Re: [Vo]:Nickel-Beryllium alloy 360
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 16 Jan 2022 22:11:56 + (UTC): Hi Jones, I agree that Beryllium is an interesting possibility, but the reaction I would expect is more like Be9 + H => D + 2 x He4 No neutrino required. or if you want to use D instead of H Be9 + D => T + 2 x He4 However I think this might be less likely because the neutron capture cross section of D is much lower than that of H (IIRC). The halo neutron might be easier to capture that one normally bound within a nucleus. This is suggested by the fact that Beryllium is used as a neutron multiplier. >A nickel-beryllium alloy could be an interesting and available catalyst for >use in Mills-Holmlid dense hydrogen research. It would be an active material >in several ways - used as the target for a high pressure flow of hydrogen. The >360 alloy is mostly nickel with a few % beryllium and some titanium. >https://materion.com/products/high-performance-alloys/nickel-beryllium-alloy-360 >AFAIK no experimenter has used this alloy in LENR before now. Researchers >often avoid beryllium, and for good reason. > >The premise, or working hypothesis for suggested experiments would be that a >"halo nucleus" serves a critical function in the completed reaction ... which >is first based on nickel and titanium as the 'shrinkage' catalysts forming >dense hydrogen eventually into what can be called the 'pseudo neutron' >(activated dense hydrogen). In this reaction, beryllium uniquely provides an >accumulation stage - due entirely to the extended lifetime of the nuclear >halo, which is unique. Google: halo nucleus. > >Beryllium seems to be the only atom in nature which has a long-lived halo >nucleus feature. More on the details of this (unproved) halo nucleus >hypothesis later. Anyway, let's hypothesize for now that a pseudo-neutron or >even real neutrin forms in a halo nucleus if there is enough time for it to >react with the Universal neutrino flux. > >Halo lifetime is the detail which demands beryllium, despite all its negatives >(toxicity). > >In short, the dense hydrogen of Holmlid, captured into the halo by an atom of >beryllium, eventually can form a neutron due to interaction with natural >neutrino flux. This reaction is anti-entropic with probability based on >residence time in the background flux. > >Thus, beryllium could be the magic element which optimizes the conversion of >dense hydrogen into thermal energy (possibly via boron-8 instability). It >would only works at all since beryllium has a unique long-lived and relatively >stable halo-nucleus property. > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Re: [Vo]:Regarding Moonlight: What is the right question?
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 10:51 AM H LV wrote: > One commentator suggested that a mirror be used to redirect the moon light to > a spot under the moonshade. I like this experimental modification because it > respects the question the "believers" are asking. It does not substitute one > question for another question and claim an answer to the second question is > equivalent to answering the first question. > > Harry Infact a mirror isn't necessary. What is needed is a room with a small window with a shutter to let in the moonlight. When the shutter is opened the resulting moon beam would fall on one of two target spots which would both be initially at the same temperature. Ideally the interior surfaces of the room would have a uniform temperature so that the possibility of radiant warming or cooling measurably affecting the temperature of the spots is eliminated. Such a room could be called an 'oven' although it might be more appropriate to call it a 'cave' since an oven with an opening is typically imagined as being an emitter of light whereas a cave with an opening is typically imagined as being a receiver of light. Harry Harry
[Vo]:Nickel-Beryllium alloy 360
A nickel-beryllium alloy could be an interesting and available catalyst for use in Mills-Holmlid dense hydrogen research. It would be an active material in several ways - used as the target for a high pressure flow of hydrogen. The 360 alloy is mostly nickel with a few % beryllium and some titanium. https://materion.com/products/high-performance-alloys/nickel-beryllium-alloy-360 AFAIK no experimenter has used this alloy in LENR before now. Researchers often avoid beryllium, and for good reason. The premise, or working hypothesis for suggested experiments would be that a "halo nucleus" serves a critical function in the completed reaction ... which is first based on nickel and titanium as the 'shrinkage' catalysts forming dense hydrogen eventually into what can be called the 'pseudo neutron' (activated dense hydrogen). In this reaction, beryllium uniquely provides an accumulation stage - due entirely to the extended lifetime of the nuclear halo, which is unique. Google: halo nucleus. Beryllium seems to be the only atom in nature which has a long-lived halo nucleus feature. More on the details of this (unproved) halo nucleus hypothesis later. Anyway, let's hypothesize for now that a pseudo-neutron or even real neutrin forms in a halo nucleus if there is enough time for it to react with the Universal neutrino flux. Halo lifetime is the detail which demands beryllium, despite all its negatives (toxicity). In short, the dense hydrogen of Holmlid, captured into the halo by an atom of beryllium, eventually can form a neutron due to interaction with natural neutrino flux. This reaction is anti-entropic with probability based on residence time in the background flux. Thus, beryllium could be the magic element which optimizes the conversion of dense hydrogen into thermal energy (possibly via boron-8 instability). It would only works at all since beryllium has a unique long-lived and relatively stable halo-nucleus property.
[Vo]:Moon and Earth
Nice animation showing how the Earth looks from the Moon and how the Moon looks from the Earth during April 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV1ZXm3MH6I Harry
Re: [Vo]:Regarding Moonlight: What is the right question?
I wrote: > > If one holds that the two situations are not physically equivalent then it > becomes necessary to design an experiment involving shaded moonlight where > the effect of radiant cooling can be neutralized. One might say repeat the > experiment with the same apparatus on a clear moonless night and it has > been done by skeptics and no temperature difference is observed. However, > that changes the question and the experiment since there is no moonlight > that is being shaded. > > Sorry.. that should say "...the same temperature difference is observed." instead of "...no temperature difference is observed". Harry
[Vo]:Regarding Moonlight: What is the right question?
Lately I have been watching many youtube videos investigating the question of whether or not moonlight has a cooling effect. The experiment is very simple. On a clear night with moonlight measure the temperature of two similar bodies, with one in the moonlight and the other shaded from the moonlight. The result is the temperature of the body exposed to the moonlight is consistently slightly cooler than the temperature of the body in the shade. Generally speaking the people who accept the results at face value seem to be unaware of the phenomena of radiant cooling and the technical challenges of measuring temperature changes. The debunkers on the other hand point out that the effect is only apparent and can be readily explained in terms of radiant cooling:The moonshade makes it difficult for the body to radiate its heat to the cool night sky so it remains slightly warmer than the body in the moonlight which radiates heat more easily to the cool night sky. Case closed. However, after reading some of the exchanges and examining the design of experiments I have come to the conclusion that most of the "debunkers" have a different question in mind from the "believers". This is partly the fault of the "believers" since the question is usually more clearly expressed by the design of the experiment itself which requires that moonlight be compared to shaded moonlight . On the other hand the "debunkers" work with the metaphysical presupposition that being shaded from moonlight on a clear night is physically equivalent to a clear moonless night. If one holds that the two situations are not physically equivalent then it becomes necessary to design an experiment involving shaded moonlight where the effect of radiant cooling can be neutralized. One might say repeat the experiment with the same apparatus on a clear moonless night and it has been done by skeptics and no temperature difference is observed. However, that changes the question and the experiment since there is no moonlight that is being shaded. One commentator suggested that a mirror be used to redirect the moon light to a spot under the moonshade. I like this experimental modification because it respects the question the "believers" are asking. It does not substitute one question for another question and claim an answer to the second question is equivalent to answering the first question. Harry
