RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

From: H LV Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 7:51 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 This conjecture also gives new meaning to the phrase 'cold fusion', if the adjective 'cold' qualifies the output rather than the input.  ;-) Harry On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

What I am proposing is that the force of repulsion below the pico scale decreases with decreasing velocity. However, if fusion does occur at very low velocities then the associated binding energy required to keep nuclei together will be smaller resulting in a delicate nucleus. Given the history of

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

This conjecture also gives new meaning to the phrase 'cold fusion', if the adjective 'cold' qualifies the output rather than the input. ;-) Harry On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, H LV wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 8:56 PM, H LV wrote: You mentioned "not-iron" before but can you clarify what you mean by this > term? Thanks. > This is just a placeholder for whatever is converted to iron, e.g., 28Si + 28Si, since Narayanaswamy reports there being something

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, H LV wrote: > > ​CoE would still be true, but there would be no mass into energy >> conversion. Instead the iron would be slightly more massive than iron >>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 5:13 PM, wrote: > In reply to H LV's message of Sun, 19 Mar 2017 12:35:21 -0400: > Hi Harry, > > In a fission reactor, the neutrons are normally slowed down to thermal > temperatures before they react. This increases the reaction cross section, > and

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

In reply to Frank Znidarsic's message of Sun, 19 Mar 2017 14:00:30 -0400: Hi Frank, [snip] >Magnetic fields are not conservative. This includes the gravitomagnetic, >electro-magnetic, and nuclear spin orbit magnetic. You are on the right track. If magnetic fields are not conservative, then

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

In reply to H LV's message of Sun, 19 Mar 2017 12:35:21 -0400: Hi Harry, In a fission reactor, the neutrons are normally slowed down to thermal temperatures before they react. This increases the reaction cross section, and allows the reactor to work. AFAIK the energy produced is as expected from

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

easier way to conceptually introduce non-conservative forces into the nuclear domain. Harry -Original Message- From: H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Mar 19, 2017 12:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 Hi Ro

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, H LV wrote: ​CoE would still be true, but there would be no mass into energy > conversion. Instead the iron would be slightly more massive than iron > produced by stellar fusion.​ > This suggestion has the benefit of being falsifiable. If

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > Hi Harry, > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:09 AM, H LV wrote: > > If the evidence about transmutation at the Indian refinery is reliable >> then one way to explain it is to imagine nuclear forces

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Hi Harry, On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:09 AM, H LV wrote: If the evidence about transmutation at the Indian refinery is reliable then > one way to explain it is to imagine nuclear forces as being fundamentally > non-conservative and viewing their apparent conservative nature

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, H LV wrote: > > ​What is the "bond" energy of a nut and bolt? Does the amount of energy >> that is required to literally slam together a bolt and a nut correspond

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Hi Robin and Eric, If the evidence about transmutation at the Indian refinery is reliable then one way to explain it is to imagine nuclear forces as being fundamentally non-conservative and viewing their apparent conservative nature as an accurate approximation in the high energy domain. Another

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

In reply to H LV's message of Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:11:20 -0400: Hi Harry, AFAIK the forces involved are all conservative. That means that the change in energy is the same, irrespective of the path taken between endpoints. In short the energy difference is the same whether the "nut and bolt" are

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, H LV wrote: ​What is the "bond" energy of a nut and bolt? Does the amount of energy > that is required to literally slam together a bolt and a nut correspond to > the energy required to screw them together? Equations are poor guides if > the

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:06 PM, H LV wrote: > > Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE? >> It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to >> build or take apart

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

In reply to Eric Walker's message of Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:23:24 -0500: Hi, This is why I used "enhanced/altered" in my previous post. The weak force reactions would need to happen at the same time as the initial fusion reaction so that the neutrinos could also carry away the fusion energy as

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:17 AM, wrote: Thinking outside the box is not a sin. > It's fine to think out of the box, if rigor is still applied and hand-waving is not resorted to. In this case either we apply E = mc^2, or we don't. Do you accept that this law applies in

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

energy to spin energy is, assuming angular momentum is conserved within the coherent system. Thinking outside the box is not a sin. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:12

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Holmlid is not dead yet; why not? Why is no radiation detected by Holmlid > even when he has detected muons by the ton? > You make an excellent argument that Holmlid is NOT seeing muons! :) Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Holmlid is not dead yet; why not? Why is no radiation detected by Holmlid even when he has detected muons by the ton? On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:48 PM, wrote: > > Fusion of 2 Si-28 to Fe 56

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Eric Walker wrote: If we assume 1.3 tons excess iron following Narayanaswamy, then the amount > of energy released into the environment for this first reaction would be: > > 1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe > 23241.288159 mols

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:48 PM, wrote: Fusion of 2 Si-28 to Fe 56 produces about 18 Mev excess mass energy, or > about 1 muon mass for for 18 fusion transitions. Muons that were to carry > away mass may not be noticed. > If muons were to carry away that mass, they

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:34 PM, wrote: Two Si atoms gives a Ni atom, not an Fe atom. However if the formation of > Ni56 > involved enhanced/altered electron capture to Fe56:- > > Ni56 => Co56 (2 MeV; half life 6 days) > > Co56 => Fe56 (4.6 MeV; half life 77 days) > > ...and

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE? It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build or take apart nuclei with much less energy. With a sledge hammer and a great deal of force a structure can be assembled or broken down

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:06 PM, H LV wrote: Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE? > It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build > or take apart nuclei with much less energy. > It's not necessarily a matter of COE; e.g., perhaps

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 12 Mar 2017 20:32:30 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the starting >elements into iron in a smelting operation comes from overcoming the >Coulomb barrier,

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Pluto has an x-ray source - which is a surprise and it is in the range of Rydberg energies from Millsean transitions from nickel and iron 200-300 eV. Pluto is mostly ice, not dense - but could have iron/nickel debris from meteorite impacts over the past few billion years.

