Even still, this is much closer to the 3.5 keV x-ray in the dark matter.


 


Bob H.

RE: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

Interesting, but the mass-energy is too high at 2380 MeV.

 

We would be looking for something around 2000 MeV

 

 

From: Bob Cook 

 

Jones and Bob--

 

The di-proton I suggested might be real.  Check out  CERN  below for evidence 
of what is called a dibaryon with a short lifetime.   Intense magnetic fields 
may improve the lifetime.  The “new” dibaryon seems like it could be a Cooper 
pair to me.

 

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/57836

 

Bob

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\

Thanks for the clarification.


Bob Cook






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Bob Higgins
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎2‎:‎32‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





Bob,



This is a common misconception.  Rossi does NOT use nano-Ni.  Rossi uses Ni 
particles (from the carbonyl process) that have a high external area and 
particle diameter of 4-8 microns.  Rossi adds a catalyst, that is believed to 
be a nanopowder, to the carbonyl Ni particles and then grows features on the 
Ni.




Bob Higgins




On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:




Rossi claims that he uses nano-nickel particles.  I have no idea what the 
sintering and melting temperatures of those structures.  We know that carbon 
nano structures have very good high temperature properties.  A Ni-H nano 
structure may even be better at high temperatures.  




I would not give up on Ni even in the hot cat performance.  Something Rossi 
introduced say white hot conditions.  Of course it may be a fake.  I think he 
has been honest with what he has said.  He may withhold information also, 
however.  




I learned much in reactor design due to early failures.  The new designs after 
failure generally allowed for higher temperature operations and greater power 
output.   I would bet Rossi is not beyond learning from his failures.




Bob











Sent from Windows Mail





From: Roarty, Francis X
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎51‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com






Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of plasma in 
the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self destruction would bring 
the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does  point to the continued run 
away reaction even after the geometry has melted. Like they say it gets worse 
before it gets better :_)

Fran

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low 
Energy Nuclear Reaction\

 


One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed 
in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the 
nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then 
the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles.

 

The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the 
temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites 
will melt and be destroyed by the high heat.

 

However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, 
when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and 
produces a power output of a megawatt.

 

During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from 
primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen 
containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. 

 

The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. 
At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate.

 

By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is reaction 
mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his collection of 
experimental results.

 

 


 


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:


The simplest answer to these question is YES.


A bit longer one;


- as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive


and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they


are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to see


what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity


or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i 
am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of 
cracks can be ACTIVE


 


- yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to 
learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process


(let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the 


complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion)


 


- i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity


of the active sites- it is a captivating story


 


Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that


nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete 
scenario.


 


peter


 


 


 


.




 


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:



Peter, thank you for the kind words.


 


Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to 
bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction?  Your NAE is dynamically created?  Do you 
propose nano structures also for your NAE?  If you are, you also have to 
explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\

2014-07-23 Thread Jojo Iznart

Bob, 

The smaller the material, the lower its sintering temperature - significantly 
lower than the melting temp of the bulk material.  If you google sintering 
nickel, you will find out that this is true.  Even at the lower operating 
temps of the original ecat (not the hotcat), nanosturctures of nickel would 
have been destroyed.  There has got to be a different NAE than what Axil 
theorizes.  I doubt nickel nanowires is the NAE.

CNTs on the other hand are better NAEs.

Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Cook 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:54 AM
  Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation 
of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\


  Rossi claims that he uses nano-nickel particles.  I have no idea what the 
sintering and melting temperatures of those structures.  We know that carbon 
nano structures have very good high temperature properties.  A Ni-H nano 
structure may even be better at high temperatures.  


  I would not give up on Ni even in the hot cat performance.  Something Rossi 
introduced say white hot conditions.  Of course it may be a fake.  I think he 
has been honest with what he has said.  He may withhold information also, 
however.  


  I learned much in reactor design due to early failures.  The new designs 
after failure generally allowed for higher temperature operations and greater 
power output.   I would bet Rossi is not beyond learning from his failures.


  Bob






  Sent from Windows Mail


  From: Roarty, Francis X
  Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎51‎ ‎AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


  Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of plasma in 
the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self destruction would bring 
the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does  point to the continued run 
away reaction even after the geometry has melted. Like they say it gets worse 
before it gets better :_)

  Fran



  From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM
  To: vortex-l
  Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of 
Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\



  One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas formed 
in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the reaction are the 
nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy output is increased, then 
the reaction sites may form in the spaces between nano-particles.



  The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the 
temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction sites 
will melt and be destroyed by the high heat.



  However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 seconds, 
when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C to 2000C and 
produces a power output of a megawatt.



  During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from 
primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen 
containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. 



  The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be carried. 
At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will denominate.



  By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is 
reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his 
collection of experimental results.







  On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

  The simplest answer to these question is YES.

  A bit longer one;

  - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive

  and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they

  are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have to 
see

  what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in diversity

  or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, what i 
am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very surace of 
cracks can be ACTIVE



  - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve to 
learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process

  (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the 

  complete cell- F P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion)



  - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity

  of the active sites- it is a captivating story



  Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that

  nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete 
scenario.



  peter







  .



  On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

  Peter, thank you for the kind words.



  Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to 
bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction?  Your NAE is dynamically created?  Do you

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\