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:04:14 -0700: Hi, [snip] > >Which brings us back to another source of heat for Earth's core. >According to "America's Genius" the corona of our sun is in effect a >giant factory for hydrinos, which get carried to earth via the solar

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Does anybody want to talk about where the internal heat inside Ceres and Pluto comes from. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/pluto-alive-where-heat-coming Pluto is alive—but where is the heat coming from? On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Which

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Which brings us back to another source of heat for Earth's core. According to "America's Genius" the corona of our sun is in effect a giant factory for hydrinos, which get carried to earth via the solar wind, where they are deposited in the oceans of earth, and being dense and small, will

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:20:26 -0700: Hi, [snip] > >Bob Higgins wrote: >> It is interesting to consider the implications were some >> nucleosynthesis taking place in this report. The steel mills are a >> place on the surface of the Earth that most resembles the

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Bob Higgins wrote: It is interesting to consider the implications were some nucleosynthesis taking place in this report. The steel mills are a place on the surface of the Earth that most resembles the core of the Earth. For a long time, there has been speculations regarding the source of

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE? It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build or take apart nuclei with much less energy. With a sledge hammer and a great deal of force a structure can be assembled or broken down without knowing much about the nature

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:34 PM, wrote: Two Si atoms gives a Ni atom, not an Fe atom. However if the formation of > Ni56 > involved enhanced/altered electron capture to Fe56:- > > Ni56 => Co56 (2 MeV; half life 6 days) > > Co56 => Fe56 (4.6 MeV; half life 77 days) > > ...and

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

In reply to 's message of Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:56:07 -0700: Hi, [snip] >The mass differential between 2 Si-28 (27.9769) and Fe-56 at a.m. of 55.93494 >is not very much. It may be that Si fusion is involved in the Indian steel >plant. > >Bob Cook Two Si atoms gives a Ni

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 12 Mar 2017 20:32:30 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the starting >elements into iron in a smelting operation comes from overcoming the >Coulomb barrier, not from the final energy balance. Correct. > >There is no

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

My apologies, I quoted the wrong person. I meant to respond to this comment from Bob: The mass differential between 2 Si-28 (27.9769) and Fe-56 at a.m. of > 55.93494 is not very much. It may be that Si fusion is involved in the > Indian steel plant. > Eric On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:57 PM,

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote: If transmutation is always accompanied by meson production, then the area > around the electric furnace might have an elevated background radiation > profile. Four tone of transmutation would imply a huge number of muons >

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote: The mass differential between 2 Si-28 (27.9769) and Fe-56 at a.m. of 55.93494 is not very much. It may be that Si fusion is involved in the Indian steel plant. Even though the mass is similar, the Coulomb barrier makes such a fusion reaction unrealistic --

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

kId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > *Sent: *Sunday, March 12, 2017 8:35 PM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 > > > > Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the starting elements into iron in a smelting operation comes from overcoming the Coulomb barrier, not from the final energy balance. There is no calcium at the start, but if there were - long before carbon

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the starting elements into iron in a smelting operation comes from overcoming the Coulomb barrier, not from the final energy balance. There is no calcium at the start, but if there were - long before carbon and calcium could fuse (if this

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV wrote: > > ​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain >> must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 11 Mar 2017 20:13:11 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Eric, > >Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an >electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of >even a few ounces. No, quite the reverse. Changing almost

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:01 PM, wrote: One must look at all the mass involved, not just the Fe. Oxides and carbon > mass may also be involved. > The iron in iron oxide would presumably not be included in the "excess iron", because it's already iron. And the carbon

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Eric— One must look at all the mass involved, not just the Fe. Oxides and carbon mass may also be involved. Bob Cook Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Eric Walker Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 2:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 Sent from my iPhone

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 12, 2017, at 14:33, > wrote: > > The trueism suggested is based on two- bodied interactions where large energy > releases are the norm. The main difficulty in this case is not in the manner of any hypothetical

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

within the many-bodied system. IIMHO this includes nuclear species changes that involve aonly small changes in total potential; energy of the coherent system. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 12:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 On Sun

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV wrote: ​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain > must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an > energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear >

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold. Since

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

4 tons of carbon electrodes would be a production problem. Plus the resulting steel would have strange specifications—welding may be impossible— Bob cook Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jones Beene Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 11:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

The amount that comes from electrode consumption might be too small to account for the weight gain. <<*Relationship Between Graphite Electrode Demand and EAF Steel Production.* The improved efficiency of electric arc furnaces has resulted in a decrease in the average rate of consumption of

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an > electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of > even a few ounces. I agree entirely. Technically speaking, I suppose you

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Eric, Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of even a few ounces. What they may overlooked is a monoclinic iron carbide which is 40% carbon ... and which is a good and even an expected

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Jones Beene wrote: "The daily input of Si and Fe was 20.479 tons at his smelting plant, and > the output was 24.75 tons. There was a daily excess of 4.27 tons of iron > and silica." A process that would produce 4 tons of iron from another